cazatou
You may feel that you would like to know certain information - you may even feel that you have a Right to know that information - but any such viewpoint on your part is irrelevant.
Well, I don't go around trying to procure or disseminate classified information.
Regardless, the fact remains that governments sometimes classify things that shouldn't be classified, there are a multitude of reasons why they would do this. This could be the fact that the information could reveal things that are not a danger to national security, but a danger of exposing criminality, waste, corruption, and a danger of embarrassing politicians.
For a democracy to work, it is dependent on the public knowing what the government is doing. While there are things that should be kept secret, it should only be in cases where it is vital to the preservation of the country.
airpolice
There is no doubt that the release of this information will harm some good people.
However, good people are being harmed anyway.
True, and I can't really see how much harm this release will cause in truth. The situation is being hyped far beyond its actual severity as the basis for producing a perceived crisis as to justify shutting down on WikiLeaks.
Look at this article for example which is titled
"The Last Whistleblower"
Here is an excerpt from this article
“Why is Washington so obsessed with Assange?”
“It is power taking its revenge. Assange has made government transparency a moral issue and made people aware that classification and secrecy serve to hide government crimes and deception. This has empowered whistleblowers.”
“Won’t there be other whistleblowers?”
“Not without Wikileaks. Formerly, whistleblowers would release documents to the media. However, whistleblowers have learned that the law that was enacted to protect them is not obeyed in the post-9/11 environment, and the media has learned that the First Amendment has lost much of its authority. It has become too dangerous for whistleblowers to step forward. Moreover, whistleblowers have learned that even the New York Times first checks with the government before the paper prints a leak. Remember, the Times sat for one year on the leak from NSA that the Bush administration was violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and spying on Americans without obtaining warrants from the FISA court. The Times published only after Bush was reelected. Wikileaks is the only way whistleblowers can get the word out.”
“You mean if the government convicts Assange it is the end of Wikileaks?”
“Yes. If Assange is convicted of spying, then ipso facto a successor would be a spy. The ability of whistleblowers to bring accountability to government is about to disappear.”
The government will do everything to shut WikiLeaks, and sites of that nature by any means necessary, including legal and extra-legal means.
To take just one incident, the shooting of the photographers from the helicopter. Long after the video would have been available to the US military
PR machine, they were still saying that it was a lawful shoot.
And they will continue to do so
All of this after the fact information is saying more about arse covering than combat actions. I think the people screamng the loudest are those with more to hide than the troops on the ground.
Of course, politicians don't like the public knowing what they're doing. They depend on the public to be elected, and as a result this could compromise their electability. Politics isn't about serving the public will, it's about power, and that's all politicians want.
Rules which limit the power of government aren't in the interests of politicians, it's in the interests of the public who have to live under their rule.
R.C.
"Apologises never having been in the military I get easily confused between my tacticals and strategicals and as I age even my tes**cals!" - RansS9