First rule of TWOT: Do not talk about TWOT

No, the Feds are bitching about THEIR secret program being "leaked." IT ISN'T A GORRAM SECRET.

At what point, IYO, does a media initiated national discussion of a discrete program intended to ambush, trap, or otherwise gather information without drawing attention to itself become inappropriate?

Your question is a non sequitur, is why I didn't answer it.
 
No, the Feds are bitching about THEIR secret program being "leaked." IT ISN'T A GORRAM SECRET.
Click to expand...
Which Feds involved with the program are doing this?

Your question is a non sequitur, is why I didn't answer it.
Click to expand...
Not in the least, but your blatant cop out is saddening and does nothing to advance your position.
 
The best you can come up with is an abstract statement by Tony Snow, someone who couldn't be much further removed from the program and still work for the Fed?
 
Your question is irrelevant to the discussion. The program is not secret, so playing what-if with it makes no sense.
Click to expand...
My questions do not deal with or refer to secrets or secret programs. Now that we've dispensed with this dodge, please answer the questions.
 
I know I want to see the newspapers publishing detailed info everyday on how the U.S. government is going about tracking down the bad guys.

And I want to see daily reports on the Richmond PD's undercover operations, too.

And the Health Department's schedule of surprise restaurant inspections.

John
 
Mad Martigan,
The program is mostly on the up & up. They didn't bother to seek permission from Congress once again.

At what point, IYO, does a media initiated national discussion of a discrete program intended to ambush, trap, or otherwise gather information without drawing attention to itself become inappropriate?
Click to expand...

I'll take a crack at it even though it doesn't really apply in this case.
When a program is *completely legal*, *completely* unknown, and *completely* practical, it becomes nothing worth talking about because there's no controversy. I'd say that when the media starts reporting things that aren't newsworthy and reporting it is counterproductive, it becomes inappropriate.
 
I'll take a crack at it even though it doesn't really apply in this case.
When a program is *completely legal*, *completely* unknown, and *completely* practical, it becomes nothing worth talking about because there's no controversy. I'd say that when the media starts reporting things that aren't newsworthy and reporting it is counterproductive, it becomes inappropriate.
Click to expand...
It is completely applicable in this case. I hope you aren't earnestly implying that dragging this program into the national spotlight is not counterproductive to its function.
 
The program is mostly on the up & up. They didn't bother to seek permission from Congress once again.
Click to expand...
What, other than possibly not asking for Congressional permission, do you believe is not "on the up & up?"

On what basis do you believe that Congressional permission should have been obtained?
 
Oh I dunno...the Constitution?
Click to expand...
What section of the Constitution requires prior Legislative Branch approval of all Executive Branch actions?

It's called "Congressional Oversight"
Click to expand...
Isn't that the right of Congress to review the actions of the Executive Branch rather than a requirement to give prior approval?
 
Oh I dunno...the Constitution? It's called "Congressional Oversight".
Click to expand...
So what commitee would be responsible for overseeing this program? Did Congress already use its "Power of the Purse" to approve funding for the program?
 
Not necessarily.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/97-936.pdf
Click to expand...
The CRS report is interesting, but the only specific reference I saw to prior approval was "advise and consent on treaties and presidential nominations."

The CRS report was specific in defining oversight as "the review, monitoring, and supervision of operations and activities."

Again, where is the specific requirement that all Executive Branch actions receive prior approval from the Legislative Branch?
 
We don't care to know the particulars, the technology, the techniques, all that crap. We *do* want to know the legality, constitutionality, and oversight procedures. That's our right as American citizens because it's our obligation to hold the government accountable for abusing it's authority....That's our right as American citizens because it's our obligation to hold the government accountable for abusing it's authority.
Click to expand...

Why don't we want to know the particulars, the technology, the techniques, all that crap?

How can we hold the government accountable for abusing its authority if we don't know the particulars? A general knowledge of the program doesn't seem to do any real good, it's just theoretical without the details.

We need to know the details and who runs it and who conceptualized it. We need to know what else they are up to now that hasn't been published.

Why can't we know it all?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top