wikileaks followup
-
William Winner wrote:
Unfortunately for you, that's for a court to decide
I don't know why you think that is unfortunate. Whistle-blowers are often squashed by the government. That's what makes them heros. When a government tried to hide it's mistakes and it's crimes it's the whistle-blowers that can help hold the government accountable.
A federal judge has said that a "whistleblower" should leak the information...but only if they're also willing to pay the penalty for doing that. Here's the transcript: http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/aipac/franklin061109.html[^] Some interesting quotes from the judge in that case: "It isn't the judge, the judge's view, it isn't the judiciary's task or obligation to determine what should or shouldn't be classified. That's, again, an Executive Branch decision." (Actually, I was wrong about it being up to the court to decide what is classified. It's up to the Executive Branch according this this judge) "He said that this case is different from Rosen and Weissman, in that Mr. Franklin was a government official." "Now, it's true that there have been disclosures, as Mr. Cacheris points out, in which people have disclosed classified information to the press, when they shouldn't have under the law, and they haven't been pursued and prosecuted. I don't have a problem with people doing that if they are held accountable for it. To use the Jack Bauer analogy, one might hope that, for example, someone might have the courage to do something that would break the law if it meant they're the savior of the country; but then one has to take the consequences, because the rule of law is so important." (I love the use of Jack Bauer!) "So, what I do today -- what has happened to Mr. Franklin and what will happen after I rule today has to stand as a beacon to government officials, because Mr. Hammerstrom is absolutely right, it is important that government officials, more than anyone else, get this message: You cannot engage in disclosure of classified information, certainly not NDI -- I mean, it may turn out in the end not to be NDI, under the statute. But you are precluded by your agreement with the government and by internal regulations from disclosing classified information, which in all likelihood might well be NDI; and that if you do so, there are consequences; and that noble motives don't erase the violation." And as a soldier, which I believe the person who leaked the information was, you actually give up a lot of your rights and become the property of the US government. So, you have even less 1st amendment cover. But if he's willing to take the punishment, then go ahead. After all, as has been said, "If a person is willing to give his li
-
A federal judge has said that a "whistleblower" should leak the information...but only if they're also willing to pay the penalty for doing that. Here's the transcript: http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/aipac/franklin061109.html[^] Some interesting quotes from the judge in that case: "It isn't the judge, the judge's view, it isn't the judiciary's task or obligation to determine what should or shouldn't be classified. That's, again, an Executive Branch decision." (Actually, I was wrong about it being up to the court to decide what is classified. It's up to the Executive Branch according this this judge) "He said that this case is different from Rosen and Weissman, in that Mr. Franklin was a government official." "Now, it's true that there have been disclosures, as Mr. Cacheris points out, in which people have disclosed classified information to the press, when they shouldn't have under the law, and they haven't been pursued and prosecuted. I don't have a problem with people doing that if they are held accountable for it. To use the Jack Bauer analogy, one might hope that, for example, someone might have the courage to do something that would break the law if it meant they're the savior of the country; but then one has to take the consequences, because the rule of law is so important." (I love the use of Jack Bauer!) "So, what I do today -- what has happened to Mr. Franklin and what will happen after I rule today has to stand as a beacon to government officials, because Mr. Hammerstrom is absolutely right, it is important that government officials, more than anyone else, get this message: You cannot engage in disclosure of classified information, certainly not NDI -- I mean, it may turn out in the end not to be NDI, under the statute. But you are precluded by your agreement with the government and by internal regulations from disclosing classified information, which in all likelihood might well be NDI; and that if you do so, there are consequences; and that noble motives don't erase the violation." And as a soldier, which I believe the person who leaked the information was, you actually give up a lot of your rights and become the property of the US government. So, you have even less 1st amendment cover. But if he's willing to take the punishment, then go ahead. After all, as has been said, "If a person is willing to give his li
-
pseudonym67 wrote:
Any civillian deaths are unnaceptable, preventable or not.
What's that, are you a girl? What's so unacceptable about a civilian death? In fact, you have to accept them, because they already happened and you can not undo that. And unpreventable deaths can only be accepted - what else would you do, deny them? Also, who gives a shit about civilians - not any single one of them contributes significantly to anything. They're all replaceable - maybe a couple of exceptions here and there but if I don't generalize, my post would be gigantic and largely tangential to the topic. The only people who do not think that, are people who are "thinking" with their emotions, and that just doesn't work. And of course, these emotion-"thinkers" have the power to vote. OTOH the army is not the boss of us and we shouldn't let them pretend they are.
harold aptroot wrote:
And unpreventable deaths can only be accepted - what else would you do, deny them?
Once you accept that civilian deaths are acceptable you stop questioning how they should be prevented. sure in a war situation you are unlikely to get to a case that there are zero civillian deaths but you should always question and try to prevent civillian deaths. The acceptance of any civillian deaths and the lack of questioning it brings only leads to further disregard for civillioan deaths. A statement proved by your next sentence.
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Personal Music Player[^]
-
pseudonym67 wrote:
Any civillian deaths are unnaceptable, preventable or not.
On paper that is correct. BUT what happens when the civillian population that your protecting etc. can earn more by joining our enemy?
As barmey as a sack of badgers
Simon_Whale wrote:
BUT what happens when the civillian population that your protecting etc. can earn more by joining our enemy?
if you can't tell who the enemy is you are not fighting a war. You are fighting a police action. The worst thing you can do in a police action is send in the troops. It's called using the right tools for the job.
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Personal Music Player[^]
-
harold aptroot wrote:
And unpreventable deaths can only be accepted - what else would you do, deny them?
Once you accept that civilian deaths are acceptable you stop questioning how they should be prevented. sure in a war situation you are unlikely to get to a case that there are zero civillian deaths but you should always question and try to prevent civillian deaths. The acceptance of any civillian deaths and the lack of questioning it brings only leads to further disregard for civillioan deaths. A statement proved by your next sentence.
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Personal Music Player[^]
-
harold aptroot wrote:
And unpreventable deaths can only be accepted - what else would you do, deny them?
Once you accept that civilian deaths are acceptable you stop questioning how they should be prevented. sure in a war situation you are unlikely to get to a case that there are zero civillian deaths but you should always question and try to prevent civillian deaths. The acceptance of any civillian deaths and the lack of questioning it brings only leads to further disregard for civillioan deaths. A statement proved by your next sentence.
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Personal Music Player[^]
Actually, this really does tell me something. The Military side of this is so insane, that if I actively go out of my way to come off as much worse than the most insane warmongerer, it instead appears to be authentic. Or maybe I should just be trying harder?
-
Josh Gray wrote:
If you attempt to expose a corrupt government or a war based on lies or some other injustice by exposing secret material then the motivation is very different. If it did result in aiding and supporting the enemy then I think any charge should reflect that. Kind of a murder vs manslaughter.
I think that you are too hard on the whistle-blower. Even if somehow one could actually identify specific instances where the information that was leaked led directly to the death of an individual, I don't think the leaker is responsible for the death. This is the responsibility of the government. They that have chosen to make everything a secret. If a whistle-blower ends up releasing something that actually should be a secret - how could one know?
Carbon12 wrote:
I think that you are too hard on the whistle-blower. Even if somehow one could actually identify specific instances where the information that was leaked led directly to the death of an individual, I don't think the leaker is responsible for the death. This is the responsibility of the government. They that have chosen to make everything a secret. If a whistle-blower ends up releasing something that actually should be a secret - how could one know?
Every government has the right to hold secrets and the responsibility to balance the desire to be open with the desire to protect the country. The only question is where does the balance point lie? Should we expect it to be in the same place during times of war and peace?
-
As a friendly reminder, WikiLeaks is not a US citizen and therefore can not commit treason against the US. The guy who leaked the documents to WikiLeaks in the first place, however, is probably going to be in some deep shit if he isn't already.
harold aptroot wrote:
As a friendly reminder, WikiLeaks is not a US citizen and therefore can not commit treason against the US.
He's an Australian and the Australian Defense Association, a lobby group, are pushing for him to be charged under Australian law.
-
Josh Gray wrote:
If you attempt to expose a corrupt government or a war based on lies or some other injustice by exposing secret material then the motivation is very different. If it did result in aiding and supporting the enemy then I think any charge should reflect that. Kind of a murder vs manslaughter.
I think that you are too hard on the whistle-blower. Even if somehow one could actually identify specific instances where the information that was leaked led directly to the death of an individual, I don't think the leaker is responsible for the death. This is the responsibility of the government. They that have chosen to make everything a secret. If a whistle-blower ends up releasing something that actually should be a secret - how could one know?
All government departments (not just Ministry of Defence) have reasons for restricting who can see or access information. In the UK (and most probably elsewhere), Personal Vetting and your signatory of the various Official Secrets Acts is a pre-requirement before you can handle certain classifications of secrets, and I have gone through that process, and it is not a nice process to experience. It depends on the type of data and the degree of harm that could result if such data was released. There is a whole classification index of where an item of data, or information, can justifiably live. They vary from those personal information that is defined as some degree of "in confidence" to those marked as (1) Unclassified, (2) Restricted, (3) Confidential, (4) Secret, (5) Top Secret, and higher classifications, and yes, there are higher classifications than Top Secret. Even those marked as Unclassified could contain information of benefit to an undesirable entity*. If you are unaware of the meaning (in this case, as applied to UK, and perhaps elsewhere) of why documents/information/data is so marked, these explanations might help you ...
Top Secret - cause "exceptionally grave damage".
Secret - cause "grave damage".
Confidential - cause "damage" or be "prejudicial".
Restricted - cause "undesirable effects".
Unclassified - used for government documents that do not have a classification listed above.
Such documents can sometimes be viewed by those without security clearance.* An undesirable entity does not need to be defined as a country you are at war against. It could equally refer to something to do with Economics, or, Political Policy etc. So "whistle-blowing" doesn't really sit well when talking about documents/information/data that should not be released into the public domain.
-
Carbon12 wrote:
I think that you are too hard on the whistle-blower. Even if somehow one could actually identify specific instances where the information that was leaked led directly to the death of an individual, I don't think the leaker is responsible for the death. This is the responsibility of the government. They that have chosen to make everything a secret. If a whistle-blower ends up releasing something that actually should be a secret - how could one know?
Every government has the right to hold secrets and the responsibility to balance the desire to be open with the desire to protect the country. The only question is where does the balance point lie? Should we expect it to be in the same place during times of war and peace?
Josh Gray wrote:
The only question is where does the balance point lie?
Perhaps, but are we coming from the same starting point? From my perspective the government abuses secrecy and the balance is way to far in the direction of hiding everything. Given that, whistleblowers will be necessary if we wish to keep our government accountable.
Josh Gray wrote:
Should we expect it to be in the same place during times of war and peace?
No. But we have way more secrecy than is required.
-
All government departments (not just Ministry of Defence) have reasons for restricting who can see or access information. In the UK (and most probably elsewhere), Personal Vetting and your signatory of the various Official Secrets Acts is a pre-requirement before you can handle certain classifications of secrets, and I have gone through that process, and it is not a nice process to experience. It depends on the type of data and the degree of harm that could result if such data was released. There is a whole classification index of where an item of data, or information, can justifiably live. They vary from those personal information that is defined as some degree of "in confidence" to those marked as (1) Unclassified, (2) Restricted, (3) Confidential, (4) Secret, (5) Top Secret, and higher classifications, and yes, there are higher classifications than Top Secret. Even those marked as Unclassified could contain information of benefit to an undesirable entity*. If you are unaware of the meaning (in this case, as applied to UK, and perhaps elsewhere) of why documents/information/data is so marked, these explanations might help you ...
Top Secret - cause "exceptionally grave damage".
Secret - cause "grave damage".
Confidential - cause "damage" or be "prejudicial".
Restricted - cause "undesirable effects".
Unclassified - used for government documents that do not have a classification listed above.
Such documents can sometimes be viewed by those without security clearance.* An undesirable entity does not need to be defined as a country you are at war against. It could equally refer to something to do with Economics, or, Political Policy etc. So "whistle-blowing" doesn't really sit well when talking about documents/information/data that should not be released into the public domain.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
All government departments (not just Ministry of Defence) have reasons for restricting who can see or access information.
I agree. But those reasons aren't always justifiable.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Top Secret - cause "exceptionally grave damage".Secret - cause "grave damage".Confidential - cause "damage" or be "prejudicial".Restricted - cause "undesirable effects".Unclassified - used for government documents that do not have a classification listed above.Such documents can sometimes be viewed by those without security clearance.
You're making the assumption that these classifications are not being abused. Even without the leaks we know this is not true. It is the nature of both governments and humans to hide information that is found to be "inconvienent". Whether it's to avoid embarassement or prosecution or whatever, documents will become classified that don't deserve to be classified.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
So "whistle-blowing" doesn't really sit well
Maybe. But it is essential if we, as citizens, wish to remain informed about what our country is doing.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
documents/information/data that should not be released into the public domain.
The evidence is clear that the governments judgement about what should and should not be released is flawed.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
All government departments (not just Ministry of Defence) have reasons for restricting who can see or access information.
I agree. But those reasons aren't always justifiable.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Top Secret - cause "exceptionally grave damage".Secret - cause "grave damage".Confidential - cause "damage" or be "prejudicial".Restricted - cause "undesirable effects".Unclassified - used for government documents that do not have a classification listed above.Such documents can sometimes be viewed by those without security clearance.
You're making the assumption that these classifications are not being abused. Even without the leaks we know this is not true. It is the nature of both governments and humans to hide information that is found to be "inconvienent". Whether it's to avoid embarassement or prosecution or whatever, documents will become classified that don't deserve to be classified.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
So "whistle-blowing" doesn't really sit well
Maybe. But it is essential if we, as citizens, wish to remain informed about what our country is doing.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
documents/information/data that should not be released into the public domain.
The evidence is clear that the governments judgement about what should and should not be released is flawed.
Carbon12 wrote:
You're making the assumption that these classifications are not being abused.
An example. Somebody has written something, say in our Foreign Office, that if published would cause a super major diplomatic incident. It would attract Secret or Top Secret classification. Lets presume it was sent to me and I need to reply. Even if my reply uses no inflammatory wording nor words employed in that report/letter/document that I received, because I am referencing that which is Secret or Top Secret, my reply has to match that very classification. Failure to do so risks that others who don't have that level of Secret or Top Secret clearance to view such documents can see that under-classified document and make some speculative judgements of the original reports contents. You may not appreciate that but in government circles around the globe, similar conventions are practised, irrespective if you are a civil servant in any department of government or a member of the armed forces, or a political minister of state. My service was not Foreign Office but UK Defence.
-
Carbon12 wrote:
You're making the assumption that these classifications are not being abused.
An example. Somebody has written something, say in our Foreign Office, that if published would cause a super major diplomatic incident. It would attract Secret or Top Secret classification. Lets presume it was sent to me and I need to reply. Even if my reply uses no inflammatory wording nor words employed in that report/letter/document that I received, because I am referencing that which is Secret or Top Secret, my reply has to match that very classification. Failure to do so risks that others who don't have that level of Secret or Top Secret clearance to view such documents can see that under-classified document and make some speculative judgements of the original reports contents. You may not appreciate that but in government circles around the globe, similar conventions are practised, irrespective if you are a civil servant in any department of government or a member of the armed forces, or a political minister of state. My service was not Foreign Office but UK Defence.
-
I'm not sure what this is meant to show. Of course there are any number of valid reasons to classify material. But the reality is that much is classified that should not be.
Carbon12 wrote:
I'm not sure what this is meant to show.
Could be that you have never worked for central government as a civil servant or as a member of your country's armed forces AND entrusted with keeping/creating/processing official secrets. In the UK, there is the 30 year rule. Documents as classified may be de-classified and discharged to the public domain. But not all 30+ year old documents. Some can never ever be released.
-
Carbon12 wrote:
I'm not sure what this is meant to show.
Could be that you have never worked for central government as a civil servant or as a member of your country's armed forces AND entrusted with keeping/creating/processing official secrets. In the UK, there is the 30 year rule. Documents as classified may be de-classified and discharged to the public domain. But not all 30+ year old documents. Some can never ever be released.
-
Again, what is your point? I am aware that governments have rules that concern the classification of documents. So...??
Sorry, but if you had worked for government you would know precisely my meaning. And short of giving you a long, time consuming, lecture on the in's and out's of why we classify documents in a particular way, kindly accept the facts that we do. Forgive me, but I cannot give this subject any more time. Sorry.
-
Sorry, but if you had worked for government you would know precisely my meaning. And short of giving you a long, time consuming, lecture on the in's and out's of why we classify documents in a particular way, kindly accept the facts that we do. Forgive me, but I cannot give this subject any more time. Sorry.