Jubbergun wrote:
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.
Ok. Then isn't it in our best interest to let it go public, to face public criticism, then adjust policy accordingly? Doesn't that yield the best outcome - a straighter policy course?
Isn't that how democracy works - the people decide between two courses?
Jubbergun wrote:
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.
Circular logic.
"I can't know if it's important because it's secret, and it's secret because it's important".
But what if it's not important at all, just humiliating to certain people because they are making mistakes?
Jubbergun wrote:
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."
I guess they don't teach this anymore, even in college?
Your Pal,
Jubber
None of which gives any of those offices the right to break the law or to keep secrets from the people.
