The news media was rattled early this week by the apparently unlawful disclosure of some 90.000 secret documents pertaining to the war in Afghanistan. As far as I can gather, the event made headlines on just about every television network and had people glued to newspapers for days on end.
Surprised? I must say I was. The world has seen its fair amount of leaks, but the dimension of this one is simply mind-boggling. It's a whole archive, dammit! And, what's more, straight out of the Fort Knox of intelligence! Amazing!
There are many angles to this story, but one is unavoidable. When you have got a mole this size running around your backyard, whether you like it or not, it raises some questions as to your ability to tender to the vegetable patch. In fine, it makes you look pretty ridiculous.
The other angle is that, whatever the mole's motives, and I am no in position to assess them, the whole exercise amounts to theft of information. And theft is theft, however you may want to explain it. The semantics of it I leave to any lawyer who may be able to turn the most heinous murder into a pious act of charity.
More startling than the event itself, though, was the official reaction to it. There was measured anger in Washington and sheer fury in Berlin.
Anger? Fury? Funny! If I remember correctly, those feelings were strangely absent when the Germans unlawfully bought information stolen from the Liechenstein banks and then went on to sell it to the Americans. Then there was much celebratory rubbing of the hands and patting on the back.
By definition, no one is above the law. Not even governments. Theft is a crime anywhere in world, and so is the receipt of stolen property. When governments behave like common thugs, they ought not to expect their citizens to respect them like honourable institutions. They deserve to be treated like common thugs. Full stop.
I know, I know. There is a perfectly good explanation for their actions on the bank question. But, fellows, this time you will need more than the semantics of a lawyer to convince me. As your own courts of law were totally silent on the matter, you will need the shrewdness of a theologian to bring me around to your point of view. Even then, I am not sure that what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.
So, what do I say to these hypocrites on both sides of the pond? You undermine your own moral authority. And what goes around, comes around.
Oh, and I almost forgot. I hope some foreign power pays this Washington deep throat a hefty sum of money and provides him with a new identity. Then the scales of morality will finally have been balanced.
