Was Wikileaks wrong to publicize U.S. government communications?

It may be wrong in certain situations, but there are some areas where secrecy amounts to a cover-up and the public is entitled to know. We must'nt assume that everything the government keeps from us is for our well being and for the good of the country.

Hi Ron,

I want to correct "incertain situations" to be an open book. Why they hide many things? We voted them to work for us. So they can said or write us everything happens in their meetings with anyone.

We elect everyone in the government, they have to work for us, and they have to tell us everything. If not, call "Wikileak" as we call "911" when we are in danger. This is the only way we got what we supposed to have anyway, Gil.

However, even you must realize that public officials need to approve certain governmental activities where disclosure to the genral public and the world would endanger american and orther assets lives, active or planned intelligence and military operations for instance. If you disclosed the name of an american informant in a drug cartel wouldn't that be wrong? Some americans are criminals and some of those may work for that cartel. So may all americans do not need to know all information that public officials know, immediately, though knowing it later when it no longer endangers people might be reasonable (probably not witholding it for 50 years though becasue the public officials are afraid of public opinion getting them sent to jail and considering that endangering human life).

If an activity of a President or a Govt doesn't involve criminal acts why should they hide it. Nobel peace price should be withdrawn from Obama and awarded to Assange. In olympics sometimes they remove medals from athletes using drugs. The UN should become active now and impose sanctions on those persons who involves in those activities. The voters should be warned not to elect such leaders,otherwise to face sanctions. Sovereignity of states should be replaced with sovereignity of individuals,groups of people,races,religous groups,communities etc and no government be allowed to violate or attack them

"If an activity of a President or a Govt doesn't involve criminal acts why should they hide it."

In my long years of research on this very question, I have discovered that not everyone in the world has our best interest at heart.... and so the 'national security' must be maintained, by dedicated means, until such time as we can all agree on international policies of peace, and come to trust each other. That may be a while...

If you read some of the classic "The Art Of War" by Sun Tzu, it explains that "All warfare is based on deception"

One might articulate the notion that warfare is an extension of national policies for defense, when diplomatic efforts fail. Therefore, it follows that politics is also somewhat based on deception.

Even watching Canada win again tonight at the IIHF Juniors, in Buffalo , I realize that even winning at sports is based on deception.

But being idealistically minded, I do understand your question.

Chris

For security of a nation you need not destroy people,property,culture of another nation or community or religous group

Oh, I wish this was true. It would be wonderful if everyone played by the rules, but they don't. There will always be people on both sides of a disagreement that refuse to accept any compromise. Some will even feel that because they were once wronged that they can now do anything they want because life owes them. If the rabid individuals are kept in check by their compatriots then the wrongs done by each side can be addressed. When chaos rules though force must be applied.

Have you already forgotten about the Liberation Tigers of Tamil?

In most of the conflicts there are powerful hidden forces encouraging either side

True, but what does that have to do with the price of cranberries in November?

Those in power will be covered by diplomatic immunity.That's why Assange has become a superman

You have a naive way of contradicting your self. Your juvenile instincts speak louder than your intellect and that can be dangerous. Just like a country with too many arms or too much money or influence.

To call him a superman is a bit rich. That's putting him in the league of Nelson Mandela and the many others that were able to stay cool under pressure and not hurt anyone at all and lead at the same time.

A freedom fighter is not a statesman just because he chooses the right side. History judges, not fashion or the brains of the young. Grandstanding with the achievement of others is the worst kind of plagiarism there is.

Eating unripe fruit will give you and others the shyts. Please reflect on what you have stated and think twice before you make such grand statements. It is not the time to create heroes, it is the time to reflect, everyone for himself and then clean up ones own act first.

I wish I could help you and your misguided enthusiasm but mother nature is showing what we have to obey to and she is hitting hard at the moment. No human will ever have the power to unit others like she does.

, Ky.

Those who fight for human safety and human rights should be respected. Some invade other countries but not punished. But who defend their territory are punished.Why?. If a small nation makes the bomb they say it is a threat to a big nation which has hundreds of bombs,why?. Many big nations(USA,Russia,India,China) want to have their small neighbours under them for imaginary security reasons while the real threat is from big to the small.

You have a very naive view of world politics. You need to study world history in much more detail to understand the causes of today's world politics. Your study should come from as many different perspectives as possible. All perspectives of history will be biased to somebody's advantage. If you don't learn that others have the right to be biased for themselves then you will never understand world politics. Those who only see world politics from their biased perspective are usually the ones who start wars.

Getting back to your specific comments. Your comments have absolutely nothing to do with the price of cranberries in November. They also have nothing to do with any opinion about the right or wrong of Wikileaks publishing U.S. government communications. One could make the argument that Wikileaks is fighting for human safety and human rights in releasing these documents and as such are right to release these documents but you haven't made this argument. So the only sentence you've written that might be made relevant to the topic has nothing to support it. Your entire comment is Off Topic.

Umm, diplomatic immunity only protects diplomats of one nation serving in another nation from prosecution under the laws of the nation they serve in. It does not protect them from prosecution in their own countries, nor would it protect them from other countries if the impetus was great enough for the country they serve to hand them over and revoke their diplomatic immunity.

Compatriates who has no political power is voiceless.Big countries for political gains need not support genocide.Bangaladesh is a very good example where international community exept Russis and India failed miserably.

Theoretically, it is possible to change the mind of anothe person without force. Practically and effectively and timely... while preventing them from harming your people, property, culture takes it out of the realm of theoretical.

but when you use the word 'security', perhaps you aren't referring to a situation that has escalated. I think we need to be more specific here. There have been many peacekeeping and policing operations all over the world, UN and otherwise, that have still had to used armed force in certain situations. I guess nobody really knows how to do what you are suggesting in the face of determined aggressors.

What method do you suggest?

Chris

The sovereignty of Religious Groups? Aren't religious zealots usually the ones most corrupt and evil, and worse still believe absolutely that they are right. Don't Religious groups keep more secrets from their followers than even governments, priest and young boys being a ideal example of covering up atrocious behavior that violate the churches own laws let alone local secular laws. Think it through if religion was sovereign in the Us you would have a war between catholics and protestants, and muslims, jews, buddhists and hindus would just have to change religions or potentially go to jail.

And what happens when NOW finds its sovereign agenda contrary to that of the NAACP or the KKK. Each man or group can not be a king in their own right, it just doesn't work very well. Instead you have a group comprised of all the legal Citizens of a country that is sovereign, "the People" not each person.

In many countries a religous group destroys another if they belong to the same group as those in power. If each group has sovereignity it will be safer and they can appeal to UN when attacked.

Only once in its entire history did the UN respond with what can really be called effective military actions. Technically that war continues to this day. Today the only thing that UN peace keeping troops actually do is to act as a trip wire to announce that hostilities have begun again. (That is a very gross over simplification. I applaud any and all troops that wear that noble blue helmet. You bravely go into harms way. You are always over matched and usually with a standing order to only return fire for personal defence.)

I think that you should review the meaning of sovereignty. There is only one place that I know of that a religion has sovereignty over the land, thats the Roman Catholic Church over the few square blocks that is Vatican City. Elsewhere there are several countries that have an official state religion but the religious order itself does not run the government. Iran has flirted with the religious leaders running the country. Since the Shah fell from power, many times in Iran the religious leaders have been the real holders of power but at all of these times there was a government that officially held sovereignty. Sovereignty is all about official power, rarely real power.

A government elected by people of any country should not have the right to sabotage or destroy people and properties of another country or community living in the same country. Look at Pakistan in 1971 the government controlled by west pakistan massacred people in east pakistan who spoke a different language belonging to a different community although both were muslim nations. Due to Russian/Indian intervention a new country called Bangaladesh was born. Western countries never showed any sympathy towards people who suffered.

Normally man takes long time to understand the truth due to beliefs like religion and government. When Copernicus said sun is at the centre of our universe they put him in jail and hanged him because he spoke against the church. Later Galilio invented telecsope and proved it.They put him in jail but accepted after he proved it. Australian govt and human rights groups,save the earth,amnesty international,ICRC,NGOs and UN should safeguard him

Copernicus was only metaphorically hung posthumously. During his life the Pope praised his work. This was precisely part of Gallileo's argument against the Pope that excommunicated Gallileo.

The UN is so bureaucratic and afraid of conflict they can not ever save anyone against genocide, by their own definition a war crime. They send to many peace keepers way too late, and many times fail their mission by being forced back to their own compounds, since they can not engage unless fired upon and allowed by order to fire back. For reference here are a few recent examples of horrendous failure at peace keeping by the UN: Sierra Leone, the whole former Yugoslavia conflicts, Rwanda, Somalia

Interesting question: what legal controls to prevent information misuse are acceptable?

Because I think if Assange had broken any laws, charges would have been laid. Instead there are threats and innuendos., words like "treason" and so on, without anything to back it up.

I honestly don't know enough detail to have formed an opinion about the fallout of wikileaks. Again, there are lumbering generalities bandied about: putting lives at risk for example or hindering counterterrorism. What is a concrete example from the wikileaks that actually makes either point?

I can see that sensitive relationships which embody a high degree of insincerity are harmed or at least, embarrassed, in some of the examples publicized on the news. It is in bad taste, but I don't know what else to say about it.

If he can get it then does anyone really believe that anyone else who wants it can't? If this is the best our government can do to keep such information secret then maybe this merely points to a problem with security that needs to be addressed.

I believe you hit the nail on the head. If the government is worried about this information getting out, you'ld think they'ld be more interested in where Assange is getting his information from.

From the facts that cannot be disputed, I say that Wikileaks was not wrong to post any information they were given. I believe the posting of secret information itself is not wrong. Actively trying to acquire secret information and giving it to a public forum is wrong when the person giving the information has that level of security clearance is certainly wrong. Breaking into a secure area to retrieve secret information is also wrong. (That would come under trying to acquire, I'm being redundant again.) But publishing secret information given to you from somebody that is likely breaking the law is itself not wrong.

To make my point allow me to make a hyperbolic cold war scenario. If a worker in a small African country, lets say the Ivory Coast, stumbled onto a report of how the Soviet Union knew how to quell the 1956 Hungarian uprising including the names of operatives. If they published the information and The New York Times published this in the 1960 would this be considered a wrong by The New York Times, the Ivory Coast publisher or the Ivory Coast worker? No. The "fault" lies with the Soviet Union officials that could not contain the information in a truly secure location.

Getting back to Wikileaks, there is presently not in the public domain any demonstrable evidence that Wikileaks assisted in obtaining the information. Here in the US there has been rumours, conjecture and innuendos that Wikileaks had to have been involved. Frankly I believe most of those stories come from people that don't want to admit that the US dropped this ball. They would prefer to think that a communications officer would not know how to track and store so much secure data over that much time and not be noticed.

Wikileaks is not a US government agency with any US security clearance. The wrong here did not happen when Wikileaks published. Nor when this information was figuratively placed in Wikileaks hands. The wrong happened when this information left secured channels.

I agree wholeheartedly with you on that.No individual should be responsible for that much information,if so,there is a serious deficit and decline of security measures in effect.Security is, or should be,or used to be, layered,so that no one individual had access to multiple layers of information.There is a serious breach of security at many levels,or security protocols are not being followed properly.At any rate, the leaks must be fixed, and those responsible relieved or reassigned to other duties.

I disagree with "posting any secret information" being OK. Having worked in very sensitive and highly classified areas and watched many security briefings, I have seen the results of "publishing" classified information jeopardizing country relationships, and costing many lives. No classified information should be published until those who classified that information not longer deem the classification necessary.

I only have experience dealing with military sensitive information and equipment...

When we allowed the press to go on patrols with our troops in View Nam, a lot of classified force deployment and staging information was made "public". As a result, the number of US casualties increased by 60%. The documents that show this are still classifed -- for political reasons.

Our special ops soldiers' operations have been greatly compromised during the Iraq and Afgan conflict because of the same reaspons -- classified military information was publicized.

I could go on. I could go back to my days of Viet Nam and go from there until my retirement in 1994 with things the guys on the "front" have told about "compromised" positions, failed missions -- loss of lives -- because the public in the States felt they had to know what was going on.

Also, hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent to try to get around compromised security codes and encription equipment. That's just the military. Corporations spend who knows how much to try to keep trade secrets.

I agree.

Other countries are just 'neighbours'.

Look nextdoor.

How do you treat your neighbour?

Do yo need to BS him in case you may hurt his feelings?

The diplomatic service is really just a lot of BS, costing too much and with people getting highly paid for it too.

That's the insult, really.

There should be no secrets.

In a totally open book policy how can there be a direct risk to anyone's life?

That only arises when there has been BS, and then a secret to cover it up.

S.

Well there are some secrets that need to be kept. One example would be informants on criminals like drug cartels, obviously they would need to remain secret since criminals don't follow the laws by definition anyways (not like they wouldn't kill them as an example anymore becasue the law stopped keeping them secret). similarly with criminal or rogue organizations/governments some assets need to have their identities protected otherwise they would never provide any information for fear for theirs or their families lives.

BTW many people do BS their neighbors and feign wealth, power, prestige, etc.. You know in their attempts to present themselves as keeping up with the Jones' kin d of psychology. Also they make false threats, steal from their neighbors, destroy neighbors properties, have affairs with neighbors, kill neighbors, and do less than courteous things. Many of the worst criminals come from reasonably nice neighborhoods and families, at least in the public view.

Yeah, I know all of this.

But the abiding principle is to try to have a society which is secure enough to not need to have secrets.

I see most in this society of ours "allowing those to, who will transgress".

The rule should be that it's not "allowed".

We do expect that some will, and have rigid protocols in place to deal with those circumstances. No! Not the 'laws' as they are today. They're much too lenient.

We've bred a society which "allows'' some to break it's laws.

I'm personally for a renaissance in that the mitigations will be disallowed.

I've lived in such societies and like what they produce in the way of security for the inhabitants.

I intend to live in such a community again, so as to be able to practice that which I preach.

No! There are no secrets which need to be kept.

That is the very essence of the 'downfall' of our society to that which we "enjoy" today.

Of Christian beliefs?

Then abide by it's rules. Rigidly. There are but a few of them.

"Interpretation" is BS. One person's attempt to have it better than his neighbour, without the talent and skill.

This society needs to 'up it's game' (raise the bar, or whatever) in the practice of it's 'toilet training'.

S.

I disagree that there should not be any secrets. I fully admit that far too often things get cloaked into the shadows of secrecy that shouldn't be in there. But there most definitely are things that should be forever kept in the shadows.

We're all human here. (Well at least we're programmed to resemble humans.) We've all done dumb, embarrassing things in our past. Many of my stupid moments have happened right here in this entertaining forum named CR4. If you cannot remember any of my faux-pas then I'm going to keep them a secret. I also keep a few things that are so secret that they never leave my mind. (Trust me when I say that some of the things in there scare the $h!t out of me.) This is what I believe to be one of the pivotal facets of a civilized society. That everyone has secret whims and desires that they don't act on or tell anyone about.

Since all governments consist of other human beings, the members of these governments all have there own little secrets and therefore occasionally the governments themselves have secrets.

Certainly many secrets should come out to the light of day, but quite a few secrets are just none of your business.

From what I have seen, much of the real problemsare that it illustrates the duplicity of many of the foreign governments in their dealing with the US in regards to our own perceived foreign threats. Maybe if Egypt was more forthright, many other arab countries might follow in expressing some concerns of Iran. Maybe if Saudi Arabia was more forthright, we could understand who really is financing terrorist activities. The fact that the State department hides this information from the public just means they know it is politically sensitive, because much of it as not problematic for Americans (except they might redact direct information regarding the source or protect them). There is a difference in telling people who an active CIA field agent is by name in the newspaper, and telling them what terrorist activities Saudia Arabians are financing.

Imagine if Johnson and Nixon would have had the absolute power to decide what information coming out of Southeast asia should be classified and how long.

Does the Iran contra affair ring a bell?

The only one to go to the slammer was,.......... an underling who was sacrificed. I wonder what he is doing today. To take that bullet must have hurt him and his trust in Government.

Not exactly the same issue, as being able to fully define what the public can or can not see. Always tend to find someone willing to fall on their sword for their leaders. Oliver North's career didn't not progress so well after that. However, that is one of many past occurrences where secrecy was used to attempt some degree of cover up. It was not new though, even the press core conspired to cover Roosevelt's handicap from the public as much as was possible. I am sure we will discover in 20 years or so about Clinton's knowledge of the escalating situation and his involvement in taking limited actions (and frequently misdirected) against the Saudi's financial investments and Osama because of the Clinton's political interests in being perceived differently then the previous George Bush. Maybe a few decades after that and many documents showing Kennedy's corrupt political activities will be declassified. The worst backlash for the governemnt tends to come not from the presidents we elect as the best evil for the job at hand, but those that the idealist elect as the best man for the job based on simplified public personae.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_War

Exactly the same issue! I don't think Julian has anything to answer for. Now that all has been said more is said and the song still remains the same.

Die Gedanken sind frei, Ky.

"Die Gedanken sind frei".

That IS a great tag line Ky.

Cheers,

Stu.

Whadeva Ya's think Mate

We had to learn that song in school back then. My dad hated it because it was the anthem of the "opposition" back then. Him, being a Nazi, would not have it sung at home. The memories were to gruesome, even for a reeducated.

I wonder which song will be not liked by some in the future.

Anyway, greetings from here Stu. Looking great for next year, I'll be in touch, Ky.

If the militaries of nations are brought under UN control there will be no war

What do you dream of during the night? Wake up, this is not a dream or a fantasy!

ha!

scariest thought I've every heard... you are in for a rude awakening.

"Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely", especially in the case of those who do not have our interest at heart to begin with.

You are apparently missing all historical and contextual data to inform your opinion

Chris

Doesn't the UN spend most of its military resources in extremely ineffective peace keeping missions against uprising paramilitaries and coup attempts by "terrorist" rebels staffed by children with AK-47s. As it stands they sent something like 11,000 peace keepers to Sierra Leone and failed to do what a few hundred mercenaries hired by the Sierra Leone government could do a few months prior, and then left because of the failure. The UN is extremely ineffective, and well probably should be disbanded just to get rid of the excessively costly bureaucracy. Afterall someones taxes pay for the UN indirectly through our governments, and the UN has never done anything well, timely, nor cost effectively. On the otherhand, it is a good place to keep diplomatic types and translators employed, and off the unemployment lines, assuming of course we just want to keep people employed without consideration for any value from their work.

Government leaders lead to illegal attack against Iraq, which violated international law established after WWII that says that conspiring to make war is war crime. Would the plans been published it might be we would not had the mess we are in!

Very true and there's an added wrinkle to this angle. Remember a member of the Bush administration was convicted and sentenced for exposing one of our CIA field agents. We cannot even protect our own agents from our own politicians. Why would we think we have a right to charge a foreign national just for publishing information given to them. Robert Novak was not charged with a crime and he was a US citizen.

With the US government filled with people like Richard Armitage (probably the fall guy) and granting secret security access to an untold number of low ranking enlisted men, I think everyone should realize the US cannot protect anyone that helps the US.

Afghanistan? Oh that wasn't a conspiracy. Though there were other outside pressures from womens and human rights NGOs. However, that has proved out to be a haven for Al Qaeda. Iraq was just a good cover to keep the public distracted. You know magic tricks, keep their attention somewhere else while you do what you have to do.

Our elected officials should be held to a higher standard and be above reproach. Sadly, this not the case at present.

As far as I know, the country is just an idea, founded upon freedom of individuals, and of the press. The military / security industry is a bloated tick, killing the country. Assange has provided some medicine.. and perhaps it stings a bit, but it is for the overall good.

Somewhere since WWII, with 'loose lips', a line has been crossed, and now the security establishment is not sensible, rational, or operating to serve the people, imho.

Chris

Assange should be recommended for Nobel peace prize.He has done a great service to mankind. The present kind of international problems is created by "democracy" according to which a rich man or a man supported by rich people can easily come to power by getting votes from poor souls by giving them a dose of opium in the form of language,race or religion and destroy people belong to another race,language or religion. An arm manufacturer can increase his sales by creating a war somewhere by giving bribe to a big politician. Unless we reorganise the UN it will continue. UN should not give membership to some nations if they do not comply with basic requirements stipulated by UN

Exposing criminal activities of individuals or organisations or government or state agencies even by UN should be appreciated and the exposer protected and honoured by human rights groups and NGos

Well said. I don't know why you made this OT. Your lengthy discussion is very much ON Topic.

Guest #11-

An excellent, excellent analysis, worthy of publication in the national media, with some valuable links that go far to explain the real problem here. You are obviously a Patriot, the sort on which the greatness of America was once based. NOT properly classified as Off-Topic.

One question- are you absolutely certain you have not exposed any "properly classified" information in your missive? Perhaps it is not a good idea to expose how much freedom and how easy it is for anyone in authority to keep secrets from their constituents...

really really interesting and informative post! ga. thank you.

Unfortunately you can't trust the newspapers to use careful judgment. In WW II, the coast watchers on islands north of Australia secretly reported Japanese troop movements by clandestine radios. Keen scoop merchants published some of this info. The Japanese, who thought the islands were uninhabited, read the newspapers and then hunted down these watchers, removing an important source of info.

I believe that the USA maintains about 700 military bases around the globe. Is this true? What are they for? How much is it costing the taxpayer?

the us military spending is about a trillion dollars a year right now.... for the stuff that they declare.

Is this expenditure justified as for peaceful purposes. If invested in clean water,air,space ,sea,environment etc or for medical research the entire mankind will be benefitted.

Hi Another Guest,

And we are living in free country? When you read the Sec. 1.7. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations.
we still stay free?

Someone is embarrassed with some personal informations because this person made something embarrassing. In Canada, we have a minister forgot a notebook at a girlfriend's house. Who was the wrong? The minister or the girl? Everyone talk about the lifestyle of the girl (was the choice of the minister) and the minister (he forgot the secret document) will be reelected in his local area. We voted our government and they must work for us and being an open book.

Also, in business, the best win the battle. If you are the best, you dominate the market. So forget the competition and do what you choose to do, see the result and stay or modify.

It was a pleasure to read your comment, Gil.

Politicians and Public Servants are put there either directly or indirectly to serve us, the general public. Data they generate is public info, except if marked 'classified', 'top secret' etc. However it is usually agreed that such data be available after 30 years. There should not be any penalty for publishing 30 year old data.

Top secret data less than 30 years old we expect to be serious stuff, so that it is reasonable to charge someone with say espionage, if they stole it. The publisher is also guilty.

Commercial in confidence data is a problem for the business that generated it. They have recourse to warning anyone using that info that they will be taken to court if they use it eg making a product for sale based on it.

Any thing else has no value, and it is open season!

Personal comments reflect on the person making the comment as well as the recipient, and there is no recourse except an apology or having a thick skin and ignoring it.

If you can devise a way to seal your data, someone can devise a way to unseal it. The internet and computer data storage should be treated like a microphone, TV camera, cell/mobile phone or wireless link; assume that what you write and say at that moment is immediately public. Use only landlines or pen and paper if you are passing information, commenting, or recording for posterity. And don't join Twitter, Facebook, Classmates etc, that data is forever. Do you want it brought up at a job interview or by an insurance company?

Think before you speak, write or type. Eternal vigilance as ever.

Maybe I'm a bit stupid, but the best way nobody knows you've made some crime is not to do it, isn't it?

I don't understand someone can blame because their comments about the stupidity of one foreign prime minister or president became public. If they didn't make such things nobody should know!!!!

That reminds me an interview to the once General Manager of the National Spanish Police about the "dirty war" against ETA terrorism. He said: That kind of things never should occur, but if they do,you must do it such nobody should never know.

Merry Christmas to all CR4 team

Perhaps it really isn't secret it is mere subterfuge on the part of the U.S. government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Gedanken_sind_frei

http://www.amazon.com/Die-Gedanken-Sind-Frei/dp/B0013AXGIE

the power of a secret lies in its secrecy. This is all distracting from the real issue and that is that dictatorships have ways to hide with such subtle tactics that intervening or trying to is ......... well, fruitless.

The merchants of diplomacy will always do as they are told or will have to rely on what they are being told. "Extra" information, that nobody will confirm or deny is completely irrelevant.

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know." D.Rumsfeld

Not too long ago and this was the state of affairs and it even seemed amusing or even funny at the time.

Die gedanken sind frei, Ky.

good stuff Ky.

I would assume he is kind of paraphrasing Epictatus

"Appearances to the mind are of four kinds. Things either are what they appear to be; or they neither are, nor appear to be; or they are, and do not appear to be; or they are not, and yet appear to be. Rightly to aim in all these cases is the wise man's task. "

Season's Greetings

Chris

close.... Rumsfeld you say....

If they really wanted to keep them secret, they should have put them the same place they put obama's birth certificate and colege records. (giggle)

Milo

No, I thought our democratically declared nation was based on openness, as we the populace have hired the corrupt politicians to serve us, not themselves and their donors.

Sounds pretty fascist to me having the double standard in effect on a lot of the policies of the day.

I recently read that in the last decade, the federal government has established 132,000 mostly useless regulations that were probably introduced for no other reason than to get a pols name on a bill or have the regulation named after he/she.

I wonder how many state or local regulations that have been introduced fall into the same categories of bias, self serving, and useless.

very thoughtful..ga

but don't the goverment documents ultimately belong to the citizens of the country?

but don't the government documents ultimately belong to the citizens of the country?

I believe they do, as with all government property. There is a point to be made here though. I can own stock in a company. The system is set up so that while I AM part owner of the assets, I do not control them nor do I have the right to do anything with or to them (this includes "FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY" documents!), those decisions are in the hands of those I voted onto the board of directors.

Let's run with this analogy a little... Let's say you own a couple shares in company that I also own a couple shares of and through a breech of protocol you personally end up with documents that contain the result of years of research. Now, should the company be able to regain control of the documents or is it your right to sell the information to a competitor? I would fully expect the company to come after you with everything in their power to protect my interest in the company not protect you while you profit off of it.

The fact is the government has sole rights over the control of classified info (much like the corporation) and to me it makes perfect sense that they should be able to regain control over them.

Who is the owner?

ChaoticIntellect:

Having been involved with classified information for much of my life, I would agree with most of what you say. However, by the time Assange came in to possession of the material in question, it had already been compromised, and it appears that he had nothing to do with compromising the material (although there are some who have suggested that he aided and abetted the culprit, this has not been proven, and those suggesting that he did have ulterior motives for pursuing this course of investigation). Assange did not break in to a classified facility to steal anything, either physically or electronically.

Just because one has a security clearance does not mean one can access everything classified at the level of your clearance. There has been for years a "need to know" clause as well.

I still question how a PFC in Afghanistan could have access to State Department information. If the PFC did what he is supposed to have done, then he should be prosecuted, but there are a whole lot of failures in the system for protecting this information that are apparently being ignored. There should be a General Officer or two, and some high level State Department bureaucrats, that have the ultimate responsibility here for failing to properly secure the information. Focusing on the PFC and Assange leaves the door open for others to do even more damage.

Assange is not a US citizen, and, so far as is known, has never been granted a security clearance or sworn to protect the secrets of the US government. Persecuting him for his actions solely serves to expose the duplicity in US policy- demanding other countries promote freedom of press, so long as the US does not have to abide by the principle...

In my opinion the already compromised status is irrelevant. It's kind of like dumping my used motor oil in the Gulf of Mexico and justifying it by saying BP already did it. So they did, but that doesn't absolve me of the responsibility to do the right thing.

I do agree with the fact there is alot we don't know about the source. As you say, clearance no matter how high is always "need to know". I would also agree there were (again as you state) many many failures (intentional?) that occurred before any PFC had access to State Department info. That needs to be investigated as well. I don't know what your experience has been, but there were custody transfer records for all the material I dealt with so from my vantage point, the gov't already knows who, but it has been withheld for whatever reason.

To the point of going after Assange, I still say go after him with everything. In a perfect world he would have turned them over willingly. His citizenship status makes no difference. The fact is, the documents are US government property.

As a side note, taking this stance isn't easy. I'm not a conspiracy theorist but the US government does have a history of corruption and cover-ups (as much as any big business). This, however, does not deprive them of the right to regain control over what clearly is their property.

There is no US government property, it is all property of the Citizens of the United States. The use of the words US Government Property is just a way of political intersts in the government to keep control on information they really don't own, but they feel they can persuade by threat the Citizens into believing their is some private ownership by the "Government". The government of the US is not separate from the People, it is a subordinate servant of the People, and only holds properties and manages them for the people.

The government of the US is not separate from the People, it is a subordinate servant of the People, and only holds properties and manages them for the people.

I completely agree (see my post above!). That's my point! They are IN CHARGE of them. We GAVE them that authority. The fact that YOU OWN THE PROPERTY and are taking a stance that it is simply OK for someone to keep YOUR property is simply mind blowing! Where do you live? I'll be happy to take your house, car, bank accounts (minus any debt, of course) as long as your willing to stick your guns!

Just to be redundant, if I own stock in a company... we the shareholders are the owners... But the company has the authority to manage all the assets (and note that even though I am an owner I DO NOT have the right to access any of the company's assets). The argument that the company doesn't own anything because it is made up of thousands of individual shareholders is simply invalid.

They are not in-charge, they manage them on behalf of the People. the people have the ultimate decision making authority, not the government. The government just manages the information in conformance with the requirements the People have allowed. The people grant them limited authority on their behalf, not full authority at their own behest.

Tyranny of the masses is not condoned by the Bill of Rights. The People do not govern themselves. This is called anarchy. The People do not have the right to levy taxes, tariffs and other fees for the government. The People do not have the right to confine other people based just on majority vote. We do not live under mob rules. We live under the rules of laws.

And, as will be demonstrated each time one attends any Court, those LAWS are THE PEOPLE.

It is not said: The government VS citizen...................

It is "The People" VS citizen................

S.

Maybe any court in Australia but not any court in the United States. The most common court where the people of ... is rarely one of the plaintiffs is civil court. But even in the criminal courts where that phrase is commonly used there is not a public vote to decide who will or won't be charged with a crime. Authorized individuals decide in the people's name who will be charged. The court will only recognize these licensed individuals to represent the people. Any Tom, Dick or Harriet that walks into a court room here to represent the people will likely end up with a contempt citation fine and/or jail time. RCE is correct that the people do grant the administrators of these lawyers the authority to make legal charges against another individual or corporate entity but the people do not have the authority to charge somebody themselves.

But this is taking a sever tangent from the original discussion. I'm not going to give this an OT voting, yet.

Except in the case of a Grand Jury, which are just people off the street who are sent a notice they are eligible to be on a grand jury, if requested. Though Grand Juries are usually enpaneled when the prosecutors do not find the evidence easily substantiates bringing charges and/or fears that it would be exceedingly unpopular (as the DA is an elected official).

Have you ever heard of jury nullification, and that is representative of only a small section of the people who are on a jury. Laws, taxes, represeantataion can all be revoked by the people. The People just have to agree in a majority towards whichever end they seek, which rarely happens. However, take the 18th amendment to the constitution, which the majority veiwed as unacceptable, it was repealed because it was unpopular and the People elected representatives many on the basis of repealing the 18th amendment. Another example Take Gray Davis as Governor of California, he allowed a extremely unpopular huge pay raise for his supporters, the State Prison Guard Union, and he was voted out quite rapidly by popular referendum and Arnold became govenor. The mob does rule through others as a meter, and if they have enough impetus they can take more direct control of governance.

Yes, but, the stockholders of said Company have elected Officers to manage that Company for the benefit of said stockholders. They are not GIVEN authority, the are CHARGED with it. There is a difference.

Whilst the Officers are in "charge " of the documentation, it is still owned by the Company as a whole, and not the Officers.

The Officers report to the stockholders on the running of the Company and are not entitled to withold any information on the running of that Company.

As has been said earlier, to an outsider, all of that information is irrelevant and "NYOB", and so has no value.

To issue any analogy which includes example of personal ownership of any property is, really ideologically suspect.

The issue at the heart of the matter here is the ownership of COMMON property.

That of the people combined, as 'shareholders' in the ''common property" of their respective Country.

"In a perfect world"-- and all that!

But should it not be the ultimate goal of us all to strive for perfection?

I see it as pivotal on the etymology of the word " allowed".

Secrets in the context of shareholders of common property are "not allowed".

And never should be.

The question has arisen on just who has issued the 'leaks' under the banner of Wikileaks.

I'm here to say that we'll never know the truth. The scrambling for cover-up, and the subsequent BS has well started.

It really is grist for the ongoing mill which has become Wikileaks.

S.

Which brings us right back to the point I made earlier- it is the custodians of the secrets that are at fault...prosecuting Assange does nothing to correct this fault, but, rather diverts attention from those who are not doing their jobs properly.

Is it not the case that the interest in the documents in question is because they permit the public to see and assess the management of our affairs by public servants and elected officials to whom we have granted our vote (or not) and paid with our taxes?

The government is tasked to represent our best interests, but the more they hide, the harder it is to believe. In fact it seems to me, that criminal activity breeds wherever there is a place to hide it.

Where I live there have been attempts to legislate protection for "whistleblowers" who come forward with information that would be considered confidential if not "classified", that alerts the public to mismanagement of our affairs. But we also have a government that muzzles publicly paid scientists and controls every word that is permitted to the press. I can only say, I want greater transparency in government.

I agree!

Going after Assange is going to accomplish nothing positive. The government has no chance of recovering control of the documents that have been released- there are too many copies out there. Furthermore, keeping the subject in the public eye will only encourage others to attempt similar feats- and it should be pretty clear that such feats are pretty easy to accomplish with the infrastructure currently in place. Had the US government not reacted at all, it is likely that they whole scandal would have faded into obscurity rather quickly, and those who would like to make a "big splash" would have to find some other activity to aggravate the authorities (like sending letter bombs to public officials).

I personally think Assange will ultimately undo himself- by all reports, he is an arrogant egotist more motivated by a desire for celebrity than any high moral principle. Persecuting him turns him in to a hero among the disaffected, while accomplishing nothing to prevent similar events in the future.

Going after Assange is going to accomplish nothing positive.

Other than perhaps providing a "public hanging" kind of deterrent, I would have to agree.

The government has no chance of recovering control of the documents that have been released- there are too many copies out there.

While I agree, I think they are still responsible for regaining control when they have the opportunity. Is a policeman going to rid the world of crime by arresting one criminal? Of course not, but they are tasked with doing what they can.

Assange has proved the old adage " Any system that relies on human beings (e.g. passwords) is inherently unreliable." It's up to the powers that be to constantly check that the system is as reliable as (humanly) possible.

What kind of crap all is.