argument and information

Bradley Manning and Julian Assange

Ronald Dworkin has argued persuasively in Is Democracy Possible Here? and elsewhere that societies like ours should have a greater commitment to reasoned argumentation about political affairs, argumentation  broadly understood in the fashion associated with the philosophical tradition that he represents. Especially political argument must be grounded in facts, for otherwise it is either empty or, if informed by misinformation, blind: blinded by falsehoods. Those who take part in Dworkin-style political argument must benefit from as much transparency as possible, understood as availability of facts relevant to the debate, on pain of its being empty or blind. That is why Cablegate and its agents — notably the source of facts, Bradley Manning, and the purveyor, Julian Assange and Wikileaks — are so important.  The value of these facts should not be obscured by real or imagined defects in the character of these men or by apparently ill-founded fears for lives that might have been put at risk by the revelations. For their contribution to Dworkin’s ideal political debate, they should be deemed to be among the leading heroes of our times. The jailing, arguably the torture, of Manning is a great wrong. The legal harassment of Assange is deeply suspect.