Monday, July 26, 2010

K-Lo and the legal concept of "national secrets"

K-Lo brings the retarded:
Serious Now? [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Earlier this summer, the following appeared in "The Week" section of National Review:

Bradley Manning, a 22-year-old U.S. Army intelligence analyst, is accused of leaking classified video of a military engagement in Iraq in which two Reuters cameramen were killed. Of greater concern, Manning claims to have provided over a quarter-million highly classified State Department cables — intelligence that, if revealed, could badly compromise military operations — to Wikileaks, an online enterprise strategically based in Sweden, where impregnable confidentiality laws help it encourage the betrayal of U.S. national secrets. To wage war and protect its citizens in such an environment, a serious nation must be willing to play diplomatic hardball with the world’s Swedens and throw the book at our own Bradley Mannings; it must be deaf to the inevitable caterwauling of media adolescents for whom classified leaks are a game, not life-and-death. Are we still serious?

07/26 08:08 AMShare
What exactly is a "national secret" and in what context is it protected by law? "National secrets" appears to mean "things the government is keeping secret" which is explicitly does not mean that such things should or need to remain secret. State secrets can remain so upon successful implementation of the argument that they are matters of national security. Does any of the Wikileaks information meet that criterion? "Everyone will realize what lying cocksuckers the Department of Defense folks are if this information gets out" is not exactly the finest appeal for legal protection under the government cloak of secrecy.

No comments: