Does a Government Need Secrets?

[GenocideAlive]

Given all the "scandal" regarding the government's inner workings, I'm curious to actually know what people feel on this. On one hand I can certainly see the need for the government to keep things under wraps. It'd be difficult to wage war if the media was literally reporting troop positioning and movement as it occured. On the other hand, how will the government be policed for policies that make the general public ... uncomfortable?

I personally don't care about the NSA spying (though I confess I don't know its extent or details), but all the hub-bub really makes me wonder. Do I NEED to know? How is this any different than a cop sitting on the side of the road behind a sign, clocking speeders? Obviously, the only people that need to worry are the people speeding.

Anyway, thoughts?

[kongurous]

Hmm... I agree with your post, but what I don't realize is why people even care about what the government is doing behind closed doors. I figure the government tells us what needs to be told, and as long as that doesn't infringe on our right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness, I'm perfectly fine. I have enough stuff to worry about as it is, but then again, I have the same problem with tabloids. Hell, I dislike celebrities in general but seeing like 5,000 magazines about them when I go to the grocery store is a bit much. But that's a post for another topic.

[Neo]

Short answer: Yes.

Longer answer:

As much as I dislike dishonesty, secrets, lies, etc... in relation to the government, I really don't think that the public could handle the entire truth, regardless of what its in relation to.

Whether or not Area 51 exists, Whether or not we went to the moon, Whether or not Saddam had WMDs or not, whether or not bush served... Etc... (I litterally pulled those thoughts out of the ether, Area51 exists, I am reasonably sure we went to the moon, and the last two I could really care less about).

Though something that I think a line should be drawn at is privacy.

The difference is that if there is one cop sitting behind a wall clocking drivers... Your going to catch people breaking the law (as they do it). But last time I checked, speaking on a phone was not illegal. I mean, unless your confirming some plot you have to blow up a building tommorow (who would be that stupid anyways?) there really was no reason to... What was it, monitor thousands of phone lines at the same time all around the US?

Doesn't probable cause mean anything anymore? Does Freedom?

Freedom isn't free. But if we let it go, little by little, how long will freedom... really exist?

How free do you think we are?

They seemed so shocked that the Patriot Act wasn't renewed right away, were they really? I mean, did they think we would just hand over our rights that easily? After 9/11 everyone was in shock... But now things have cooled, people are thinking again, and god forbid they do that, they might actually think for themselves.

The fact that it was struck down, or whatever happened to it, gives me hope for the future of the US. I really thought it was going to get really bad. Hell things have gotten bad. Patriot Act was wrong when it first passed, and its still wrong now.

I don't think its wrong to monitor, or at least keep an eye on certain individuals... But within our laws. If we start removing freedom to... protect it, where exactly does that leave us?

-Neo

[william_clinch]

I think they shoul only keep secrets that are compleatly nessecery (such as battle tactics)
And if you know the government has been lieing about something, then people start to get suspissious about what else the government has been saying that isn't true, and then you end up with a load of conspiracy theorys
Another problem, is that people are stupid, and the media are annoying, so if the government does reveal a secret, the media will most likely blow it out of proportion, and have it one sided, and the people not understanding the whole story will probably do something stupid.
The government should be allowed some secrets, but they should not lie, that way, when it's worked out what the secret is, and they admit it, they cant be accused of lieing

[DragonPaladin]

The government needs secrets. If there were none, and the public knew everything, then the country's enemies would know everything. And in war, truth is such a precious commidity that it must always be protected by a bodyguard of lies.

[william_clinch]

you dont need to lie to keep a secret, you juat need to not say anything

[Markpyro]

Im tired about hearing of all the things the government does in secrecy, and how the press goes balistic because they didnt know of the actions. You know what? If it doesnt harm me, let them go off and do what they need to, in secrecy or not.

[GenocideAlive]

The difference is that if there is one cop sitting behind a wall clocking drivers... Your going to catch people breaking the law (as they do it). But last time I checked, speaking on a phone was not illegal. I mean, unless your confirming some plot you have to blow up a building tommorow (who would be that stupid anyways?) there really was no reason to... What was it, monitor thousands of phone lines at the same time all around the US?
Last I checked, driving wasn't illegal either. It's only when you misuse your motor vehicle do you encounter the law. Similarly, it's not until you begin discussing things like bombs, etc. that you'll be slammed for using the phone. Otherwise, both are instances of public access services being monitored by law enforcement for purposes of catching criminal violations.

You say that "privacy" is so important...how many people do you think the government is seriously spying on...do you think these people are picked because they're reasonable targets? Or do you think the government is tapping every phone in America? What is being said that so desperately needs privacy from law enforcement? I'm just curious as to what privacy you think is being violated.

It's a hairy situation, I'll merit. I'm still not sure where I stand. :/

Edit: Im tired about hearing of all the things the government does in secrecy, and how the press goes balistic because they didnt know of the actions.

I think this has some merit. I'm a little fucking tired of the media in this country in general. Every other goddamned thing that they can blow out of proportion to fuel their 24hr news channel is amped to the point of hysteria. "THE GOVERNMENT HAS SECRET SPIES! OMFG!" It's like, no shit, Sherlock.

[Neo]

Last I checked, driving wasn't illegal either. It's only when you misuse your motor vehicle do you encounter the law. Similarly, it's not until you begin discussing things like bombs, etc. that you'll be slammed for using the phone. Otherwise, both are instances of public access services being monitored by law enforcement for purposes of catching criminal violations.

You say that "privacy" is so important...how many people do you think the government is seriously spying on...do you think these people are picked because they're reasonable targets? Or do you think the government is tapping every phone in America? What is being said that so desperately needs privacy from law enforcement? I'm just curious as to what privacy you think is being violated.

It's a hairy situation, I'll merit. I'm still not sure where I stand. :/

I've always just assumed that big brother was real, and that any type of communication was flagged thatn included "terrorism, bombing the whitehouse, assassinate the president, etc"

Its much more fun.

At any rate, if we give up our freedoms so easily, what right do we have to them in the first place? We fought and died for our freedom many times... We changed a colony of britain into a world super power within, what, a couple hundred years? We are one of the youngest countries on the planet...

And last I checked, I thought cops couldn't hide like that?

The last thing I heard, at least, hear, is that if a cop if hiding/with his lights off, you can succesfully dispute any tickets resulting from a citation or w/e its called becuase its considered entrapment or something.

For instance, theres a gravel road that goes back intoa small cemetary near us, sometimes we get cops who sit there a little ways back, but they keep thier lights on (making no attempt to hide) to catch speeders.

Think I am rambling... At any rate that doesnt always happen, in the next city over the cops get so uptight theyll pull you over for a dim liscence plate light (no joking).

I prefer to err on the site of freedom and privacy. Becuae honestly, I think that anything as major as 9/11 happening again wouldn't without the government catching wind of it beforehand.

They did for 9/11 and didnt do anything, I doubt they'd let it happen again. Then again maybe they would.

-Neo

[GenocideAlive]

At any rate, if we give up our freedoms so easily, what right do we have to them in the first place? We fought and died for our freedom many times... We changed a colony of britain into a world super power within, what, a couple hundred years? We are one of the youngest countries on the planet...
The world has changed a lot in the past "couple hundred years", as you so eloquently observe. Things are not as simple as they were in 1776.
prefer to err on the site of freedom and privacy. Becuae honestly, I think that anything as major as 9/11 happening again wouldn't without the government catching wind of it beforehand.
That seems like a very flawed argument, for obvious purposes. Expecting Big Brother to succeed when it's convienent then undercutting his ability to operate in the name of some hyper ideal is one of the things Americans do best, I guess.

I don't really see what "Freedom" we lose by the government checking up on terrorist interest. You can't look up bomb-making anymore, oh no.

[Kingscrab]

Edit: Im tired about hearing of all the things the government does in secrecy, and how the press goes balistic because they didnt know of the actions.

I think this has some merit. I'm a little fucking tired of the media in this country in general. Every other goddamned thing that they can blow out of proportion to fuel their 24hr news channel is amped to the point of hysteria. "THE GOVERNMENT HAS SECRET SPIES! OMFG!" It's like, no shit, Sherlock. I'm gonna have to second this.

Sidenote: I have to say that the media, and some of the big wig democrats are starting to get really fucking annoying with the Bush bashing over this "abuse of power". (regarding the surveilance/invasion of privacy issue) I mean, come on, if something happened (like an attack) and he would have been able to prevent it by spying on a few questionable people then they would have railed him for NOT spying. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Bush hasn't done himself any favors though by his elusive behavior in the past. In any case, if the people they were spying on proved to be obvious non-threats, or if the spying was obviously for a totally different purpose other than counter terrorism, then yeah, there's an abuse there. But, i really don't know all the facts either.

I vote Dem, but some of these guys are really grade-A jackasses. Grrrr.

[GenocideAlive]

I mean, come on, if something happened (like an attack) and he would have been able to prevent it by spying on a few questionable people then they would have railed him for NOT spying. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Isn't this what happened when they formed that 9/11 committee to determine whether or not Bush had knowledge beforehand that there might be a terrorist strike? Or somesuch bullshit like that? I'm seriously beginning to wonder how a government is supposed to gather intelligence. Just ask around?

And for the record, I don't Party-vote nor do I claim any allegiances to any in our fucked-up bipartisan system. It's no longer about running our country well, it's about WHO is running our country. They all seem to want power and lack purpose.

[Kingscrab]

And for the record, I don't Party-vote nor do I claim any allegiances to any in our fucked-up bipartisan system. It's no longer about running our country well, it's about WHO is running our country. They all seem to want power and lack purpose. I am quickly coming to that belief as well. I usually vote Dem simply because it always seems to be the lesser of two evils to me. I long for the day when i can vote for someone who has more personal character than a sea sponge. I would vote for anyone who i truly felt was worthy... regardless of their political party.

[Prozerran]

The overall system of government is far too obsolete for this era. With the Internet and the Media combined, the public is becoming more informed than it ever was before. This is a problem when you take into account the system designed to elect our officials into office - the electoral college.

But the problem really isn't finding a person of character. It wouldn't matter if Jesus Christ himself ran for the presidency, if he had no money he'd have no election. It's a problem of such large proportions that the ideal is almost entirely lost to us now.

In the 2000 Election, we had Gore (not particularly the strongest candidate, but not the weakest) Bush (God! Don't get me started on this man), and in the middle of it all we had a media frenzy over the election and the recount in FL.

Then in 2004 we have Michael Moore (sensationalist pig) and John Kerry (who I voted for by merit of him not being Bush) who hand in hand spent so much time slinging mud at the president that they were blinding the public from the reality of the Iraq War and the War on Terrorism. Hell! I was rooting for Wesley Clark. When Kerry was announced, I sort of sat back and threw my hands up in the air... another bullshit election.

And if we had an independant who was worth a damn to vote on, I'd go for it. The problem is that these congressmen and women that appeal to the constituent bodies of the nation don't put themselves out there. Basically, if you're not a democrat or republican, you don't have a shot in hell of winning because you don't have the financing behind the campaign. To further salt the wound, the voting system is not set up to entertain a third party in the electorate. Basically, votes aren't calculated from state to state, they're calculated by the majority. If you voted the minority, your vote is automatically thrown to the majority by default. I voted Dem in TN, but in the end my vote went to Bush. Fucking stupid.

The voting system was set up to keep politicians from campaigning in certain areas. Yet, today we have a swing state campaign structure developing every year that is screaming for change. It's a masquerade of men in suits reading speeches prepared by campaign groups that are targeted at particular demographics based on a set of statistics. Its a play performed every four years to entertain the notion that our government is a democracy when it is not. Even the debates in 2004 were scripted - they have been for quite some time now.

Those with money are in charge of our government, and if you believe for one second that any of them will ever give two shits about your $5.95 per hour wage, your medical expenses, and your retirement, you're fucking retarded. Don't hold your breath for some rich suit to campaign in 2008 who actually has character. Those with character are still working hard to make some money and a life for themselves. What, are you joking?

[GenocideAlive]

Whoa. Bitter much?

[Prozerran]

Whoa. Bitter much?

About the state of our affairs in the government? Absolutely.

[GenocideAlive]

I can't remember a time when anybody was happy about it, frankly. Even during the computer boom when Clinton was President, all he had to do was sit there and enjoy the good economy. Then suddenly he couldn't keep it in his pants while he was at work and he lies to a grand jury. He barely fights off an impeachment trial, and gets "censored" for his felony. I'm so annoyed with the government system in general, it doesn't particularly matter who's at the helm.

[Prozerran]

I can't remember a time when anybody was happy about it, frankly. Even during the computer boom when Clinton was President, all he had to do was sit there and enjoy the good economy. Then suddenly he couldn't keep it in his pants while he was at work and he lies to a grand jury. He barely fights off an impeachment trial, and gets "censored" for his felony. I'm so annoyed with the government system in general, it doesn't particularly matter who's at the helm.

Seconded.

The government only has so much power. The Executive Branch, the Legislative, and the Judicial all share the same fundamental flaws in leadership and relations between one another. The checks and balances only go so far when loop holes exist. Executive Pardons, Judicial Appointments, and Congressional Impeachments are all generally influenced by one thing: $$$.

Capitalism and Free Trade insofar as the government is concerned become nothing more than illusions of Freedom. I'm beginning to think a Parliament that acts as an executive, legislative, and judicial branch would be far more beneficial, but I don't really understand the flaws that come of that. Any Brits in this forum care to comment on your government and its problems?

[Neo]

I long for the days of Clinton and that problem with keeping his pants zipped up.

Now that I look back on it I get a feeling that Clinton was really just fucking around with everyone, because I can tell you that I sure didnt give a shit if he got head or not in the Oval. Then again if I was married to Hillary... Haha.

I am serious though. I long for the days that our president was only a national specticle now hes an international problem.

Theres a difference (to bring us partially back on track here...) between keeping up on terroists and tapping everyday american phone lines. Unless of course they think susie johnson down the street has ties to al queda >_>

All that money... All the fear. And what has it got us? Apparently we are no where near secure enough to handle something as big as 9/11 again. They were asked and answered "No".

Says something, imo, says alot. They are more interested in image and money then actually doing anything.

-Neo

[Cyberspirit]

A government will always have secrets.

Like where this and that document is kept ...

Where the most precious resources are ...

The places where the President meets with important people outside of official meetings ...

Revealing all this stuff to the public does not make the government better.

Why am I talking about mundane stuff and not the real cool stuff like Area 51 ?

... because it is the "mundane" things that the government does most of the time. The government is there to organise the country, not to capture UFOs or research WMDs, even if the leaders are highly interested in such things. The only secrets are the details.

If people are so obsessed with what the government is doing, why not everybody take part in the elections and see for himself/herself the truth.

Of course, only a handful of people can become politicians at a certain time. But the only meaningful way to learn about government activities is to take part in them, rather than listen to all the spoof that conspiracy-obsessed people are spouting out.

How can we be a free people by denying our government of its freedom ?

Of course I am not sure if people like G.W. Bush deserve that much freedom ... no leader is perfect, and this happens to one of the least perfect ones. :(

We should be grateful that the age of totalitarianism is over ( in most of the world )...
...
OK I don't know what I am talking about ... :confused: :confused: :confused:

[GenocideAlive]

All that money... All the fear. And what has it got us? Apparently we are no where near secure enough to handle something as big as 9/11 again. They were asked and answered "No".

Says something, imo, says alot. They are more interested in image and money then actually doing anything.

-Neo
I hope you don't mind, but unless you have some serious brainfarts, I'm just going to ignore your posts for the rest of the thread. I've never seen someone whine so much about loss of freedoms and then turn around and snivel about the fact that the government doesn't have the capability to handle something on a similar scale.

First you cry that you're losing freedoms when the government takes anti-terrorist steps to help police them, then you turn around and post that it "says alot [sic]...they are more interested in image and money". Give me a fucking break. Pick a side, either "safety" or "freedom". Don't sit there and bitch that you can't have both.

[Cyberspirit]

Give me a fucking break. Pick a side, either "safety" or "freedom". Don't sit there and bitch that you can't have both.


You keep making people feel sad. :(

Though I cannot disagree with you. My teeny weeny intellect does not allow me to.

What I think is that if people are not free they usually do not feel safe ( from manipulation )
and when they are not safe they do not feel free ( from danger ). :confused:

If I remember correctly this thread was about government secrets.
Maybe if the government keeps too many secrets the people do not feel safe and free.
And if the people know everything about the government the latter does not feel safe and free. :confused:

OK I still do not know what I am talking about. I hope it somehow makes some sense to you. ;)

[Prozerran]

what I think is that if people are not free they usually do not feel safe ( from manipulation )
and when they are not safe they do not feel free ( from danger ). :confused:

What? Wait a minute. Let me get this straight. If the people are not free, they don't feel safe? If the people are not safe, they do not feel free?

It's like one of those "Whose Line is it Anyway" kinds of statements.

"If the people are not ______, then they do not feel _______. If the people are not _______, then they do not feel ________."

Now, insert either 'free' or 'safe' (interchangeably as not to repeat yourself) and now you've got some deep, "philosophical" quote. It's funny when you see that in Mystery Men (you know, the part where Ben Stiller starts ending the Sphynx's philosophical rants). But that's all it will be. Humorous.

OK I still do not know what I am talking about. I hope it somehow makes some sense to you. ;)

Obviously. Makes perfect sense.

[william_clinch]

how exactly does lieing to the people keep them safe or free?
and even if it isn't possible to be safe and free at the same time, surely there must be a level of balance, so people are relitively safe, but also have some freedom

[Neo]

My point was, GA, That we are no better prepared to handle another 9/11 now then we were when it actually happened.

The people who were in charge of you know, making us safer, basically said that we are no better off, and "God help us" if it happens again.

So we gave up freedom to be safer, but we aren't safer, so what the fuck?

And I dont buy any of that bullshit "safety OR freedom" this isnt a black and white issue. Its not either this, or that. Its not hard to keep freedoms intact and be safe -- but we gave up freedoms to be safer, and we arent really, so what the hell happened?

Spending money on dog armor? Air Conditioning trash trucks? Oh thats important for anti-terrorist safety. (lol thats from the daily show, or rather a clip from another show that was on the daily show).

So you know, tell me, what exactly are we doing? The Commision got all this moeny to prepare us, to make us safer, and they turn around and tell us we aren't? The president says we are safer, but we aren't really. So who the hell is telling the president that?

-Neo

[GenocideAlive]

My point was, GA, That we are no better prepared to handle another 9/11 now then we were when it actually happened.
The people who were in charge of you know, making us safer, basically said that we are no better off, and "God help us" if it happens again.
So we gave up freedom to be safer, but we aren't safer, so what the fuck?
I think you're taking it somewhat out of context, or mistaking the extent to which they were speaking. I seriously doubt the government firmly believes that with all the safety impositions, Air Marshals, airport security, NSA taps, etc. leave us as vulnerable as pre-9/11. I'd like to see the quote that you're referring to before I aquiesce any point in regard to us being no safer. The Brooklyn Bridge attempt was diverted, which seems like a success.
And I dont buy any of that bullshit "safety OR freedom" this isnt a black and white issue. Its not either this, or that. Its not hard to keep freedoms intact and be safe -- but we gave up freedoms to be safer, and we arent really, so what the hell happened?

Spending money on dog armor? Air Conditioning trash trucks? Oh thats important for anti-terrorist safety. (lol thats from the daily show, or rather a clip from another show that was on the daily show).
Oh, kiss my ass. The Polemic Meter just snapped in half and immolated. As soon as someone nails you on your bullshit wishy-washy behavior, the first thing you do is try to start trying to blur lines and definitions for a lame copout. Please outline the freedoms you've lost or how you've suffered unduly and the resultant terrorist actions that have affected the nation. Let me guess: instead of replying, you're going to take the argument in a new, as of yet undebunked direction for purposes of obscuring the original point to the extent to which it's no longer even discernible.

And if you knew a damned thing about what it costs to train a good bomb-sniffing dog, you'd be a little more interested in keeping the thing alive when it sets off a bomb. But hell, it saves human lives, why the fuck would we care what happens to it while it's doing its job, right? Shit, the Daily Show made a joke of it, why isn't it subsequently a valid point in an argument?