Too many secrets

[michigancat]

So EmailGate has got me thinking, beyond the fact that Hillary is a bad person who shouldn't be president.

Why doesn't anyone question why we have so many secrets we are afraid of our taxpayers knowing? To me, that's a much bigger and scarier concern than Hillary breaking the law. We have a right to know what the eff we're paying for AND/OR we shouldn't be getting into crap like regime overthrowing and clandestine wars.

Thoughts without pitting this up?

[star seed 7]

Kind of ruins the point of clandestine if the entire world knows about it

[michigancat]

Why do our citizens think clandestine wars are ok?

[star seed 7]

Probably more efficient than real wars

[Emo EMAW]

It would be much more tolerable if the defense budget wasn't so gigantic.  Cut it in half and we could fund all of our ideas on solving domestic social issues.

[michigancat]

Probably more efficient than real wars

How would we ever know?

[sys]

Why do our citizens think clandestine wars are ok?

our citizens are given as much information as they want to know.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

It would be much more tolerable if the defense budget wasn't so gigantic.  Cut it in half and we could fund all of our ideas on solving domestic social issues.

This is OT, but here's a few rhetorical questions for you to ponder: To what social issues are you referring, how will they be solved with more money, and how much more money? We've spent trillions on welfare since LBJ expanded it in the "War on Poverty," and now we've got more poverty and more welfare dependence.

While cutting the defense budget "in half" is insane, I'd be all in favor of cutting the budget by 10%, closing some bases and reducing infantry, but those savings should be directed at balancing the budget - not flushing down the welfare toilet.

As to Rusty's question, I think most people on both sides would agree that the government has a transparency problem with over-classifying information. But I also think there is plenty of information that is in our national security interest not to divulge to the world. That is just common sense. It is the same reason we keep criminal investigations private at home. It jeopardizes out covert intelligence (spies), allows enemies/criminals to evade us, etc.

[michigancat]

As to Rusty's question, I think most people on both sides would agree that the government has a transparency problem with over-classifying information. But I also think there is plenty of information that is in our national security interest not to divulge to the world. That is just common sense. It is the same reason we keep criminal investigations private at home. It jeopardizes out covert intelligence (spies), allows enemies/criminals to evade us, etc.

Without knowing what we're hiding, you can't say "that is just common sense". The US has a history of unexcusable dumbfuckery exposed when classified information is released. We also have a right to know what spies have been doing and criminals have been captured via classified information. Maybe let classified info be declassified sooner?

[Kat Kid]

It would be much more tolerable if the defense budget wasn't so gigantic.  Cut it in half and we could fund all of our ideas on solving domestic social issues.

This is OT, but here's a few rhetorical questions for you to ponder: To what social issues are you referring, how will they be solved with more money, and how much more money? We've spent trillions on welfare since LBJ expanded it in the "War on Poverty," and now we've got more poverty and more welfare dependence.

While cutting the defense budget "in half" is insane, I'd be all in favor of cutting the budget by 10%, closing some bases and reducing infantry, but those savings should be directed at balancing the budget - not flushing down the welfare toilet.

As to Rusty's question, I think most people on both sides would agree that the government has a transparency problem with over-classifying information. But I also think there is plenty of information that is in our national security interest not to divulge to the world. That is just common sense. It is the same reason we keep criminal investigations private at home. It jeopardizes out covert intelligence (spies), allows enemies/criminals to evade us, etc.

By what measure?

Also- cutting the defense budget in half would be insane, because it is one of the best anti-poverty programs we have as a country.  However, a LOT of the R&D and defense contracting (F-35 is a complete debacle) should be shored up because it is an enormous waste.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

As to Rusty's question, I think most people on both sides would agree that the government has a transparency problem with over-classifying information. But I also think there is plenty of information that is in our national security interest not to divulge to the world. That is just common sense. It is the same reason we keep criminal investigations private at home. It jeopardizes out covert intelligence (spies), allows enemies/criminals to evade us, etc.

Without knowing what we're hiding, you can't say "that is just common sense". The US has a history of unexcusable dumbfuckery exposed when classified information is released. We also have a right to know what spies have been doing and criminals have been captured via classified information. Maybe let classified info be declassified sooner?

Yes I can. It is common sense that some stuff is worth hiding, and some of it isn't. Nobody can say how much is worth hiding unless they see the information, and we can't allow just anyone to see it because it might be worth hiding. The only practical solution is to elect leaders who you think will be more transparent.

[michigancat]

As to Rusty's question, I think most people on both sides would agree that the government has a transparency problem with over-classifying information. But I also think there is plenty of information that is in our national security interest not to divulge to the world. That is just common sense. It is the same reason we keep criminal investigations private at home. It jeopardizes out covert intelligence (spies), allows enemies/criminals to evade us, etc.

Without knowing what we're hiding, you can't say "that is just common sense". The US has a history of unexcusable dumbfuckery exposed when classified information is released. We also have a right to know what spies have been doing and criminals have been captured via classified information. Maybe let classified info be declassified sooner?

Yes I can. It is common sense that some stuff is worth hiding, and some of it isn't. Nobody can say how much is worth hiding unless they see the information, and we can't allow just anyone to see it because it might be worth hiding. The only practical solution is to elect leaders who you think will be more transparent.

Is this common sense based on history?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

As to Rusty's question, I think most people on both sides would agree that the government has a transparency problem with over-classifying information. But I also think there is plenty of information that is in our national security interest not to divulge to the world. That is just common sense. It is the same reason we keep criminal investigations private at home. It jeopardizes out covert intelligence (spies), allows enemies/criminals to evade us, etc.

Without knowing what we're hiding, you can't say "that is just common sense". The US has a history of unexcusable dumbfuckery exposed when classified information is released. We also have a right to know what spies have been doing and criminals have been captured via classified information. Maybe let classified info be declassified sooner?

Yes I can. It is common sense that some stuff is worth hiding, and some of it isn't. Nobody can say how much is worth hiding unless they see the information, and we can't allow just anyone to see it because it might be worth hiding. The only practical solution is to elect leaders who you think will be more transparent.

Is this common sense based on history?

I really think our plans for the D-Day invasion were worth hiding. Our work on the atomic bomb was worth hiding. Our intelligence work in hunting for OBL was worth hiding. I could give you a hundred other examples of things worth hiding. Are you really arguing this?

[michigancat]

D-day was part of a war approved by congress (wars approved by congress would be a good exception to my idea of declassifying thing)
Atomic bomb shouldn't have happened
The OBL hunt was a waste of time/money

[Emo EMAW]

It would be much more tolerable if the defense budget wasn't so gigantic.  Cut it in half and we could fund all of our ideas on solving domestic social issues.

This is OT, but here's a few rhetorical questions for you to ponder: To what social issues are you referring, how will they be solved with more money, and how much more money? We've spent trillions on welfare since LBJ expanded it in the "War on Poverty," and now we've got more poverty and more welfare dependence.

While cutting the defense budget "in half" is insane, I'd be all in favor of cutting the budget by 10%, closing some bases and reducing infantry, but those savings should be directed at balancing the budget - not flushing down the welfare toilet.

As to Rusty's question, I think most people on both sides would agree that the government has a transparency problem with over-classifying information. But I also think there is plenty of information that is in our national security interest not to divulge to the world. That is just common sense. It is the same reason we keep criminal investigations private at home. It jeopardizes out covert intelligence (spies), allows enemies/criminals to evade us, etc.

Please note I send they would fund our ideas; I never speculated that they would work or not. 

We spend 4 and a half rough ridin' times what the number two country (China) spends.  Looking at the list of the top 15, of the other 14, 12 are allies.  Half is perhaps less insane than you think. 

[OK_Cat]

If they started declassifying everything, what would the weird conspiracy theory guy in my office talk about everyday?

[star seed 7]

The stuff too secret to even classify 

[sonofdaxjones]

Regime Change is good:  As long as it's efficient . . . Your Democratic Party

They should just come out and admit that they were running weapons and recruiting "freedom fighters" and a bunch of this stuff would just go away.

Of course that doesn't at all mitigate the egregious mishandling of classified information and the totally inadequate security on the FSOS's email server . . . of course the most salient point, as it always has been.   Why in the world was she allowed to have a system operating outside of the U.S. Government's IT professional and systemic purview to begin with?

I am also of the firm belief that the Clinton Foundation was either a front organization for U.S. intelligence or was buying and selling influence with foreign governments, if not both.   

But it's good to see the Democrats on the committee repeatedly bringing up the costs of this investigation . . . just waiting to hear how American (Democrats) just don't care next.   

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

D-day was part of a war approved by congress (wars approved by congress would be a good exception to my idea of declassifying thing)
Atomic bomb shouldn't have happened
The OBL hunt was a waste of time/money

Ok. So any intelligence gathered before congress authorizes a war should unclassified? And I guess we should just disband the NSA and CIA entirely, huh? How's your tinfoil supply?

Also, sad that people have become so ignorant about the atomic bomb. If you were one of the tens of thousands of lives saved by not invading Japan, or one of the hundreds of thousands of their descendants, you would feel differently.

[sonofdaxjones]

Oh and anyone that holds Sidney Blumenthal near and dear should be immediately disqualified from presidential candidacy.   We are talking about a snake that even the Obama administration wanted to nothing to do with.    That's about as damning as it get.

[star seed 7]

Is dax the most partisan person on this blog?

[sonofdaxjones]

Is dax the most partisan person on this blog?

Just wondering why the FSOS won't just come out and admit that the Ambassador and CIA were engaged in clandestine activities to help perpetuate another regime change in Syria . . . and that one of the primary purposes of regime change in Libya was so it could serve as a jump off point for regime change in Syria.

[michigancat]

D-day was part of a war approved by congress (wars approved by congress would be a good exception to my idea of declassifying thing)
Atomic bomb shouldn't have happened
The OBL hunt was a waste of time/money

Ok. So any intelligence gathered before congress authorizes a war should unclassified? And I guess we should just disband the NSA and CIA entirely, huh? How's your tinfoil supply?

tinfoil supply? because I don't think the CIA secrets are particularly useful? Like I said, throughout their history, they have been run by mostly useless loons. It isn't some hair-brained conspiracy theory.

Also, the atomic bomb saving hundreds of thousands of lives is convenient revisionist history. Japan had no allies and were under a naval blockade. They were done.

[Emo EMAW]

Why in the world shouldn't the atomic bomb have happened?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Also, the atomic bomb saving hundreds of thousands of lives is convenient revisionist history. Japan had no allies and were under a naval blockade. They were done.

This is really sad. Yes - if the tinfoil fits...