ExiledInIllinois Posted December 2, 2010 Posted December 2, 2010 So a diplomat's assessment of Merkel should be open to anyone. I assume it is fair game if all your e-mails are available to anyone? You beleive<sic> in freedom of press and freedom of speech. Sure. The more info the better! Just like your WiFi... Don't want people using it... Get tougher with secruity.
boyst Posted December 2, 2010 Posted December 2, 2010 So a diplomat's assessment of Merkel should be open to anyone. I assume it is fair game if all your e-mails are available to anyone? You beleive<sic> in freedom of press and freedom of speech. We are not public officers. If I email my local cooperative extension agent who works for NCSU than his emails are public, just like the Gov's, Senate's, Pres'. You should always be mindful of the emails you send. Our Gov is nothing more than a big business, and in business you should always acknowledge that information will always get out.
Booster4324 Posted December 2, 2010 Posted December 2, 2010 We are not public officers. If I email my local cooperative extension agent who works for NCSU than his emails are public, just like the Gov's, Senate's, Pres'. You should always be mindful of the emails you send. Our Gov is nothing more than a big business, and in business you should always acknowledge that information will always get out. Fair enough, so you advocate every public official's e-mails be available to the public?
boyst Posted December 2, 2010 Posted December 2, 2010 Fair enough, so you advocate every public official's e-mails be available to the public? At this time, I would have to say yes, because I revert to this thought. employee < boss < company < CEO < shareholders in this case: citizens < representatives < congress < president < citizens Should we not ultimately be accountable for who we elect, and as such monitor their actions as best we can? I believe this should be true for Executive and Legistlative officers who are elected, the Judicial realm should be held to an entirely different standard not relevant to this conversation. The military and truly sensative material should be shared by a group of truly representative figures of this country. The example of "does this look fat on me" may not be the best example, perhaps, think of "are you seeing someone else."
Booster4324 Posted December 2, 2010 Posted December 2, 2010 At this time, I would have to say yes, because I revert to this thought. employee < boss < company < CEO < shareholders in this case: citizens < representatives < congress < president < citizens Should we not ultimately be accountable for who we elect, and as such monitor their actions as best we can? I believe this should be true for Executive and Legistlative officers who are elected, the Judicial realm should be held to an entirely different standard not relevant to this conversation. The military and truly sensative material should be shared by a group of truly representative figures of this country. The example of "does this look fat on me" may not be the best example, perhaps, think of "are you seeing someone else." Are you arguing for more or all? It seems more and if these dumps are any indication, there isn't a whole lot of corruption (surprising really). So I guess the question is what do we need to know? I am going to have to say we don't really need to know much about military operations until well after the fact. We do not need to know about diplomat's opinions until way after the fact. Should there be less classified information? The CSM had a nice article on this subject that touched on it. Well written IMO.
boyst Posted December 2, 2010 Posted December 2, 2010 Are you arguing for more or all? It seems more and if these dumps are any indication, there isn't a whole lot of corruption (surprising really). So I guess the question is what do we need to know? Does it hurt us to know more of it? Does it hurt us to know all of it? You brought up the point that I have struggled to explain; these documents are not anything shocking. The only one who might get some heat is Clinton but she is nothing we didn't expect, a cut-throat shrewd b-word. In fact, I'd take her over Obama. I am going to have to say we don't really need to know much about military operations until well after the fact. We do not need to know about diplomat's opinions until way after the fact. You're exactly right, in fact, if I was in charge of the DoD I would film these wars like crazy, they'd be over by now, because I would sell subscriptions to see the "Iraq, TOO hot for TV, totally raw and uncensored re-release." Each month you'd get last months footage, even some special intel on why we did what we did what equipment was used, and really market the crap out of it. Now, you may ask how can we charge for something like that, because when you put substance behind it and not just raw material you are charging for substance. If all you want was sheets of mail between two politicians, than you get it. If you want the "XXX Secrets of Larry Craig commentary" open your wallet. Doesn't that kind of sound like our news channels are now? It should. Should there be less classified information? The CSM had a nice article on this subject that touched on it. Well written IMO. I cannot answer that and I am not sure any one can, because we do not know how much information is truly classified at this moment. However, look back on some of the FoIA releases about Vietnam and other junk (Elvis' and Sinatra's FBI files) and you'll really wonder what is really classified these days. Because, in 40 years I will not understand why Justin Biebers hair has a file with the FBI.
bowery4 Posted December 2, 2010 Posted December 2, 2010 The US produces over 16 million new classified secrets per year, according to a Project on Government Secrecy estimate. The age of atomic weaponry began at the end of World War II, but only this year has the US for the first time released an official number of US nuclear warheads. Similarly, only recently did US intelligence agencies begin revealing the size of their budgets. “Overclassification is a perennial problem in government,” says Roger Pilon, vice president for legal affairs at the libertarian-oriented Cato Institute, “and correcting that problem would go far toward more open government better able to protect classified material.” From the CSM article mentioned in this thread. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/1130/WikiLeaks-founder-Julian-Assange-What-does-he-want
bowery4 Posted December 2, 2010 Posted December 2, 2010 You're exactly right, in fact, if I was in charge of the DoD I would film these wars like crazy, they'd be over by now, because I would sell subscriptions to see the "Iraq, TOO hot for TV, totally raw and uncensored re-release." Each month you'd get last months footage, even some special intel on why we did what we did what equipment was used, and really market the crap out of it. Truly barbaric, you are a product of the youtube/jackass/deathrace generation no doubt. Wars lose popularity when people actually see much of them, it is what happened in Vietnam and has happened because of vids released from Iraq already. The point IMO is to stay out of these situations in the first place.
boyst Posted December 2, 2010 Posted December 2, 2010 Truly barbaric, you are a product of the youtube/jackass/deathrace generation no doubt. I think you missed my point. I was making this comment to help people realize it is what they see on the news, a 6 second clip of true footage than 20 minutes talking about it while a base beat is in the background, or the papers released and discussed by O'Rielly or the like and commented on to further an agenda. I guess maybe I should ask you why it is barbaric when the US Gov would do it when CNN/FSN, Dredge/Huffington, NY Times/NY Post, etc do this? Besides, I am in favor of it, it would put a great perspective on this war when we see our neighbor blown up on live TV from an IED. Maybe this farce would be over, maybe we would realize there are results for our actions. To say I am a victim of my generation, go back and look for a thread I started on my generation knowing pain and suffering. I think we're just as strong as our fathers, maybe not in muscle but in intelligence. We might even have a leg up on past generations. I am not saying we are better just simply saying we have a major leg up, mostly on the work of our fathers; their fathers did it for them too, and it goes on. Previous discussion I started about my generation
Magox Posted December 2, 2010 Posted December 2, 2010 This isn't a matter of freedom of speech. Some of this was classified government data, and the fact that it is being exposed for everyone to see affects relations world wide. It also undercuts our embassies in the field giving their honest assessments to government officials back home. The implications are greater than most of you bozos seem to understand. It is a matter of discretion, and believe it or not kiddies, some things are meant not to be seen by the general public. This happens to be one of those circumstances, now if we are talking about Wikileaks exposing one of the banks, that is a different matter, but this crosses the line. I believe they need to prosecute Manning with the charge of treason punishable by death. He knew what he was doing and he stole classified government data and provided the documents to wikileaks. He self-admittedly intended to wreak havoc, in other words he was fully aware of what he was doing. And in regards to Assmange, I just hope that one day, we don't ever hear of him and that he just disappears without a trace....
truth on hold Posted December 2, 2010 Posted December 2, 2010 (edited) This isn't a matter of freedom of speech. Some of this was classified government data, and the fact that it is being exposed for everyone to see affects relations world wide. It also undercuts our embassies in the field giving their honest assessments to government officials back home. The implications are greater than most of you bozos seem to understand. It is a matter of discretion, and believe it or not kiddies, some things are meant not to be seen by the general public. This happens to be one of those circumstances, now if we are talking about Wikileaks exposing one of the banks, that is a different matter, but this crosses the line. I believe they need to prosecute Manning with the charge of treason punishable by death. He knew what he was doing and he stole classified government data and provided the documents to wikileaks. He self-admittedly intended to wreak havoc, in other words he was fully aware of what he was doing. And in regards to Assmange, I just hope that one day, we don't ever hear of him and that he just disappears without a trace.... the problem is people in power abuse this "classified" designation, and use it to hide their own dirty tricks. the other thing critics fail to realize is that it wont only be the US that gets exposed on wikileaks. all of the governments will be targets. this is the information age, let's get it all out. no more secrets = no more wars Edited December 2, 2010 by Joe_the_6_pack
Nanker Posted December 2, 2010 Posted December 2, 2010 the problem is people in power abuse this "classified" designation, and use it to hide their own dirty tricks. the other thing critics fail to realize is that it wont only be the US that gets exposed on wikileaks. all of the governments will be targets. this is the information age, let's get it all out. no more secrets = no more wars That's laugh-out-loud stupid. Test it on a micro scale. Next time you have an affair - tell your wife/girlfriend all about it. Remember - no secrets. Secrets-bad, Bush-bad. You must be in favor of President BO giving Scooter Libby a Presidential pardon.
Magox Posted December 2, 2010 Posted December 2, 2010 no more secrets = no more wars You're right! Governments should have no secrets, all their intel should be posted on a website for all of us to see. Why didn't I think of that? oh and btw, glad to see you're feeling better Joe
DrDawkinstein Posted December 2, 2010 Author Posted December 2, 2010 That's laugh-out-loud stupid. Test it on a micro scale. Next time you have an affair - tell your wife/girlfriend all about it. Remember - no secrets. Secrets-bad, Bush-bad. You must be in favor of President BO giving Scooter Libby a Presidential pardon. So in this post, you believe it is the correct and moral thing to do to: 1. Have an affair 2. Lie about it for the rest of your life This is the exact moral code that our governments have been working off of too. And the exact reason we NEED to have this transparency. The government has been cheating on the people for decades and lying to us about it. Now, we discovered the password to their email, and are forced to find all of the love letters ourselves. And your going to blame the guy who gave us the password, instead of the government?!?
Magox Posted December 2, 2010 Posted December 2, 2010 (edited) This is the exact moral code that our governments have been working off of too. And the exact reason we NEED to have this transparency. And your going to blame the guy who gave us the password, instead of the government?!? Ok, so tell us what dirty little secrets that were revealed through wikileaks that we needed to know about it? Edited December 2, 2010 by Magox
DrDawkinstein Posted December 2, 2010 Author Posted December 2, 2010 Ok, so tell us what dirty little secrets that were revealed through wikileaks that we needed to know about it? The good news is that, so far, nothing major has come out. But that doesnt mean that they wont discover something in the future. Just because they havent uncovered anything huge yet, doesnt mean there isnt something important out there, waiting to be discovered. At this point, if wikileaks goes away, it gives the governments more power and motivation to lie, cheat, etc. Since they have proven to themselves that they can bully anyone who tries them. How many terrorists have the TSA stopped with the body screeners? None. So that means they should just shut down the machines, right? As I mentioned before, I see wikileaks as more of a deterrent.
Magox Posted December 2, 2010 Posted December 2, 2010 The good news is that, so far, nothing major has come out. That's right. And some one on this thread said if Wikileaks was around before the Iraq war, the war would of never occured or at least implied that. That is absolutely false, intel repeatedly and inaccurately communicated that there was WMD, the Cables that would of been released if Wikileaks existed and somehow obtained them wouldn't of showed anything different than what we know today in regards to WMD. I hope that person does realize that this info has been thoroughly examined by this administration and if there was a conspiracy as many of you would like to believe to wrongfully and purposely go into war knowing their was no WMD, it would of been revealed by now. But back to this particular issue, there hasn't been anything that has been revealed that we need to know, BUT there has been plenty of information that has been released that has compromised our relations with some of our critical foreign partners and it has helped undermine our position moving forward. The point is that this has been a net negative and I believe that the fallout is in the early stages. Trust has been compromised.
DrDawkinstein Posted December 2, 2010 Author Posted December 2, 2010 But back to this particular issue, there hasn't been anything that has been revealed that we need to know, BUT there has been plenty of information that has been released that has compromised our relations with some of our critical foreign partners and it has helped undermine our position moving forward. The point is that this has been a net negative and I believe that the fallout is in the early stages. Trust has been compromised. Puuh-lease. If these countries all "trusted" each other so much, then they wouldnt need all the spies and espionage. I get your point, and understand your side, but I think this is being made into a much bigger deal than it is, based solely on the idea of what "could" be released in the future. Governments like being the boss. They need to be able to control the people. And that is wrong. The people need to be able to control the government. This is simply a step in the right direction.
Chef Jim Posted December 2, 2010 Posted December 2, 2010 Puuh-lease. If these countries all "trusted" each other so much, then they wouldnt need all the spies and espionage. I get your point, and understand your side, but I think this is being made into a much bigger deal than it is, based solely on the idea of what "could" be released in the future. Governments like being the boss. They need to be able to control the people. And that is wrong. The people need to be able to control the government. This is simply a step in the right direction. Yes governments do feel the need to boss people but they also feel the need to protect people. And keeping things top secret protects us in ways you can never imagine. I bet you asked Santa for a rainbow farting unicorn for Christmas this year didn't you
Magox Posted December 2, 2010 Posted December 2, 2010 Puuh-lease. If these countries all "trusted" each other so much, then they wouldnt need all the spies and espionage. Who said "so" much? I didn't, you just made that up. I don't see things through a black or white prism, there are many shades of grey in between. Example, let's say there is a trust scale that ranges from 1-10, 1 being the lowest level of trust 10 being the highest. So now, Gates makes comments and observations about Russians, that were suppose to of been seen only by US officials from the Need to know list. Now the cables are leaked and in those leaked cables is information of Gates making his candid yet unflattering observation of Russia. Well, what may have been a Trust level of 3, now becomes a trust level of 2. This is just one instance and example, and there are many other damaging cables that had been leaked. So when I say trust has been compromised, this is what I am talking about.
Recommended Posts