Our ideal of a transparent government has come under attack — an attack that became exacerbated with the explosion of WikiLeaks on the Web last year. Most of the leaked information has been damning to some government agencies, but the group and founder Julian Assange have faced disproportionate criticism.

Yet it’s not just WikiLeaks that has faced problems lately, as there have been other instances that seem to show our ideal for a transparent government is just a talking point.

To be fair, I understand our government is simply trying to prevent sensitive information from being spread throughout the world.

But it might be this same lack of transparency in our government that makes sources like WikiLeaks so appealing.

Some of the information released is trivial, but if it’s trivial it shouldn’t have been hidden in the first place.

But we have obtained some important information, mostly relating to our actions in our wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. To me, this seems like the natural evolution of the relationship between war and the media.

In Vietnam we saw how the rise of television brought more unpopularity to the war. Now it’s the Internet’s turn, and it is certainly a much more dangerous beast than TV.

Now we have people like Bradley Manning, the 23-year-old Army private from Oklahoma. Currently imprisoned, Manning has been charged with transferring classified data as well as aiding the enemy.

One of the allegations against Manning says he leaked a video of a U.S. helicopter mowing down Iraqi citizens — something we might want to know about.

Yes, the military will occasionally do regrettable things accidentally — it’s simply part of war.

That said, keeping these occurrences hidden does not help and only serves to exacerbate backlash when the public finally finds out.

Of course, while Manning shouldn’t have leaked some information, we must be careful in terms of how we punish him for his actions.

If they really can be defined as treasonous, then of course he must face the corresponding penalty. Until then, however, he cannot be treated harshly.

But according to his lawyer, Manning has had his clothing taken away from him for several nights, forcing him to sleep naked in his cell. Though he is given two blankets a night, both Manning and his lawyer see it as a form of humiliation, adding to the stress of being kept in solitary confinement.

This sort of punishment, and the support President Barack Obama seems to be giving it, is counter-intuitive to the governmental transparency the president pushed for during his campaign.

Yet another recent example takes place much closer to home in the civilian sector — specifically, the blogging scene.

In Minneapolis, blogger John Hoff was fined $60,000 because one of his posts may have resulted in the loss of a local politician’s job. Jerry Moore, the politician in question, was found to have been accurately linked to mortgage fraud.

Despite being rightfully outed, Moore sued the blogger for damages relating to his job loss. Somehow the jury found this defense reasonable, and now Hoff has to pay for reporting the truth.

Now, this issue would have never occurred had it been a news agency, so why should a blogger be attacked?

Whether in our nation’s military or among the civilian sector, these recent attacks against transparency are despicable. Our politicians and our armed forces are meant to serve the people, and as such we deserve to know as much as we can without repercussions to those who help the cause.