Secrecy?

[ProSense]

Secrecy?

Josh Marshall

This is sort of a side note on the larger Wikileaks question. But in reading various commentary on the Cables story I see again and again references to government secrecy, over classification and so on. But very few of the documents seem to have been highly classified or even very far up to secrecy totem pole. Indeed, if I'm understanding the origin of the leak -- or as much as we think we know about it -- the reason these cables were accessible is because they were not highly classified. And thus in the post-9/11 effort to make sure information could flow freely between different parts of the government -- connecting the dots and so forth -- they were placed on a system where a lot of people in government could access them. As I said, this doesn't necessarily speak to the big questions people are talking about. But this whole question seems more like one of confidentiality -- the fact that the nation's diplomats do not immediately release their internal communications -- than 'secrecy' per se.

As the NYT mentioned, of the 250,000 cables, only...

<...>

About 11,000 of the cables are marked “secret.” An additional 9,000 or so carry the label “noforn,” meaning the information is not to be shared with representatives of other countries, and 4,000 are marked “secret/noforn.” The rest are either marked with the less restrictive label “confidential” or are unclassified. Most were not intended for public view, at least in the near term.

<...>

[hulka38]

1. What this seems to be saying is that the administrations since 9/11

have a lot of secret and top secret information that is much harder to come by than what Wikileaks has made available. The information that came to Wikileaks was accessible by "a lot of people in govt." whereas there are whole other categories of intelligence that only a few have access to. So this is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the amount of govt secrecy that exists.

[ProSense]

2. It seems to be saying the opposite

Also, a lot of the transparency rules that governed releases in the past, through Bush, have been changed.

[hulka38]

3. I'm happy that more information is flowing between government agencies

but as Marshal says, "few of the documents seem to have been highly classified..." Are you saying that based on Marshal's piece that you believe that top secret information is being systematically downgraded to classified and floated around to a lot of people in government because of Bush's transparency rules?

[hulka38]

4. So what Wikileaks just dropped is a bunch of documents

that would have been "secret" and "top secret" (considered to be the nation's most closely guarded secrets), but are now considered just "classified" or "confidential" and spread throughout the government due to Bush's transparency rules?

[ProSense]

5. Maybe you're reading too much into the secret statement

The classifications also include "noforn," not to be shared with representatives of other countries. Secret and confidential are also not top secret.

[hulka38]

6. Maybe you should state clearly your position/opinion

instead of making cryptic suggestions. In the time it took for you to reply, you must have added a fresh layer of lube to yourself. What is your interpretation of this? Why not simply state what you believe this is? You know where I stand.

[ProSense]

7. What? n/t

[hulka38]

8. Lol, you exactly know what I'm talking about.

Post #5 is classic diversion. It doesn't say anything.

Okay, Secrecy? Just state your opinion on it wrt what you quoted.

[ProSense]

9. Actually,

no I don't.

[hulka38]

10. Let's back up to my first post.

You said it's the opposite and said nothing more on that point. Elaborate on why you feel it's the opposite.

[hulka38]

11. I should know that I'm wasting my time.

For someone who is all over this discussion board you're clever at avoiding having an actual discussion or debate. If you believe something, bring it out into the light, take a clear stand and allow it to be scrutinized.

[ProSense]

12. To have a debate you have to understand what you're reading

and then not become condescending when clarifications are offered.

The OP states clearly that of the information released, "very few of the documents seem to have been highly classified" and post-9/11 "they were placed on a system where a lot of people in government could access them."

Comment #5 elaborates on the NYT's point in the OP: The classifications also include "noforn," not to be shared with representatives of other countries. Secret and confidential are also not top secret.


The OP is not about the volume of all existing highly classified information, and there is no way to take away any implications about that from the brief comment. Stating that it was opposite of what you implied meant that the volume of free-flowing information has increased.








edited typos

[hulka38]

13. Unbelievable

You: "The OP states clearly that of the information released, 'very few of the documents seem to have been highly classified' and post-9/11 'they were placed on a system where a lot of people in government could access them.' "

I said that in posts #1 and #3 with the same quotes so I clearly read and understood what Marshall and the NYT were saying.


Again, comment 5 adds nothing.


You: "The OP is not about the volume of all exiting highly classified information..."

That what my first of two points in my original post when I said this, "...administrations...have a lot of secret and top secret information that is much harder to come by than what Wikileaks has made available." I go on, "The information that came to Wikileaks was accessible by 'a lot of people in govt.' whereas there are whole other categories of intelligence that only a few have access to." So now you're agreeing with me. And therefore I logically concluded, "So this is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the amount of govt secrecy that exists." How can you make the opposite conclusion from that?

You: "Stating that it was opposite of what you implied meant that the volume of free-flowing information has increased."

I did not imply in post #1 or anywhere else that the volume of free flowing information had not increased. Nowhere. You made that up. You have completely mangled and tangled what I clearly stated. Who's having trouble not understanding what they're reading? Reread what I wrote in post #1 and tell me again why you think it's the opposite.

[hulka38]

14. Let's break this down simply and end this.

You agree with this statement in post #1, correct?
"The administrations since 9/11 have a lot of secret and top secret information that is much harder to come by than what Wikileaks has made available. The information that came to Wikileaks was accessible by "a lot of people in govt." whereas there are whole other categories of intelligence that only a few have access to."

[ProSense]

15. No,

it's inaccurate, and I stated why.

"The administrations since 9/11 have a lot of secret and top secret information that is much harder to come by than what Wikileaks has made available. The information that came to Wikileaks was accessible by "a lot of people in govt." whereas there are whole other categories of intelligence that only a few have access to."

The OP is not about the volume of all existing highly classified information, and there is no way to take away any implications about that from the brief comment. Stating that it was opposite of what you implied meant that the volume of free-flowing information has increased.

[hulka38]

17. There are two choices.

A. You can believe that the articles were referring to all existing classified information.

or

B. You can believe that there are at least two categories of classified information as I do. The lowest level or least classified being the class that wikileaks got a hold of. The higher level or levels remaining secret.


Do you believe A?

[hulka38]

16. wrong reply nt