New Congressional Leadership Talks Up Transparency... While Planning To Attack Wikileaks

from the say-what-now? dept

Thu, Jan 6th 2011 2:12pm — Mike Masnick

We had just noted that the new Republican leadership in Congress had decided that investigating Wikileaks is a priority, as they're upset that Attorney General Eric Holder has been "too slow" to bring legal action against the site (perhaps because it's not clear any laws were broken...). So it seems rather ironic that at the very same time, the same Republican leadership is also claiming to support much greater transparency in Congress. Apparently they're going to do a lot more to use technology to show the public what's going on in Congress. This will apparently mean that audio and video recordings of committee meetings will be permanently posted, "in a manner that is easily accessible to the public," and all votes in those committees will now be disclosed. On top of that, all legislation will supposedly be posted in full online three days before a vote. Of course, the Obama administration promised something similar, which it promptly ignored upon taking office. Also they're doing some more gimmicky things like streaming a Congressional session live on Facebook. I think that bringing more transparency to Congress is a good idea -- and I at least applaud the sentiment, but it seems rather silly to be doing that at the very same time as attacking Wikileaks, which was a clear reaction to the lack of transparency in government.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: congress, transparency, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

23 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2011 @ 2:42pm

Transparency in the Congress is much easier to do. (More) transparency in the Executive is what we're looking for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 6 Jan 2011 @ 2:57pm

Re:
...WHAT?

Transparency in general, not just for a special branch.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TheStupidOne, 6 Jan 2011 @ 3:06pm

Re: Re:
AC is correct ... while more transparency in Congress is obviously a good thing, there is pure selfish motivation in that they have to be re-elected so they want to trumpet their good deeds, and they need to bash their opponents so they trumpet their opponents' bad deeds. So there will be some transparency based on how the election game is played.

The Executive branch's many many offices and departments are where most of the harmful secrecy is practiced. All your 3 letter agencies are the executive branch as is the state department. These are the organizations we most desperately need to have more transparency in. (Coincidentally those are the organizations that Mr Transparency Promising But Not Delivering Obama has the most direct power over)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2011 @ 3:35pm

Transparency doesn't make what wikileaks has done somehow more correct. While accepting that they may want more transparency (or to at least provide lip service to the concept) doesn't mean that Wikileaks gets a pass.

Further, you have to wonder if this would be any real transparency, or just a bunch of elected officials trying to play to the masses and "ride a wave of discontent" until it dies down.

In this case A does not preclude B. Sorry TD, fail!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Howard the Duck, 6 Jan 2011 @ 4:05pm

We'll see...
I hope the wave of discontent becomes a reality show on earmarks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChimpBush McHitlerBurton, 6 Jan 2011 @ 4:17pm

Grandstanding
All this grandstanding of late by the Repugnicants is really funny. I heard that the other day they went ahead and read the Constitution in its entirety.

...wait, isn't that just a "goddamn piece of paper"?

http://www.infowars.net/articles/december2005/121205neocons.htm

Rest assured friends, all this bluster will blow over and they'll get right back to trampling the constitution that they are so eager to throw in our face this week.

CBMHB
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ron Rezendes (profile), 6 Jan 2011 @ 4:20pm

Re:
"While accepting that they may want more transparency (or to at least provide lip service to the concept) doesn't mean that Wikileaks gets a pass."

Exactly what do you think Wikileaks did wrong?
Specifically name a single law or statute that was broken or violated.

I'm waiting...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ron Rezendes (profile), 6 Jan 2011 @ 4:23pm

Re: Grandstanding
FYI - the reading of the Constitution was a bi-partisan effort and both sides participated willingly.

As an aside, I actually hate both sides of the aisle equally - just so everyone understands I'm not sticking up for the Reps or Dems.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 6 Jan 2011 @ 4:40pm

Re:
"Further, you have to wonder if this would be any real transparency, or just a bunch of elected officials trying to play to the masses and "ride a wave of discontent" until it dies down."

Actually, with the republicans blocking Obamanomics the housing market is going to fail in about 12-18 months. With no more free ride at the fed. That mean a second round of people loosing their houses and jobs. This will continue until the housing prices fall 10-25% below the inflation line. Then a recovery can occur. The possibility of greater "discontent" is at the 60%+ level. So AC you fail it won't die down.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2011 @ 5:27pm

Re: Re:
Actually, with the republicans blocking Obamanomics the housing market is going to fail in about 12-18 months. With no more free ride at the fed. That mean a second round of people loosing their houses and jobs. This will continue until the housing prices fall 10-25% below the inflation line. Then a recovery can occur. The possibility of greater "discontent" is at the 60%+ level. So AC you fail it won't die down.

Discontent only as applied to Wikileaks and transparency. I didn't speculate how the Republicans are going to perform a low tech hanging of the black man in the white house.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
sirprometheus (profile), 6 Jan 2011 @ 5:50pm

I'm going to try to put this eloquently as possible.
You can totally want transparency and still oppose wikileaks. STFU
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cornhole, 6 Jan 2011 @ 6:25pm

Re: I'm going to try to put this eloquently as possible.
That was not put as eloquently as possible. Fail.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2011 @ 6:29pm

Re: I'm going to try to put this eloquently as possible.
Yes, just as you can totally want life and still oppose food.

But most people would call you crazy.

You crazy little fucker, STFU.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2011 @ 6:47pm

Re:
Of course it does, without Wikileaks the government would feel to comfortable to keep lying about everything to the American People and the world.

Secrecy is to easy nowadays, Wikileaks is the thing that brings back some resemblance of balance to the equation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jan 2011 @ 7:36pm

Transparent indeed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Christopher (profile), 6 Jan 2011 @ 8:05pm

Re: Re:
Exactly. The fact is that if I saw records that showed that American companies were selling Afghani boys as sex slaves, I would wonder what else was going on and might do a 'total rip' myself of anything below Top Secret and pass it off to Wikileaks myself, were I to have a security clearance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Christopher (profile), 6 Jan 2011 @ 8:12pm

Re: I'm going to try to put this eloquently as possible.
Yeah, in a pig's eye! The fact is that if there are more Wikileaks and 'dead drops' for government information, maybe government will stop trying to hide all it's embarrassing stuff and BE HONEST with us about what they are doing in our name.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2011 @ 5:56am

Re: Re: Re:
Your fascination with Afghani boys is disturbing. Perhaps you are upset because you weren't able to buy any yourself?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2011 @ 8:54am

Looks to me like they are just wasting time. Repeal something that can't be repealed. Be indignant about laws that were never broken and need to be fixed or made or whatever these Wazoos do. Looks like smoke and mirrors to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2011 @ 9:46am

Re: Re: I'm going to try to put this eloquently as possible.
Or perhaps they will fill the dead drops with so much junk and lies that they will no longer be trustworthy or informative.

It rubs both ways.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jonvaljon, 7 Jan 2011 @ 11:25am

I think he was more focusing on the fact your tax dollars supported the pimping of said boys, and that you would rather bury that fact than have it see the light of day, thanks to wikileaks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2011 @ 2:59pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well AC, Mr. Rezendes asked you a straight up question to identify the laws you believe have been broken by Wikileaks.
No answer has been forthcoming.
>>>Ad hominem sneering does not make your argument.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
herbert, 9 Jan 2011 @ 5:21am

this is interesting. wonder what the outcome will be and when it will stop. USA over stepping the mark as usual. condemning others but it seems doing the exact same thing themselves

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-demands-twitter-release-assange-de tails-2179740.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]