Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

U.S. Intelligence Analyst Arrested in Wikileaks Video Probe

<< < (3/6) > >>

40hz:
There should be some process (which I think there is) for shedding light on classified documents.  Someone with the classification to see them that these things can be reported to.  And I think that does exist (especially in this age of senate oversight).
-wraith808 (June 09, 2010, 10:33 AM)
--- End quote ---

It does exist. And I've been told by people I know (who work for members of Congress) that "oversight" is pretty a much a joke, along with FOI in general. Some oversight committees aren't even allowed to see some of the things they're supposed to be keeping an eye on due to concerns about "security."

For the most part openness only exists to the extent the current Executive Branch is willing to let it exist. And the courts have been very lenient in granting the Executive very broad and subjective authority to decide what should be considered classified. So don't expect much sympathy from them.

The other point that needs to b remembered is that most whistle-blowers (rather than this Army guy) reporteded their discoveries to the "appropriate authorities" first. The actual whistle-blowing only occurred after repeated attempts to bring the problem to their superiors and the authorities attention either resulted in no action - or far more often, blatant retaliation from the parties being accused.

Many a whistle-blower has stated they only "went public" in order to protect themselves when it became obvious that nothing was going to be done other than to get rid of them for speaking up.

As I previously said, there's a big difference between what the law says and what the law allows.

 :(

bgd77:
A person that works with sensitive, classified information is not just some guy from the street. If an institution gives him this responsibility, it means it trusts him and his judgment and that he is prepared to analyze classified data from all points of view. It is not an ordinary job and it bears a lot of responsibility (or it should).

The problem with classified documents is that they can be easily used to hide certain sensitive facts from the general public. When this facts show that something illegal has been committed, do you think it is right to hide them? Even if there are authorities, we do not live in a perfect world and sometimes (or most of times, as you wish) they do not do they job as they should. So the last resort for a person that wants to do something right and to put the people responsible for that crimes to pay for them would be to make those documents and facts public.

The Watergate scandal in my opinion proves that whistleblowing is good when the law is breached. As a definition, whistleblowers raise concerns about a wrongdoing. In this case, I cannot see any wrongdoing on the tape, so the analyst is not a whistleblower.

Josh:
Striken Comment. PM me for original content.

40hz:
^Probably not.

It's generally understood you don't publically talk about having (or having had) security clearance. And most access to classfied information is also subject to non-disclosure agreements that remain in effect permanently. The stricter NDAs often forbid you to even admit you have any knowledge of what the NDA covers.

Edit: corrected and shortened a really convoluted sentence. Sorry..

wraith808:
^ Well put.  It's sort of like the ninja joke.  If someone says he's a ninja, he's not. :)  One reason those rules are in place also, is that if someone has CSC and people know that they have CSC, then the information that they have is now in jeopardy.  Given the right influence and enough time, anyone will crack.  Security through obscurity...

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page