Congressional Hearing On Wikileaks Surprisingly Focuses More On Gov't Overly Secretive Actions

from the good-for-them dept

Earlier today, Congress held hearings about Wikileaks and, given how the government has been reacting so far, I fully expected pure grandstanding about how “evil” Wikileaks is and how Julian Assange must be brought to justice. There was some of that, but it appears much more of it was focused on how the US government was abusing the classification system to make things secret that never should have been secret — and how that was the real problem. Panel chair John Conyers apparently kicked off the hearing by saying that criminal charges against Assange would be “extreme” and saying that “caution is needed” before anything is done:

“Prosecuting WikiLeaks would raise the most fundamental questions about free speech, about who is a journalist and what citizens can know about their government,” Conyers said. “The problem today is not too little secrecy but too much secrecy.”

He also noted — in contrast to much of the hysteria we’ve heard — that while the releases have been embarassing “the real-world consequences have been fairly modest.” Rep. William Delahunt appeared to echo these sentiments and again noted that secrecy by the government has been the real issue:

“Secrecy is the trademark of totalitarianism. In contrast, transparency and openness is why democracy is all about,” Delahunt said.

“There is far too much secrecy and overclassification in the executive branch, and I think it puts American democracy at risk.”

Rep. Bob Goodlatte also noted that expansion of government secrecy was “out of control” and “illegitimate,” while Rep. Bobby Scott noted that we need to remember the 1st Amendment. Rep. Hank Johnson warned of the “chilling effects” of prosecuting Wikileaks.

Many panelists appeared to make similar points as well. Thomas Blanton, the director of the National Security Archive at George Washington University, told the panel that the government always overreacts to leaks and that “more openness makes us more secure.” He also urged the government to “use a little restraint” and to avoid rushing into charging Julian Assange with violating the Espionage Act.

Of course, not everyone argued this way. Many of the Congressional Reps still seemed pretty bloodthirsty to charge Assange. And some of the panelists seemed to agree. Kenneth Wainstein, a lawyer from O’Melveny and Myers, warned the panel that any lawsuit against Wikileaks would raise serious First Amendment issues but then argued that the government could easily distinguish Wikileaks from the media though he did so by misstating that Wikileaks was “indiscriminately” dumping documents — a point that has been debunked already. Gabriel Shoenfeld, who is a big supporter of government secrecy, spent a lot of time talking about how there’s too much secrecy and that the government leaks info to the press all the time but ended his talk by saying that doesn’t apply to Wikileaks.

However, even those who seemed to think that the government should still seek to prosecute Assange, they all seemed to admit that the government is way too secretive and abuses its classification privileges.

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: wikileaks

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Congressional Hearing On Wikileaks Surprisingly Focuses More On Gov't Overly Secretive Actions”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
TeleTips Network (profile) says:

Finally! US Government officials speaking sensibly about the reaction to these leaks.

Slightly off topic, now that Mr. Assange has been released on bail, is his life in greater peril then when he was incarcerated? Wait, wait, hear me out.

Follow, if you will, the plot of a movie like Conspiracy Theory or Enemy of the State or others of this genre. Government spokespersons wrap themselves in the flag and bemoan the insecurity of the times in which we live. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, a black ops team has been dispatched by a secretive government agency to eliminate the troublesome whistle-blower.

Being out on bail makes Mr. Assange much more vulnerable to this scenario. Would-be assassins no longer have to penetrate the security of Wandsworth prison. Many more plausible “accidents” might befall him whilst free on his own recognizance. Sure, it’s totally unlikely and it never happens. Let us hope an antidote to Polonium has been developed

Anonymous Coward says:

And here I was thinking people wasn’t paying attention.

To much secret and abuse of mechanism that let people get away with bad things are the real problema.

This leak is even good for the government as it shows that diplomats where doing a fine job, with a handful of cases that are troublesome, but for the must part they were on top of things.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Note to editor: it is customary to indicate the political party of representatives and senators with a small “r”, “d”, of “i”.

We have stated multiple times that we do not do this. Doing so only encourages people to focus on the political party of the representatives, and not what is being said. We have found that not designating the political party leads to more intelligent discussions.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Most of us with a brain just take the name and run it through Google, and find the party affiliation. In this case, the affiliation is interesting, because it is a democrat.

“It is a democrat”? I see the names of multiple Reps. above from both parties.

Trying to stay away from mentioning it often takes away from the story.


Anonymous Coward says:

As Robert Gates has noted the American service leaks like a sieve and has done for a long time. Obviously any foreign secret service who wanted this info’ probably already has the unredacted versions. If a foreign service leaked like that and the CIA failed to take advantage we would call them incompetent.

The only difference arising from the Wikileaks scenario is that the public in the “democracy” in who’s name all this crap takes place get to know about it.

Matthew Schafer (user link) says:

Don't Overreact to Wikileaks

When all was said and done, the witnesses seemed to agree, in part, that the government is overclassifying information, the Espionage Act of 1917 is likely unconstitutional, the SHIELD Act, proposed recently by Sen. Joe Lieberman [I-CT], rests on a shaky constitutional footing also, and it is important that the legislature not overreact to the WikiLeaks cables.

Read more:

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...