Slashdot Mirror
US Prosecutors Have a Sealed Indictment On Assange, Say Leaked Files
beaverdownunder writes with news from The Age that "Leaked e-mails from private U.S. intelligence agency Stratfor indicate that American prosecutors have had a sealed, secret indictment drawn up against Julian Assange as early as January, 2011." From the article: "The news that U.S. prosecutors drew up a secret indictment against Mr. Assange more than 12 months ago comes as the WikiLeaks founder awaits a British Supreme Court decision on his appeal against extradition to Sweden to be questioned in relation to sexual assault allegations.
Mr. Assange, who has not been charged with any offence in Sweden, fears extradition to Stockholm will open the way for his extradition to the U.S. on possible espionage or conspiracy charges over WikiLeaks' publication of hundreds of thousands of leaked classified U.S. reports."
I think the only reason he hasn't been Awlaki'd is that he's staying in built-up first-world areas.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
He did not steal the files! He is not an american citizen! And when he did obtain the files, he was not on American soil! And he is not bound by any law prohibiting the distribution of these files, and certainly not under any NDA. So the question is what kind of justice mokery they came up with ?
He's also on Double Secret Probation.
Great, Stratfor claims to have a "secret indictment."
Well, where's the indictment? Leak that document.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
And in other news that everyone already figured out... OJ Simpson *did* actually kill his ex wife. President Bush lied about WMD in Iraq to make his case for his invasion. Republicans are trying to sabotage the economy to make sure Obama doesn't get re-elected. And Waldo wasn't in the picture at all.
Based on the rest of the Strafor emails, there's quite a high possibility that this is just made up.
RTFA. Whom do you expect to "leak that document", Stratfor?
The only solution is to smash imperialism with international socialist revolution!!! Workers to power!!!!!
UNITE with the Campaign for a Free Internet because today, our future begins with tomorrow!
Everyone, make sure we have this file (torrent) on our hard drives somewhere. I think that without this file, Julian Assange would have been dead by now.
Has done the world quite a service by exposing these secrets of what is misbehavior by governments. He hasn't really done anything that could put the lives of anyone in jeopardy. On the other hand, he has put some career politicians and bureaucrats in jeopardy of losing their freedom and they deserve it too. This man should be given a pulitzer or nobel prize for his work. He and his team's work have exposed the lies told by governments and it is high time the public really knows what misdeed their officials are up to. If Obama really didn't want to deliver transparency to the government, Assange will hold him to that campaign promise.
Wikileaks. Having that email is interesting, but it is entirely devoid of any context or what the actual document is. Stratfor's an intelligence company. It could be misdirection for all we know.
Conspiracy minded thinking just doesn't jive me. It's pretty obvious the US Government isn't happy with Julian Assange, but, at what point does the conspiracy end? Show me the damn document.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Admit nothing, deny everything and make up counter accusations.
Now we know where the US Government gets its ideas to make crap up.
How about the tax payers telling government where it is going to spend tax payers taxes? The system is already there for tax collectors and processors to direct each tax payers tax revenue to where each tax payers instructs. This will solve a great deal of problems with an out of control rouge government.
As a tax payer I do not approve of my taxes being spent by the government funding lies and deceptions that hurt innocent people.
Who are the tax payers who do? Can I get a list?
According to the Declaration of Independence it is the tax payers right and DUTY to put of government not serving the interest of the people and to form a new governance that will. And that is in the works - i.e. http://www.nycga.net/resources/declaration/
For those who do not know, you can support Wikileaks, using your credit card or paypal by simply buying sponsor items (see wikileaks site for donations) such as a T-Shirt for $100 where the profits go to funding Wikileaks. And this is called Free Enterprise.....
Some assistant prosecutor wrote a draft indictment for Assange and did not finish it, Assange has not been indicted, Assange is not being indicted, and the draft indictment is still in that bureaucrat's drafts folder. It's a secret indictment because it's not being used, by the same standard that every draft legislative proposal that a legislative aide or lobbyist starts work on is a SECRET LAW!!!!11one. So what?
So the question is what kind of justice mokery they came up with ?
I suppose that the Wikileaks cable leaks were so pervasive that some of the files contained classified information -- maybe even information not only classified by the United States government but also many other governments of the world.
Has it occurred to you that perhaps the US prosecutors have researched the laws that he was supposed to be abiding by when he obtained the files? They're probably not as serious as the US laws but nowhere does it say whether these are charges under US law, Australian laws, US-Ally law or some other foreign law. Here's some reading on said laws from the nation of his citizenship. Perhaps the purpose of this indictment is to try to get him tried under those laws in an Australian court with information provided by US prosecutors?
My work here is dung.
My understanding of such matters is that indictments are kept secret so that the subject doesn't go into hiding or otherwise take steps to avoid arrest. Do you really think Assange isn't aware of the US' desire to get him? Through the court system, extraordinary rendition, or just a sniper.
The fact that he is being indicted should be somewhat of a comfort in that the intent is to give him his day in court rather than in someone's crosshairs.
Have gnu, will travel.
Isn't an indictment what you get from a Grand Jury when they look over the prosecution's case and decide if there's enough to go to full trial?
When I glanced at that headline I actually parsed it as
"US persecutors have a sealed indictment .."
Well maybe that's more truthful ;-)
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
When the American government pulls moves like this, it proves it is the greatest threat to liberty in the world. The bland malevolence of the sociopathic gangsters running the United States right now puts the acute and minor threat of 3rd world terrorists shooting guns to shame. The latter kills scores, the former kills millions. And the former's threat is all the more intractable because of all the sheeple who shut up and do as they're told in the commission of the crimes.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
When you have guns, and the special "right" to employ them as a business model, you don't need to justify a damn thing.
It astounds me that after thousands of years of organized coercion, the average human being still doesn't realize that coercion doesn't merely describe government, it defines government.
When you have coercion, you certainly don't need persuasion.
Duh, as if that was a surprise.
Now what do they really think will happen if they would sentence Manning and Assange?
Would their (USA) secrets be more safe due to this?
Nope. Plenty of people that can and will leak.
So it all depends on their (USA) security policy.
Not the theatre stuff we see from DHS, TSA in all types of places but the security policy in IT and on diplomatic levels.
So the USA lost to wikileaks and is pursueing something that will gain them nothing. Not even their honour.
Nixon went after the New York Times journalists too, when they unmasked his pattern of election rigging, and abuse of power.
It's the same old same old.
I'm glad he's reporting/publishing these leaks and not helping cover them up. That's what good journalists do, no matter how hot it gets. No matter how much pressure or how many fake honey traps, or lies, or political abuse of the legal system.
I would be more worried about being extradited by the British. Gary McKinnon & Richard O'Dwyer face possible jail time in US prisons and they are British subjects.
"Stratfor claims to have a "secret indictment.""
I doubt Stratfor has a secret indictment.
From the wording it looks like Burton is using "we" to refer to the US government/country. Burton had heard that there was a secret indictment from some source.
I don't know if it's true, but would anyone really be surprised if it was?
So far, these amazingly revealing internal Stratfor emails have been a damp squib. If these are the selected "smoking guns" we're in for a replay of Geraldo Rivera and Capone's Vault.
They were tracking PETA apparently through newspaper accounts and PETA's own press releases. Ditto The Yes Men.
That's hardly surprising either. Or illegal. I'd be extremely surprised if either PETA or The Yes Men didn't keep up their own watch on press releases and news items on corporations/groups opposed to them. It's called opposition research. ProTip: groups you agree with do it too.
Who knows, maybe they contracted with Stratfor to do it. We won't know until the full email set is dumped, if ever.
You don't tug on Superman's cape, and you don't cross paths with the current Secretary of State, as a lot of other men as well as women besides Mr. Assange had found out. It may be terribly unjust what is happening to ol' Julian on account of the fun he had with some sista's in Sweden, but certain things are existential, such as the wrath of Secretary Clinton, and poor Mr. Assange is like, so clueless.
While I believe that Manning should be tried and executed, Assange is a different matter all together. He is not American and can not be tried for this. Fencing in stolen goods perhaps, but not for other matters.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
So were the leaked emails about the Wikileaks founder that posted leaked emails posted on email leak site Wikileaks?
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Though this isn't a massive difference for our ever-ready pre-bent-over government.
...if Wikileaks has published evidence of crimes by US military on foreign soil (for instance, just please for the sake of argument assume that this is in fact the case), then he would surely be afforded protection from extradition to the US on the grounds that due to such disclosures, his life would be endangered should he be turned over to US authorities?
on topic, if the US Government have an indictment they should make the detail public or I call bullshit.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
I hate you, so very much so.
But exactly how much of an insane conspiracy theory is this? If you've followed his treatment at all it doesn't take some nut-job to postulate his treatment has nothing to do with the alleged crimes he's accused of. I can grant not buying into a conspiracy theory because there's no direct supporting evidence. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.
Here we have an individual who's accused of rape by a woman who ran a blog, the meat of which was a guide to using the legal system to get back at your ex lovers, and another woman accusing him of rape bought him breakfast the morning after the alleged incident. So while I can provide no definitive evidence of a conspiracy theory, I ask if anyone can provide an explanation as to why they're trying so hard to prosecute these case when the only evidence in question is the accusers word, the former of which has a tremendous credibility problem, and the latter of which doesn't jive well with the established facts.
I hope he has put aside some money for a rescue operation in case he ends up in US hands.
The U.S. Government will not kill him, because they want the publicity of his arrest and trial; they want to make a public example of him.
If the U.S. Government wants him bad enough, they will get him without the use of law, just like they did with MegaUploads, and many other web sites. (ACTA has not yet been ratified by U.S. Congress and law requires it to be ratified before its valid.)
This is part of what ACTA is about. If that gets passed he wont even get to go before a judge, he will simply be grabbed, bagged, and shipped to the U.S.
he's been repeatedly fighting a simple police followup on a sex crime.
There's no conspiracy you nutjob. He's being difficult for no good reason.
It makes things worse for him because he has a history of rapey behavior. Just ask his ex-wife.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
AC, so mod me to oblivion. Assumes facts not in evidence, yadda, yadda
He did not steal the files. No, but he knew they were stolen and apparently communicated in advance with Manning (conspiracy type issues).
He is not an American Citizen, not on American soil. Agree, and not subject to US Law.
Justice mockery. Agree absolutely. The man should have been declared an enemy combatant and sent to Gitmo, FOREVER.
Understand, this rant is just for the release of top secret military materials without redacting.
I applaud the release of the state department files and even the collateral murder video. Keep the gov't in check, but do so without endangering combatants.
He did not steal the files. No, but he knew they were stolen and apparently communicated in advance with Manning (conspiracy type issues).
Sharing these files is illegal if you were permitted to see them in the first place ( Manning's case), however the law doesn't apply to you if someone shared them with you and you released them to the public.
The U.S. government is corrupt, and wants to hide that fact. That's why the U.S. government uses so much secrecy.
"Stratfor intelligence analysts on January 26 last year, the company's vice-president for intelligence, Fred Burton, responded to a media report concerning US investigations targeting WikiLeaks. He wrote: "We have a sealed indictment on Assange."
So Burton, a Stratfor VP, as "a sealed indictment"? Money & influence aside, on one at Stratfor has the power to directly indict anyone. If Burton is telling the truth, it means that someone committed a crime... by leaking a sealed indictment.
So here we have a prosecution team going after Assange for leaking classified information. In the course of doing so, someone on their team has leaked sealed information. Was it some ideological troublemaker, hell-bent on making secret government information public? Sounds like Assange!
Whoever it was, should really go after that person was. You know, for leaking sealed information. Which they seem to believe is a crime.
Just because he's paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get him.
One, routine follow-ups don't generally tend to involve extradition.
Two, I never said their was a conspiracy. The amount of effort in extraditing him is pretty out of balance with the strength of the case against him.
Three, again allegedly.
You reject the possibility that the US is trying to get the Wikileaks founder somewhere from which they could extradite him with no more evidence than "No, the US wouldn't do that. That sounds all conspiratorial."
I allow that it's possible such is what's going on (note I said allow that it is possible, not that I'm utterly convince that such is the case) base on the issues cited above.
Accepting a theory as true with no supporting evidence is pretty dumb. Asserting that a theory is definitively false without any evidence seems pretty dumb too.
Mod parent up!
Who is modding these up?
Also, how incredibly naive do you have to be, parent and great-grandparent?
If it's rape in Sweden, why extradition to U.S.? Sounds shady. It also appears to be a trumped-up charge, why would the U.S. bother? I'll bet this stuff happens ALL the time, but is there a sealed indictment locked and loaded already? No. That's not really a conspiracy, it's directly pointing to someone looking VERY HARD for a reason to put this guy in jail.
Um... this is what politics is about. Look at this hand, pay no attention to what the other is doing.
-
What the US government claims is he wasn't a passive actor. He didn't just receive this information out of the blue. He took an active role in convincing Manning to get and release it.
Now if that is true, he's on the hook for espionage. Espionage is a crime, one well established in law. It also applies not only to the person who obtains the information, but to anyone who is involved with that. So let's say I act as a cutout. Guy A gets info, hands it to me, I never read it or mess with it, I just hand it to Guy B who actually wants it. I am still on the hook. I don't get to say "But I didn't actually take it, I just willingly participated in its transfer." Sorry, I'm on the hook too.
Now I'm not making any judgement as to the validity of the US's claims, just that if they are valid then yes they have a case. If, on the other hand, Assanage had nothing to do with it, if the data was just given to him without him asking or anything then he's in the clear.
However when you ask someone to commit a crime for you, you can still be held for that crime. That's why if a mob boss orders someone to kill for him, he can still go down for that crime. You don't get to absolve yourself of responsibility by having someone else act on your behalf.
You don't get to get out of the law just because you are somewhere else. For example suppose I get your bank account password and steal all your money, but I do it from a different country. Not a crime where I am, even though the act probably is it wasn't done in their jurisdiction so not a crime there. Doesn't matter, your country can still extradite me to face justice (provided our nations have extradition treaties, which most do). I can't hide behind a border. Same deal if I ordered someone in your country to kill your wife. I didn't actually do the killing and I wasn't there. Doesn't matter, the blood is still on my hands and I can still be extradited and charged.
Doesn't matter if you don't think this is how things should be, it is how they are. This is well established in national and international law. Also in terms of practical things, look to Europe with many small countries near each other. You can see why it might be important to not have a national border be an impenetrable line.
Then it is illegal. Always has been. The government has the ability to classify information with additional controls above and beyond normal. Like it or not, this is well established and has been around for a long time. It is a crime to access or copy said information without authorization.
So how does this apply to journalists? Well it depends on the journalist's involvement. If the information is just given to them, they had no part in it, then they are in the clear, even if they reveal it. They had no part in the crime, everything is ok. Their hands are clean.
However if they go and solicit someone to give them the information, they are guilty. Much like the person who hires a hitman is guilty of the murder, so are they guilty of espionage. If you get someone to commit a crime your you, your hands are dirty you too are guilty.
There is no extradition to the US. It's all rumor and heresay.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Rouge government -- as in commie reds? Commie pinkos?
Or did you misspell "rogue"?
The only people who think the Sweden extradition is some sort of grand conspiracy for the US to get its hands on Assange are... well, Assange, and a like-minded bunch of credulous simpletons
Nice ad homenim against anyone who disagrees with your view. Extra points for arrogance.
Apparently your list of "simpletons" includes your buddies at Stratfor, who claim to have specific intelligence indicating that the charges in Sweden are trumped up:
Ref: http://www.webpronews.com/stratfor-email-leaks-reveal-u-s-plans-to-indict-wikileaks-founder-2012-02
This may be less about extraditing Assange to the US, and more about jailing him for any offense, real or imagined, and assinating his character. Which would still be a "grand conspiracy" of sorts, just not one focused on extradition: label him a rapist and jail him for trumped up charges without us breaking any of our laws. Makes a nice example (in the Mafiosa Dom sense of the word), particularly once you throw Manning's inevitable sentence into the mix.
The sealed indictment (if real) adds another sinister bent to the whole thing. Regardless, that a very nasty game is afoot here is not in doubt, what is, is exactly what the nature of the game is.
What role a secret indictment would play is interesting to speculate about (and that's all anyone can really do). Can Assange be rendered more easily from Sweden (or points en route), or is he more vulnerable to extradition as a convicted felon and ex-con after he's served jailtime on trumped up charges and his reputation is in tatters? Or is it just an Ace the government keeps up its sleave, on the off chance Assange someday has a layover on US soil, say, on his way to a speaking engagement in Rio?
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
That's the difference. If I come up to you out of the blue and say "Hey man, here's something I thin the world needs to know," and hand over classified data, you are in the clear. I can be prosecuted for espionage, but you are 100% in the clear to release it. You did nothing wrong.
However if you go to me and say "I know you work where you can get classified data, how about you get a bunch and give it to me so I can release it?" Well then you are as culpable as I am. You enticed me to commit my crime, you are on the hook for it as well.
That is how it works. Doesn't matter if you don't like it.
he's been repeatedly fighting a simple police followup on a sex crime.
There's no conspiracy you nutjob. He's being difficult for no good reason.
It makes things worse for him because he has a history of rapey behavior. Just ask his ex-wife.
How has he fought that? He has agreed to talk to the police. He just doesn't want to be extradited to do it.
I'm a US vet, currently working for the DoD as civialian, have held secret, and top-secret clearances.
I am here to tell you: Manning is 100% guilty, no doubt about it.
As for Assange, I'm not so sure.
if the US executes it's own citizens, it's a moral conundrum that challenges the primacy of our constitutional system.
if the US executes an Australian citizen, it's an international incident that may cause war-crimes charges to be brought against President Obama.
please tell me it does not involve Sir Mixalot
There was a case in the 60s called the Irvin Scarbeck case, where a guy fell in love with a Polish lady and the communist police blackmailed him into giving them (somewhat) secret documents.
The government couldn't charge him under the Espionage Act, because he wasn't on US soil. Instead, they used some other law (the Subversive Activities Control Act). They got him, but that wasn't good enough for a certain obstinate congressman.
This congressman tried to expand the Espionage Act of 1917 to include crimes committed outside of US soil. I say 'obstinate' because he tried to pass the law several different times and it kept failing. Finally it got it through committees and up to a vote on the floor of the congress. Eventually it did pass.
I.e. It doesn't matter if he is on US soil. The Espionage Act still applies.
Now, what about he himself not transmitting the files?
First of all, they probably (from what i gather) aren't charging him with transmitting, they are charging him with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act (the 'conspiracy' clause being part G of the act if i remember correctly). To prove conspiracy, they don't need to prove he actually moved the files. They just need to prove he helped someone else do it.
But beyond that, in theory, the 'movement' of files doesn't even matter - - - if he has possession of the files, that might also be a violation of the Espionage Act. This specific language of the Act hasn't been used much in court, the "posession" (they actually call it "withholding" IIRC). There are only a small number of cases that turn on that concept, like the Ford case about 7 years ago, and the Drake case last year. So, if you 'conspire' to help someone else 'withhold' the documents, in theory, you might be in violation. The language of the act is so vague that in the hands of a vigorous prosecutor, it could mean almost anything. William Welch even argued last year that Drake "should have known" a document was classified, even though it wasn't marked classified. You see, they decided to make some of the documents classified, only after they put him under indictment.
Of course the Espionage Act itself doesn't even use the word 'classified', it uses the phrase 'national defense information', which is a much narrower defition. These days everything under the sun is overclassified well beyond reason, and 'favored' reporters are given classified info all the time that ends up in the newspapers and books. A great example is the Osama Bin Ladin raid, a lot of the info that Obama's staff gave out on that was clearly far, far beyond the level of 'sensitive information', that is contained in Wikileaks, and yet those reporters will never face any kind of threat or discipline, nor will Obama's staff that leaked it.
Now, what about him not being a US citizen? I don't know about that, im not a legal expert.
google "apache gunship videos", tell me how many thousands of hits you get. now explain to me how Manning 'betrayed his country' by leaking a gunship video that is basically identical to the thousands of others being traded on the web by immature boys trying to explore the human condition.
"oh but thats not all he leaked..."
fine, then maybe they should DROP the charges against him that specifically are trying to put him in prison ten years for leaking a video that contains the same basic stuff that countless other 'brave troops' have leaked all over the internet.
'ok but he leaked sensitive info. people died'
like what? please name me one. find me one. just one memo. just one incident. im guessing there might be one, but the vast majority of the charges against him are completely ridiculous. the Reyjkavic 13 memo in particular is a complete joke - 10 years in prison for giving out details about icelandic bank fraud. the type of stuff you can read about every day in the wall street journal or Barron's.
He has agreed to questioning, in the UK. The two women agreed to have sex with him, but during the night they had unprotected sex despite Assange's assurances that he was wearing a condom. This is a pretty minor crime in Sweden. Both women have since dropped the charges and say they only wanted Assange to get an STD test. Whatever else is going on in this case, Sweden pressing this hard for extradition just to ask a few questions (he hasn't been charged with a crime), is anything but common. Assange is certainly an immoral person in my book and women should be very aware of the kind of man he is, but that alone doesn't change the fact that this extradition request is highly unusual. I am not certain why Sweden has decided to expend such resources on Assange, but this is not exactly a "simple police followup."
Just read an interesting critique of the US Constitution on the basis that we specify 'due process', and ended up with a bunch of process-bound fools who wouldn't know justice if it bit them in the ass. E.g. our SC who couldn't find a box to check to spare Troy Davis. Other countries make Justice itself the goal, and thus any law or precedent can be broken in the pursuit of Justice. So, I think Justice trumps mere oaths of office. Manning did the right thing for his fellow soldiers, who are lead by a bunch of liars in Uniform, who report to more-professional liars in the administration.
More character assassination. Who cares whether he is 'gender confused'. His fellow soldiers probably did treat him poorly. He may well have done what he is accused of doing to 'get even'. So what. The big picture is that our government, including the professional military, all sworn to uphold the Constitution, have been systematically lying to the citizens of the country that they purport to be defending. The professional military are further failing to take care of their troops, leading them into unwinnable situations and bankrupting their country in the process. Manning is a hero. He adhered to his oath to support the Constitution. I can't say that about anybody else except for Ron Paul and a few generals who resigned early in Shrub's tenure.
The US government would very much like there to be such evidence. That is why Manning has been held in solitary confinement : enough psychological pressure and he may be persuaded to testify against Assange. My government is a terribly corrupt entity. It needs changed ASAP. Restore the Constitution.
I can't believe that this Stratfor employee was quoted saying the following:
--------------------
Stratfor "senior watch officer" Chris Farnham, an Australian, advocated revoking Mr Assange's Australian citizenship, adding: "I don't care about the other leaks but the ones he has made that potentially damage Australian interests upset me.
''If I thought I could switch this dickhead off without getting done, I don't think I'd have too much of a problem."
--------------------
The first statement recommends revoking Assange's citizenship in violation of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
The second quote could be interpreted as a direct threat on Assange's life.
The brazen willingness to disregard laws and due process should spark investigations into Stratfor's activities and employees.
First-world: Try to convince the justice and foreign ministers of your country and potentially a number of courts to allow your extradiction, while your lawyer delays it as long as possible with a number of court requests.
Third-world: Predator UAV and Hellfire in your face.
They aren't pressing hard to ask a few questions.
Their pissed off that a fugitive isn't being brought back. The Swedish police said 'stick around, we have more questions' Assange said 'okay, officer, be right here' the officers left, he grabbed his shit and jumped on a jet out of the country as absolutely quick as he could.
He's a fugitive who ran from the law for crimes he was guilty of I'm sure simply by they attention whoring that he does. You live in some silly little world where this guy can do no wrong, and you're missing the fact that he is continually doing things amoral and flat out wrong, he just has one claim to fame ... again where he was conning people and manipulating them and lying about the truth and it wreaks of lies and political agenda.
Assange is worse than the people he claims he's outing. Cut from the exact same cloth.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Barak Obama will order the execution of 40 million Britishers just to murder one Assanage.
So now we will have secret indictments to match secret arrests, secret jails and prisons, and the topper secret trials. Just seeing this nonsense is exactly why we need Wiki Leaks in high function. We are supposedly a government by the people but now the people are not allowed to know what the heck is going on. Isn't this the sort of abuse that causes nations to have revolutions?