Recently, I read a surprising topic of discussion
among international humanitarian groups - "Should humanitarian aid be
continued where there is no hope of political change?". It is
a disturbing but worthwhile question.
It is understood that an individual standing up
to powerful forces has the high potential of losing very much - career,
income, future and reputation to name a very few. While some of these
are played out as direct confrontation, many, it seems, are played out
in an insidious manner - poor reviews, record comments about not being
a team player etc. Jobs are scarce in this region and powerful foes
have influence beyond their immediate positions.
By Federal Law, we cannot voluntarily give up our
constitutional rights of freedom of speech or freedom of association.
So, the question becomes, "How does the injury that I am complaining about
compare to the injuries resulting from what I say".
Yet even this question must be balanced against
the questions raised in the Nuremburg Trials, is there a higher order of
right? In Logic class, we had many long discussions about the level
of responsibility of "Lying by omission".
The short and straight of this is that you are asking
for anonymity because of the heat it would bring down on you. Have
no doubt, heat will come down on us and we do not fear it but also do not
invite it.
We can protect our anonymous contributors from general
prying eyes and inquiring minds but not from a Judges order. So,
consider how strong your backbone is and what stuff you're made of before
you request anonymity from us - we will need substantial convincing!
Some of our reasoning for this stance is simple
self-preservation but it is not all the reasoning. The final question
that I will ask myself is simply one my young son taught me - if you use
the tools of the enemy, accept the benefits of the enemy, tacitly or publicly
support the enemy - then you are the enemy.
Local translation: If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Webmaster - Drum BBS