The "WTF?!?!" Report

Callysta · **Posted:** Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:27 am

Posts like these make me wonder if you guys are doing someone's homework.

thegodslayer · **Posted:** Mon Nov 29, 2010 8:37 am

I am okay with some things being classified. There are certain instances that it is necessary to protect informants that help our government protect our country. If it has to do with protecting our country or troops I am all for it. Don't disclose the military movements development of new weapons etc.......

On the other hand I disagree with anything that is not in that category above being classified. Our tax dollars go to paying for it, it should be an open book to any that want to read. From boring stuff like how many brooms a government office budgeted to the Senator that got fired for watching child porn. No secrecy no bullshit.

gersh · **Posted:** Mon Nov 29, 2010 11:02 am

I'm curious if the government is concerned with the authenticity of these leaks. In other words, if all this shit was true, don't you think they would have sent someone to murder these guys by now?

Jubbergun · **Posted:** Mon Nov 29, 2010 11:10 am

Aestu wrote:

Jubbergun wrote:

If the information is classified, it's the responsibility of the government and its agents to keep it that way. Whoever is responsible for the release of such information on the government end is responsible, not the media outlets that disseminates it after it become available.

So in other words, you're an authoritarian.

What if the actions of the government's employees are against its own best interest? What's to be gained if the secrecy only undermines the national interest? Does it make sense to put a political principle above what is good and necessary in the here and now?

What's to be gained through this secrecy?

An authoritarian wouldn't allow the release of the material in question at all, and people would be disappearing until it was back where it belonged. Seriously, some of you guys with the allegedly enlightened world-view need to look outside our borders to some states that actually are overtly authoritarian before you say silly things like this.

My point, Aestu, isn't whether or not the material in question should be kept secret. My point is that once the proper government functionaries/elected officials determine that it should be, that it is the responsibility of the government and its agents to keep it that way. If they don't, no one else has any responsibility to keep it under wraps.

Whether or not keeping the information secret was in anyone's best interest wasn't/isn't what concerns me. It's not like the US Federal Government, or a lot of other organizations for that matter, have always made decisions according to what was in their own best interest (and hindsight is always 20/20).

Your Pal,
Jubber

_____________________________________________________

Update: Was just checking the news, and the big deal about this set of leaks is that they're all from the State Department. It doesn't look like there is any military intelligence involved at all here, and the big deal is that this is going to hurt Obama and Secretary Clinton in particular and the country in general on the world stage, because there are some unflattering comments about world leaders in the leaks.

Waiting in breathless anticipation to see how the media reacts now that the shoe is off the foot of the military they hate so much and now on the feet of their beloved Fearless Leader and perennial favorite Hilary.

This is going to be a fun week.

Your Pal,
Jubber

rikkilake · **Posted:** Mon Nov 29, 2010 11:35 am

jubber, please don't write posts longer than aestu

i did not read that

Jubbergun · **Posted:** Mon Nov 29, 2010 11:36 am

It's actually two posts in one, I just didn't want to double post. I'll break it in half with a line so you can see where one stops and the other begins.

Your Pal,
Jubber

Aestu · **Posted:** Mon Nov 29, 2010 11:55 am

And yet you didn't answer the question.

Even supposing these leaks came from the DoD and not State, what's to be gained through keeping them secret?

Quote:

My point is that once the proper government functionaries/elected officials determine that it should be, that it is the responsibility of the government and its agents to keep it that way. If they don't, no one else has any responsibility to keep it under wraps.

You constantly criticize the "illegality" or "unconstitutionality" of American government, but when the buzzword is "security" and not "humanitarian concerns" your concerns vacillate. Nothing in the Constitution gives the government apparatus the right to keep secret arbitrary information from the people or the legislature.

Who gave who responsibility here? Who decided who is the "proper government functionaries"?

Eturnalshift · **Posted:** Mon Nov 29, 2010 12:23 pm

Aestu wrote:

And yet you didn't answer the question.

Even supposing these leaks came from the DoD and not State, what's to be gained through keeping them secret?

The whole point of keeping information classified is to keep people from knowing about it unless that person is cleared and has a need to know. The information, to you, may seem arbitrary and that's often the case; you may only get a small piece to the larger puzzle. The problem is the seemingly random information could be compiled to form a larger picture and that is detrimental to the future of US operation since all that information, and actions based on that information, has been compromised. Classified information is generally kept secret because it has information that, if leaked, could do harm to the country. The information leaked could be parts of weapons systems, diplomatic relations, SIGINT/HUMINT on enemy movements and capabilities, names of informants and operatives, etc.

Quote:

You constantly criticize the "illegality" or "unconstitutionality" of American government, but when the buzzword is "security" and not "humanitarian concerns" your concerns vacillate. Nothing in the Constitution gives the government apparatus the right to keep secret arbitrary information from the people or the legislature.

Who gave who responsibility here? Who decided who is the "proper government functionaries"?

The constitution, or our interpretation of it, grants the President power to issue executive orders... like this one.

Jubbergun · **Posted:** Mon Nov 29, 2010 1:00 pm

Aestu wrote:

And yet you didn't answer the question.

Even supposing these leaks came from the DoD and not State, what's to be gained through keeping them secret?

"What's gained" depends on what's being excluded from the public record and kept secret. You're asking me to speculate, not asking for an actual answer in fact. Are you saying that no information regarding the operations of government should be discretely held?

Aestu wrote:

Quote:

My point is that once the proper government functionaries/elected officials determine that it should be, that it is the responsibility of the government and its agents to keep it that way. If they don't, no one else has any responsibility to keep it under wraps.

You constantly criticize the "illegality" or "unconstitutionality" of American government, but when the buzzword is "security" and not "humanitarian concerns" your concerns vacillate. Nothing in the Constitution gives the government apparatus the right to keep secret arbitrary information from the people or the legislature.

Who gave who responsibility here? Who decided who is the "proper government functionaries"?

I criticize acts that are plainly wrong according the simply written English contained in the document that is supposed to be the basis for our system of government. Most of those acts are generally justified on the basis of legal decisions that 'translate' portions of that document to mean things they plainly don't mean.

One of the many duties that document directly states belongs exclusively to the federal government is the defense of the nation. It can reasonably be argued that keeping information secret for the purposes of such defense is a proper function of government. The duties of diplomacy (treaties explicitly) are also reserved to the federal government, and confidentiality would be equally valuable to the government in that role, as you'll probably be seeing in the weeks to come.

As to who assigns these roles, the elected representatives responsible for appointing such individuals derive this authority from various sections of the Constitution and subsequent documents. Many of these appointments are reviewed by other elected officials, especially presidential appointments where congress has an 'advise and consent' role.

I'm not sure what put this wild hair up your ass, or why you're plainly making what I said out to be about things other than what I directly addressed, but I'd think you'd be quite done with having some half-educated forklift artiste make you look like a stupid ass on a public forum by now.

Your Pal,
Jubber

Aestu · **Posted:** Mon Nov 29, 2010 1:13 pm

Eturnalshift wrote:

The whole point of keeping information classified is to keep people from knowing about it unless that person is cleared and has a need to know. The information, to you, may seem arbitrary and that's often the case; you may only get a small piece to the larger puzzle. The problem is the seemingly random information could be compiled to form a larger picture and that is detrimental to the future of US operation since all that information, and actions based on that information, has been compromised. Classified information is generally kept secret because it has information that, if leaked, could do harm to the country. The information leaked could be parts of weapons systems, diplomatic relations, SIGINT/HUMINT on enemy movements and capabilities, names of informants and operatives, etc.

Who makes that call? Upon what legal basis? How do you know they're right?

Quote:

The constitution, or our interpretation of it, grants the President power to issue executive orders... like this one.

No, it doesn't. Constitution does not give or imply the president has the power to make arbitrary "executive orders" other than CinC of the military, enforcing the law, granting pardons, and approving or vetoing congressional legislation.

Prove me wrong. Show me where the Constitution grants the power.

This "executive order" mythos grew out of WWII, McCarthyism, and Watergate.

Aestu · **Posted:** Mon Nov 29, 2010 1:16 pm

Jubbergun wrote:

"What's gained" depends on what's being excluded from the public record and kept secret. You're asking me to speculate, not asking for an actual answer in fact. Are you saying that no information regarding the operations of government should be discretely held?

My answer would be - yes. Citizens have the right to know exactly what their government is doing. As I said, this is government activity and working policy, not tactical data.

Again you did not answer the question.
What is to be gained by keeping this information secret?

Jubbergun wrote:

I criticize acts that are plainly wrong according the simply written English contained in the document that is supposed to be the basis for our system of government. Most of those acts are generally justified on the basis of legal decisions that 'translate' portions of that document to mean things they plainly don't mean.

One of the many duties that document directly states belongs exclusively to the federal government is the defense of the nation. It can reasonably be argued that keeping information secret for the purposes of such defense is a proper function of government. The duties of diplomacy (treaties explicitly) are also reserved to the federal government, and confidentiality would be equally valuable to the government in that role, as you'll probably be seeing in the weeks to come.

As to who assigns these roles, the elected representatives responsible for appointing such individuals derive this authority from various sections of the Constitution and subsequent documents. Many of these appointments are reviewed by other elected officials, especially presidential appointments where congress has an 'advise and consent' role.

I'm not sure what put this wild hair up your ass, or why you're plainly making what I said out to be about things other than what I directly addressed, but I'd think you'd be quite done with having some half-educated forklift artiste make you look like a stupid ass on a public forum by now.

Your Pal,
Jubber

Ok. Show me where this "document" gives said authority "in plain English."

thegodslayer · **Posted:** Mon Nov 29, 2010 1:30 pm

Aestu wrote:

My answer would be - yes. Citizens have the right to know exactly what their government is doing. As I said, this is government activity and working policy, not tactical data.

Again you did not answer the question.
What is to be gained by keeping this information secret?

Ok. Show me where this "document" gives said authority "in plain English."

What is to be gained? In some cases it saves lives and on the other hand I am sure that in some cases it costs lives. Plainly put some information is better not shared with the populace.

If your population knew you tortured civilians in countries you were invading in order to extract intelligence from them how would they view you? And don't give me this we are fighting a war because of 911, because I call bullshit. Maybe initially but not now.

Eturnalshift · **Posted:** Mon Nov 29, 2010 1:37 pm

You won't run a table if you always show your hand in poker.

Jubbergun · **Posted:** Mon Nov 29, 2010 2:30 pm

Aestu wrote:

Jubbergun wrote:

"What's gained" depends on what's being excluded from the public record and kept secret. You're asking me to speculate, not asking for an actual answer in fact. Are you saying that no information regarding the operations of government should be discretely held?

My answer would be - yes. Citizens have the right to know exactly what their government is doing. As I said, this is government activity and working policy, not tactical data.

Again you did not answer the question.
What is to be gained by keeping this information secret?

Ignoring how foolish the idea that the government should be completely transparent is, allowing this information to get set loose (and this was probably done purposely by someone in State with an axe to grind) is going to cause, at the very least, a lot of friction and mistrust between our government and others.

Again, I'd have to know what is being kept secret to know the value of it being kept secret. You're basically saying, "If x+y/r*z=s, what is the actual numeric value of r?" You're asking a question I don't have the required information to answer.

Aestu wrote:

Jubbergun wrote:

I criticize acts that are plainly wrong according the simply written English contained in the document that is supposed to be the basis for our system of government. Most of those acts are generally justified on the basis of legal decisions that 'translate' portions of that document to mean things they plainly don't mean.

One of the many duties that document directly states belongs exclusively to the federal government is the defense of the nation. It can reasonably be argued that keeping information secret for the purposes of such defense is a proper function of government. The duties of diplomacy (treaties explicitly) are also reserved to the federal government, and confidentiality would be equally valuable to the government in that role, as you'll probably be seeing in the weeks to come.

As to who assigns these roles, the elected representatives responsible for appointing such individuals derive this authority from various sections of the Constitution and subsequent documents. Many of these appointments are reviewed by other elected officials, especially presidential appointments where congress has an 'advise and consent' role.

I'm not sure what put this wild hair up your ass, or why you're plainly making what I said out to be about things other than what I directly addressed, but I'd think you'd be quite done with having some half-educated forklift artiste make you look like a stupid ass on a public forum by now.

Your Pal,
Jubber

Ok. Show me where this "document" gives said authority "in plain English."

[The President] shall nominate, and, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

I guess they don't teach this anymore, even in college?

Your Pal,
Jubber

Aestu · **Posted:** Mon Nov 29, 2010 2:48 pm

thegodslayer wrote:

What is to be gained? In some cases it saves lives and on the other hand I am sure that in some cases it costs lives. Plainly put some information is better not shared with the populace.

Whose lives?

thegodslayer wrote:

If your population knew you tortured civilians in countries you were invading in order to extract intelligence from them how would they view you? And don't give me this we are fighting a war because of 911, because I call bullshit. Maybe initially but not now.

You're calling it "bullshit" because it invalidates the assumptions behind your viewpoint. No, the wars we're waging now aren't the necessary result of 9/11, and torture is not an effective means of extracting information, never has been.

Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

The "WTF?!?!" Report

Who is online