Public Disclosure

This past weekend, Wikileaks published roughly 92,200 unedited US documents concerning the Afghanistan conflict to much controversy.

Supporters of the publication argue that the public has every right to access such material, and accuse the US government of trying to keep unsavory reports secret. Critics, on the other hand, argue that the publication compromises national security and the safety of informants, as well as damage current military operations.

What do you think of the whole situation? Should Wikileaks’ recent actions be applauded, or should they be scorned?

Overall, where do you think the line should be drawn when it comes to public disclosure? To what extent should governments make information available to the public?

The government should have known that their dirty laundry would have come to light one way or another it's just this time they got caught with their pants down.

Most of the information leaked people already know but it's because the government was hiding that fact which is causing people to get angry.

Well, most people would like to know what their government is doing, but if well-hid actions or documents (especially bad ones) were to surface to the public, the people would lose confidence in their government and ask for some sort of reform, or even revolution (yeah, right).

"Ignorance is bliss" seems fitting here.

Public Disclosure has always been a difficult thing for me to form a concrete opinion over. Ideally, I believe the average citizen should be privy to every detail going on in regards to anything that directly involves said citizens. However, such important details shouldn't be released so haphazardly as to make it easier for other groups (i.e. terrorists) to gain important information.

I'm not really sure where I would draw that line because I'm not really sure whether that line should exist or not exist.

People are raging about how they they should know what the government does and what not. There was a discussion not to long ago between men at the local business center about it. One claimed its the peoples right to know what the government does in secrecy. The other claimed its not because thats like asking the government to impede on our private lives. Give or take was his reply i believe. Now those papers were classified. They must be kept away from enemy eyes. But eventually they were gonna get released. Its like those papers on Project: Blue Book.

Releasing information is always tricky. Because you can never be too sure what it will do or just how important it really is.

F**kin PAK*$TAN..... The take money from the US and train the terrorists using the same money...
Then they f*ckin ask for f16's and what not which is only used against India..

Umm, maybe you should be blaming the US for giving them the money during the Cold War? It was only a matter of time Pakistan were going to use it for something else.

Such information should be classifielded as long as there is active spies in the field etc etc. Cuz those is their cover we're blowing right here and can get them killed in action.

Almost everything tend to be disclosed after when a certain period of time has passed and depends on the situation etc etc.

Just like how F-117s got disclosed because it was no longer THAT important cuz they have stuff that's more better now hidden away.

just watch SALT

the truth is always out there

People should now how much and on what the military is spending on.

It's hard to take sides on public disclosure. Sure, some documents (e.g where taxpayers' money go in the military) can be disclosed for public viewing since the public are somehow involved in it, but as always some documents has the need for secrecy.

For example, you are a general planning a raid at Afghanistan to target a safehouse of Taliban terrorists that are 100% identified as such. Then you file paperwork and get the explicit approval of the higher-ups to do so by three days. Then two days later, you hear the news that some brainless schmuck somehow got your papers and uploaded it to Wikileaks. Your plan is busted, potentially the terrorists can read it and move away, putting all your intelligence hardwork to waste. No amount of apologies can resurrect this one.

The truth is, the government concerned has all the right to keep certain documents secret. Be it savory on unsavory, they have the every right to do so. But every right has a responsibility, and the government should have the responsibility to draw the line between something that's time-sensitive to secrecy and the ones that are to be accessible to the public. That is their responsibility.

Sometimes, people misinterpret the real scope of their constitutional right "to know" as "to know EVERYTHING", and that's a common fallacy committed by most. Concerning the recent Wikileaks documents, some parts of it are for the public eye, and some of it are not. When you possess things of this magnitude, you immediately and involuntarily assume part of whole of the responsibility for it. Why can't they just release it after the Afghanistan conflict is over?

Wikileaks may have informed some people, but they simultaneously endangered national security and hampered military operations over at Afghanistan. And the $64,000 question is, which is more important?

Where the line to be drawn is when it comes to public disclosure, that is the real root of the problem.

yeah its Liberalism crap.... seriously guys Liberalism will sink your country

scorned.......that will cause some issues in the pentagon and about the national security so i say.,.....scorn 'em. not all documents are neccessary to be revealed to the public.

The governments should be more honest with their people, and this whole situation stems from the fact that it wasn't.

They should've published at least some files, so that people would generally know what's going on, but releasing them all is not a smart decision.

There are those two things called "national security" and "greater good", that I think have been forgotten by most information outlets as of late.

People are entitled to some measure of information, but for the good of all, another some should be classified until it no longer presents a threat - either by revealing sensitive information to enemy spies, or your future plans to your enemies.

I'm sure FSB and whatever China has, had a field day with this.

I'm a huge fan of public disclosure and clarity of purpose and actions by those who claim to be our defenders. By extension, Wikileaks is one of my biggest heroes concerning this subject. Our government needs to be held in check, and that is only going to be done to a certain extent by other branches of the government. The people need to get involved, and more importantly, be informed. We can't always trust news outlets or word of mouth (especially) to bring us unbiased reports, as has been demonstrated countless times by every company, ever.

I'm a complete fan of things being fixed at home first before Amerika goes over seas to fuck with shit. Unfortunately, it's been proven time and again that those in power choose to neglect home and keep foreign investments (political, economical, what have you bull shit) in proper, working order.

Call me paranoid, by I think everything going on the last ten years (and more; believe me, I know) is reason to believe that the government should not be allowed to hide anything.

I love to know things that most don't know or some big secrets but there are somethings that i don't need to know. event though i know that civilians are going to get killed and it has happened in every war ever i dont need to know all the details i already know that Pakistan is funding the U.S's enemy's i just dont need to know the details. all in all i already know that the government is doing things that i don't like and things have happens that i don't like to but as long as the shit does not hit the fan and it all comes back to hit us in the head then im fine.

A democratic government shouldn't have anything to hide from its own people. When it does, it automatically means that there is something worth hiding (duh). One day its protecting an operation, the next day its protecting a bungled up operation where a bunch of innocent people are killed.

Let's assume that there are, indeed, documents that should be kept secret because it would endanger operations. Now, how can you prove it is a secret worth keeping? Its impossible without knowing what the secret it is in the first place, or if it is after the fact. But then, "after the fact" never happens in the case of a bungled operation, not if the government has anything to say about it. The government will never say "oh, we screwed up, now we're going to punish everyone responsible, all the way up to the moron who ordered the operation (generals, the president)." That NEVER happens. Bush will never be punished for invading Iraq despite having no WMDs, and this is a very clear example of an event that is after the fact. Torture in guantanmo and various holding sites? You would have never had heard of it if the government had anything to say about it. It "endangers" the soldiers. Now the secret is out, who are being punished? A couple of low level soldiers? How about the people that allowed it in the first place? We'll never know, because it is a "Secret".

So, the line is simple: information above all. If it endangers operations/troops, so be it.

Agreed. I want to return to a time when a site like this would be considered verboten under an 'offenses to God' clause.

Bump for relevancy.

Wikileaks have just released some 400,000 documents concerning the war in Iraq, with logs of deaths - including over a hundred thousand civilians - and the case-by-case observations of troops. The Iraqi PM is pissed because it will weaken his position after an already unconvincing election, and major defence departments around the world claim that these are still sensitive (but largely mundane, lolwut) documents which might endanger the people who contributed to them and have a wider, knock-on effect. And of course, the army intelligence dude who supposedly leaked the video of journalists being shot is currently awaiting trial.

All of these leaks could be said to be making a hard job in the Middle East that bit harder. Detailing ongoing atrocities, and indeed those uninvestigated, will hardly endear the people to our troops in Afghanistan etc., and more lives may well be lost as a result. But then, can things really get worse? Even if there were no such records, Islamist groups would create or find something else to rally around. And as long as these things stayed buried, would things ever change for the better (will they anyway)? Do we really have a right to know these things as citizens or is it ultimately too far above our heads; are governments just worried about voter anger/apathy, or does this information really have wider implications and deeper consequences in its release than the majority can truly appreciate?

It's that last bit which always throws me from the argument for the topic title. I do believe that there are things which governments and their experienced individuals have more of a right to analyse and decide the value of than the public. Everyone knows that politics is a balancing act: they have set objectives and things they wish to achieve, but a lot of it will be based in knowledge sensitive or controversial, and with common prejudices, wariness and misinformation it can be difficult (if not impossible) to communicate the true value of something like this. Public opinion is meaningless for its stupidity, but they need our support. I support this particular instance of disclosure because I hate the sugar-coating of these wars more than their perceived invalidity. The problem is, what do I know?