Interesting assessment of Wikileaks, I think.

[retdetsgt]

WikiLeaks and the trouble with transparency


The first WikiLeaks moment occurred on Jan. 17, 1998. It was then that Matt Drudge reported that Bill Clinton had had an affair with a White House intern. The story, though, was not Drudge's. It was Michael Isikoff's. His employer, Newsweek, had delayed publication. Drudge went with it - which is to say that he reported that Newsweek had the story. It took another four days for the so-called mainstream media to catch up - a story in The Post confirmed it all. How late! How pitiful!

Now we have the New York Times publishing major parts of the recent cache of documents that it received not from WikiLeaks and its thoroughly contemptible founder, Julian Assange, but from the Guardian, a British newspaper. Assange, it appears, was chagrined by a hard-hitting Times profile of himself. But he also might have resented the Times' meddling with the earlier release of about 90,000 military documents. We won't know until WikiLeaks' internal cables are leaked.

What the Clinton scandal and the WikiLeaks disclosures have in common is a sad collapse of the mainstream media's gatekeeper role. Newsweek presumably had good reasons to postpone publication of Isikoff's story - reasons that Drudge did not share. The Times had good cause to parse the WikiLeaks cache - lives could be in danger - but Assange launched them into cyberspace anyway, not caring if American interests were damaged. In fact, that might have been the whole point.

The natural reaction is to want to pop Assange in some way, possibly by indicting him for violating the totally impractical Espionage Act of 1917 or, in the superheated imaginations of some, by declaring him a terrorist and targeting him for something irrevocable. The trouble with any of this is that you inevitably get entangled with the Times and other newspapers such as The Post, which also has devoted considerable space and talent to the stories. They all enabled Assange to reach a wider audience - raise your hand if you actually visited his Web site - and moreover gave him what amounts to a journalistic Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval: See, this stuff is important.

The challenge is to keep the cure from doing less damage than the disease. Sure, some world leaders have been discomforted by what has been reported - Saudi King Abdullah should use Yiddish when he wants to speak candidly - but so far as we know no bodies have hit the floor with a sickening plop. In fact, it could be argued that the leaks in any Bob Woodward book are of greater consequence and importance than those served up by WikiLeaks. And when it comes to sheer nihilistic journalism, I refer you to the Rolling Stone story that cost Gen. Stanley McChrystal his command and his career. The article contained nothing of real value concerning policy or a disagreement with President Obama. Yet McChrystal, who survived many a brush with the enemy, was brought down by a clear shot in the back.

Governments, like married couples, are entitled to their secrets - from us, from the kids and from the neighbors. Total transparency produces total opaqueness. If everything's open, no one says anything. If you want to know why there is no document detailing exactly when George W. Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, it's because of something **** Cheney once said: "I learned early on that if you don't want your memos to get you in trouble someday, just don't write any." On Iraq, he and Bush followed that rule.

One of the juvenile joys of being a journalist used to be knowing what others didn't - the vaunted story behind the story. "You newspapermen know everything," Claudette Colbert tells Fred MacMurray in "The Gilded Lily." No more. Now, everything sees the light of day and media organizations like Gawker, journalism's own little cesspool, pay for such scoops as pictures allegedly sent by Brett Favre to a young lady of his passing acquaintance. This is not what Jefferson had in mind when he championed freedom of the press.

The WikiLeaks brouhaha will pass. Diplomats will once again be indiscreet at cocktail parties and rat out one another in the same way some people marry repeatedly, each time forever. The only thing worse than indiscretion is efforts to punish the miscreants by eroding the core constitutional right to publish all but the most obvious and blatant national security secrets. The government has to get better at keeping secrets. Muzzle the leakers - but not the press.

cohenr@washpost.com

Richard Cohen - WikiLeaks and the trouble with transparency

I put some remarks in bold because I think they are so try. Political egos within our own government are the real problem.

Besides, Obama said he would give us transparency..... I bet he wasn't expecting this kind of help!

[Kimble]

Political egos within our own government are the real problem.

I like the way you've put it many times before: empire building. I believe that's the problem with upper management in any decent sized or larger organization, private sector or government. Too many people at the top building their own little fiefdoms and concerning everyone under them with their personal interests (and ego follows suit).

[Piggy]

I have no doubt that this will have a ripple effect on the government. I think he will end up in prison. I think that there will be changes in the way classified material is handled. I also believe that the government will take away the security clearance of any fed who has been on the site. This is only the beginning.

[Trip]

Well, if what all these techno-anarchists and their supporters really want is transparency.....the impact will be the opposite. There has been a steady move in recent time for less people to put the truly important things in writing, whether it be within military, national security, intelligence, Wall Street, the White House, etc, etc, etc. circles, and all this will do is cause even less of the important decisions historians might want to study to be committed to paper. And I think it's funny as sh**.

Also the truly important stuff is never classified down at the Confidential or Secret level. I spent none, zip, zero of my time ever reading things with that low a classification to assess the real picture. So all this voyeurism does very little to relay the "real picture" to anyone, but it sure as hell does a far-reaching and profound amount of damage. And as each day goes by, the idiots who poo-pooed it like Gates and Clinton, are getting reports from below telling them they now have to walk themselves back from their stupid comments. About two hours ago, the Pentagon released an assessment that WikiLeaks has impacted operations. Ya think so Robbie baby?

The reason Bob Woodward was shaking in his boots on Larry King the other night is because he knows this may very well finally cause enough backlash that he won't get away with his bullsheeet anymore either. And no, I did not go to Assange's site.

[Trip]

I have no doubt that this will have a ripple effect on the government. I think he will end up in prison. I think that there will be changes in the way classified material is handled. I also believe that the government will take away the security clearance of any fed who has been on the site. This is only the beginning.

Yea, did you see the official edict from the government about that about two days ago?

[Trip]

And ya gotta love how much the anarchists are dripping with hypocracy. According to Julian Assange, Thou shalt not have any secrets, except for him. The guy drips with so much hypocracy it will be pure joy watching him get his comeupance when it finally happens. And it's been fun watching Pay Pal, Amazon, etc, etc, etc, tell Julian, "welcome to the real world!"

[MikeG]

I think journalists are a little scared. It used to be they had a very well defined body and were very well protected. But now, the internet blurs the line. No one is going to protest a law that is crafted to stop individuals like Assange from leaking this kind of stuff. Even though it's very similar to what journalists have done in the past only magnified by the speed and power of computers. When the 'Pentagon Papers' came out, the NYT was a powerful political force and had political backing. They could withstand the criticism and the fallout and still protect their journalists and fight laws that would erode their protection.

But now, Assange is about to destroy that. The NYT is in no position to protect or defend him. More than likely, a law will be created to outlaw publication of these kinds of leaks. It might be too late to stop a law but I suspect reputable journalistic outlets will seek their own preservation and downplay or ignore the content of the leaks. The more they hype, the stricter the law. In fact, we already are seeing the "Assange is a crank so don't lump us with him" coverage I suspect Assange stories in the press will get more and more biting in their attempt to distance themselves. The NYT considers the Pentagon Papers to be one of their finest hours ans Assange is about to turn that same act into a life sentence.

[Piggy]

Yep, hell hath no fury like a Clinton scorned.

[retdetsgt]

I have no doubt that this will have a ripple effect on the government. I think he will end up in prison. I think that there will be changes in the way classified material is handled. I also believe that the government will take away the security clearance of any fed who has been on the site. This is only the beginning.

There is no room for doubt that the system was messed up when a PFC had access to that much intel and could walk out the door with it.

The sad thing is, the government doesn't have a great history of learning from its mistakes. The trend is to tighten up for a while and then apathy will set in again.

[retdetsgt]

This may gone on longer than anyone expected......

WikiLeaks founder is jailed, secrets still flow

LONDON (AP) — WikiLeaks published a new set of cables Wednesday, and in a defiant message posted online the secret-spilling website promised that the leaks would keep on flowing despite the arrest and jailing of its founder on sex allegations.

WikiLeaks is under pressure on many fronts: its editor-in-chief Julian Assange is in prison fighting extradition to Sweden. Nearly simultaneous moves by credit card companies Visa and MasterCard to stop processing donations to the website have impaired its ability to raise money, and mysterious cyberattacks have periodically crippled its servers.

In a message published to Twitter on Wednesday, spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson shrugged off the pressure.

On Tuesday evening, "the latest batch of cables were released, and our media partners released their next batch of stories," Hrafnsson said. "We will not be gagged, either by judicial action or corporate censorship. ... Wikileaks is still online. The full site is duplicated in more than 500 locations. Every day, the cables are loaded more than 50 million times."

WikiLeaks has benefited from a massive groundswell of online support. Twitter is choked with messages of solidarity. The site's Facebook page has 1 million fans. And tech-savvy supporters are organizing boycotts and other stunts.

The latest cables cover the details of British-Libyan relations in the run-up to the release of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi, a sensitive subject that roiled relations between Washington and London. Another cable describes, in detail, the eccentricities of Libya's Moammar Gadhafi, while the WikiLeaks website also details an underground Halloween party — complete with moonshine, top-shelf liquor and prostitutes — thrown by a wealthy Saudi prince in the city of Jeddah.

"Behind the facade of Wahhabi conservatism in the streets, the underground nightlife for Jeddah's elite youth is thriving and throbbing," the cable notes. The party-happy royal's name has been redacted.

Meanwhile, Assange faces a new extradition hearing next week, in which his lawyers say they will reapply for bail. The 39-year-old Australian is accused of rape, molestation and unlawful coercion stemming from separate sexual encounters in August with two women in Sweden. Assange denies the allegations.

http://www.koinlocal6.com/news/world...hbO4yUKUA.cspx

[cjcrew022000]

I am not a big fan of Wikileaks but some interesting information has come out about Iraq's WMD program. Of course, the media has pretty much ignored these ones.

Wikileaks: WMD program existed in Iraq prior to US invasion - National public safety | Examiner.com

[Kimble]

Also the truly important stuff is never classified down at the Confidential or Secret level. I spent none, zip, zero of my time ever reading things with that low a classification to assess the real picture. So all this voyeurism does very little to relay the "real picture" to anyone, but it sure as hell does a far-reaching and profound amount of damage.

Trip,

I believe you've stated before you previously worked in the IC as an analyst, so I could understand your perspective stated above, but I don't agree it's entirely accurate. Not saying you're "wrong," just that you're seeing it from the perspective of an IC analyst, which is limited when it comes to the entire federal community utilizing classified info.

I think you'd agree that there's three main communities within the government that utilize classification of information in how they conduct business: intelligence, defense and diplomacy (not counting non-Title 50 agencies, etc.). As an analyst, you likely spent most of your time looking at issues on the yellow/orange high side, vice red or blue, which of course makes sense. The TS level would be appropriate for digesting raw intelligence and providing thorough intelligence reports at a macro-level. However, I come from a different perspective of the IC (counterintel) and defense where classfiications at the secret and confidential levels is used for daily operational issues (i.e. command and control) and could be very damaging to national security if released. A good example is naval ship port visit schedules. They're classfied at the confidential level, but in the wrong hands they allow terrorists groups to conduct another attack like the one against the USS Cole in Yemen. I know this is probably not telling you something you didn't already know, but outside the intel analytical world lower tiers of classification do contribute significationly to the "real picture" (can't speak for the diplomatic community, but this is definitely true within the defense community), and can still be very damaging in the wrong hands.

Also as retdetsgt pointed out a couple times, even at the TS level stuff isn't always classified as needed and things get over-classified. I've been to more than one CI course where a brief was TS-SCI and I'm curious whether the classification was so high in an effort to make the material seem more "interesting" and keep the students from falling asleep.

[Trip]

Trip,

I believe you've stated before you previously worked in the IC as an analyst, so I could understand your perspective stated above, but I don't agree it's entirely accurate. Not saying you're "wrong," just that you're seeing it from the perspective of an IC analyst, which is limited when it comes to the entire federal community utilizing classified info.

I think you'd agree that there's three main communities within the government that utilize classification of information in how they conduct business: intelligence, defense and diplomacy (not counting non-Title 50 agencies, etc.). As an analyst, you likely spent most of your time looking at issues on the yellow/orange high side, vice red or blue, which of course makes sense. The TS level would be appropriate for digesting raw intelligence and providing thorough intelligence reports at a macro-level. However, I come from a different perspective of the IC (counterintel) and defense where classfiications at the secret and confidential levels is used for daily operational issues (i.e. command and control) and could be very damaging to national security if released. A good example is naval ship port visit schedules. They're classfied at the confidential level, but in the wrong hands they allow terrorists groups to conduct another attack like the one against the USS Cole in Yemen. I know this is probably not telling you something you didn't already know, but outside the intel analytical world lower tiers of classification do contribute significationly to the "real picture" (can't speak for the diplomatic community, but this is definitely true within the defense community), and can still be very damaging in the wrong hands.

Also as retdetsgt pointed out a couple times, even at the TS level stuff isn't always classified as needed and things get over-classified. I've been to more than one CI course where a brief was TS-SCI and I'm curious whether the classification was so high in an effort to make the material seem more "interesting" and keep the students from falling asleep.

Kimble,

Actually, no, I was not an an analyst in an IC but worked in the operational nervecenter of the Pentagon (National Military Command Center) where in any crisis it was my responsibility to fuse the "intel" from every possible organization within our government that could provide insight into the crisis. Since this was the Pentagon's operational nervecenter, all the other reps provided operational info, such as that from the four services, all nuclear, Early Warning, air defense-related, Continuity of Government, and National Command Authority insight. Otherwise, all other info fell under the "intel" unbrella, including any information from within DOJ, State Department, intel agencies, etc., etc, etc. and it was my responsibility as the Joint Chiefs of Staff intel rep in the NMCC to fuse all of that "intel." The only other input on a crisis was the voice of the White House Sit Room.

After hours when the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff went home (and when the President was presumably asleep), the one-star general that ran each NMCC shift now had control of our nuclear forces and had to be able to made decisions within minutes, which is why, as you can see, ALL information from every part of our government rolled up to him. He had the ability to launch nuclear war, not the White House Situation Room, and as the person responsible for gathering "intel" from the entire government (again not talking about our submarines or a/c carriers or fighter forces or Army missile forces), the entire big picture rolled up to me, which I then reported to the general in charge. If it was a big enough crisis, the Chairman, JCS, rolled out of bed, came into the NMCC, and I briefed him just after briefing the one star. Not to sound immodest but there are very few people in this country who've had access to as big a picture as I have had access to because of doing that job for three years. And sometimes I delivered a message straight from the White House that could only be seen by the Chairman, JCS. I really don't like talking about this, other than to say I had an even bigger picture than the DCI had in some cases because of our nuclear defense duties. I'm not seeing it from the perspective of one of hundreds/thousands of analysts, but from the perspective of our government's most senior decision makers. When the crisis was big enough, the President was involved in the discussions.

Unfortunately, your following statement: "just that you're seeing it from the perspective of an IC analyst, which is limited when it comes to the entire federal community utilizing classified info," I'm afraid that instead, you are talking to one of the people who had access to as big a picture as it gets. There are very few people in government who've seen as big of the picture as I've seen. I was doing orange, yellow, red, blue, and every color in between. It's because when you have less than 15 minutes before the world can be annhilated by nuclear exchange, the NMCC had to be the middle of the spoke, not the White House.

As for lower levels of intel at the secret level, I agree it could be damaging to national security if released. That's why you've seen me enraged on this forum during all three WikiLeaks releases. And why it enrages me that members of the press are spinning things as if they're not damaging because they know the backlash is about to start making it harder for them to engage in leaks, including from the venerable Mr. Woodward, the Washington Post and the NY Times. But as for it informing the big picture as the NMCC level, I also rarely used TS because the stuff that helped explain the biggest picture of all was all above Top Secret. My point is not that it wasn't important, and I certainly am arguing that it should be protected, but all these people saying they now know what our government is doing because of this 1% of the total of secret docs WikiLeaks has released....simply don't understand how minimal a picture they're getting from these leaks. In other words, no, it is not telling you very much compared to the totality.

As for something being TS-SCI and you not knowing why it was compartmentalized like that....with all due respect, Kimble, that's because it had less to do with WHAT you were being told than how they obtained it....and I have NEVER seen compartmentalized information overclassified, but then I also have a steep background in why things are compartmentalized and will reiterate we are protecting sources, methods, and things along those lines moreso than the actual info itself which may seem unimportant to the casual observer.

[Trip]

One more thought about the folks saying "they have to know this information about our government." What enrages me is that I've known plenty of people who've never had access to classified info in their lives but who are knowledgeable citizens who read a lot from many different sources and take our founding fathers' assumption that citizens need to be informed to acheive good government and would have known a great deal of what has been leaked by merely staying abreast of many sources of news and information, and I think the idiots in the press need to do the same thing instead of supporting this inexcusable breaking of the law and putting people's...many people's lives at risk.

[Chef_Au]

Just to throw another spanner in the works, has ASSANGE actually committed a crime? There is now argument that the person who stole or relayed the information, but he himself has not by merely making it published.

Food for thought.