"We freely admit to doing illegal stuff, and the government needs to stop trying to figure out what we're up to." Yeah, that makes sense...
Elected representatives make the laws.
and can declare virtually everything top secret
Only according to exemptions from the FOIA and other legislation (i.e. laws made by elected representatives). The relevant exemption here being for information "specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy". If you'd like to read the most recent Executive order to that effect: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13526
without any checks and balances
Executive secrecy is subject to judicial review. This was established in amendments to the FOIA in 1974, which were in fact vetoed by the Executive, but the veto was overridden by Congress. You can read more here: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB142/index.htm
For 2001, about 8 million documents were classified. For 2004, there were 15,5 million documents classified. Just as an example of the trend I meant http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4837061 That 'coincidentally' fits with Executive Order 13292, issued on March 25, increasing Vice President Cheney's classification authority, which he swiftly used http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13292
This is the graph from 2005 I originally remembered: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/07/03/politics/03se... NYT article http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/03/politics/03secrecy.html
This is highly relevant when attempting to characterize a trend, as (for instance) your own link to the article on Executive Order 13292 states: "Both Executive Order 12958 and Executive Order 13292 were revoked and replaced in full by President Barack Obama in the issuance of Executive Order 13526." This is why I linked to Executive Order 13526.
I just don't see what your point is, aside from the uncontroversial point that the Bush administration was awful.
This is not helped by your use of misinformation. Again, you were factually wrong in your prior assessment, and made at least one glaring oversight in your last comment. Only now have you changed the subject from X to "what society thinks about X", as if to say facts don't matter if somebody out there doesn't know them. I can't think of a more abhorrent attitude towards truth than that.
Moral != "Moral"""our ongoing work on a classified film""
""our release of a classified 32 page US intelligence report""
""our release of a classified cable from the U.S. Embassy in Reykjavik""
Wikileaks is trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, they want to do illegal stuff for moral/philosophical reasons. On the other hand, they want the US government to stop treating them like they're doing illegal stuff. They're obtaining and releasing classified information, and at the same time complaining that the US government is spying on them. Doesn't this strike you as a little bit silly?
CIA is not law enforcement agency!
Wikileaks is a medium for whistleblowers, not a "spy agency"!
Right. The Central Intelligence Agency doesn't have "jurisdiction" the same way a law enforcement agency does, because they're not law enforcement. They exist to "collect, evaluate, and disseminate foreign intelligence [and] engage in covert action at the president's direction in accordance with applicable law."
"Wikileaks is a medium for whistleblowers, not a "spy agency"!"
Imagine what a reckless policy it would be for the CIA to decide "we do not investigate Wikileaks because they're just whistleblowers". Wouldn't that make them a possible haven for actual foreign spies? Put another way: how do you know Wikileaks is completely free of foreign spies?
The CIA, as an intelligence agency, has the duty to gather intelligence on groups like Wikileaks. They have the duty to have a clear understanding of what Wikileaks is doing, and to act against them (individually or as a group) if it is deemed necessary by the president or others in the chain of command.
The article claims that US State Department was investigating a leak from the US embassy in Iceland. If the government of Iceland (an ally and NATO member) is cooperating with such an investigation, that is unsurprising.
Wikileaks is a medium for whistleblowers, not a "spy agency"!
Regardless of how you describe it, Wikileaks is of interest to people whose job is counterintelligence (i.e. secret-keeping). Suppose you have information you want to keep secret. I prevent you from keeping that information secret. How shall you regard me?
I don't understand the classification of past missile strikes, but I'd bet someone who knows the list of classification criteria could explain it. (Or, if it's inappropriately classified, challenge it through the proper channels.)
("Alert the media" or "leak this to wikileaks" is, generally, a very-very-very last resort.)
It's the same principle as "loose lips sink ships". Sometimes harmless-looking individual details are actually the key to keeping our guys safe in hostile environments.
1) Are you sure that's all they're exposing? 2) Are you sure none of their employees are passing things that don't meet those criteria on to other intel agencies, even if they don't put them on the official server? 3) Are you sure that, when they expose corruption, they're appropriately sanitizing incidental details that might otherwise get our spies killed etc.?
It's tremendously dangerous for a group that does not have a strong intelligence-analysis background to expose classified material. From what I've seen, they simply don't have the process in place to appropriately handle the material they're working with.