What Snowden And Manning Don't Understand About Secrecy

[FarCenter]

As an old reporter who has from time to time outed classified information, I have watched the cases of Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden with professional interest.

What troubles me about them is not that they broke the oaths they swore when they took their classified government jobs, the thing that makes them liable to prosecution.

Government finds all kinds of dubious reasons to keep secrets, sometimes nefarious reasons, and conscience can force one to break a promise. My problem is with the indiscriminate nature of their leaks.

These are young people at war with the concept of secrecy itself, which is just foolish. There are many legitimate reasons for governments to keep secrets, among them the need to preserve the element of surprise in military operations or criminal investigations, to permit leaders and diplomats to bargain candidly, and to protect the identities of those we ask to perform dangerous and difficult missions.

The most famous leakers in American history were motivated not by a general opposition to secrecy but by a desire to expose specific wrongdoing. Mark Felt, the “Deep Throat” who helped steer Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein’s Watergate reporting, understood that the Nixon Administration was energetically abusing the powers of the presidency. Daniel Ellsberg copied and leaked the Pentagon Papers because they showed that the White House and Pentagon had never really believed the lies they were telling about the Vietnam War.

In other words, they had good reasons. The reporters and editors who published their leaks weighed taking that step seriously, ultimately deciding that the public’s need to know trumped the principle of secrecy. They concluded that the government in these instances was abusing its power.

Manning and Snowden are wholesale leakers. I can’t know this for a fact, but I suspect they were not completely aware of all they carried off. It isn’t just that they didn’t completely understand what they were leaking; they literally did not know what all of it was. Computers enable individual operators to open floodgates. Out spills everything, the legitimate along with the illegitimate. It’s easy, and it’s irresponsible. It proceeds from a Julian Assange-influenced, comic-book vision of the world where all governments are a part of an evil plot against humanity.

Read more: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/what-snowden-and-manning-dont-understand-about-secrecy/278973/

[cthulu2016]

1. Excerpt is too long, by DU rule

[GoneFishin]

80. Assange solicited help from the White House with redacting.

They essentially told him to piss off.

[Harmony Blue]

2. Democracy requires transparency

it is as simple as that.

[pnwmom]

11. Diplomacy often requires confidentiality. It is as simple as that. n/t

[MNBrewer]

69. Simplistic...

[pnwmom]

70. Often essential.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/what-snowden-and-manning-dont-understand-about-secrecy/278973/

As an old reporter who has from time to time outed classified information, I have watched the cases of Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden with professional interest.

What troubles me about them is not that they broke the oaths they swore when they took their classified government jobs, the thing that makes them liable to prosecution. Government finds all kinds of dubious reasons to keep secrets, sometimes nefarious reasons, and conscience can force one to break a promise. My problem is with the indiscriminate nature of their leaks.

These are young people at war with the concept of secrecy itself, which is just foolish. There are many legitimate reasons for governments to keep secrets, among them the need to preserve the element of surprise in military operations or criminal investigations, to permit leaders and diplomats to bargain candidly, and to protect the identities of those we ask to perform dangerous and difficult missions.

SNIP

Manning and Snowden are wholesale leakers. I can’t know this for a fact, but I suspect they were not completely aware of all they carried off. It isn’t just that they didn’t completely understand what they were leaking; they literally did not know what all of it was. Computers enable individual operators to open floodgates. Out spills everything, the legitimate along with the illegitimate. It’s easy, and it’s irresponsible. It proceeds from a Julian Assange-influenced, comic-book vision of the world where all governments are a part of an evil plot against humanity.

SNIP

[MNBrewer]

76. Caused absolutely no damage and only did good.

[Harmony Blue]

72. Diplomacy is stronger with transparency

which is why diplomacy using cloak and dagger always fails in the long run.

[pnwmom]

73. Diplomacy using secrecy always fails?

On what planet?

Basic common sense should make this obvious, but if it isn't, then study some history.

For example:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9477540/Secret-diplomacy-holds-the-key-to-any-solution-of-the-Iran-crisis.html

The lesson of history is that covert contacts and back channels can pave the way to peace

The British spy was known to his interlocutors as “mountain climber”; his contact was a passionate Irish republican imbued with Christian pacifism. This unlikely pair established a secret channel between the IRA and the British government that started as long ago as 1973 and was crucial to settling Northern Ireland’s conflict. Michael Oatley, an MI6 officer (the “mountain climber”), and Brendan Duddy, a Derry businessman, were the joint custodians of this open line between two supposedly implacable foes.

There may be no obvious link between covert peacemaking in the back streets of Belfast four decades ago and the latest talk of war between Israel and Iran, but all intractable conflicts share one common feature: they will never be resolved by open, set-piece diplomacy alone.

Julian Assange and his dwindling band of followers might wish for a world without political secrets. If, heaven forbid, that were to happen, they would create a world of eternal bloodshed, for no longstanding conflict has ever been resolved without covert contacts, often conducted through deniable back channels.

The nuclear-tipped confrontation between Iran and the rest of the world is no exception – and the urgency of defusing this ticking time bomb beneath global affairs has become greater this week. Once again, Israel is making clear that its patience is wearing thin: unnamed “decision-makers” have briefed the local press that if no one else prevents Iran from seizing the ability to make nuclear weapons, then the Israeli air force might have to do the job.

SNIP

[99Forever]

74. Tyrants require secrecy.

It's as simple as that.

[pnwmom]

75. And our diplomats often have to negotiate with tyrants.

And in the background, we establish covert channels with others who help us -- often at risk to their lives -- to deal with the tyrants.

One of the people Manning unconscionably exposed was a member of the opposition party who was secretly helping us work against the dictator Mugabe.

[99Forever]

86. Piffle.

There's torturers and murderers that got lesser sentences than Manning. There's tons of fucking WAR CRIMINALS that haven't even been tried for their CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY and you post this fucking drivel.

Who the fuck do you think you are kidding?

[pnwmom]

87. Who do you think you're kidding? I don't live in the comic book world

where all diplomacy can be conducted in the open and Assange is Superman.

[99Forever]

89. No, you...

... in a fantasy world where Obama is Jesus Christ reincarnated and can do no wrong.

[baldguy]

78. Secrecy isn't only useful for tyrants.

It's childish to believe so.

[99Forever]

85. Secrecy is required for authoritarian jackbooted thugs.

To not understand that is idiotic.

[pnwmom]

88. Food is required for authoritarian jackbooted thugs.

Food is also required for progressive, open-minded college students.

There is nothing essentially wrong with food, just as there is nothing essentially wrong with secrecy and confidentiality. It all depends on context.

Something which often seems to be sorely lacking here.

[99Forever]

90. That the ...

... stupidest attempt at analogy I have ever read.

I've seen Teabaggers do better.

[pnwmom]

91. You need to take a logic class and get more practice. n/t

[99Forever]

92. Bye bye.

Welcome to the trash bin. Enjoy.

[baldguy]

93. You can't refute an obvious true statement, so you ignore it.

[99Forever]

95. You're gone too.

In the trash heap with the rest of your ilk.

[baldguy]

97. Unlike a child, you can't ignore the facts of life.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

13. Simple, but false.

Democracy benefits from things being transparent, but it's not necessary for the government to have no secrets.

[uponit7771]

46. yes, we should tell AQ everything they want to know always for the sake of transparency

[msanthrope]

3. What a great article.....but here's the money line--

He has turned himself into an enduring symbol of idiocy by fleeing the oppressive grip of Barack Obama for the open arms of that great civil libertarian, Vladimir Putin.

Both Manning and Snowden strike me not as heroes, but as naifs. Neither appears to have understood what they were getting themselves into, and, more importantly, what they were doing.

[Cha]

5. Excellent quote!

"He has turned himself into an enduring symbol of idiocy by fleeing the oppressive grip of Barack Obama for the open arms of that great civil libertarian, Vladimir Putin."

[Marr]

23. That's actually pretty stupid.

For one thing, Snowden was stranded there due to our own government's actions. For another, the US government would throw him into prison, while Russia's government will not.

[msanthrope]

25. Really? Our government made him get on a plane to Russia from China? nt

[dkf]

30. That wasn't supposed to be his final destination.

We cut him off.

Just like the UK wasn't supposed to be Miranda's final destination.

[FarCenter]

35. He planned to stay in China in the open arms of that great civil libertarian, Xi Jinping

until they advised him to go elsewhere.

Had he wanted to go to the civil libertarian bastions of Venezuela, Nicaragua, or Ecuador, he could have flown directly from Hawaii via LAX.

[dkf]

36. Greenwald is in Brazil and Poitras had to go to Germany. Miranda got caught while TRANSITING

Through the UK. Crazy.

[FarCenter]

38. Yes, Miranda should have used Frankfurt, Lisbon, Rome, Paris or Amsterdam

Heathrow was an idiotic choice, unless it was deliberate.

[dkf]

40. You think it was a trap? Sounds risky.

[FarCenter]

43. You've undoubtedly read that Poitras has been questioned and searched by US

authorities multiple times when reentering the country.

So she would certainly have expected that Miranda, traveling from her location in Germany to Greenwald's in Brazil, would get the same treatment in Heathrow.

[dkf]

45. I saw his interview and he seemed genuinely scared and incredulous.

[FarCenter]

48. Things may have gone worse than Greenwald and Poitras led him to expect

It's my impression that British authorities can exercise more initiative in these situations than can US authorities. Greenwald and Poitras may not understand the differences in law, regulation and practice between the US and the UK.

[dkf]

59. Well the UK bit hard if so...

[msanthrope]

56. If neither person anticipated that, then they really are as naive as the author suggests. nt

[baldguy]

79. "Neither appears to have understood what they were getting themselves into..."

"...and, more importantly, what they were doing."

[uponit7771]

47. +1

[BeyondGeography]

57. Yup...Snowden has taken the most incoherent public flight from "tyranny' ever

[Ocelot]

64. No, HERE'S the money line

Manning and Snowden are wholesale leakers. I can’t know this for a fact, but I suspect they were not completely aware of all they carried off.

Translation: I'm catapulting the propaganda (though I have no idea what I'm talking about) and hoping some of my bullshit sticks to the wall.

Not an article, an opinion piece that Ellsberg (whom the author name-drops) would not support in any way.

[freedom fighter jh]

99. Maybe they were both a little of each -- heroic and naive.

Both exposed things that needed to be exposed. We the American people have a right to know if our government is committing war crimes in our and with our tax dollars. And we have a right to know if our own government is setting up an immense system to spy on us under cover of secret law. We cannot protest and stop these things until we know about them. By disclosing these things, Manning and Snowden did a great service to democracy.

That's not to say they did their work perfectly. I question Snowden's choices of China (Hong Kong) and Russia as landing places and the risk he took of getting that information into exactly the wrong hands. In both cases, just the quantity of information would seem to indicate that they could not have reviewed everything. It looks like they were trusting the journalists to do that.

[markpkessinger]

4. "These are young people at war with the concept of secrecy itself . . . "

Perhaps if our government had a better track record of using classification appropriately and judiciously, and not to cover up misconduct and ineptitude, "these young people" (ugh, very condescending way to refer to them in this context, I might add) wouldn't feel such a need to be at war with "the concept of secrecy itself."

[randome]

6. And how many secret investigations of organized crime, international pedophile rings...

...money laundering, drug cartels, etc. do you think are going on under the 'poor track record' of the government?

If you want to argue that the government keeps too many secrets, I will wholeheartedly agree with you. But to say that 'they' -meaning 'us'- deserve to have all our secrets dumped out onto the ground 'just because' sounds short-sighted to me.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[markpkessinger]

16. Right . . .

But to say that 'they' -meaning 'us'- deserve to have all our secrets dumped out onto the ground 'just because' sounds short-sighted to me.

And I didn't say that.

[jeff47]

10. There's quite a bit of confirmation bias there.

Things that were secret but did not cover up misconduct or ineptitude do not make the newspaper.

[markpkessinger]

15. Huh?

I didn't assert an argument from numbers, to wit, "the government misapplies secrecy more often than it applies it." That isn't what I said at all. The point is that NO number of correct applications of secrecy by the government makes it okay when the government misuses it. So "confirmation bias" isn't really applicable here.

[jeff47]

31. Actually, you did from numbers, just not explictily

You referred to the government's "track record". Your assessment of that record is going to be based on the number of times you hear about secrecy to cover up errors, versus the number of times you hear about secrecy for "real" reasons.

That's a numbers game, even if it's not explicit numbers.

In addition, there's lots of times where people claim secrecy was just to cover up what they view as errors. But that's not how the government sees it.

For example, the "collateral murder" video isn't covering up an error or crime, according to the government. Even Wikileaks helpfully pointed out the guy with an AK-47 that made the attack legal in war. But keeping the video secret does protect lots of other things. For example, everyone in the world now knows a lot about the optics in Apache helicopters thanks to that video.

[markpkessinger]

39. I wasn't presenting it as one versus the other`

Misusing secrecy is always wrong, and doesn't become any less so by virtue of the number of correct uses of it.

As for the "collateral murder" video, I believe it also showed attacks on rescue workers -- which is not legal even in time of war.

[jeff47]

42. Only intentional attacks on rescue workers.

The people responding were driving normal vehicles, instead of an ambulance or other "Hey I'm a rescue worker" vehicle. Without such labels, the attack is legal - the pilots didn't know they were attempting a rescue.

Misusing secrecy is always wrong, and doesn't become any less so by virtue of the number of correct uses of it.

But again, track record would mean there's a trend of using it one way or the other.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's ever OK to do so. But it's going to happen - there's so many people working for the government that there will be some who abuse their position. Even if the rate is 0.001%, that's still a non-zero number of people.

Whether that abuse is a problem or not comes down to it being a rare event or not. Which makes it a numbers game again.

[Ocelot]

68. That's one of the most crucial points

The fundamentally flawed nature of the Government-Contractor relationship, which allowed a low-level civilian employee access to these (as they have stated) fundamentally important secrets and data. Snowden was not safeguarded from walking off with them.

It's only common sense to realize that our private information isn't safe with these Booz Allen contractor clowns.

[Cha]

7. "It proceeds from a Julian Assange-influenced, comic-book vision of the world..

where all governments are a part of an evil plot against humanity."

Manning and Snowden are wholesale leakers. I can’t know this for a fact, but I suspect they were not completely aware of all they carried off. It isn’t just that they didn’t completely understand what they were leaking; they literally did not know what all of it was. Computers enable individual operators to open floodgates. Out spills everything, the legitimate along with the illegitimate. It’s easy, and it’s irresponsible. It proceeds from a Julian Assange-influenced, comic-book vision of the world where all governments are a part of an evil plot against humanity.

All government except according to Ass-ange.. a Rand Paul government that is America's only hope.

Newsflash for Asshat. Nobody named after Ayn Rand should be President. End of story.

thanks for the link, FC.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government...

Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.

Thomas Jefferson

[uponit7771]

53. Well informed != tell them everything either...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

71. I guess Tom trusted the people more than his successors.

[FarCenter]

96. Wheel Cipher

While serving as George Washington's secretary of state (1790-1793), Thomas Jefferson devised an ingenious and secure method to encode and decode messages: the wheel cipher.[1] During the American Revolution, Jefferson had relied primarily on messengers to hand-carry sensitive letters, but codes became an essential part of his correspondence when he was America's minister to France (1784-1789) since European postmasters opened and read all letters passing through their command.

http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/wheel-cipher

Jefferson's Cipher for Meriwether Lewis

"I send you a cipher to be used between us, which will give you some trouble to understand, but, once understood, is the easiest to use." Jefferson wrote United State Minister to France Robert R. Livingston in 1802. Jefferson had used ciphers before with official as well as unofficial correspondence; letters to James Madison, John Adams, James Monroe, Robert Livingston, among others include communication in cipher. It was a way to keep "matters merely personal to ourselves" as well as a way to "have at hand a mask for whatever may need it."

Cognizant of the diplomatically sensitive situation Meriwether Lewis would be in while exploring the northwest, Jefferson prepared a cipher for use during the expedition and sent it to Lewis while he was preparing for the journey in Pennsylvania with astronomer, mathematician, and surveyor Andrew Ellicott.

http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/jeffersons-cipher-meriwether-lewis

[ljm2002]

9. What the military and the NSA don't understand about secrecy...

...could fill a book, but here are a few items to ponder:

1 - Keeping secrets depends more on trust than on technology

2 - Classifying virtually everything is itself a breach of trust

3 - Giving Top Secret clearances to >1M people is begging to have secrets leaked

4 - Leaking secrets to the press to make the government look good, is an
admission that you don't really care about the issue of secrecy

5 - Allowing private contractors to manage the NSA's computer systems is not
the best way to safeguard the country's legitimate secrets

6 - Giving fairly low-level people free access to so much secret material is begging
to have secrets leaked

7 - Having USB ports on your computers in secure facilities is begging to have
secrets leaked

8 - Not having stringent auditing on your systems at all times allows secrets to
be taken, and prevents identification of what materials were taken

Well those are a few off the top of my head.

[Just Saying]

14. Well said.

I agree with all except #1 and only because I'm not sure what you mean exactly.

[ljm2002]

17. What I meant by #1 is...

...no matter what technology you have in place, secrets are shared with others. If information is not shared with someone else, then it is not information at all in any real sense since it only would exist for one person.

That being the case, the keeper of secrets will be sharing those secrets with trusted parties. But individuals can be corrupted or coerced or just decide one day they don't buy into your worldview.

The most important secrets require more than one person to unlock them, for that very reason: it is harder to get two or more people to agree to go against their oaths than just one.

But even so, conspiracies happen, and more than one person can decide they will break their oath. No amount of technology can prevent it, although it can make it harder.

Trust is the bedrock principle of secrecy.

[Just Saying]

20. Yes, completely right.

And your points about the number of people with security clearance, the sheer volume of classified material and use of contractors goes hand in hand with this. The gov't needs to be more discerning about what should be classified and who should have access.

[FarCenter]

22. A result of 9/11 appears to have been a breakdown in compartmentalization

Besides levels of classification, information is compartmentalized so that those with a level of clearance have access to only the compartments of information needed to do their jobs.

After 9/11 there was a lot of talk about "breaking down information silos", and this apparently led to the adoption of too many commercial network and web server technologies that overshared information. It seems that this quick and easy fix to the barriers of compartmentalization was adopted instead of reengineering the compartments, gateways, and access rules between compartments to reflect the lessons learned from 9/11.

So chalk up another victory for Al Qaeda.

[markpkessinger]

41. Excellent points all! n/t

[Just Saying]

12. Excellent points.

It seems like a lot of those passionate about the NSA spying were already anti-government or at least anti-intelligence. They are eager to believe anything bad about the gov't and anyone who says it but skeptical of anything the gov't says or does like a reflex.

[uponit7771]

52. +1, and Greenwald knows this...Greenwald should've KNOWN that Snowden didn't have crap when

...der spiegel said that his info released would put people in danger... that should be a big tell tale that there was nothing done against the law regardless of whether or not they thought it was right.

[Hydra]

18. This is supposed to be a democracy

We need to know the things they are hiding from us. Those documents BELONG to us.

If we want to declare this to be some sort of monarchy or dictatorship, then they can break the law all they want and keep it secret.

If we aren't the Gov't...who is?

[Skraxx]

19. Cool! Let's Distribute Nuclear Launch Codes to Everyone! Their "Ours" After All!

I'd also like to know the names and locations of all our intelligent assets! My taxes pay their salaries dammit!

[Hydra]

24. Oh, Chelsea Manning released Launch Codes and Covert opts names?

Pass those to me so I can shut down our gov't!!

You do know that classifying something to cover a crime is illegal, right?

[Skraxx]

34. "We need to know the things they are hiding from us. Those documents BELONG to us"

That's what you wrote. You didn't discriminate or qualify. That's your problem.

So I guess we should just leave it up to each and everyone one of us what's ok to keep secret and what's not?

[Hydra]

37. S'ok, you did a good job of defending the system

Go ahead and give yourself a pat on the back. None of us are qualified to see what we're paying for and voting for, because we're in TERRIBLE danger from all of the women and children we're killing. The young ones might grow up to be terrorists, ya know.

[zipplewrath]

21. False equivelancy

Okay, first of all, there is little comparison between Snowden and Manning. They released different kinds of information in different ways, with different goals. Snowden's was more "defensible" in the sense that he knew what he wanted to expose. Manning was attempting to expose the shear volume of stupidity, and that required a large release. In Manning's case, it is inaccurate to suggest that most of the information was even legitimately classified. Much of it was classified not because there was any legitimate risk of harm to the US (which is the definition of classified) but merely because they didn't want the American public to know what they were doing.

This last point has long been my complaint about the defense of "secret" information. Information about communications (COMSEC) is very legitimately classified. It basically prevents "code breaking". Also, troop movements are legitimately classified. However, the vast majority of the rest is classified because the government doesn't want the governed to know what they are doing. Our "enemies" have been shown over the decades to ultimately "know" most of the classified information of interest to them. We have had such a long string of traitors giving up information that no secret stays secret "long" from our enemies. Only to the American public.

The authors primary complaint seems to be basically that these two guys were basically amateurs, and didn't work through some journalist who would have filtered much of it looking for one or two "juicy" pieces of info. Especially in Manning's case, that probably wouldn't have worked. It was the totality of the information that painted the picture. In Snowden's case, he DID work through an journalist, and one really can't complain about the results. We have an entire conversation going on the US and it looks like it will have a VERY serious impact on the future of the Patriot Act, even if not in all the ways many of us might want.

[Hydra]

29. You sized it up well

Arguing style vs impact and intent. Snowden/Greenwald's approach has been very well controlled and cautious, but the reaction from the people upset about it was basically the same as to Mannings- "Shut up, we don't want to hear it!! You're irresponsible!!"

We're living in strange times. The idea of being a responsible and well-informed citizen is becoming almost treasonous, while people like Larry Summers are destroying the world and we're being told they are the best we have.

[uponit7771]

49. First sentence is false on it's face. Der Spiegel said Snowden had info that would endagner

... agents and the DOD prosecutor said Manning put folks lives in danger.

REALLY no difference, they weren't being discriminate with their info

[SunSeeker]

67. Correct. And Manning admitted doing harm, apologizing for it. nt

[dkf]

26. What the President, Congress and the Judiciary don't know about secrecy....

Secret unconstitutional laws and actions will never stay secret. Eventually they will be found out and exposed by people of good conscience who take their oaths to protect the constitution more seriously than our elected officials.

[uponit7771]

50. That's a known known and so was going through the process of redress for the secrecy but..

...not going through said illegal or legal process just for the sake of NOT having ANY secrets.

You support and elect people who shade towards oversight not steal information and give it to the Chinese after Der Spiegel has already said that some of it would endanger agents.

The article is right, leaking for the sake of not having secrets is kinda a dumb motive

[dkf]

58. I can't speak for what Manning did because I haven't followed it all that closely.

But I do believe Snowden was extremely purposeful in what he is doing and I applaud him.

I have learned so much thanks to his actions and I am grateful. And it's more than surveillance, I've learned about our Government and how it works. That is the bombshell in my eyes.

[dawg]

27. What a dimwitted opinion piece.

Last edited Fri Aug 23, 2013, 05:01 PM - Edit history (1)

I think we are all stupider for having read even an excerpt from it.

If you disagree with Snowden and Manning's reasons for leaking information, just say so and explain your reasons why. But the notion that they had no reason and were just categorically opposed to secrecy under all circumstances bears no relationship whatsoever to anything either person has ever said.

This is just another example of "It's different this time", without even the beginnings of a rationale to back it up.

[SidDithers]

28. DU rec...

good read.

Sid

[bahrbearian]

32. the Oath to protect the Constitution, presides over all other oaths. Enemies foreign and domestic

[spin]

33. I had a security clearance and handled classified data for over 40 years. ...

during my time in the military and while working for a civilian contractor.

The data I handled was classified for a legitimate reason. Nothing I did or knew ever violated the Constitution of the United States which I also took an oath to defend.

[uponit7771]

44. "My problem is with the indiscriminate nature of their leaks. "...and their wholesale lack of give a

...damn about the people that COULD be harmed.

There was a legal process to go through, the "it wasn't perfect so I didn't try" exuse is bunk and not afforded to whole factions of under culture in the US by manning\snowden supporters

[winter is coming]

51. Please shorten your excerpt. n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

54. This takes me back to what I was saying a few months ago

Snowden and the people who think like him don't believe is secrecy. Period.

They don't believe in espionage. Period.

When Snowden leaked information about the US spying on China, it wasn't about the kind of spying involved. Snowden and his supporters seemed to think the US shouldn't be spying. Under any circumstances. There should be no CIA or NSA.

Unfortunately, I don't think foreign countries will give up their spying operations any time soon.

This is a radical new approach to national security and there's nothing wrong with having that debate, but don't be fooled into thinking Snowden and his supporters are opposed to specific programs. They aren't. They're opposed to any kind of espionage.

[great white snark]

55. Sadly I believe there will be many more victims while Assange and Greenwald pursue their vendettas.

I know change can be ugly but so many things could have been handled differently.

[JDPriestly]

60. Times have changed.

Used to be secrets were kept in folders in desks.

Nowadays they are kept in huge folders full of thousands, maybe millions of words, on computer drives of various kinds.

Further, it used to be that a document that was secret had to be typed and stamped by hand.

Nowadays, some desk dweller in a very large building somewhere in the world uses a word processing template that has the word secret on it somewhere. Rarely but occasionally, I suppose that the president himself reads a document and decides it should be "secret" and withheld from the press.

But most of the time, the power of secrecy is grabbed by some bureaucrat or soldier who labels documents "secret" not because it would really be dangerous if the "enemy" found them out so much as that it might be embarrassing to the higher-ups or someone in the bureaucracy or the country. The secrecy label appears to be used as often to insure the future employment of the person doing the labeling as it is to prevent the "enemy" from learning the secrets.

Times have changed. Some things should be kept secret --- plans for future military actions, locations of troops, but very few things.

Before we sentence a person to 35 years in prison for having revealed "secrets," few of which were really worth stamping "secret" at all, we should change our laws about secrecy so that only real secrets are kept from the public.

Oddly enough, I suspect that if we were more discerning in labeling documents and communications as "secret," we would have far fewer leakers.

[dem in texas]

61. Yes you are so right

I totally agree with what you have written, in fact I posted about this same thing on another tread a few days back. Daniel Ellsburg truly believed he was righting a wrong when he released those papers. The new bunch, Assange, Snowden and Manning, are nothing more than spoilers who want to cause the government trouble. They did not care if they put people's life in danger and you can be 100% sure that they are trying money off their actions.

[Cryptoad]

62. YOu nailed it! nt

[joeybee12]

63. Unrec...lots of guessing by this guy...

Who apparently just wants to bootlick the powers that be.

[DeSwiss]

65. ....

[SunSeeker]

66. K & R

[baldguy]

77. Libertarianism is a childish impulse; it creates an immature worldview.

[jazzimov]

81. This sums it up for me:

The most famous leakers in American history were motivated not by a general opposition to secrecy but by a desire to expose specific wrongdoing. Mark Felt, the “Deep Throat” who helped steer Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein’s Watergate reporting, understood that the Nixon Administration was energetically abusing the powers of the presidency. Daniel Ellsberg copied and leaked the Pentagon Papers because they showed that the White House and Pentagon had never really believed the lies they were telling about the Vietnam War.

In other words, they had good reasons. The reporters and editors who published their leaks weighed taking that step seriously, ultimately deciding that the public’s need to know trumped the principle of secrecy. They concluded that the government in these instances was abusing its power.

Manning and Snowden are wholesale leakers. I can’t know this for a fact, but I suspect they were not completely aware of all they carried off. It isn’t just that they didn’t completely understand what they were leaking; they literally did not know what all of it was. Computers enable individual operators to open floodgates. Out spills everything, the legitimate along with the illegitimate. It’s easy, and it’s irresponsible. It proceeds from a Julian Assange-influenced, comic-book vision of the world where all governments are a part of an evil plot against humanity.

this also sums it up for most of the posters here - jumping to conclusions without understanding what any of it means.

As a Side-note - the DU that I originally started following did exactly the opposite.

I'm not saying that the "new DU" is full of anti-Democratic Green Party and Libertarian trolls, just saying that's "possible".

[sufrommich]

82. + 1. nt

[baldguy]

98. I'll say it: the "new DU" is full of anti-Democratic Green Party and Libertarian trolls.

And they are all pawns of the GOP.

[Kolesar]

101. They are Republican punks and they are definitely not "Greens"

Although some of them may be renamed Al-Gore-haters who got back onto DU with a new internet address just to hector the rest of us.

[unblock]

83. interestingly enough, the government also doesn't understand this about secrecy

you want to hold leakers to the standard that they shouldn't blanket leak, that they should only leak what specifically should be leaked?

makes sense, absolutely.

how about the government shouldn't create blanket secrecy in the first place, and they should only classify what specifically should be kept secret?


and therein lies the problem. the government created the problem the leakers face -- soooo much information to sift through.

[Democracyinkind]

84. As of yet, I see no evidence for the main claim.

Manning and Snowden both would have leaked differently and different stuff if their motivation would have been to "wage war against the concept of secrecy itself".

Both ostensibly could have taken more damaging files if their sole motivation would have been to generally reveal everything that is secret.

[Number23]

94. K&Freaking REC

Manning and Snowden are wholesale leakers. I can’t know this for a fact, but I suspect they were not completely aware of all they carried off. It isn’t just that they didn’t completely understand what they were leaking; they literally did not know what all of it was. Computers enable individual operators to open floodgates. Out spills everything, the legitimate along with the illegitimate. It’s easy, and it’s irresponsible. It proceeds from a Julian Assange-influenced, comic-book vision of the world where all governments are a part of an evil plot against humanity.

Hell yes.

And even more hell yes...

I think Manning’s 35-year prison sentence is excessive, and expect it will eventually be reduced. Whatever danger Manning (who has now asked to live as a woman named Chelsea) poses to American society can be avoided by denying her access to Pentagon computers. Snowden may have found a way to punish himself worse. He has turned himself into an enduring symbol of idiocy by fleeing the oppressive grip of Barack Obama for the open arms of that great civil libertarian, Vladimir Putin.

I agree with every word.

[sendero]

100. Thanks for the concern....

.... it is so touching. I'll tell you what, if a cop pulls you over and he thinks for whatever reason (supposed to be a legally defined "probable cause" but that is fiction, any reason will do) that you have contraband (drugs, guns whatever) in your car he will tear it apart looking and whether he finds anything or not it will be your problem to put your car back together.

At this point I have so little confidence in our government, having watched them drag us into pointless wars for the sole purpose of draining the treasury into their pool, and seeing them allow a carefully organized fraud wreck the economy with zero consequence to the perpetrators, I think if someone has to tear their car apart to get to the truth well that is just tough shit.

The so-called "fourth estate" certainly isn't going to do anything at all so excuse me if I offer this author no respect at all. Maybe if they did their job the "wholesale leakers" would not have to do what they have done.