In light of the latest WikiLeaks scandal I've had many thoughts milling around in my noggin. The first and foremost is: this leaked information, is it right? What if it causes someone to get hurt?

We Americans are very protective of our service men and women, and any chance of putting them into any danger makes our blood boil with patriotic fervor. But, I have to respectfully ask, isn't that what they do? Don't we put them in harm's way every day? And, I do say that respectfully because I have a father, grandfather, grandfather-in-law, brother-in-law, best friend's father, and many cousins that I love and am proud of that have served in the armed forces in one way or another. They are good men, and I don't aim to dishonor them with anything I am about to say.

We, the United States of America (and every other industrialized country on Mother Earth) are controlled by a shadow government. I'm not implying we are ruled by a few elite white-boy banker Satanists with a penchant for ritual sacrifice...that would be too conspiracy theorist of me, wouldn't it? What I am asserting is that our government, like most all others, engage in shadowy activity. Some, if not most (if not, more than most) of the government's activities are held secret from the general public, especially in regards to military activities. Most everyone, liberal or conservative, would agree with this. Now ... this does indeed make sense! Doesn't it? If a battalion of troops were getting ready to pounce into a secret Talibani camp in Pakistan, we wouldn't want that information exposed because it would put our troops and the mission in potential danger. I understand that logic perfectly.

However, a friend of mine once stated regarding the once-feverish debates over whether torture should be allowed if it saved the lives of Americans: that is the risk we run in being a free society! We respect the God-given rights of all men!

So, where I perfectly agree with protecting the lives and identities of our service men and women (because, frankly, I love them...they are my family) I also have to look at the situation from a societal point of view: what kind of example do we set to our children, to the coming generations (indeed to the rest of the world and history) if we are engaging in and protecting our shadowy activities? Does this mean I agree with an organization like WikiLeaks exposing the plans of a military excursion? No, absolutely not! That was merely an example! But, if certain injustices previously unidentified by the mainstream media need to be addressed publicly in order for resolution to be met, then by all means....

I'm talking about the murder of two Reuters newstaff in Baghdad by a U.S. helicopter; 570,000 pager intercepts by the NSA on 9/11 that may help with the investigation; toxic dumping on the Ivory Coast and Trafigura's attemtps to cover it up; and yes, even the cable release of U.S. diplomats being asked to spy on foreign embassies (a violation of international treaties). Attempts to cover these stories and calling WikiLeaks founder and director Julian Assange a "traitor" is mind-boggling. The ones covering up these actions are the real traitors.

Dr. Timothy Leary once stated: " . . . FBI files, CIA dossiers, White House conversations should be open to all. Let everything hang open. Let government be totally visible. The last, the very last people to hide their actions should be the police and the government."

"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people," said our great President Thomas Jefferson. "They are the only sure reliance for the preservation fo our liberty." President John F. Kennedy continues in that "a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." A nation afraid of its own people creates secret police organizations to watch over those people. But we, as a free people (right?) have no insight into those secret police organizations, because they depend on secrecy in order to operate. So, to coin writer Alan Moore and originally the Roman poet Juvenal: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

Who watches the watchmen?

Philsopher Robert Anton Wilson answers the question: " . . . those who employ secret police agencies must monitor them, to be sure they are not acquiring too much power. Here a sinister infinite regress enters the game. Any elite second order police must be, also, subject to infiltration, or to acquiring 'too much power' in the opinion of its masters. And so it, too, must be monitored, by a secret-police-of-the-third-order." And so on and so forth until, "in practice, of course, this cannot regress to mathematical infinity, but only to the point where every citizen is spying on every other citizen or until the funding runs out."

So, where does this shadow-methodology get us? You ask for a secret, shadow society, you really get what you ask for. including all the shit that comes with it if (more logically, when) it falls apart. Hence, when someone like Julian Assange comes onto the scene, the proverbial doo-doo hits the proverbial fan. It is chaotic. People, nations, will be in danger. But, does that make his actions wrong? Isn't that what we ask for when we allow shadow tactics to take place? Or, is the real wrong for the shadow governments and organizations to exist in the first place?

Two days ago Julian Assange and WikiLeaks delivered a blow to the international community. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton wants Assange's balls on a meat hook. Now, all of a sudden, Interpol's seeking Assange out on ambigious sex crimes charges. http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/30/wikileaks-founder-assange-suspected-of-sex-crimes/?hpt=T2

I don't believe a word of it.

Read up on the guy. I have my own barometer that weighs between two types of people that come to prominence and power in this world:

Extreme 1.) The business pedigree powerhouse who really has no brains, but muscles (or weasels) his or her way to the top of the grand pyramid-scheme of international commerce. These sorts generally have scandal written all over them and need a posse of nursemaids to keep them straight and center in front of the microphones while lying (horribly) about all the little stupid things they've done, distracting the media from Lady Gaga's most recent outfit (think Bush and Cheny, kids).

Extreme 2.) The geek-turned-super genius who knows the power and truth behind logic, that churns mathemtical algorithms in their heads like we eat a bowl of Lucky Charms. These guys know what they are doing, have all of their "i"s dotted, and get to the top by actually using their brains instead of daddy's money (think Bill gates; whether you like him or not, he's brilliant).

I believe Julian Assange is a number two, people. The guy has literally had to live on airplanes with his own private army since WikiLeaks started pissing off international governments and corporations with their whistleblowing releases to the world in the spirit of free information. All volunteer, nobody gets paid for this. Assange is a computer genius, he's not the sort of guy to screw up such a magnificent thing by being stupid and risking the immense historical giant WikiLeaks really is. The Interpol claim seems like bullshit, and it's hard for me to believe it coming to light so soon after pissing off the most powerful people in the world. The timing is just too damn coincidental! I am open to whatever evidence comes to light, but not holding my breath just yet.

The State Department has severed its file access to even more Department officials, hedging in an even smaller circle of hierarchy than what has previously existed before. Journalist Jim Marrs once said: "Those who sincerely believe that conspiracies don't exist only benefit those who may be conspiring." It may behoove people to pay attention to what is going on here.

What kind of world do we want to leave to our children? A world of honesty? A world of shadow? A world of covering up the unpleasant things so the unpleasant things can keep going on as-is, uninterupted?

Not sure I like that prospect...