Court Says State Department Can Live In Fantasyland & Pretend Documents Leaked By Wikileaks Are Still Secret

from the head-in-sand-approach dept

We've talked about the problem in which classified documents that are leaked and widely available to the public are still considered classified by the government, even though the concept is ludicrous. It leads to absolutely ridiculous situations, such as government employees not being able to look at documents available on Wikileaks, even as everyone else in the world can easily log in and see them. Or the case (linked above) in which lawyers representing Guantanamo detainees weren't allowed to look at these documents -- which anyone else in the world can see -- which relate to their clients. Even the NY Times called this situation "absurd." And it is. In the business world, people commonly sign "non-disclosure agreements," but they're always considered null and void if that same information becomes public by other means. It's bizarre that the government doesn't recognize the same policy.

However, in a lawsuit we first discussed last year, where the ACLU sued the State Department for failing to declassify (under a FOIA request) documents that were already widely available on Wikileaks, a judge has ruled against the ACLU, and said that the documents remain classified. Once again, this is absurd. It's as if everyone is actively denying reality.

The ACLU relied on the part of the test that questions whether the disclosure of the information "reasonably could be expected to result in damage to national security." Seeing as anyone seeking to "damage" our national security can just surf over to Wikileaks, and has been able to do that for quite some time, you'd think that the ACLU's argument was pretty rock solid. Not according to the court (pdf and embedded below). The court seems to tapdance around the issue. It argues that the Court should "defer" to the judgment of the administration on this question, and that it's possible that the official release of these documents could impact national security. I don't buy it. Any official release is unlikely to have any different impact than the unofficial release. To argue that making those releases official has some sort of new "threat" involved just doesn't pass the laugh test.

What's most distressing about this is that it shows a government that is not dealing in reality, but is dealing in a fantasy land, where it pretends that if it sticks its fingers in its ears, and hands over its eyes, it can pretend that the documents, which are very, very public, are not at all public. I want a government that deals in reality and not fantasy. Unfortunately, with this situation, we have the reverse -- and, bizarrely, the courts are saying that an executive branch that lives in fantasyland is just fine.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Mr. Smarta** (profile), Jul 24th, 2012 @ 10:22am

    Perfectly reasonable

    Sure. What you're seeing isn't actually real. You see, we actually live in The Matrix. And everything is merely impulses in the brain. And when we read something, it's not actually there. When someone commits an act of copyright infringement, they didn't really do it because whatever they downloaded/uploaded doesn't really exist.

    So logically, if something is classified and released to the world for all to read, the government then has the authority to say that the 'something' out there isn't really out there, and is therefore still classified. This argument might work for judges who may have a Swiss bank account being funded by *AAs or pharma companies. They don't actually exist, and so therefore aren't really there. But in reality, those aren't there. They don't exist. It's not real. Nothing is real. It's all made up.

    Seems perfectly reasonable to me... or maybe I'm just smoking the same weed the government is. (NOTE: I don't really smoke weed. It doesn't exist so it's not there and I don't do it.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 24th, 2012 @ 10:22am

    I think it is more you that is living in a sort of fantasy land. The information may be out there in some manner, but that manner is considered illegal, and someone is awaiting trial on the very methods by which this was released.

    It's weird if you phrase it your way, because you fail to understand that the copy wikileaks has is effectively illegal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jul 24th, 2012 @ 10:28am

      Re:

      FAIL

      This is the goverment saying information that everyone already knows is secret.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mason Wheeler (profile), Jul 24th, 2012 @ 10:28am

      Re:

      The point is that it doesn't matter whether or not it's legal--and for the record, I agree with you that what WikiLeaks did was highly illegal and it needs to be treated that way.

      But that's not the point here. The point isn't that the leak was illegal, it's simply that the leak was. The material is no longer secret in any meaningful way, and whether or not that should be true, it is true and trying to act as if it is not is denying reality.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Ninja (profile), Jul 24th, 2012 @ 11:02am

        Re: Re:

        Illegal? Really? They are only providing means for publishing material whistleblowers release. If anything, it's the whistleblower that's doing "illegal" stuff. But then you have the controversy around whistleblowing. Shouldn't it be protected?

        Also, I can understand the reasoning behind. If you keep considering the communication confidential the material released can or cannot be legitimate. I'm not quite sure Wikileaks can effectively prove that all the documents leaked are from official sources (although I believe most of them are).

        Food for thought.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jul 24th, 2012 @ 2:41pm

        Re: Re:

        so, applying the same logic, in that case it would be illegal for representatives of the us government to infiltrate a friendly third country (let's say New Zealand, for example) and illegally copy the contents of a certain hard drive and ship it (via a private shipping company) into the US to be used as a bargaining chip/evidence in a certain trial... right?

        so how come in one case the government argues it's just fine to use illegal means to publish/move data while in a practically identical similar case but where the tables are reversed is it not fine?
        how hypocritical can the US gov get?

        (for those who don't get it see the Megaupload harddrive cloning case case... this is practically a wikileaks in reverse... the us gov was the one doing the leak)

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      MrWilson, Jul 24th, 2012 @ 11:16am

      Re:

      The illegality of the act of the leak does not make the content of the documents untrue.

      Lets say you were facing charges that carry a death sentence should you be found guilty and the only evidence that clears your name was released illegally. Would you refrain from trying to use that evidence to exonerate you or would you give up and allow yourself to unjustly be executed just because the leak was illegal?

      Say it with me once again: Legality is not morality. Following the law is not always the right thing and breaking the law is not always the wrong thing.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jul 24th, 2012 @ 7:26pm

        Re: Re:

        "The illegality of the act of the leak does not make the content of the documents untrue. "

        Okay, exactly how do you prove that the documents are 100% true?

        You can't. The true secret documents may be different, they are certainly not redacted, etc.

        Since the documents were obtained illegally, and there is no way to prove that they are authentic (except by violating state secrecy), then you are left with not much of anything - except that the government documents are still secret, and whatever was obtained illegally is not verified to match (and there is no way to do it legally)

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          MrWilson, Jul 24th, 2012 @ 8:42pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "(and there is no way to do it legally)"

          Um...The government can declassify the documents. That's legal and the whole point of this.

          Public officials have acknowledged that the leaks in general are valid. Why would the military be trying Bradley Manning for leaking sensitive documents if he didn't actually leak anything? If the leaks were forgeries, the government would have nothing to lose in just coming out and saying, "ha, those are fake!" Instead, it's wringing its hands about how bad the leaking is and trying to get its hands on Julian Assange.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          MrWilson, Jul 24th, 2012 @ 8:44pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          And you also never answered the question: Would you accept a guilty verdict and the death penalty if illegally leaked documents were your only evidence of innocence?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jul 25th, 2012 @ 8:09pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          If the documents weren't true, the government wouldn't be making such a fuss about them. QED.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jul 24th, 2012 @ 5:17pm

      Re:

      You are utterly missing the actual point: the government refuses to authenticate leaks. If the information is declassified post-leak, that tacitly confirms the information is genuine.

      This has absolutely nothing to do with the information being released illegally; Guantanamo defendants are disallowed from using it because the government refuses to admit whether any given document is genuine.

      Please do not make arguments about what you have utterly no understanding of.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 24th, 2012 @ 10:27am

    In the business world, people commonly sign "non-disclosure agreements," but they're always considered null and void if that same information becomes public by other means.

    Citation needed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    well, Jul 24th, 2012 @ 10:27am

    for something thats still classified and does not exist they sure love to go after people like it does!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 24th, 2012 @ 10:36am

    Reality

    It's as if everyone is actively denying reality.


    Wikipedia: Reality-based community

    The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. “That's not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”


    “We create our own reality.”

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Jul 24th, 2012 @ 10:39am

    We have always been at war with Eastasia...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 24th, 2012 @ 10:40am

    It's just as bad as you think...

    I was told that if I downloaded "secret" files from WL onto my govt. pc, that IT would probably re-image my drive. Seriously. I don't know if they would have their fingers in their ears chanting "lalalalala" while they were doing it, but it would be appropriate.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    weneedhelp (profile), Jul 24th, 2012 @ 10:45am

    the courts are saying that an executive branch that lives in fantasyland is just fine.

    2 Bush's, a Clinton, and Obama.

    Washington has been Wonderland for a long time.

    http://cache.kotaku.com/assets/images/9/2011/04/alice5b.jpg

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jul 24th, 2012 @ 10:56am

      Re: the courts are saying that an executive branch that lives in fantasyland is just fine.

      A leak is just a moment in time. A cover-up is for life!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 24th, 2012 @ 10:48am

    The ACLU relied on the part of the test that questions whether the disclosure of the information "reasonably could be expected to result in damage to national security." Seeing as anyone seeking to "damage" our national security can just surf over to Wikileaks, and has been able to do that for quite some time, you'd think that the ACLU's argument was pretty rock solid. Not according to the court (pdf and embedded below). The court seems to tapdance around the issue. It argues that the Court should "defer" to the judgment of the administration on this question, and that it's possible that the official release of these documents could impact national security. I don't buy it. Any official release is unlikely to have any different impact than the unofficial release. To argue that making those releases official has some sort of new "threat" involved just doesn't pass the laugh test.

    The judge applied the law, which is what judges do. The judge didn't work backwards, which is all you ever do. Can you actually demonstrate how the judge misapplied the law, or are you just whining--again?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Digitari, Jul 24th, 2012 @ 10:59am

      Re: yes I can show it

      In the Military (35 years ago) it was SOP to declassify any and all documents that have been made public.

      It was part of my Job to go through Documents in the classified files and restamp them "unclassified", are you implying that Pres Reagan was a lefty or something??

      this was and always has been the SOP for classified documents going back to WWII

      Dunno why it would be different now, find a classified Message clerk and ask to to see the (unclassified) SOP

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      E. Zachary Knight (profile), Jul 24th, 2012 @ 11:21am

      Re:

      Judges are also supposed to use context in determining damages and guilt. I would see no reason for a judge to not use context in this situation.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Cory of PC (profile), Jul 24th, 2012 @ 10:56am

    It's as if everyone is actively denying reality.

    So, are these politicians some kind of reality warpers? Are they trying to deny (when I read it, I thought it was 'defied') reality by making it where they get the court to rule in their favor and have them continue to live in this fantasy land?

    ... Must be a nice place to live in.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jul 24th, 2012 @ 2:31pm

      Re:

      It takes more than politicians to do this.

      The "intelligence" and military industrial segments of the government are not up for election as politicians are but I suggest they wield a lot of power in government.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Jul 24th, 2012 @ 10:57am

    I'm sure they also want a pony. With a horn on its forehead.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    DUMBASS POLITICIANS, Jul 24th, 2012 @ 11:06am

    New leak

    New leak shows obama bending over and getting it in rear from riaa then mpaa boss

    then it switches to oil and big business execs taking turns are romneys butt.....

    but your not allowed to see it....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Yakko Warner (profile), Jul 24th, 2012 @ 11:33am

    Plausible deniability?

    Is there any guarantee that the information published by Wikileaks is legitimate? How do you really know that a document on Wikileaks isn't some manner of forgery? If the actual documents are declassified, then you have a way to prove (or disprove) the Wikileaks document's truthfulness. But if the original remains "classified", all you really have is a situation where some random, unverified document makes an accusation of the truth, which still needs "proof".

    Maybe they're just trying to retain their "nuh-uh, prove it" defense to "he said you were doing this".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      duffmeister (profile), Jul 24th, 2012 @ 11:42am

      Re: Plausible deniability?

      If they are forgeries how can they prosecute the person who leaked them?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Machin Shin (profile), Jul 24th, 2012 @ 12:16pm

        Re: Re: Plausible deniability?

        When I read this my mind just pulls up an image of Wile E. Coyote face just as he realizes he has run off a cliff.

        I imagine that is the same face made by some poor government mole soon as he realizes how true your statement is.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Prisoner 201, Jul 25th, 2012 @ 4:56am

        Re: Re: Plausible deniability?

        This.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    New Mexico Mark, Jul 24th, 2012 @ 11:35am

    Hmmmm

    The only justification I can see for this type of behavior is that of officially confirming leaked information vs. leaving it ambiguous. It's a little like the "we can neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons" on certain U.S. Navy vessels. Everyone knows the real answer, but without an official answer, there is some doubt.

    In the case of a classified release, it would be difficult to prove electronic documents had not been tampered with prior to or even after release. I guess if they were released with a hash, you could verify no changes subsequent to release, but not prior. Deliberate disinformation, anyone?

    I seriously doubt this is the case with Wikileaks, and I think a better "cover up" strategy would be to keep the official documents classified and treat the Wikileaks documents there as if they didn't matter. In fact, government reactions so far seem to lend the most weight to the authenticity of the leaked documents. Unless there's a lot we don't know, it really looks like this has been handled incompetently from the start.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 24th, 2012 @ 12:02pm

    Question: If Mike is so smart on all these subjects why does he just write a blog and not do something more important? It seems that he could be a lawyer, judge, president, congressman, police officer etc etc etc. He knows it all.

    Sorry, I'll get back in line, Baa

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Machin Shin (profile), Jul 24th, 2012 @ 12:20pm

      Re:

      Hmm, you know, not a bad idea, Mike should run for President. Why not after all? Certainly not much competition to speak of. Kind of frustrating going to vote when you look at your options and realize your not picking the one you like but instead trying to pick the one you least hate.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Digitari, Jul 24th, 2012 @ 12:41pm

        Re: Re:

        Or ya know, it could just be that Mike would not like to sell his soul...........

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Machin Shin (profile), Jul 24th, 2012 @ 1:01pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          You don't have to sell your soul to run for president, now to win..... yeah probably do have to sell soul to win.

          I always thought it would be nice though if someone would run for President and be brutally honest. Just stand up and say "I don't give a fuck what the public wants I'm going to go do what the fuck I want". I think I would probably vote for him. Be refreshing to at least have a guy who is honest about it.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Joe Dirt, Jul 24th, 2012 @ 12:48pm

      Re:

      Not sure I get where anyone here thinks he "knows it all." To me this actually reads like an opinion based on relative common sense.

      And if my mother was correct, we can all grow up to be anything we want!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Tim Griffiths (profile), Jul 25th, 2012 @ 2:47am

      Re:

      Ya who needs an free press and an informed public in a democracy. People who spend time understanding a given set of issues should only ever, instead of trying to inform the public.... oh wait, if the public is no informed or aware of the issues their platform is based on and has no sources other than a person who is running that platform to become informed about those issues they are not going to be able to make an informed voting decision and as such the platform is undermined.

      In other words Mike is doing something about it and if you don't understand what that is or why it's important then you are less a troll and more a silly uniformed dumb ass.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 24th, 2012 @ 3:05pm

    A government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" should not have secrets from the people.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jul 24th, 2012 @ 4:26pm

      Re:

      Overgeneralize much?

      I would think you would not like it if codes that would allow terroists to launch nukes from the comfort of their home computers.


      Of course even having a system that makes such a thing possible is insanely irresponsible. But you get to point.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous, Jul 24th, 2012 @ 7:25pm

      True, but...

      Government is not, nor has it ever been, "of the people, by the people, and for the people".

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 24th, 2012 @ 7:23pm

    It's not sand the government has its head in.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Cowherd, Jul 25th, 2012 @ 2:29am

    "I reject your reality and substitute my own." -Adam Savage

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    The Crimson Crown, Oct 5th, 2012 @ 2:33pm

    Its not sand the government has its head in...

    The Crimson Crown

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This