In favor of Bradley Manning

Post Reply New Topic

There you go again, assuming that you are an expert in making assessments about the significance of the Cablegate leak. Bold claim by someone who hasn't even understood why information is classified in the first place (see below).


In the US, information is classified by government agencies on the basis of the following (Executive order 13526):

(1) “Top Secret” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.
(2) “Secret” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.
(3) “Confidential” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

(My underlining added).

I might not be a genius (I have never taken an official IQ test, so I wouldn't know), but I can read... So yes... Prevention of leaks is the rationale behind classifying information.


The public is not supposed to have access to this information according to US law, as per the executive order mentioned above. The executive order was signed and implemented by the president of The United States of America, a man democratically elected and held accountable to the people of the United States of America.

So, what is the problem?

Once more, GGP, you spectacularly misunderstand what I say. I pointed out your use of circular reasoning (it is bad that these documents have been leaked because they are classified; they are classified because they shouldn't be leaked).

The emphasis should have been added on "damage to the national security". If you'd have said "they shouldn't be leaked because doing so might damage the national security" from the start, then at least your argument would make some logical sense. Is "damage to the national security" necessarily a bad thing? Well, no. Frankly, I am strongly in favour of anything that damages North Korea's national security, or Zimbabwe's, if it were to lead to the downfall of the dictators in those countries.

Additionally, what constitutes "damage to the national security"? The executive order says: "the national defense has required that certain information be maintained in confidence in order to protect our citizens, our democratic institutions, our homeland security, and our interactions with foreign nations. " Though that sounds great, that's a pretty broad definition- what if it were deemed that civilians needed protection from pornography? It gets broader:

"(d) The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security."

So anything related to another government can automatically be called "confidential". Can you see any issues arising there? It certainly doesn't seem to me that any leak of US government interaction with another government will cause the US government to crumble. Given how well it has held up since Cablegate, that would certainly seem to be the case.

Finally, your assertion that nobody should have a problem with governments keeping secrets because these laws were signed by a democratically elected leader is almost as good as your assertion that secrets should be kept because they are secret.

[Edit: Post deleted due to inappropriate content]

Last edited by GGPViper on 02 Apr 2013, 8:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Whilst I appreciate this is PPR and the normal rules don't quite apply, and WrongPlanet is a forum for people who don't have a natural grasp for social norms, would it kill you to not be so extraordinarily rude?

It's a shame you added (6) above, GGPViper, because it makes a joke of (1) to (5).
There's a narrow line between snarky comments and getting too personal, and you seem determined here to blur it still further in favour of personal attacks.
Don't do that; it demeans your contributions.

I apologize. I was out of line.

I have removed my previous post.