Ironically, the current status quo (excessive secrets prompting illegal and potentially excessive leaks) might be the ideal one – that is to say, it might be the best realistically attainable state of affairs.
States have legitimate need for secrecy, particularly in the areas of defense and diplomacy. They will, in order to accommodate this legitimate need, create legitimate and necessary structures, rules, and institutions by which certain material can be deemed secret. However, states will inevitably use these necessary apparatuses excessively, in a manner that shields from the public a wide array of information that ought, in the best interests of the citizenry, to be made available. This will occur most commonly not out of motives which are malicious, venal, or otherwise impure, but simply out of expediency. It’s *easier *not to sift through every diplomatic or military exchange to decide which ones can or should be made public, so instead *everything *is deemed a secret, and it becomes harder for the people to hold informed opinions. It’s likewise easier to do one’s job if you do not expose your decisions and actions to public scrutiny. And since, by their very nature as secrets, their isn’t any legitimate way for independent agents to review or pass judgment on the extent to which government classifies information, it’s simply inevitable that the state will seek to hide *more *information than, by rights, it ought to.
By the same token, there will inevitably be leaks of classified information, and they will sometimes be *too *liberal – often for the same reason as above (expediency), and also because the people doing the leaking will have variable ideologies and opinions about what constitutes a prudently kept secret. Nonetheless, since the likelihood and frequency of such leaks will increase along with the perceived egregiousness of the state’s secrecy and/or actions, the leaks on balance serve as a necessary check against government malfeasance (even while a *particular *leak may or may not be quite damaging).
Speaking more specifically to this case, I tend to have a favorable view of the leaking of these documents, even if this sort of information should *not *be made routinely available. The public needs to have a better understanding of how domestic and (especially) international affairs are actually conducted. Furthermore, whenever a relatively small number of people are making decisions without exposure to or criticism from the outside world, you run the risk of forming a potentially disastrous echo chamber – some vital information may simply be unknown to the small group in question, or a faulty consensus can (much more easily) form prematurely only to be reinforced, unchallenged, by a collective confirmation bias. A small group of experts often makes worse decisions than a large group of laymen, and these types of leaks at least allow the laymen to have their say.
:dubious:
Were those words too big for you? The thought expressed too complex?
You are a dishonest, lying scumbag. Shut up.
Wow, and the award for “Obtuse Stupidity Meeting or Exceeding that of Clothahump” has been torn from the hands of Starving Artist and The Flying Dutchman is nearly to the end zone! Nobody can stop him now!
Really, it would be less embarrassing for humanity in general of you’d just shut up and fuck off.
-Joe
I must have really spanked your ass on that issue.
Not exactly an effort either 
Don’t take it personally
By the way, how’s the Free Choice Act thingy going? We’ve had nearly had two years of a Democratic house, senate and administration and I haven’t heard any more.
Less embarrassing for you perhaps.
When one applies their own welfare to that of the collective…
With all due respect, I don’t feel this really answers my question. Would it be fair to say that you would feel ambivalent if Assange had committed such a serious indescretion? Sorry if it seems I’m belabouring the point, but I appreciate this is a somewhat emotive subject and I don’t want to misconstrue you.
I think it’s uncontroversial to say that an administration can’t effectively protect it’s citizens if it isn’t allowed to have any secrets. The role of undercover operatives is crucial to the maintenence of an active defence against our enemies. Let’s assume, just for the sake of argument, that Assange’s latest indiscriminate information dump did contain classified information on undercover agents. His revelations would not only endanger their safety but potentially endanger us. That he is motivated by an agenda towards information which a great many potentially affected people don’t share makes it doubly difficult to take. In that instance, I’d be inclined to consider him an enemy of the state.
Assange may not have any legal obligations towards you, but surely he owes you the courtesy of not putting you in danger without your consent. How would you feel towards him as a person if it was established that he’d deliberately revealed the identity of American secret service personnel?
I think you should have saved your rubber/glue comeback for the next round.
-Joe
Oh, I thought you were implying he crafted his post with his laptop turned sideways.
Well, yes, but that’s just politicians in general.
With the Bin Laden foolishness, Godwin reigned in spirit, if not letter. I promise you it will stop being confusing once you stop hyperventilating.
Thank god for people like Manning and Assange. They’re doing what the mainstream media refuse to do–their job.
And the response from the right is revealing. Assassinate Assange? If you were real libertarians and supported small and transparent government, you should be donating to WikiLeaks. But this is just more proof that you are bottom-feeding scum, with no principles whatsoever.
As well as the notion that he “won” a debate thread by admitting that he had been lying for nearly 500 posts and then running away with his tail between his legs.
You are such a child.
It’s not as simple as some hero whistle-blower revealing wrongdoings. Manning downloaded and transferred most of those files without discretion. Assange is doing the same. Many of those files likely contain sensitive military and national security information to which you have no privilege. If the transmission of those documents compromise national and military security, the U.S. Government shouldn’t need legal standing to detain Assange and prevent their publication. In my opinion, only a shortsighted idiot would cheer Manning’s actions.
As an aside, how was Manning able to seemingly so casually download these files? If so sensitive, doesn’t the DoD closely monitor traffic regarding these files?
Whatever. Twice you’ve tangled with me, and twice you’ve been shown a liar and a fool.
On the contrary, I take the long view. I think that governments can maintain secrets only so long as their is accountability and trust, neither of which are present here. The US engages in secret wars that do not benefit most Americans, and in fact lead to the blowback, as so eloquently put by the late CIA consultant Chalmers Johnson. Not to mention the illegal wars, torture, wiretapping. Basically, I see the current regime as so awful and corrupt that everything must be sunshined in order to rebuild our democracy.
Well, Manning is the only one who might have committed a crime. Assange is not an American citizen. If you are advocating interference in the free speech activities of foreign nationals, that would not be in keeping with the precepts of liberty–though it would be in keeping with the conduct of the US government in the 20th century.
I heard on NPR today that his access may be a consequence of intelligence agencies trying to share more information with each other in the wake of 9/11.
More than twice you’ve shown yourself to be such a child.