Quote:
Originally Posted by loquitur
Will, I don't know who in the State Dept is responsible for (de)classification decisions. Clearly they are over-classifying, but that's to be expected in a bureaucracy. Overclassifying satisfies two imperatives: it covers the bureaucrat's ass and increases his/her power. So it's a twofer. Welcome to the iron law of big organizations. It does not follow, however, that therefore someone self-appointed gets to make the decision. It means State needs better procedures.
|
Indeed, they are over-classifying. That it's to be expected of bureaucracy does not mean that it's admissible, though. State secrets are inherently anti-democratic and historically are often used in the service of injustice. One of my favorite JFK quotes seems to speak to the issue:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JFK
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."
|
In an open and free society (yes, yes, that's a very vague term, but I think you take my meaning), that which is classified should only be done so in the most dire of situations. Much of what was leaked of the classified diplomatic cables is petty and stupid (a.k.a. normal behavior of high ranking government officials) and would never endanger anyone, rather simply bruising a few egos and showing how diplomatic sausage is made.
Let me ask you this: if a job not being done by those tasked to do it is important enough, can it not be argued that someone else not tasked with doing said job is excused, to a certain degree, in doing it? In other words, are there not instances where the question of legality is trumped by the issue of the common good?