Secret Gov't Documents Will be Declassified 12/31

mozzwald writes "This New Year's Eve, at midnight on the dot, hundreds of millions of pages of U.S. government secrets will be revealed. Or at least they'll no longer be official secrets — it may actually take months or more for the National Archives and Records Administration to make those pages available for public consumption."

Re:Can't wait...

[Threni]

> Can't wait 25 years to know how my president mislead us into this Iraq quagmire. We just lost 100 people so far this month and
> counting! Very sad indeed. More American lives have now been lost in Iraq as compared to those that died on 9/11.

I don't know what you expect to find. There's nothing unique about the US intervention in Iraq - it's for exactly the same reasons as all the other meddling in other countries affairs going back through most of the 20th century. No cover ups or conspiracy theories are required - it's been taking place quite openly. You might want to start with `manufacturing consent` or `hegemony or survival` by Noam Chomsky for what's been going on, and how the a free media like that in the US handles it.

Re:Can't wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

What about hundreds of Iraqi people's lives that were lost? That doesn't count eh?

Re:Can't wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hundreds? Try hundreds of thousands.

Re:Can't wait...

[oggiejnr]

You would be suprised about the anount of documentation. If people lower down in the food chain want to cover themselves the first thing they do is put it in writing. Take the Suez Crisis for example. There is clearly documentation to show that the British used sexed up intelligence to manufacture a war against Egypt to reclaim Suez. If documentation exists to show this then I wouldn't be at all suprised if the same is true of Iraq

Re:Can't wait...

[Malc]

"More American lives have now been lost in Iraq as compared to those that died on 9/11."

Why exactly did you draw that comparison? They're two unrelated events. Why not say: more American lives have been lost in Iraq than in Pearl Harbor? Even if 10,000 lives had been lost on 9/11, there would still be no justification for attacking Iraq based on it, and thus no bench mark to compare against.

Re:Can't wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but the point is no one will care.

We don't need to open secret archives to know the Iraq war was a bunch of bullshit but no one really cares.

Re:Can't wait...

[Iron (III) Chloride]

It's true that automobile deaths are extremely prevalent, but they are usually more the result of 1) poor training or 2) excessive alcohol consumption or 3) road rage. It's something that cannot be easily dealt with because it concerns the whole of society. People will always get angry, people will always get drunk, and people will always get mad. It's part of human nature that probably is very hard, if not impossible, to change. It's unlike racism, where you have one clearly defined ethnic group targeting another. Oh, and accidents may also happen due to carelessness, which cannot be avoided.

On the other hand, the war is a single product of a single administration and the entire US public's attitudes (apathy, ignorance?) towards a single issue. It's much more preventable; it's much more treatable. Thus, naturally we'll be more easily angered about a more preventable bad decision by the administration and its incompetence and arrogance. Perspective is much less the issue here as opposed to the ability to succeed.

-FeCl3

An unnecessary secret is a failure

[Bromskloss]

I'm not very much for the state having secrets to its people -- the state is created by the people because they needed one, after all. If there still is a great need to keep a secret (just a small need doesn't cut it for me), then so be it, I guess. BUT, any fact kept secret without reson to do so i an abomination! There should be measures taken to ensure that everything that can be revealed is revealed (not the other way around).

I'm not talking specifically about the USA here -- I'm not an american -- but the same thing applies to any state.

Re:An unnecessary secret is a failure

[sbben]

There should be measures taken to ensure that everything that can be revealed is revealed

And there are such measures! And you are looking at them. It is required that US documents be declassified after a certain period of time. That's the point of an article like this.

What I think you meant is why are secrets ever kept in the first place. Well, for very good reason. You can't have military plans circulating weeks before an attack can you. Secrets are there for good reason. The public can't be trusted with everything. This is the very same reason why the US doesn't use a popular vote to elect its president. The electoral college was put into place to keep too much power being placed on the layman.

the date is wrong?

[name*censored*]

uh, if they're being declassified at exactly the start of the new year(ie, 1 second after 11:59:59 12/31), then wouldn't that mean that they're ACTUALLY being declassified on the 1/1? The new day actually begins at 00:00:00...

Also with this september 11/conspiracy theory/craziness spin that this thread has taken... If they were clever enough to blow up (their own) building and cover it up, surely they would be clever enough to

1) Do a good job of covering it up (recycled argument from moon landing conspiracy)

2) Pick something that wasn't so difficult to orchestrate (rigging an inner city building with explosives with no credible witnesses willing to testify) eg, a chemical attack (like the 95 subway thing), a car/truck-bomb (terrorists seem to like those), or attacks on foreign US embassies.

3) Pick something that more strongly supports attacking Iraq - they had to do an AWFUL lot of fancy footwork to get from "an afghani terrorist blowing up a US building" to "attack a regime which had little to do with 9/11 (although still guilty of terrible atrocities)"

4) Forget trying to attack anything.. the government spin engine is an incredibly powerful one, it would be just as easy to justify a war with no 9/11 than having to orchestrate a 9/11 attack AND THEN justify a war with it.

It's a little ignorant to say what SHOULD happen and compare it to what DID happen, considering there are thousands of variables involved that we'll never accurately know (how much fuel the plane had, its exact speed, its exact mass, the exact condition of the building, its weight load, its natural fault lines, the fault lines created by the impact of the plane, other environmental elements etc etc etc). Plus, if the conspirators didn't expect it to fall over (enough to put use secondary explosives, which would be a big giveaway) just from a plane crash, then why would they think that we wouldn't figure it out? There are enough demolition experts out there that it would be a glaring omission to ignore the fact that the experts would notice that a plane couldn't do that on it's own. It's much like how you cannot see the stars in the background of the moonwalk, it's too obvious for such a big conspiracy to miss, the "moon's reflection makes too much contrast" argument is so weak that it must be true. It's much more sensible to disregard the conspiracy given that it's unnecessary and far too difficult a conspiracy to organise.

Re:Can't wait...

[Guuge]

It makes perfect sense to compare two deadly events by counting deaths. For example, the Asian tsunami was far deadlier than hurricane Katrina. That doesn't make hurricane Katrina justified, but it does give one some perspective.

In this case, it's clear that Bush is deadlier to Americans than Osama bin Laden. The comparison suggests that we reevaluate our priorities.

Yes Minister

[Anonymous Coward]

Jim: How am I going to explain the missing documents to the Mail?
Sir Humphrey: Well this is what we normally do in, circumstances like these. [hands over a file]
Jim: [reading] This file contains the complete set of papers, except for a number of secret documents, a few others which are part of still active files, a few others lost in the flood of 1967. [to Humphrey] Was 1967 a particularly bad winter?
Sir Humphrey: No a marvellous winter, we lost no end of embarrassing files.
Jim: [reading] Some records which went astray in the move to London, and others when the War Office was incorporated in the Ministry of Defence, and the normal withdrawal of papers whose publication could give grounds for an action for liable or breach of confidence, or cause embarrassment to friendly governments. [to Humphrey] Well that's pretty comprehensive. How many does that normally leave for them to look at? [Humphrey says nothing] How many does that actually leave? About a hundred? Fifty? Ten? Five? Four? Three? Two? One? Zero?
Sir Humphrey: Yes Minister.

Re:Can't wait...

[fuzzix]

Yes, Chomsky's a professor of linguistics.

Oh, well that completely excludes him from being able to comment on the semantics and euphemisms used by the mass media to mask the truth.

How is that "will" to be understood?

[Opportunist]

Is it a will as in "they will do it", or one as in "they should, but will come up with a reason not to do it"?

I've seen my share of US politics lately, so I'm compelled to ask.

Re:An unnecessary secret is a failure

[xappax]

Secrets are there for good reason. The public can't be trusted with everything.

The ability to keep secrets from the public is a form of power. This power can be used sparingly and responsibly - like your example of keeping battle plans secret before the battle. I don't think anyone would claim that absolute transparency should be expected - I don't want the nuclear launch procedures and authentication information to be public information!

Like most forms power, the ability to keep secrets can also be exploited and abused for the benefit of those in power. The ability to keep documents detailing your wrongdoings out of the public eye empowers you to commit even greater and more brazen wrongdoings without fear of reprisal - nobody will know until it's too late.

I'm of the opinion that government officials tend to abuse and exploit the power granted to them most of the time, and we should therefore be working to strip them of all power that's not absolutely necessary for the functioning of society. While a limited power of secrecy is understandable, the degree of power that officials have over information today is far, far beyond what is beneficial to society.

The trouble is that although the government infrastructure which keeps things secret no longer serves the interest of the public, it does serve the interest of the vast majority of our government officials. I suspect that it will take a vast, radical change to the structure and philosophy of our government before we can expect officials to voluntarily relinquish the power which insulates them all from the repercussions of their actions.

Re:Can't wait...

[slughead]

What about hundreds of Iraqi people's lives that were lost? That doesn't count eh?

How many would Saddam have killed if he'd remained in power?

He had gassed his own people, killing far more than have died in this current 'war'. The Iraq/Iran war was so horrendous it was almost like WWI was in Europe, only with more effective weaponry including but not limited to--yep, you guessed it--chemical weapons. Iran had some soldiers whose job it was to walk, unarmed and unequipped, over land mines to clear them out for armed personnel.

I doubt if you're going by strict numbers, you can say that more lives have been lost as a result of removing Saddam from power in this way than to leave him in power.

Unless, of course, we bail out of Iraq. In that case, there will probably be a civil war which could cost hundreds of thousands more.

If you only care about American lives, nobody disagrees that more would have been spared if the US had stayed out (in the short term, at least).

I was against the invasion, but that's because I don't think it's worth a single American life to help people who are not among our own, unless it's of extreme strategic significance (obviously if Iraq had WMD to give to terrorists to kill us with, this would qualify).

Moreover, I doubt Americans have the attention span nor the understanding of geopolitics to support this 'police action' as is needed to prevent a civil war, and I think we WILL bail out either after the 2008 or 2010 elections (in the US). Therefore, even from a compassionate perspective, this was a mistake; not because we can't win, but because the American people don't have the testicular fortitude anymore to do what is necessary to win.

Media Apathy

[MrSteveSD]

Actually I am always amazed at the amount of incredibly damaging stuff that gets released in the US. For example, things like Operation Northwoods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods ), which although never carried out, was a plan to stage terrorist attacks on US assets and blame it on Cuba as an excuse for war.

Then there are minutes of meetings that provide evidence of war crimes by certain individuals. For example, minutes were released of Henry Kissinger saying "Anything that flies on anything that moves" , which were his bombing orders for Cambodia. If they had evidence like that against Milosevic, his trial would have been over within days.

Fortunately these damning revelations are largely ignored by the US media. If they were not, perhaps they would stop releasing them in the first place.

Re:Who Shot JFK

[Klaus_1250]

AFAIK you'll need to wait at least another 10 years. (didn't bookmark the story about it, sorry) But, do you really think they will ever release the truth about the JFK assassination? Or that the how and why is properly documented? I would be surprised. My only question is if LBJ knew about it.

Re:Can't wait...

[slughead]

What crack are you on? There were reports coming out even years ago saying that in 2003 alone, the US led invasion on Iraq killed more people than Saddam killed in the last 20(!) years combined!

Sources:
182,000 [yahoo.com] gassed in the late 80's by Saddam.

57,617 MAX [iraqbodycount.org] Iraqi deaths in this war.

Your own what? Race? A more important human?

My beliefs were not the point of my post, I was just revealing my 'bias'. I will now further elaborate on my beliefs:

I don't feel this country owes anybody else a thing. Meddling in the affairs of others is likely the most avoidable cause of terrorist attacks on this country and a poor public image in the eyes of other nations. All we have to do is nothing, and nobody can blame us for anything. Obviously, we don't have the cash to be doing this stuff anyway (look at our deficit), and we NEVER get paid. IMO, if we're to go out and be the world's police, the world should pay us back (and more than just buying our Gov't bonds).

If the US had stayed out of WWI, there may have never been a WWII. If the US hadn't helped the Sudan kick Bin Laden out, he may not have been in Afghanistan. How big do we have to F'up, and how much money (which we don't have) do we have to waste before we stop with this foolishness?

Re:What do they have to do with each other?

[c_forq]

Has everyone forgotten our invasion of Afghanistan? Seriously, after 9/11 the push was to Afghanistan and NO ONE protested. Before the Iraq war millions protested, with some cities having the largest protests in their entire history Iraq's debacle with the UN inspectors set off the start to invading Iraq, and than Saddam kept bluffing and refusing to say he didn't have chemical weapons or to allow UN inspections to resume. I swear people are trying to rewrite current history to make Iraq immediately after 9/11 and completely caused by 9/11. Maybe that works better for the conspiracy theories, but it doesn't really fit the reality I lived through.

Re:An unnecessary secret is a failure

[cdrguru]

During the second world war, just before the Normandy Invasion, Allied reporters were briefed in FULL by Eisinowher (the then commanding C-in-C). He told them exactly when and where the invastion would happen, but told them it is their responsibility to keep it secret. The reporters cried "dirty pool", but kept their mouths shut UNTIL the invasion had taken place. No One, i mean NO ONE sold the secrets to the Enemy. FFW to 3 years ago, and the families of the troops were offiically NOT told about their spouses deployment to Iraq. They were just told (even though it was WELL known) that they are going to fight abroad.

Ha ha ha. Very good joke. OK, can anyone think of a single "journalist" that wouldn't spill the beans if they had an "exclusive" or "scoop" like the Normandy invasion? Do you think CNN has the ethics to kill a story based on "it isn't in the country's best interest?"

What about the current reporting based on a phony Iraqi policeman about executions in Iraq outside a mosque? It was reported by the US press to make the US Army look bad - and when the "evidence" turns out to be faked and the "source" doesn't exist, does anyone report that fact? No, they have moved on.

In the 1940's the press had some idea of "responsibility". In the Gulf war (Desert Storm) the press had to be managed closely because otherwise they would be reporting plans to the enemy. There is no "responsibility". There are no "ethics". They are out to make a buck and selling out the US or making the US look bad sells advertising space.

We've put ourselves into this situation. The secrets are there because the "public" cannot be told. What percentage of the "public" today is Muslim and would always come down on the side of Muslims vs. the US? No, we let people into the US that place the interests of foreign organizations ahead of those of the US. We have one now as a congressman who is going to try to take the oath of office on a Quran.

Re:Can't wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

There were reports coming out even years ago saying that in 2003 alone, the US led invasion on Iraq killed more people than Saddam killed in the last 20(!) years combined!

Some reports count the death of insurgents and deaths caused by insurgents as "US" deaths. Some reports count "avoidable" deaths in Iraq, but use different (and arbitrary) definitions of "avoidable" for US-occupied Iraq and the Iraq of Saddam Hussein. So please be sure to cite a specific report so we can dismantle it properly.

These points are moot, however, since a death count is a stupid metric to use in the first place. For instance, we lost many more people fighting World War II than we ever did at Pearl Harbor, but it doesn't mean it wasn't a worthwhile fight. The reasons we should not be in Iraq are many, but at best the death count issue should only be brought up to argue why, if we leave for other reasons, we should do so as quickly as possible.

Re:Can't wait...

[Hatta]

"More American lives have now been lost in Iraq as compared to those that died on 9/11."

Why exactly did you draw that comparison?

Look at it this way:

By his orders Bin Laden sent 2,700 Americans to their deaths.

By his orders George W. Bush sent 3,000 Americans to their deaths.

Who is America's enemy?

Re:It's nice to see they've solved the problem

[pedroloco]

I don't follow that logic. Wouldn't a saboteur simply set up a televsion or radio and watch/listen to a station to determine if it goes off the air?

Re:Can't wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your posts are both misleading and full of inaccuracies.

1. You seem to be implying that the amount people killed as a result of Saddam's policies during the Iraq-Iran war would be related to the amount of people that would be killed between 2003-present in a non-invaded Iraq. I don't see why this would be the case. The circumstances in those time periods would be entirely different. Most importantly Saddam was completely supported and backed by the US during the Iraq-Iran war, which was most likely what allowed him to carry out such atrocities. If you don't believe me, then feel free to read the publicly available declassified records available from the National Security Archives at http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/index .htm [gwu.edu]. Among other things, they contain the minutes from Rumsfeld's meetings with Saddam during the early 1980's, when the US-Iraq special relationship developed.

2. Of course Iraq is of "extreme strategic significance". The country has one of the largest energy reserves in the world, and if the US manages to stabilize Iraq enough for US oil companies to invest in it at the expense of the Iraq people, then the US will have increased its superpower status substantially. Read the "Crude Designs" report (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/cru dedesigns.htm) for an analysis of this.

3. As "A beautiful mind" correctly points out, your figure of 57,617 Iraqi deaths in the war is completely false. Look at the Iraq Body Count's webpage that you linked to. They explicitly state that that number refers to the number of iraq deaths REPORTED. That's a big difference between that and the total number of Iraq deaths, which is probably around 600,000. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_mor tality_before_and_after_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq [wikipedia.org])

4. The philosophy you propose seems ignorant and racist. I don't see why an American life should be worth more than others, as you suggest when you say "I don't think it's worth a single American life to help people who are not among our own". And why is it so important that the US get "paid back". If the US does save lives as a result of its actions, then shouldn't that in itself be enough compensation. Furthermore, inaction which you propound as a guiding principle of US politics is completely unrealistic. The US's economy is tightly linked to that of many other countries, and US companies have a presence in many other countries. These facts alone necessitate that the US be involved in world politics, and humanitarian reasons should justify this as well.

5. You claim that the US owes nobody anything else and that the US should get paid back for police work that it has done in the past. What "police work" are you refering to? Most of US military intervention has been to protect and secure the interest of US companies, and things are the other way around: The US owes other countries for unjustified intervention in the past. Here are some examples:

* The invasion of Panama in 1989 (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Panama [wikipedia.org])
* The US-backed coup against Hugo Chavez in 2002 (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_coup_attem pt_of_2002 [wikipedia.org])
* 25 years of US sanctions against Cuba that have been repeatedly denounced by the UN (See http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/ga10529.doc .htm [un.org])
* US sanctions against Iraq, which resulted in the deaths of over 500,000 children (See http://dir.salon.com/story/people/feature/200 [salon.com]

Re:Can't wait...

[cold fjord]

The best methods available for surveying casualties tells us that the body count is around the most probable number of 655 thousand....

I wouldn't be so sure that study is reliable.

655,000 War Dead? A bogus study on Iraq casualties [opinionjournal.com]

The Iraq Body Count project take on it [iraqbodycount.org].

Some additional discussion [seixon.com].