or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Miscellaneous News.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Miscellaneous News. - Page 54

post #2121 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

This will never happen in the states with these banks and bankers. To much politics and money involved and power moves.


Agree. "Too big to fail" is a lie. "Too connected to fail" is the truth.

post #2122 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Disclosure of intelligence sources or intelligence gathering technology is one cause for extended classification, and most of those discussions probably include such information.  It's important to remember that the primary reason for classification is to keep information from enemies (or potential enemies) of the US, not, per se, to hide it from US citizens.

 

 

Oh my, you are terribly trusting... a 9 out of 10 on the Neville Chamberlain scale.

 

That old hackneyed excuse has been employed by governments of all stripes over the centuries, from so-called free democracies to rogue states, banana republics to totalitarian super-powers. Citing "national security" is a very pointed stick - a very effective way of getting the public (regardless of nation) to snap to attention before big unaccountable government, to give them 10 miles of slack when a couple of feet is more than enough. Abuse of secrecy in government, ie by arbitrary classification - ie "just because we can" is a common default. How often is "national security" cop-out used to protect officials who are screwing up or committing crimes? We don't know, because that's secret too. And don't forget, bureaucrats enjoy that little taste of power...

 

Knowing that scum tends to float to the top, no conspiracy is required, just the sociopathic nature of power-seekers at work here.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #2123 of 2700

Apparently we don't need courts or due process anymore. The president is now the judge, jury, and executioner.

 

Barack Obama 'has authority to use drone strikes to kill Americans on US soil'

 

Checks and balances, indeed.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2124 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Disclosure of intelligence sources or intelligence gathering technology is one cause for extended classification, and most of those discussions probably include such information.  It's important to remember that the primary reason for classification is to keep information from enemies (or potential enemies) of the US, not, per se, to hide it from US citizens.

 

 

Oh my, you are terribly trusting... a 9 out of 10 on the Neville Chamberlain scale.

 

That old hackneyed excuse has been employed by governments of all stripes over the centuries, from so-called free democracies to rogue states, banana republics to totalitarian super-powers. Citing "national security" is a very pointed stick - a very effective way of getting the public (regardless of nation) to snap to attention before big unaccountable government, to give them 10 miles of slack when a couple of feet is more than enough. Abuse of secrecy in government, ie by arbitrary classification - ie "just because we can" is a common default. How often is "national security" cop-out used to protect officials who are screwing up or committing crimes? We don't know, because that's secret too. And don't forget, bureaucrats enjoy that little taste of power...

 

Knowing that scum tends to float to the top, no conspiracy is required, just the sociopathic nature of power-seekers at work here.

 

Or possibly you didn't actually read what I wrote. I'm not arguing that the process is not abused, mostly by politicians, I'm pointing out that there are perfectly legitimate reasons for classification of information, and there are strict guidelines for what should be classified.  There are oversight mechanisms to try to prevent abuse, but the are still susceptible to being subverted and I don't know how to fix that.  

post #2125 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Apparently we don't need courts or due process anymore. The president is now the judge, jury, and executioner.

 

Barack Obama 'has authority to use drone strikes to kill Americans on US soil'

 

Checks and balances, indeed.

 

Since law enforcement has always had the authority to use lethal force where they believe it to be necessary to counter an imminent threat to life, without Presidential authority, why is this particularly surprising?

post #2126 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I'm pointing out that there are perfectly legitimate reasons for classification of information. 

 

There are?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2127 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

There are?

Shocking coming from the person who thinks the average citizen should be able to own nukes.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #2128 of 2700

Why is Holder always making excuses about these banks are very hard to prosecute? There is something funny going behind the public's back we do not know about.
 

post #2129 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Why is Holder always making excuses about these banks are very hard to prosecute? There is something funny going behind the public's back we do not know about.

 
Because certain people like lobbyists and pro-business republicans would politically crucify anyone who tried. It's not at all about difficulty in getting a conviction.
post #2130 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Since law enforcement has always had the authority to use lethal force where they believe it to be necessary to counter an imminent threat to life, without Presidential authority, why is this particularly surprising?

The president is claiming the authority to assassinate American citizens without recognizing their Constitutionally guaranteed right to due process of law.

That doesn't concern you even a little?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2131 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I'm pointing out that there are perfectly legitimate reasons for classification of information. 

 

There are?

 

It would probably be helpful if you were to read the earlier posts. Then you could also mention whether you disagree or are simply unaware of such things. 

post #2132 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Since law enforcement has always had the authority to use lethal force where they believe it to be necessary to counter an imminent threat to life, without Presidential authority, why is this particularly surprising?

The president is claiming the authority to assassinate American citizens without recognizing their Constitutionally guaranteed right to due process of law.

That doesn't concern you even a little?

 

Firstly, it was not a comment made by the President, and secondly, you still haven't explained why you think it is any different to any other use of lethal force by LE. 

post #2133 of 2700

Funny how concerned the Right is about the Constitution when Obama's staff says something "hypothetically", but when GW said it was just a piece of paper they didn't care.  When GW's staff lied to the world and caused the unnecessary deaths of THOUSANDS of Americans (not to mention many thousands of innocent women and children), they didn't care.

 

Hypocrisy.  GOP.  Same thing.

 

 

- - - - -

 

North Korea today threatened a pre-emptive strike on the US.

 

 

The CIA is needed at this time.

 

How are the actions of the GOP helping the security of the country?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #2134 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Firstly, it was not a comment made by the President, and secondly, you still haven't explained why you think it is any different to any other use of lethal force by LE. 

 

The president has not made any comment. That was one of the reasons for Rand Paul's filibuster yesterday.

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but LE doesn't claim the authority to preemptively kill people it deems a threat. You know, the whole concept of "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law".

 

Although it could be argued that incidents such as the one in Waco, Texas or the conclusion of the manhunt of Christopher Dorner have set a dangerous precedent for LE.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2135 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

It would probably be helpful if you were to read the earlier posts.

 

It would be helpful if you didn't automatically assume I haven't.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Then you could also mention whether you disagree or are simply unaware of such things. 

 

I disagree. That better?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2136 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Funny how concerned the Right is about the Constitution when Obama's staff says something "hypothetically", but when GW said it was just a piece of paper they didn't care.

 

Repeating discredited claims about Republican presidents. Liberals. Same thing.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2137 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Firstly, it was not a comment made by the President, and secondly, you still haven't explained why you think it is any different to any other use of lethal force by LE. 

 

The president has not made any comment. That was one of the reasons for Rand Paul's filibuster yesterday.

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but LE doesn't claim the authority to preemptively kill people it deems a threat. You know, the whole concept of "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law".

 

Although it could be argued that incidents such as the one in Waco, Texas or the conclusion of the manhunt of Christopher Dorner have set a dangerous precedent for LE.

 

The President has not only made no comment, he did not make the claim.

 

LE does have the authority to use lethal force if they believe that they, or members of the public, are in imminent danger. They shoot suspects with guns who continue to threaten, for example. Whether the mechanism to achieve that end is a handgun, sniper rifle, or drone, seems to me not to make much difference.

post #2138 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

It would probably be helpful if you were to read the earlier posts.

 

It would be helpful if you didn't automatically assume I haven't.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Then you could also mention whether you disagree or are simply unaware of such things. 

 

I disagree. That better?

 

A bit. How about some substance to your disagreement? Or do you not actually want a discussion?  I listed some categories of information that seem to me very reasonable to safeguard by classification. The example of weapons technology and design seems one of the simplest to comprehend. You would prefer those to be publicly available?

post #2139 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

How about some substance to your disagreement?

 

I simply don't believe that the people who take money from us and claim to protect us and claim to know and be doing what best for us should have the privilege of hiding things from us. I find this to be a dangerous arrangement that is ripe for abuse. Something like "national security" or what-not becomes the catch-all excuse to hide any number of things from people and cover up wrong-doings. Best to just have it out in the open. If it is bad to have it out in the open, perhaps it shouldn't be being done in the first place.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Or do you not actually want a discussion?

 

I'm fine with discussion.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I listed some categories of information that seem to me very reasonable to safeguard by classification. The example of weapons technology and design seems one of the simplest to comprehend. You would prefer those to be publicly available?

 

It would be fine with me. Of course I would have preferred that none of it has been developed to begin with, but now that it is...

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2140 of 2700
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I listed some categories of information that seem to me very reasonable to safeguard by classification. The example of weapons technology and design seems one of the simplest to comprehend. You would prefer those to be publicly available?

 

It would be fine with me. Of course I would have preferred that none of it has been developed to begin with, but now that it is...

 

OK - just to be clear - you see no good reasons to wish to prevent the technology to produce high-yield, miniaturized, remotely deliverable devices from being obtained by states such as Iran, or North Korea, for example. Is that correct?

post #2141 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

OK - just to be clear - you see no good reasons to wish to prevent the technology to produce high-yield, miniaturized, remotely deliverable devices from being obtained by states such as Iran, or North Korea, for example. Is that correct?

 

It's not the technology, per se, all of that can and should be just destroyed. It's the knowledge you're referring to. To be honest I'd be very surprised if they don't already have the knowledge already. The problems they're having (assuming they are all trying to build nukes) is that it is hard to build them (high-yield, miniaturized, remotely deliverable devices) well. There's a lot of shit that has to go right and a lot of technological tools and skills and capabilities (over and above the knowledge and secrets you're concerned with.) Point is, it is not, in practical reality a concern that the "average person" or even most states would be able to create these weapons.


Edited by MJ1970 - 3/7/13 at 8:23am

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2142 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

The President has not only made no comment, he did not make the claim.

 

His silence leaves a lot of room for speculation, doesn't it? It would certainly be helpful if he would clarify his intent, here.

 

 

Quote:
LE does have the authority to use lethal force if they believe that they, or members of the public, are in imminent danger. They shoot suspects with guns who continue to threaten, for example. Whether the mechanism to achieve that end is a handgun, sniper rifle, or drone, seems to me not to make much difference.

 

Shooting a suspect who is pointing a gun at you or someone else is a very different scenario than using a drone to obliterate building with a suspect inside.

 

In the first scenario, the threat is obvious to all.

 

In the second scenario, we can only speculate.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2143 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

The President has not only made no comment, he did not make the claim.

 

His silence leaves a lot of room for speculation, doesn't it? It would certainly be helpful if he would clarify his intent, here.

 

 

Quote:
LE does have the authority to use lethal force if they believe that they, or members of the public, are in imminent danger. They shoot suspects with guns who continue to threaten, for example. Whether the mechanism to achieve that end is a handgun, sniper rifle, or drone, seems to me not to make much difference.

 

Shooting a suspect who is pointing a gun at you or someone else is a very different scenario than using a drone to obliterate building with a suspect inside.

 

In the first scenario, the threat is obvious to all.

 

In the second scenario, we can only speculate.

 

Maybe I missed some of the discussion. Was the example of destroying buildings containing unknown threats part of the claimed authority?

post #2144 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

OK - just to be clear - you see no good reasons to wish to prevent the technology to produce high-yield, miniaturized, remotely deliverable devices from being obtained by states such as Iran, or North Korea, for example. Is that correct?

 

It's not the technology, per se, all of that can and should be just destroyed. It's the knowledge you're referring to. To be honest I'd be very surprised if they don't already have the knowledge already. The problems they're having (assuming they are all trying to build nukes) is that it is hard to build them (high-yield, miniaturized, remotely deliverable devices) well. There's a lot of shit that has to go right and a lot of technological tools and skills and capabilities (over and above the knowledge and secrets you're concerned with.) Point is, it is not, in practical reality a concern that the "average person" or even most states would be able to create these weapons.

 

Yes - by technology I mean knowledge. And, no, it's the knowledge that they lack. You are quite correct that the "average person" and most states would be unable or uninterested in making use of that knowledge, but the fact there are some that would is what makes it dangerous.

post #2145 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Maybe I missed some of the discussion. Was the example of destroying buildings containing unknown threats part of the claimed authority?

 

The Obama Administration clearly claims the authority to do so to American citizens overseas, and have actually carried this policy out. They have been asked repeatedly if the same standard applies to American citizens on U.S. soil and they refuse to make a statement either way. This was the main reason for yesterday's filibuster.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2146 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

And, no, it's the knowledge that they lack.

 

If you say so. I'm skeptical. That said, there's still another solution here. Destroy the information/knowledge that you're referring to. Don't release it, but destroy it. Then we move on with much greater transparency going forward. That's at least an attempt to close the barn door after the horse has escaped and do so effectively.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

You are quite correct that the "average person" and most states would be unable or uninterested in making use of that knowledge, but the fact there are some that would is what makes it dangerous.

 

Possibly. Depends on what their intentions. Frankly, we've been told repeatedly that countries like Iran are trying (despite evidence that they are not) to create nuclear weapons. We've also been told that just about any country other than the only one to have ever actually used them...on civilians no-less...(and Israel) should be considered a threat if they have them.


Edited by MJ1970 - 3/7/13 at 9:15am

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2147 of 2700

This could be of interest to the discussion of the wild Paul:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/rand-paul-drones_n_2823450.html

 

The designed for purpose (and GW) post-9/11  Authorization for the Use of Military Force

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #2148 of 2700

Graham, McCain blast Paul filibuster

 

These guys are so out of touch with reality it's scary they are in positions of such power and influence.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2149 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

And, no, it's the knowledge that they lack.

 

If you say so. I'm skeptical. That said, there's still another solution here. Destroy the information/knowledge that you're referring to. Don't release it, but destroy it. Then we move on with much greater transparency going forward. That's at least an attempt to close the barn door after the horse has escaped and do so effectively.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

You are quite correct that the "average person" and most states would be unable or uninterested in making use of that knowledge, but the fact there are some that would is what makes it dangerous.

 

Possibly. Depends on what their intentions. Frankly, we've been told repeatedly that countries like Iran are trying (despite evidence that they are not) to create nuclear weapons. We've also been told that just about any country other than the only one to have ever actually used them...on civilians no-less...(and Israel) should be considered a threat if they have them.

 

One certainly can argue for the destruction of the infrastructure, but what are you going to do about the scientists and engineers with the knowledge? And what do we do about the foreign states that have no desire to follow suit?  Also, one can make a reasonable argument that the existence of these weapons has contributed significantly to the absence of global conflict since WWII - a "lesser of two evils" problem.

 

You can argue about Iran, since they deny it, but it's hard to argue about North Korea given that they are testing devices and have threatened pre-emptive strikes.

post #2150 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Graham, McCain blast Paul filibuster

 

These guys are so out of touch with reality it's scary they are in positions of such power and influence.

 

Are you quite sure that they are the ones out of touch? Can you back up that assertion with anything other than that you are scared?

post #2151 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Are you quite sure that they are the ones out of touch? Can you back up that assertion with anything other than that you are scared?

 

Why do you hate little children and kittens?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2152 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

One certainly can argue for the destruction of the infrastructure, but what are you going to do about the scientists and engineers with the knowledge? And what do we do about the foreign states that have no desire to follow suit?

 

Well, there's only so much we can control. What do you suggest? Jail them? Kill them? Threaten other nations who don't do the same?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2153 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

One certainly can argue for the destruction of the infrastructure, but what are you going to do about the scientists and engineers with the knowledge? And what do we do about the foreign states that have no desire to follow suit?

 

Well, there's only so much we can control. What do you suggest? Jail them? Kill them? Threaten other nations who don't do the same?

 

I suggest we continue to protect the information, as we are currently doing.

post #2154 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I suggest we continue to protect the information, as we are currently doing.

 

But now you've side-stepped the obvious issue with the scenario you described (knowledge in people's heads, other countries)...there's no real way to control or stop these.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2155 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I suggest we continue to protect the information, as we are currently doing.

 

But now you've side-stepped the obvious issue with the scenario you described (knowledge in people's heads, other countries)...there's no real way to control or stop these.

 

No - my point was that those other countries do not have that knowledge - we do, and we can't change that, so instead we protect it to prevent them from acquiring it and then carrying out their threats to use it. What am I sidestepping?

post #2156 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

No - my point was that those other countries do not have that knowledge - we do, and we can't change that, so instead we protect it to prevent them from acquiring it and then carrying out their threats to use it. What am I sidestepping?

 

Perhaps I'm mistaken. I thought you were referring to other countries in the "Nuclear Club" not following suit in destroying the knowledge and technologies to avoid having them get out. As if to say, there's no point in us doing that kind of thing because other countries (and scientists) might not do the same. I apologize if I mis-interpreted what you meant.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2157 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

No - my point was that those other countries do not have that knowledge - we do, and we can't change that, so instead we protect it to prevent them from acquiring it and then carrying out their threats to use it. What am I sidestepping?

 

Perhaps I'm mistaken. I thought you were referring to other countries in the "Nuclear Club" not following suit in destroying the knowledge and technologies to avoid having them get out. As if to say, there's no point in us doing that kind of thing because other countries (and scientists) might not do the same. I apologize if I mis-interpreted what you meant.

 

Oh - different issue - but I did also refer to that earlier though. To summarize:

 

It seems to me that (a) it is in the best interests of everyone that we do not allow advanced designs to get into the hands of states that have expressed a desire to use them aggressively [information protection issue], (b) that we cannot destroy the capability here because the knowledge exists, and not just in documents [information protection issue], and (c) we leave ourselves very exposed if we act unilaterally to abandon the capability [unrelated to information protection].

post #2158 of 2700

So maybe there is a case...in a few extreme circumstances. I need to think more carefully about even that.

 

But this "state secrets" thing is used far more widely and broadly (and much less justifiably) than I believe is necessary to cover the more extreme cases like people making nuclear bombs.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #2159 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

So maybe there is a case...in a few extreme circumstances. I need to think more carefully about even that.

 

But this "state secrets" thing is used far more widely and broadly (and much less justifiably) than I believe is necessary to cover the more extreme cases like people making nuclear bombs.

 

That there are legitimate reasons to protect information does not preclude that the system may be misused. It almost certainly is. However, I could argue equally for some other categories of information needing protection, and the popular misconception that most classified information is protected to hide the governments dirty laundry is a misinformed generalization. Aside from the fact that there are quite clear rules for classification, I am frequently surprised at how much does end up designated for unlimited release.

post #2160 of 2700
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

...and the popular misconception that most classified information is protected to hide the governments dirty laundry is a misinformed generalization.

 

How do you know this? Are there some facts that support your claim? Is this just your gut feeling? Are we to simply take your word for it? Why?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Miscellaneous News.