WikiLeaks wasn't wrong

[bemildred]

Predictably, this week's release of thousands of classified documents by WikiLeaks — which also provided them to the New York Times, Germany's Der Spiegel and the Guardian in London — has fired up those who believe secrecy fosters national security and who shudder at the idea of journalists rummaging through classified material. Typical was the comment from tiresome Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.). WikiLeaks, he maintained, is armed with "an ideological agenda implacably hostile to our military and the most basic requirements of our national security."

To which one is tempted to say: So what?

What motivates WikiLeaks to post classified material is barely even interesting, much less important. Rather, the germane question is whether the United States and its allies are best served by secrecy or debate. And the answer is obvious: No democracy can or should fight a war without the consent of its people, and that consent is only meaningful if it is predicated on real information.

That is not to say classified material should be published in haste or with indifference. Thankfully, WikiLeaks and its media colleagues appear to have behaved thoughtfully in their handling of these documents. The New York Times sought and received guidance from the Obama administration on especially sensitive materials, and even WikiLeaks redacted thousands of pages that included names of people whose safety might be jeopardized. Those are the actions of responsible journalists.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-wikileaks-20100727,0,4123134.story

[Jefferson23]

1. What a non-shock from my Senator Lieberman. He can't stand the

idea, much less relate to the idea that Wikileaks "agenda" is transparency. But I agree with the OP, so what is right? The conversation
should be honest and how can that take place with secrecy?

As I understand it, there will be more to come Joe, so hold on to your seat.

[bemildred]

2. Well I think the point is that with transparency comes accountability.

And with secrecy comes impunity. And boy do our "leaders" love that impunity and hate that accountability.

[jberryhill]

3. Clearly, you do not accept that as a universal principle

The identity of the person who submitted the documents is a secret, no?

[bemildred]

4. You seem confused.

Whether the identities of people that make documents public are secret or not, they most certainly are not universal principles.

If you are trying ineptly to suggest that I might think that their identities ought to be kept secret to protect them from accountability for their actions, that doesn't quite cover it, I think they should all get presidential Freedom Medals and have the gratitude and applause of their fellows citizens for having the guts to ignore the threats that the government habitually uses to try to prevent the airing of government misconduct in the light of day.

If the government does its business in an open and honest way to begin with, it has nothing to fear from public access to its records, and it is asinine to suggest that this sort of obsessive government secrecy does diddly squat to make the general public "more secure" or that it is really intended to do anything of the sort. Our "leaders" make it clear as day every day that they do not care a fig about our welfare or the lack of it.