Bob,
Apologies for the long post, ahead of time.
I might point out that it does not matter how damaging the leaks were... they were illegally leaked and in a clear violation of the law. The law was broken and that is what is important.
Bob Maxey
The evidence doesn't support this claim, and neither does our first amendment (
not that it would even apply to them, given the org isn't American, but interestingly enough, the NY Times is, and isn't facing anywhere near the criticism). This double standard is then further reinforced by the fact that no formal charges have been brought against Wikileaks. I think just the opposite, there isn't a clear violation of the law.
If you want to argue the legality of the situation, then the whistle blowers, residing in the US, who provided the information could certainly be called into question, as they certainly have obligations to responsibly handle classified material.
1- You mentioned the administration's promise of more transparency. Are you of the opinion that these documents (and other secret documents) should be released for the sake of transparency? How do you understand transparency as it applies to what the president promised?
Careful to avoid just this, below is what I specifically stated:
"
and this has become a key test of where we stand on transparency (not the leaks themselves, but the bigger issue regarding freedom of speech and the press)."
I think the position is pretty clear, but in answer to your second question: transparency is the idea that we can bolster our faith in government, by having access to what our government is doing, and scrutinize accordingly, while holding it accountable for its actions. The continued freedom of both the press and speech are the foundation/cornerstones to this idea.
Since what they are doing isn't illegal, we're once again facing the question of how much freedom should the free press have (
especially those not in the US)? It's a debate that's been going on for ages, and it's unlikely to end, now, with any explanation I could give you. If you want my opinion, though, then I side with the 1st amendment, and Gates' position, as paraphrased above.
In my experiences contracting with the DoD, it was understood that we were solely responsible for keeping confidential material secure, and so that burden fell on us, legally, to protect it. The media would and very well does go to lengths to extract information, and even twists that information, if/once it gets it, to unbelievable lengths. It's all legal. The rest was a matter of politics and damage control, if and when there ever was a breach (
which I now liken to this). My attitude is that you address the source. Public attempts to silence the media is a losing battle, and rightfully so.
2- You said, "Creating/modifying laws to make this into a crime, is a dangerous game . . ." Are you of the opinion that by going after the leaker, we are somehow changing or modifying a law?
Going after Wikileaks isn't wrong (
a poor misuse of time and resources, maybe, but not wrong)-- again, that's a politically influenced agenda. Calling the actions of Wikileaks "illegal", though, as we currently understand them,
is wrong.
My opinion...last major news I read, we're pursuing an espionage act from 1917? I'd have to read into the specifics, but it's still grasping at straws...and if we do find something, we're still up against the fact that our own US publications would then fall under the same laws. I think we have to be very careful in how much power over free press we should afford the government, based on leaks which our own Secretary of Defense says are minor. This isn't the path to smaller government, that some people are requesting.
3- You mentioned our long standing press practices. Clarify... how do you understand those practices? Again, just asking.
When I refer to long standing press practice, I refer to the actions taken by the press, to report and distribute information, including leaked information, for the purpose of public scrutiny. This freedom to report the truth, is what makes the US a democracy, as someone stated earlier in this thread. The US government also has the right to protect this information, but they do not have legal validation to qualify the current set of circumstances as illegal, because it's embarrassing. This has been a stance upheld in the supreme court, which far supersedes my opinion and even depth of understanding, in similar cases.
The press did not concern itself with such matters and thought out of respect, to avoid making it the focus.[
That's fine, and everything is in context. The fact is, though, that the people have decided what is news, in tandem with the press. The US spying on members of the UN is illegal. That may or may not matter to some, but what repercussions should that have? This is a rhetorical question, as we all know next to nothing will happen, but it offers insight into the issue of how we selectively make claims to legality and which battles we choose to fight.
lol
