Yes We Can, Really?

Disclosures on the U.S. government’s mass control over a long period of time on private communications between citizens and in cyberspace has raised hairs and revived the discussion on privacy, freedom and security. The Machiavellian principle that the end justifies the means leads the public debate once again. If we accept, as President Obama said, that you cannot have 100 percent security and an equal percentage of freedom at the same time, we are reducing the latter without quite predicting the effects of reduction, limited by the peculiar criteria of what the current ruler considers “legalized.” Following this same logic, freedom of movement, freedom of speech or any other human right could be restricted.

To work toward obtaining absolute security with complete freedom is precisely the job of rulers, unless they justify their inability or poor performance on assumptions that are ultimately detrimental to the citizen who elected them. It is highly possible that a selfish deviation from the main areas of focus for an administration — security and justice — toward other areas of greater political interest may indeed result in failure to reach the required level of security, but this is because little attention is paid, not necessarily that which is due. This is nothing other than a spectacular failure of the government’s management.

It is even more surprising that U.S. legislative and judicial powers endorse such nonsense. Politicians and bureaucrats end up taking over power to achieve their goal — whatever it may be — or justify and disguise their doings. This is a fine display of “imagination” that would have surprised Machiavelli himself. In addition to this concern, the same way it happened with the person who leaked the WikiLeaks files, the individual who reported the abuse is being hunted down around the world under the accusation of leaking government “secrets,” while we recognize that the one who decides, gives orders and can count on confidences and secrets is the politician. This is far from that idea of transparency and accountability they promote and export — and demand — beyond American borders.

During the last years, they — Democrats and Republicans — have declared that realpolitik is part of the establishment and that it is impossible to change. Each time, they move further away from the initial idea of the founding fathers, who wanted to build a country based on unchanging principles of freedom, ownership guarantees, justice and respect for individual rights. “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety,” said Benjamin Franklin, or as Abraham Lincoln said, “Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.”

To state, as President Obama did, that one cannot have absolute security with complete freedom would suggest a significant change in the order of priorities and an open renunciation of his main duty. When more attention is being paid to matters that diverge from the fundamental objectives of the government, this results in the making of excuses for alarming actions that can progressively annihilate the free exercise of individual rights and destroy freedom.

Iraq was invaded without any authorization from the U.N. Security Council. Bin Laden was killed and thrown into the sea under the pretext of “serving justice.” Guantanamo is still open, and now they mess about with privacy in communications to “protect” citizens. The “North” that wiped out thousands of natives promotes and interferes in national activities, complains about former presidents or funds activities to let the rest of us ignorant and unscrupulous underdeveloped human beings know how terribly awfully we do things and in what direction we should take our primitive behavior. Lo and behold — whether you are from Ohio or Oklahoma!