Comments on: American secrets and bizarre rules Tue, 31 Mar 2015 01:18:20 +0000 hourly 1 By: click here Wed, 01 Oct 2014 17:18:33 +0000 Pretty nice post. I just stumbled upon your weblog and wished to say that I’ve truly enjoyed surfing around your blog posts. After all I will be subscribing to your feed and I hope you write again soon!

By: Ralphooo Sun, 13 Mar 2011 18:48:08 +0000 “Self-censorship in the country that prides itself on its commitment to free speech and openness…?”

In the U.S. in 2011 we still enjoy free speech in matters related to elections and other topics pertaining to political succession. With respect to our own government’s operations, there is no right of free speech. In any given case, one who speaks up on such topics may escape prosecution, but (as far as I know) there is no statute or structure that aids such them in the long term.

By: SGK12 Sat, 25 Dec 2010 06:41:16 +0000 PFC Manning had no idea about the context in which this information was utilized, interpreted or employed. There is no way to estimate the extent to which he has set back diplomatic efforts and foreign relations. His behavior was truly outrageous!

He broke several laws. He and Assange have no appreciation whatever regarding sensitive information used to develop relationships. Simply put, it’s impossible to measure the damage. In fact, we will never know entirely the political harm, not to mention the likelihood that individual lives were ruined if not destroyed altogether. I’ll never understand how someone could be admired or applauded for such a heinous act.

He has released the names of enemy informants, people who are helping us to defeat an enemy and bring stability to a region. Think those people are going to stay alive? Think that anyone else is going to trust us to keep informants safe? What about information concerning a bribe our country paid to an Afghan warlord? Might look like a nasty scandal from the outside, of course, but these relationships prevent a LOT of bloodshed — until it becomes public knowledge and the whole cycle starts up again.

We give our military and diplomats some freedom to keep secrets. Without some level of secrecy, they simply cannot do their jobs. Assange, in his quest to bring governmental transparency (i.e., make himself famous), will forget that information can be a deadly and unpredictable weapon.

I realize these things are wasted on all you radical leftists. You all are so much smarter than the president, our military leaders and our diplomatic personnel.

By: zotdoc Mon, 20 Dec 2010 16:43:56 +0000 GOVERNMENT – redefining stupid daily!

By: Zia-ul-Haq Mon, 20 Dec 2010 09:53:13 +0000 Well I think most of us do not possess the capability to read between the lines and the said article advocates my opinion. The timing, environment and the nature of information leaked by Wikileaks is worth noticing if one needs to be able to understand why such an information, which is not relevant for general public has been released to the massess.

It seems from the nature, content and ofcourse the context inwhich the informatoni is released that the said has been done under the blessing of the Obama as Government as wikileaks itself seems and remains non-chalent on the same. can any body explain what purpose did this leak serve to Wikileaks itself? The answer is zero. This release only helped US government putting a gulf in relationships among various muslim governments.

We should try to read between the lines.

By: Bmormoni Sun, 19 Dec 2010 05:56:59 +0000 If it was Chinese cables that were exposed, the US and the state dept. would have awarded the highest prize to wikileaks for exercising ” freedom of information” The US is only paying for it’s hypocrisy. Why condemn China for blocking access to certain websites and the foolishly block your officials from accessing what accessible to even the dead? What do hope to achieve by that? By the way I totally agree with the idea of certain communications remaining private or classified.

By: wallmoss81 Sun, 19 Dec 2010 05:23:25 +0000 Common sense agrees with me. Clearly Mr Bernd shows this. His sense, at least in regards to this issue is anti-secrecy. To support a world with governments of absolute transparency, is a dead monkey. Certainly, based on what humans have shown themselves to be so far. So the issue is the how and why of censorship. If what was classified becomes public, support it? Of course not. Even if it should be made public, for whatever reason – due process should be followed.

By: Syllogizer Sun, 19 Dec 2010 03:18:35 +0000 Well, yes, the rule forbidding them to access what the whole world already has sounds quite bizarre. But I have learned something working with various companies involved with security: sometimes the right thing to do really does sound bizarre at first glance, even second glance.

In this case, I believe the Air Force etc. are makding the right rule, but neither Debusmann nor many of us understand its true purpose. Clearly, that purpose cannot be to contain the leak: the cat is already out of the bag. So what, then, could the real purpose be? Well, the Air Force has not been very forthcoming about that, have they?It could be something as vacuous as simply an attempt to keep a certain amount of discipline over their employees. It could be an attempt to keep secure computers secure — always a difficult task with surprising measure that must be taken.

But one thing is certain: the people who promulgated the rule KNOW the cat is already out of the bag. They are not trying to contain the leak with this rule.

By: renceD Sun, 19 Dec 2010 02:36:02 +0000 Get real! People don’t hate the USA. They detest American Foreign policy. That is a huge Difference! The American people can now take back control from their Government! It is clear that the US Government is not only incompetent ( losing secret classified documents) but dishonest too. The cables reveal the double talk, lies and manipulation. The Press is nothing more but the extension of the Dept of Defense- no free press any more.
Just look at CNN, BBC and the subconscious manipulation of headline phrases. It is embarrassing that it had to be an Australian who brought light to the corruption and incompetence.
Just read how Embassy staff encourages foreign politicians to brush things under the carpet about illegal US activities, then they send the message back to Washington: “Right now, it would be to our advantage to stroke him a lot…”
No wonder that they do not want the military read this stuff. They would probably go: “gee!!, did my boss say that? He told me something completely different.!”
Politicians talk about transparency and accountability. There we have it ! They can no longer mislead the public. If 300 million people agree on Twitter to stop the Banks ravaging the economy, divert the funds from America’s war machine and give it back to the people, America can be great again!

By: gAnton Sat, 18 Dec 2010 20:44:23 +0000 Historically, the main reason for all persons with a security classification to continue treating compromised security information as if it were not compromised was to not give further credence to the compromised classified information. I don’t think that this applies here.

There is so much compromised and non-compromised material and so many people have access to this info on a complicated “need to know” basis that the situation is very complex. If these people are allowed to treat compromised classified material as unclassified, they will make mistakes and some still non-compromised classified material will be compromised. Government officials really have no choice but to publicize and enforce these seemingly stupid regulations. Also, the only practical approach was to warn all civilian and military personnel, and not just those with security clearences.