4 ms·

The word "classified" means it's not intended for public consumption. Do you imagine that governments should not have the ability to keep information secret? Ho

by mevile 7y ago

The word "classified" means it's not intended for public consumption. Do you imagine that governments should not have the ability to keep information secret? How do you think that would work out. We elect representatives who are able to review the classified materials and act on our behalf. That's how the system works. If you think governments shouldn't have secrets you are in the minority.

kelnos 7y ago
I don't think the parent is saying the government should not be allowed to keep secrets. The problem is that it's hard to balance that need with the public's need to keep checks on the government. I would personally like to see more transparency in government, even though I know some things really should remain secret. The pendulum has been swinging too far in the wrong direction for some time now.
rplst8 7y ago
The problem is not the secrets. It's the misuse of that word to protect information that does not deserve that protection.
dontbenebby 7y ago
>The word "classified" means it's not intended for public consumption. Do you imagine that governments should not have the ability to keep information secret? How do you think that would work out. Some information, like the location of and launch codes for nuclear weapons, names of sources in hostile nations, etc absolutely should be secret. I don't think that because "governments need secrets" we should set up a system where the government can classify something, rendering it unable to be reviewed by the courts, as described in the article I linked to.
- 0815test 7y ago
  > ...names of sources in hostile nations... Ooohhh, that's quite on point actually. Guess what Assange disclosed plenty of, at great risk to these sources' safety? He is quite far from any sort of genuine journalistic ethics, and I'm not going to complain if he were to be held responsibile for these actions. (And yes, he used to claim, with no basis in reality whatsoever, that these sources were self-serving for the most part and thus had it coming for them...or something, honestly it's hard to even guess at a coherent argument from his unhinged claims. By now though, I think we all can agree that this was BS. He has garnered an extensive track record of optimizing his "leaks" for shock value while minimizing effort, and disclosing sources' identity does fit the pattern.)
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    If there had been a way for "ethical journalists" to get access to documented misbehavior of the government, you would have a point.
  - efdee 7y ago
    It's worth noting that Wikileaks had requested help from the Pentagon in censoring these names, but the Pentagon refused. Are you going to hold them accountable, or is this just a convenient stick to smack Assange with? It's also interesting that, at least so far, no stories have surfaced about the grave consequences for these listed sources. Considering this would have been huge news, one might want to conclude that no smoke means no fire here.
salawat 7y ago
Government's should indeed be able to have secrets, but few, far between, and with a heavy burden should that secrecy come that it not be tempted to abuse that power.
deathanatos 7y ago
Keeping secrets is fine. Covering up constitutional rights violations is not. And lying about it to Congress under oath is not.

by mevile 7y ago

kelnos 7y ago

I don't think the parent is saying the government should not be allowed to keep secrets. The problem is that it's hard to balance that need with the public's need to keep checks on the government. I would personally like to see more transparency in government, even though I know some things really should remain secret. The pendulum has been swinging too far in the wrong direction for some time now.

rplst8 7y ago

The problem is not the secrets. It's the misuse of that word to protect information that does not deserve that protection.

dontbenebby 7y ago

>The word "classified" means it's not intended for public consumption. Do you imagine that governments should not have the ability to keep information secret? How do you think that would work out. Some information, like the location of and launch codes for nuclear weapons, names of sources in hostile nations, etc absolutely should be secret. I don't think that because "governments need secrets" we should set up a system where the government can classify something, rendering it unable to be reviewed by the courts, as described in the article I linked to.

0815test 7y ago
> ...names of sources in hostile nations... Ooohhh, that's quite on point actually. Guess what Assange disclosed plenty of, at great risk to these sources' safety? He is quite far from any sort of genuine journalistic ethics, and I'm not going to complain if he were to be held responsibile for these actions. (And yes, he used to claim, with no basis in reality whatsoever, that these sources were self-serving for the most part and thus had it coming for them...or something, honestly it's hard to even guess at a coherent argument from his unhinged claims. By now though, I think we all can agree that this was BS. He has garnered an extensive track record of optimizing his "leaks" for shock value while minimizing effort, and disclosing sources' identity does fit the pattern.)
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  If there had been a way for "ethical journalists" to get access to documented misbehavior of the government, you would have a point.
- efdee 7y ago
  It's worth noting that Wikileaks had requested help from the Pentagon in censoring these names, but the Pentagon refused. Are you going to hold them accountable, or is this just a convenient stick to smack Assange with? It's also interesting that, at least so far, no stories have surfaced about the grave consequences for these listed sources. Considering this would have been huge news, one might want to conclude that no smoke means no fire here.

salawat 7y ago

Government's should indeed be able to have secrets, but few, far between, and with a heavy burden should that secrecy come that it not be tempted to abuse that power.

deathanatos 7y ago

Keeping secrets is fine. Covering up constitutional rights violations is not. And lying about it to Congress under oath is not.