Wikileaks poll

[FattyCatty]

There is too much secrecy in the government,

Should there be any? If yes, how much? If no, why?

I don't have a definitive answer. Some secrecy is necessary in war situations, but in my opinion, the less secrecy the better for the country.

I think the issue should be debated openly by the U.S. in the media and in Congress. I gave some of my concerns in my post, which you may have overlooked.

Hiding actions from citizens because you know they will not be approved is a wrong reason. Hiding breaches of the law is another, as is hiding hypocrisy. I think there should be narrow limits on what can be classified and that the criteria should be clearly stated and widely published.

If the government chooses to break the law and torture people, it should not be allowed to classify its illegal actions as "secret." If we accidentally kill innocent civilians in a conflict, there is no reason to make that "secret." Deal-making should not be "secret."

Troop movements, codes, technological innovations in armed forces' equipment, and similar items probably should be "secret" but these categories should be discussed in the open first along with all other categories. Decisions on what qualifies for classification should be made openly, with public comment allowed.

Once the basis and categories for secrecy are decided, the legislation would need to establish accountability or oversight. This would apply to all decisions to invoke "secrecy" to ensure that they follow the legislated procedures and categories. Executive Orders should not be allowed to get around the law, nor should Congress be allowed to convene closed committee hearings or sessions to override the law.

I don't know how to do this, but it's what I would like to see done.

 

[Childlike Empress]

And to choose the right option at aboves poll ...

Wiki Rebels
THE DOCUMENTARY

"Exclusive rough-cut of first in-depth documentary on WikiLeaks and the people behind it!

From summer 2010 until now, Swedish Television has been following the secretive media network WikiLeaks and its enigmatic Editor-in-Chief Julian Assange.

Reporters Jesper Huor and Bosse Lindquist have traveled to key countries where WikiLeaks operates, interviewing top members, such as Assange, new Spokesperson Kristinn Hrafnsson, as well as people like Daniel Domscheit-Berg who now is starting his own version - Openleaks.org!

Where is the secretive organization heading? Stronger than ever, or broken by the US? Who is Assange: champion of freedom, spy or rapist? What are his objectives? What are the consequences for the internet?"

Also on YouTube:

ftfm

 

[PhantomWolf]

Certainly stuff pertaining to wars that we pay for with our taxpayer dollars...

So you think that your government should be telling it's enemies everything it is doing?

 

[PS13]

I hope everyone at least takes a hour to watch the documentary that's posted in this thread. It's pretty informative.

 

[ConspicuousCarl]

At this point, Assange is releasing quantities of data which he couldn't possibly have reviewed to make sure he is being a good guy whistleblower rather than a bad guy who is going to harm innocent people. That is similar to things like "reckless endangerment" in which the criminal doesn't intend to be bad, but engages in dangerous behavior.

My guess is that he is locked into a dogmatic attitude. He is absolutely certain that, by dumping secret US documents, he must be exposing something evil even though he hasn't even read what he is "exposing".

"Free speech" isn't really a convincing argument because he doesn't even know what he is "saying" by releasing the information.

 

[Oliver]

Over Julian, yes, absolutely.

Think again?

WikiLeaks and Press Freedom
Is Treason a Civic Duty?

SPIEGEL ONLINE - 13.12.2010
Since 9/11, press freedom in the West has come under attack as governments argue that national security is more important than transparency. But the hunt for WikiLeaks is a greater danger to democracy than any information that WikiLeaks might reveal. more...

 

[deepatrax]

This is a key part of the Pentagon Papers incident and the subsequent legal case:

"The Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. United States found that the government had not made a successful case for prior restraint, but a majority of the justices ruled that the government could still prosecute the Times and the Post for violating the Espionage Act in publishing the documents. Ellsberg and Russo were not acquitted of violating the Espionage Act, but were freed due to a mistrial based on irregularities in the government's case"

 

[BenBurch]

This is a key part of the Pentagon Papers incident and the subsequent legal case:

"The Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. United States found that the government had not made a successful case for prior restraint, but a majority of the justices ruled that the government could still prosecute the Times and the Post for violating the Espionage Act in publishing the documents. Ellsberg and Russo were not acquitted of violating the Espionage Act, but were freed due to a mistrial based on irregularities in the government's case"

Moreover, legal cover for the leak was obtained in the form of a congressman reading the whole thing into the Congressional Record.

 

[egslim]

So you think that your government should be telling it's enemies everything it is doing?

A government should be for its people, more than it is against the country's enemies.

And be realistic: Nothing that has been leaked so far contained significant information that was new to any 'enemy of the US' with a remotely competent intelligence service. So your concern is baseless.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Moreover, legal cover for the leak was obtained in the form of a congressman reading the whole thing into the Congressional Record.

Ah Hah!!! Assange was just trying to Rick-Roll Congress... it all makes sense now.

 

[applecorped]

Think again?

Okay...............hmmmm, Julian's still a douchebag.

 

[mike3]

They could be exposing serious examples of government misdeeds, but mostly they seem to be wallowing in the "Ha-Ha!" level of exposing government gossip.

How can we ever get a fair, reality-based picture of what our governments are doing with as few middlemen as possible (the more middlemen between you and the hot stuff = the more people who are controlling your views, either deliberately or accidentally.).

 

[Puppycow]

I think the case for terrorists might be this.

The world is up in arms about the WikiLeaks release of a secret cable written in 2009 revealing over 100 facilities that the United States considers Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources (CIKR). The list includes undersea communications cables, hydroelectric plants, pharmaceutical facilities, and chemical manufacturing plants.

This is not exposing wrongdoing or injustice, it's exposing vulnerabilities. There is little news value in that, but lots of value to potential terrorists.

 

[PhantomWolf]

A government should be for its people, more than it is against the country's enemies.

And be realistic: Nothing that has been leaked so far contained significant information that was new to any 'enemy of the US' with a remotely competent intelligence service. So your concern is baseless.

People here are saying that Governments should have NO secrets, that means they are obviously expecting them to tell them enemies they are fighting everything, no?

 

[BenBurch]

People here are saying that Governments should have NO secrets, that means they are obviously expecting them to tell them enemies they are fighting everything, no?

When all potential enemies post their every action on the Internet where we can read them, then we can consider having no secrets.

I won't hold my breath.

 

[JihadJane]

People here are saying that Governments should have NO secrets, that means they are obviously expecting them to tell them enemies they are fighting everything, no?

Who here has said that Governemnts should have NO secrets?

 

[ZirconBlue]

Why does Wikileaks have to lie on an axis with freedom of the press at one end and terrorism at the other?

Maybe that's why the poll allows for the casting of votes for more than one option. You can pick both or neither of those two options.

Personally, I'm conflicted on the topic. So I voted for all 4 options.

 

[deepatrax]

no, no, no...the Pro-Wikileaks people here aren't arguing that there should be no Govt. secrets....they're merely arguing that it should be Julian Assange who should have final say as to what remains secret and what gets published.

is that so hard to accomodate?

Run everything by Assange and if he gives his approval, it can be classified, if not, he gets to publish it!

 

[PhantomWolf]

Who here has said that Governemnts should have NO secrets?

The government is simply supposed to enforce my rights, but it shouldn't keep secrets from its own citizens.

So JJ, if you think it is acceptable for Governments to keep secrects, who should decide what is kept secret and what isn't?

 

[JihadJane]

So JJ, if you think it is acceptable for Governments to keep secrects, who should decide what is kept secret and what isn't?

The people they are supposed to be serving, the people who elect them and who pay their wages.


Did AnnoyingPony mean NO secrets? I doubt it. You also claimed that "People here are saying that Governments should have NO secrets". AnnoyingPony is probably just one person.