It is a very hard question to answer. I could make for an interesting discussion, but the way you approached it (with the quote you pulled out) feels nearly like trolling.
Well, of course I was being provocative. But there is a difference between being provocative and make forum members question their own opinions, and trolling.
You see, I gathered from the discussions here, that at least some forum members seem to believe, that the people as a mass are too uneducated, too stupid or too uninterested to be trusted in terms of what kind of information they get or, in other words, that there has to be an authority that decides what the people need to know and what they do not need to know.
So I picked a piece of writing from a historical figure for discussion, who believed just that. But I suppose too many smelled the trap and were cautious enough to not get involved
So before I go on, here's what I think:
1. Was it illegal to steal those cables and give them to WikiLeaks? YES.
2. Was it illegal or at least morally wrong for WikiLeaks and the newspapers all over the world to release the information in these cables, after they got heir hands on it? NO.
You see, the responsibility for keeping classified information secret, lies with the government, not with the press or WikiLeaks or simply anyone, who get their hands on them. The theft of those cables may be illegal, because laws were broken. But the publication was not. Freedom of press means, that every piece of information, that gets into the hands of journalists, may be made public. The journalist decides. That's his job. If a journalists gets such stuff into his hands and decides to not publish it and to give it back to the government, he failed in his job. And I mean total and completely fail.
And one thing must be said very clear: Whoever calls for government control over what information is being released to the public, involuntarily calls for censorship and promotes government-driven propaganda. Because only absolute freedom of press and complete freedom of information guarantees the transparancy of government actions and prevents the elite from becoming too powerful.
The publication of those diplomatic files has been embarrassing for the United States, yes. But getting embarrassed is not a crime. It's ridiculous to say that it endangered lives. Ridiculous and unbelievably stupid, when you look at the past 60 years and see, how many people have died because of secret and stupid decisions of governments.
What I believe is, that many Americans are simply hurt in their national pride by what happened and therefore take it personal. That poisons the whole discussion and many do not really think about what they say or write anymore, because they are pissed.
But personal feelings shouldn't be taken into consideration in this discussion. Because otherwise you're getting into danger to become fodder for those, who don't trust the people and call out for more control and less freedom in order to "make life safer for everyone" but in fact only seek to secure their power.
That's where the text comes in, which I posted. The author's thesis is, that the people as a mass are too dumb and ignorant to make important decisions and that a strong leadership, an "elite" group of people, should make all the decisions. In essence the text says, that democracy is bad, because only the best and brightest should be involved in running a country.
I will paste the text again here now but completed, with the missing paragraph at the end and also the source of the text:
Journalistic circles in particular like to describe the press as a 'great power' in the state. As a matter of fact, its importance really is immense. It cannot be overestimated, for the press really continues education in adulthood.
Its readers, by and large, can be divided into three groups:
First, into those who believe everything they read;
second, into those who have ceased to believe anything;
third, into the minds which critically examine what they read, and judge accordingly.
Numerically, the first group is by far the largest. It consists of the great mass of the people and consequently represents the simplest-minded part of the nation. It cannot be listed in terms of professions, but at most in general degrees of intelligence. To it belong all those who have neither been born nor trained to think independently, and who partly from incapacity and partly from incompetence believe everything that is set before them in black and white.
To them also belongs the type of lazybones who could perfectly well think, but from sheer mental laziness seizes gratefully on everything that someone else has thought, with the modest assumption that the someone else has exerted himself considerably.
Now, with all these types, who constitute the great masses, the influence of the press will be enormous. They are not able or willing themselves to examine what is set before them, and as a result their whole attitude toward all the problems of the day can be reduced almost exclusively to the outside influence of others.
This can be advantageous when their enlightenment is provided by a serious and truth-loving party, but it is catastrophic when scoundrels and liars provide it.
The second group is much smaller in number. It is partly composed of elements which previously belonged to the first group, but after long and bitter disappointments shifted to the opposite and no longer believe anything that comes before their eyes in print.
They hate every newspaper; either they don't read it at all, or without exception fly into a rage over the contents, since in their opinion they consist only of lies and falsehoods.
These people are very hard to handle, since they are suspicious even in the face of the truth. Consequently, they are lost for all positive, political work.
The third group, finally, is by far the smallest; it consists of the minds with real mental subtlety, whom natural gifts and education have taught to think independently, who try to form their own judgment on all things, and who subject everything they read to a thorough examination and further development of their own.
They will not look at a newspaper without always collaborating in their minds, and the writer has no easy time of it. Journalists love such readers with the greatest reserve.
For the members of this third group, it must be admitted, the nonsense that newspaper scribblers can put down is not very dangerous or even very important. Most of them in the course of their lives have learned to regard every journalist as a rascal on principle, who tells the truth only once in a blue moon.
Unfortunately, however, the importance of these splendid people lies only in their intelligence and not in their number- a misfortune at a time when wisdom is nothing and the majority is everything! Today, when the ballot of the masses decides, the chief weight lies with the most numerous group, and this is the first: the mob of the simple or credulous.
It is of paramount interest to the state and the nation to prevent these people from falling into the hands of bad, ignorant, or even vicious educators. The state, therefore, has the duty of watching over their education and preventing any mischief. It must particularly exercise strict control over the press; for its influence on these people is by far the strongest and most penetrating, since it is applied, not once in a while, but over and over again. In the uniformity and constant repetition of this instruction lies its tremendous power. If anywhere, therefore, it is here that the state must not forget that all means must serve an end; it must not let itself be confused by the drivel about so-called 'freedom of the press' and let itself be talked into neglecting its duty and denying the nation the food which it needs and which is good for it; with ruthless determination it must make sure of this instrument of popular education, and place it in the service of the state and the nation.
Here's the source
Of course I?m not so naive to believe that nobody googled the text I posted, to find out about who the author was.
But that doesn?t matter. What matters, is the effect of it. I?m quite sure that some people here were quite surprised and hopefully even shocked to find themselves so close to the mindset of Adolf Hitler in the 1920?s. That text was a wake-up call for us in school and I hope it can still function as such.
The key question of this whole WikiLeaks affair is not, if releasing those documents was illegal or dangerous of if it even put people into danger.
No, the real core of this whole discussion, is the fact that the elite of a country has been stripped of what means the most to them: Insider knowledge. Power comes from knowledge. Without their secret knowledge, governments lose power over their people. Make it public and they stand before the nation naked and humiliated.
The government, a.k.a. the ?elite?, fears the people. They like the people to be quiet and peaceful. It doesn?t matter, if it?s a democracy or a dictatorship. Inner peace is essential. Therefore all governments have a tendency for secrecy and shutting out the public.
A democracy gets into danger, when people start to not care anymore. When they become ignorant and ?intellectual lazybones?. That?s when propaganda and populism can come in. You can see signs of all of that in the USA of today. What frightens me most, is when people actually fall for the propaganda and think that freedom of press is a bad thing.
You see, Hitler was of course wrong. But he didn?t know any better anyway. He forgot the 4th group in his tirade: The responsible, vigilant citizen. That group makes all the difference. It didn?t exist in Germany in the 1920?s, though, because people were fed up with their country and democracy.
That should be different today, though. Actually it is essential for any democracy to have responsible, vigilant citizens. They can only exist, when people identify themselves with their countries? political system and are proud of its achievements.
From what I gathered as a reaction to the whole WikiLeaks affair, many people in the USA think that freedom of press mustn?t be total, because it could endanger the state or destabilize its authority. They call out for more control now and stricter law enforcement. That?s rubbish. It comes dangerously close to what Hitler wrote in 1925. We should know better today.
If you really argue against total freedom of press, beware of opening Pandora's box. Because when you let it slip once, it will start to slip completely very soon.
I really don't understand the Americans sometimes. They claim that constant vigilance is part of their national character. That every citizen has to keep a watch on the government. They even say that's why they're all keeping guns at home. But one incident like the WikiLeaks affair and all those principles seem to be forgotten. Really strange.
Most journalists are intelligent people, too (in fact I believe there are more intelligent journalists, than intelligent politicians). They are able to determine, which information is for the benefit of the people and which is better held back, because it would really be a threat. They do not need to be told what to write or release. And a really free country doesn?t even try to hinder them.
And indeed our free press still works, because in spite of all the hate WikiLeaks receives from rightwingers today, nobody so far has seriously accused the New York Times, Der SPIEGEL, Le Monde, The Guardian or El Pais for printing the information.
I will try to address the issue, though. As I have mentioned before, the US government, specifically, is created as an employee of the public, and has a responsibility to inform the public of its doings and change them if the majority says to do so. As a nation, though, we want to be as strong on the world stage as possible in all aspects. Just like companies hold product details secret so that their competitors do not get an upper hand (See Coca-Cola), there are some things that governments need to keep to themselves so that others do not have the same advantage. This is mostly relevant in the diplomacy and military aspects. When the govt contracts the development of a highly sophisticated aircraft, it is with the intent of retaining military supremacy. If the details of this aircraft are not kept secret, it leaves them open to be used by any other nation, friend or foe. It also allows those other nations to learn the weaknesses and gain an advantage on the battlefield. In diplomacy, it is often necessary to feign a friendly face for the sake of progress and peace. I'm certain China does not have a good reputation in the White House, but it is necessary to at least be polite in the public forum so that no party is offended. The US and China being at odds is not good for the world. What the WH discusses within itself in regards to China is useful if kept secret.
To keep details such as those mentioned, it is unfortunately necessary to hold them secret from the nation's citizens, for if the citizens know the secrets, then non-citizens can know, which means other nations can know. To this point, everything has been of my personal opinion, which can be debated. But now I will address the main question, who decides what is secret.
When we elect a President and congressmen, we do so with the understanding that these people are responsible, intelligent, and working towards what is best for us. As a representative democracy, we are putting our trust in these few so as to create a streamlined government process, and in doing so, we are indirectly giving up the opportunity to personally and directly affect the govt process. Essentially, we are giving these people to make decisions for us. Because of this, it would be logical to assume we are giving them the ability to determine what is necessary to keep secret and what isn't. If we do not like what is being kept secret, then it is our duty as citizens to vote somebody into office that will make the topic public, and bring to justice those who keep illegal/unethical/immoral acts/programs secret from us. This is obviously a problem because, if it is secret, how would we ever know about it? One answer is that it is a trust issue. We must hold some level of trust in politicians, otherwise we shouldn't vote for them. Another answer as that we have trust in our fellow citizens who do get involved in govt as hired workers, who make public things that should be public (whistle blowing).
This is where Wikileaks and Private Bradley Manning. They did exactly that, made public what [they thought] should be public. What should be the issue of focus is whether any of the information leaked was helpful for the public to know (does it affect our view on what the govt is doing) and whether any of the information is damaging for people outside the US to know (military strategy, internal diplomatic cables, etc). IMO, the majority of the leak is unnecessary, unhelpful, and perhaps slightly damaging. Is it getting anyone killed? Probably not. Is it hurting diplomatic talks? Possibly. I find the leak irresponsible on Wikileaks side partly because Wikileaks is not a US institution. It should be up to citizens of the US to determine what other US citizens need to know. Obviously outsiders won't care what comes to light, it doesn't affect them poorly. The same cannot be said for US citizens.
TL;DR We put out trust in politicians by voting for them, we should trust them to do the right thing until we do not think they are, and then we vote them out. I applaud anyone who lets the public know of any wrongdoings withing govt, but look down upon those who let confidential information known just for the sake of leaking it. Julian Assange is irresponsible, and Bradley Manning should be investigated and brought to court to be tried by a jury of his peers.
That may be all true but then you also have to blame the government for making classified material accessable for 2.5 million people in the first place, and not only some internet activists or journalists for publishing it.
Or in other words: Don't blame the messenger, when the message is bad.
It's only a short step from keeping things secret out of national interest and keeping things secret to cover up misdeeds.
So as a conclusion I say:
In dubio pro freedom of information. Because paternalism of the people is definitely the wrong way in a democracy.