First rule of TWOT: Do not talk about TWOT
- Thread starter Coinneach
- Start date
Clanky,
We (being the American people) don't have that much of ann attention span. We (being the folks who are interested) just want to know whether or not the Federal government is trying to pull another fast one on us.
We (being either case) have no interest in ruining the program by asking for that sort of detail.
We (being the American people) don't have that much of ann attention span. We (being the folks who are interested) just want to know whether or not the Federal government is trying to pull another fast one on us.
We (being either case) have no interest in ruining the program by asking for that sort of detail.
Who says knowing the details about the program ruins it?
If a little information is okay, why is it wrong to know the whole picture?
How can we know if the Federal government is pulling a fast one on us if we don't know everything about the program?
You don't sign a contract without reading the whole thing because someone may be pulling a fast one.
Why can we assume that knowing just a little about this program is okay and trust the gov to the rest of the details?
There is a difference between a free society and a self-destructive society.
I live within 50 miles of two nuclear plants and am naturally curious as to whether they have reasonable security. While publishing the details of security procedures - and shortcomings - at those plants would satisfy my curiousity, it would be incredibly stupid and self-defeating.
A fully informed society is one that can keep its eye on its leaders. To not do that would be the most self-destructive thing of all.
Who can do you the most harm, the terrorists or the government? We have only had two attacks and they were in two east coast cities. Very far away from the majority of the population. The government is in every nook and cranny of our lives.
The nuclear power plant security procedures are no different from the governement leaders we have. They have to be scrutinized in order to be effective. The more eyes we can put on them, the more likely that we can indentify and correct shortcomings in them.
We may provide terrorists with information, but it's a matter of an open society that the greater good is served when there is no information that is sacrosanct.
Again, what is the real harm done by printing the details of and technology of the money tracking program?
I refuse to accept that it will ruin the program, just like I refuse to accept that knowing the security procedures of a nuclear power plant renders it any less safe.
Mad Martigan
New member
WTF?
Would you have been comfy publishing details of D-Day a week ahead of time? How about publishing the flight plan for Doolittle's raid the proceeding week? How about publishing the dates, times, and locations of the DEA's raids for the next week? Why not relay the private strategery and planning of LE concerning a hostage situation over a public broadcasting medium in real time? Why not make public a list of current suspected terrorists residing in the US? Hell, why not give away troop positions? Just scroll those coordinates at the bottom of the screen while reporting on location. Why not publish truly detailed schematics of key proprietary military technology?
Mad Martigan
New member
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?
AP , WASHINGTON
Wednesday, Jun 28, 2006,Page 1
US President George W. Bush said it was "disgraceful" that the US news media had disclosed a secret CIA-Treasury program to track millions of financial records in search of terrorist suspects. The White House accused the New York Times of breaking a long tradition of keeping wartime secrets.
"The fact that a newspaper disclosed it makes it harder to win this war on terror," Bush said on Monday, leaning forward and jabbing his finger during a question-and-answer session with reporters in the Roosevelt Room.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2006/06/28/2003316059
If the terrorists we're spying on are so dumb that they actually forgot that the US is probably monitoring every single thing connected to them and it took a newspaper article about this practice (which has been obvious and known since pre 9/11) to remind them, then they're lucky that breathing is an autonomic function. 
Paging cretins to come accuse me of giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy in 5...4...
Paging cretins to come accuse me of giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy in 5...4...
gc70,
Certain actions that may potentially violate international treaties, Federal law, and/or the Constitution generally require congressional permission and systemic review before they are to be undertaken.
Of course, this president is used to operating without any checks and balances or oversight.
Excuse me? "All" Executive branch actions? When did I say "all"? Where did I even imply "all"? Why are you trying to change my argument? No, not "all". Just "some".
Certain actions that may potentially violate international treaties, Federal law, and/or the Constitution generally require congressional permission and systemic review before they are to be undertaken.
Of course, this president is used to operating without any checks and balances or oversight.
Once again, please specify exactly where in the Constitution, or even in Federal law, the Executive Branch is required to get prior approval from the Legislative Branch to "violate international treaties, Federal law, and/or the Constitution."
Since I posed the question as you wanted to structure it (using your very words), it should be easy for you to answer directly and explicitly.
"the greater good is served when there is no information that is sacrosanct."
I disagree completely. I don't want my security measures to be public knowledge and I don't want my government's security measures to be public knowledge either.
There's a great deal of difference between an organized system of governmental checks and balances and putting everything on the front page of the newspaper for our enemies to read.
John
I disagree completely. I don't want my security measures to be public knowledge and I don't want my government's security measures to be public knowledge either.
There's a great deal of difference between an organized system of governmental checks and balances and putting everything on the front page of the newspaper for our enemies to read.
John
My point is how do we know that certain actions may potentially violate international treaties, Federal law, and/or the Constitution if we don't know the details of the program?
It's not enough to know merely of a program's existence. So what? You can't just brush it off.
It's vital that the workings are known. Remember, the Devil is in the details.
The police enforce the speed limits, but we know how. So, we really don't have a problem with it.
But, what if they followed you and charted your driving speed for days or weeks, followed your family and you. Then, when they were sure you were going to speed, at least according to their information, they would set a speed trap only for you. The details are what's important. In that case, it's still a speeding ticket, but it was delivered by intruding on your privacy.
Clearly, those details would need to be known. They violate your rights.
Now, with this program, why can't we know how they do it? Are they violating my privacy? Yours? Who knows?
Are they violating treaties, law (national and international) and the Constitution by their detailed activities?
We don't know. But we need to. Release the details.
It's not enough to only know the name of the program and its general outline. Without that information, we don't know if this is one of the "certain actions."
We can't rely on Congress because they are part of the problem. They fund these programs. If they are funding an illegal program, then we need to know it.
Remember, in a constitutional society, no one is above oversight.
Oversight of the Congress is our job.
When the Bombs start going of on our streets and killing our citizens all the attitudes above will be screaming for the G-ment to do something. (See Katrina tragedy) The thoughts of watching bank tansfers and phone tapping won't even enter their conversations. Why because these folks are incapable of rational thought.
Freedom comes at a price. Personally I like the idea of the G-ment trying to keep the bombs and slaughter off our streets.
I have never trusted the media from day one. Guess it comes from working with them. They, by and large would sell their mothers into slavery for a by- line. Then scream they did because people need to know how evil mothers can be!
I like freedom from G-ment intervention too. But I hate it when Butt wipes give all our strategies to the enemy under the, "Need of the public to know", clause.
Unless you are a big contributer to the, "Terrorist war", or are confiding secrets to the known Terrorist organizations I think the worst you have to worry about is if your latte is hot and to take care of the ccw issues at hand.
Freedom comes at a price. Personally I like the idea of the G-ment trying to keep the bombs and slaughter off our streets.
I have never trusted the media from day one. Guess it comes from working with them. They, by and large would sell their mothers into slavery for a by- line. Then scream they did because people need to know how evil mothers can be!
I like freedom from G-ment intervention too. But I hate it when Butt wipes give all our strategies to the enemy under the, "Need of the public to know", clause.
Unless you are a big contributer to the, "Terrorist war", or are confiding secrets to the known Terrorist organizations I think the worst you have to worry about is if your latte is hot and to take care of the ccw issues at hand.
Mad Martigan
New member
roscoe said:
So you too have failed to find anyone associated with this program whining about compromising its secrecy? You have noticed that the only person who calls the program "secret" in your blurb is the author, haven't you?
Mad Martigan
New member
Is this your opinion or is this wording found anywhere in your FAS link? 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?goslash said:
So here's a hyopothetical for those of you who don't think the press should have reported on this (or other) secret programs by this administration:
The WSJ or the NYT both reported tomorrow morning that for the last 15 years the FBI has been creating and maintaining a secret database of all firearm transactions from 4473's and various other unidentified sources going back as far as 1970. Assume further that at the beginning of the program the Attorney General issued a secret opinion letter to the President stating that the program was completely legal. In essence, a database of every over the counter transaction since 1970. Additionally, as part of this program, since 1994 the FBI has also been tracking certain ammunition and component purchases going through the US mails or by common carrier.
I suppose you guys would feel that the program should have been kept secret? That the WSJ and the NYT should have kept silent as the release of this information would have hindered the usefulness of the program in TWOT/TWOD/TWO___ (fill in the blank/justification du jour)?
The WSJ or the NYT both reported tomorrow morning that for the last 15 years the FBI has been creating and maintaining a secret database of all firearm transactions from 4473's and various other unidentified sources going back as far as 1970. Assume further that at the beginning of the program the Attorney General issued a secret opinion letter to the President stating that the program was completely legal. In essence, a database of every over the counter transaction since 1970. Additionally, as part of this program, since 1994 the FBI has also been tracking certain ammunition and component purchases going through the US mails or by common carrier.
I suppose you guys would feel that the program should have been kept secret? That the WSJ and the NYT should have kept silent as the release of this information would have hindered the usefulness of the program in TWOT/TWOD/TWO___ (fill in the blank/justification du jour)?
Mad Martigan
New member
Were these searches warranted? Subpoenaed?