The recent United States diplomatic cables leak facilitated by WikiLeaks, and it has had a profound effect on world politics. Yet before the latest leak, many were completely unaware of this important non-profit organization. Julian Assange, an Australian citizen, founded WikiLeaks in December 2006. Since then, he has presided over the international organization as its editor-in-chief as well as its spokesperson.

For years WikiLeaks has anonymously received an abundant amount of furtive documents, publishing what a single person could not. Documents they have released on behalf of others include: a copy of “Standard Operating Procedures for Camp Delta,” where in it is outlined how the U.S. Army ran the Guantanamo Bay detention camp; Sarah Palin’s Yahoo e-mail account contents; documents involved with the Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy, known as the “climategate e-mails;” footage of U.S. helicopters killing a dozen people, among which were two Reuters news staff and hundreds of thousands of documents on the military’s activities in Iraq and Afghanistan.

An often repeated criticism of WikiLeaks is that the organization is “grossly irresponsible,” to use Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s words. The argument is, that by making this sort of information available to the general public, secret international diplomacy is being rendered ineffective, the U.S. war effort is being undermined, or lives are being put at risk.

Yet in doing what the media should have been doing all along, WikiLeaks is bringing the truth to the public sphere so it can be discussed and debated. We should have known and collectively decided how Guantanamo Bay was run. If one made a claim of ignorance prior to the procedure handbook’s release, then surely there would was no excuse after it leaked. We should know what is really going on with our military overseas. If we are killing civilians — and we are — we need to know everything about it. I cannot think of an action that is more responsible than holding our government accountable for its actions.

It should be noted that, although numerous governments — including our own — treats Julian Assange like a criminal, neither he or WikiLeaks has yet to actually break any U.S. or Australian laws in releasing the leaked documents. Assange has been called a terrorist, a sex offender — an accusation which might very well not have existed in the first place were Assange a regular person — and in numerous instances, his illegal assassination has been demanded; in a now infamous comment by Tom Flanagan, political science professor at the University of Calgary. Not that there aren’t strong feelings being expressed in the U.S. Senate. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was so panic-stricken that he expressed a desire to create a new law in an effort to somehow retaliate, if not only to bring Assange in on charges.

At the same time, I do not entirely agree with all of WikiLeaks’s actions. I agree with Amnesty International’s criticism: WikiLeaks did not sufficiently redact the names of Afghan civilians working as U.S. military informants. More generally, WikiLeaks could implement a more thorough process for removing information that could legitimately lead to physical harm. The argument that “WikiLeaks is a threat to actual lives” has so far proven to be an empty assertion. So far, there has been no evidence that would indicate lives were or are currently at stake as a result of the truth being exposed. As such, I generally approve of what WikiLeaks has done, and genuinely hope they retain the capacity to fulfill the goal of increased transparency.

The U.S. government should make nearly all of its activities public; our government’s intentions should be made known to the voters. Democracy cannot flourish if its inner-workings are kept secret. History has demonstrated, time and time again, that trusting the government to do what is best is a foolish trust. As citizens, we must be ever-vigilant by paying attention to current events and calling out our elected officials when they do something wrong. Government transparency should be and needs to be the law of the land.

I leave you with a quote to ponder from Glenn Greenwald of online magazine Salon.com, “People often have a hard time believing that the terms ‘authoritarian’ and ‘tyranny’ apply to their own government, but that’s because those who meekly stay in line and remain un-threatening are never targeted by such forces. The face of authoritarianism and tyranny reveals itself with how it responds to those who meaningfully dissent from and effectively challenge its authority: do they act within the law or solely through the use of unconstrained force?”