One argument is that governments, including, specifically, and particularly the US Federal Government, claim "state secrets" with little or no justification.
More tellingly, the US Supreme Court case that is the basis of the State Secrets Doctrine, United States v. Reynolds (1952), was based on deceptive and false claims on the part of the US. In that case, the government argued that it could not be compelled to introduce evidence into the court, or even disclose it in chambers to the justices of the United States Supreme Court, because it would irreparably disclose vital state secrets.
The crash documents were declassified in 2000 (and are available online). In Herring v. United States it was argued (unsuccessfully) that the documents in fact contained no such secrets. In district court an on appeals to the 3rd Circuit, "there was no fraud because the documents, read in their historical context, could have revealed secret information about the equipment being tested on the plane".
Not all are convinced of this. Nor that the case is sufficient justification for the doctrine of state secrets which has resulted from it.
I think the better question would be is why do 100% of the diplomatic cables need to be classified? The real mystery is why millions of people in the government and military have access to these documents but they are "classified". Makes no sense...
Our government has increasingly classified or made secret more and more documents in recent years and... The more the government tries to hide things the more the people become less trusting of said government.
One thought would be that the federal government shouldn't be able to own copyright to things, so once these are accessed, they don't have any intellectual property reasoning to not distribute them. In my mind, what the government owns is owned by all, and what the government knows should be known by all, because when the government speaks (in these cables) it speaks for us all.
Additionally, I feel that in general you shouldn't say something that you can't bear being repeated by others. Every child learns this. Yet, the government feels they can wheel and deal, and talk about other countries behind the backs of others and feel that the knowledge will never come out.
can you explain why they shouldn't be? i can't think of any reason why a government should expect a right to privacy from their own citizens.
the government should work for the people, and they should have a responsibility to provide full disclosure to their citizens. the only reason the government should want to keep things secret from their own people is if they aren't working in our best interests.
It's more to keep the cables from everyone else. They were intended as context-sensitive commentary from diplomats to the US. They were not intended for general release, and as such, contain information and observations that were intended to give the US an advantage over their counterparts at a later time.
That is why they're "secret". They're not supposed to be viewed by any other country. If they are freely available to citizens, there is nothing stopping them from being freely available to everyone.
This is the shell game that has been played by all diplomats since the beginning of time. There wasn't really anything all that interesting about the cables, and all it really gave was a good look at how our diplomatic services work.
A functioning democracy requires transparency. We shouldn't have to justify why we want to see government documents. That is the default position. Rather, they should justify why they want to keep them secret. Of course, in practice, if they want to keep something secret, they can't tell us why either. This little loophole allows them to abuse secret-keeping to suppress anything that is embarrassing or paints them in a negative light, and that is extremely dangerous.
They shouldn't. Everyone seems to be ignoring that, so you get my upvote.
We should be aware that wikileaks actions are indeed crimes. That said, some cables put it crystal clear, some politicians are really corrupt and are using their privileged position to their own advantage.
1) Exposing corrupt politicians.
2) Stop politicians from screwing millions of people over and over again.
And the downsides are:
1) Some politician loses his/her reputation, and the people of his/her country know who he/she really is.
2) Some frictions between countries, for example when an embassador is just a mean for creating a corporations' lobby.
I'd say yes, the means are well justified in this case. Truth can never be a bad thing.
Were there any cables discussing how big a bribe should one bring?
> 2) Stop politicians from screwing millions of people over and
over again.
Common content of the diplomatic cables, for sure.
I heard disclosing those cables let us know who do politicians nickname each other. I guess I can do without that info.
The thing is — if there is anything worth knowin in those cables it will become visible through the actions of the officials sooner or later. If it will not — I don't care.
"Employees of DynCorp, a US government contractor funded by US tax dollars, in Afghanistan paid for the services of underage "dancing boys", apparently a euphemistic reference to Bacha bazi, which is considered child prostitution.[22] The boys were auctioned off to be sexually abused by Afghan policemen, with some to be kept as sex slaves and participate in events funded by DynCorp"
"The U.S. bargained with other nations on moving prisoners from the Guantanamo Bay detention camp to other countries. In one case, U.S. officials allegedly offered Slovenia a meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama, if the country accepted one of the Guantanamo Bay detainees.[24][25] Offers to other countries include economic incentives or a visit from Obama"
"In 2009, the U.S. manipulated — via spying, threats, and bribes — the Copenhagen global climate change summit to coerce reticent participants into supporting the treaty. The U.S. punished countries such as Ecuador and Bolivia, which were deemed "unhelpful" for not signing the Copenhagen Accord, by cutting off millions of dollars in necessary funds;[27] while, the U.S. relieved Saudi Arabia, the world's second-biggest oil producer and one of the twenty-five-richest countries in the world, of any kind of obligation.[28] The U.S. used funds in millions of dollars to recruit the Maldives to sign the Copenhagen Accord, after it has relentlessly took a stand against it"
The above is a sliver of things I've personally learned, and am glad I know, from the leaks. It may not be pleasant or happy information, but I want to know what the Governments and corporations are doing. You may not care or want to know, but some of us do care what is happening.
Because the only secrets a government should be allowed to keep are the ones where a loss of secrecy would render the whole point moot. So, for example, when planning a wartime offensive against an enemy the military and by extension the government must have the privilege of keeping their plans a secret, since to do otherwise would make the plans useless. Once keeping the plans secret no longer serves that purpose they should be made public.
Diplomatic cables do not meet this standard in the general case. They are a log of a government's interactions with another government, and thus need to be public so that the people can confirm it is working in their interest, and not conspiring to implement a global copyright regime at the behest of Big Media, or aiding a foreign government in oppressing its people, or sending detainees to foreign soil with the understanding that they'll be tortured, or trying to overthrow democratically-elected leaders, or any of the other reprehensible things that the American government is doing literally while I type this, right now.
