• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New House Resolution Calls for Declassifying Secret Portion of 9/11 Report

Do you think the federal government is a monolithic entity?
I think it is compartmentalized, and a lot of things that go wrong/bad we are, as a people, completely oblivious to and of... and even if rumored, we have no proof... proper heads do not roll, ills are perpetrated, not caught and so perpetuated, long term exacerbated.

That answer your question?
 
I think it is compartmentalized, and a lot of things that go wrong/bad we are, as a people, completely oblivious to and of... and even if rumored, we have no proof... proper heads do not roll, ills are perpetrated, not caught and so perpetuated, long term exacerbated.

That answer your question?

Sounds about right.
 
I think it is compartmentalized, and a lot of things that go wrong/bad we are, as a people, completely oblivious to and of... and even if rumored, we have no proof... proper heads do not roll, ills are perpetrated, not caught and so perpetuated, long term exacerbated.

That answer your question?

It does. It's compartmentalized. That means one agency of the government has no loyalty or anything like that for another. Hence, oversight can come from within. Under your proposal, what's different?
 
So like...a second government? Like a different branch?
Perhaps... we used to have that power, kinda like a 4th branch of the government. Still do, we just have been conveniently made unaware of this power, Grand Jury power where they had the power to exclude prosecutors from their presence at any time and to investigate public officials without governmental influence. This power allowed grand juries to serve a necessary and vital function of oversight upon the government. Seems the function of a grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the primary purpose of the grand jury system in ages past.

"They" apparently have been able to massage this out of our common knowledge of this power, put it out of view when the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were enacted in 1946. Probably something we should look into putting back into action.
 
It does. It's compartmentalized. That means one agency of the government has no loyalty or anything like that for another. Hence, oversight can come from within. Under your proposal, what's different?
If its compartmentalized, that means, oftentimes, its shut off from even the knowledge of other departments/agencies... so they are not even aware enough to give oversight... if I don't know of something, how can I oversee it?
 
Perhaps... we used to have that power, kinda like a 4th branch of the government. Still do, we just have been conveniently made unaware of this power, Grand Jury power where they had the power to exclude prosecutors from their presence at any time and to investigate public officials without governmental influence. This power allowed grand juries to serve a necessary and vital function of oversight upon the government. Seems the function of a grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the primary purpose of the grand jury system in ages past.

"They" apparently have been able to massage this out of our common knowledge of this power, put it out of view when the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were enacted in 1946. Probably something we should look into putting back into action.
So it's still gonna basically be a branch of the federal government. So what, again, is the difference? The legislative branch already has oversight: you just don't like the decisions they make. Are we to continue creating more and more branches until you get a conclusion that you like?
 
If its compartmentalized, that means, oftentimes, its shut off from even the knowledge of other departments/agencies... so they are not even aware enough to give oversight... if I don't know of something, how can I oversee it?

So if they're too close, then there's a conflict of interest? If they're too far, then there's a lack of knowledge?

This seems to me you just want oversight to agree with whatever you think of a certain situation, and have an excuse for anything, were not to.

I mean, how would you feel about a panel or congress of intelligence professionals overseeing the intelligence agencies? They'd certainly have the knowledge and experience, wouldn't they?
 
So it's still gonna basically be a branch of the federal government. So what, again, is the difference? The legislative branch already has oversight: you just don't like the decisions they make. Are we to continue creating more and more branches until you get a conclusion that you like?
I think the oversight has to come from the outside, out here, in real Americaland...not government officials, just good people who care enough about a single issue to track it, follow its to its logical conclusion, find out what the heck is truly going on... I do trust juries more than our elected officials in Washington, officials who are subject variously to lobbying, bribes, fear of excoriation by fellow members and the press, isolation and exclusion if they don't "follow"the proper lead, etc... DC is not where oversight on specific things should initiate...should be out here, where we the concerned get out real questions answered as best we can, and I would hazard, much better than we are getting them now.
 
I think the oversight has to come from the outside, out here, in real Americaland...not government officials, just good people who care enough about a single issue to track it, follow its to its logical conclusion, find out what the heck is truly going on... I do trust juries more than our elected officials in Washington, officials who are subject variously to lobbying, bribes, fear of excoriation by fellow members and the press, isolation and exclusion if they don't "follow"the proper lead, etc... DC is not where oversight on specific things should initiate...should be out here, where we the concerned get out real questions answered as best we can, and I would hazard, much better than we are getting them now.

What's the difference? You're just creating another branch of federal government, and you already said you didn't trust the federal government to oversee the federal government. So these guys live in like Topeka or something? That's the difference?
 
So if they're too close, then there's a conflict of interest? If they're too far, then there's a lack of knowledge?

This seems to me you just want oversight to agree with whatever you think of a certain situation, and have an excuse for anything, were not to.

I mean, how would you feel about a panel or congress of intelligence professionals overseeing the intelligence agencies? They'd certainly have the knowledge and experience, wouldn't they?
And, it seems to me you might not really want to know the truth. I am not here to build a brand new government agency, besides, one would have to pay me to do that. I think the Grand Jury construct would be an appropriate platform, have subpoena power, have media watching...

Haven't you ever watched a hearing and just been going, "Why don't they ask the obvious questions?" These folks are supposed to be getting at the answers, and yet often they don't... often limited to very narrow scopes and time limits... I think we need to be dogged sometimes, keep at them until we get the truth.
 
What's the difference? You're just creating another branch of federal government, and you already said you didn't trust the federal government to oversee the federal government. So these guys live in like Topeka or something? That's the difference?
No, no other branch, this would be ad hoc, citizens not on the government payroll, why do you keep trying to put this as a government entity... that is straw manish...
 
And, it seems to me you might not really want to know the truth. I am not here to build a brand new government agency, besides, one would have to pay me to do that. I think the Grand Jury construct would be an appropriate platform, have subpoena power, have media watching...

Haven't you ever watched a hearing and just been going, "Why don't they ask the obvious questions?" These folks are supposed to be getting at the answers, and yet often they don't... often limited to very narrow scopes and time limits... I think we need to be dogged sometimes, keep at them until we get the truth.

"Know the truth"? I don't think the public should know the truth- I thought that's what we were talking about?
 
No, no other branch, this would be ad hoc, citizens not on the government payroll, why do you keep trying to put this as a government entity... that is straw manish...
Because you're suggesting regular people do the job of Congress- but that's what Congress is! I mean, do we get a random jury of people every time we "need" one? How often will we "need" one? Are they going to get read-in to the security clearance? Are they going to have muzzle orders? 12 people a year? So some guy from Minnesota violates his gag order- because he doesn't care, he sees something he doesn't like and tells the world- and it compromises an operation and a source in Brazil gets arrested and now sources all over Latin America are hesitant to work with the US and US operations there are hamstrung and why? For what?
 
"Know the truth"? I don't think the public should know the truth- I thought that's what we were talking about?
Now you are obfuscating... you don't think, if I recap correctly, that everyone should know the truth... I don't either, but I don't trust our elected hired hands to always give me the straight up, and we, the people, do need to know when we are being lied to... you seem either unaware of or unconvinced that we should be concerned about any of that... in a democracy it is our duty to keep our eyes on government, keep them straight...

If you disagree, we no longer need converse on the topic...
 
Because you're suggesting regular people do the job of Congress- but that's what Congress is! I mean, do we get a random jury of people every time we "need" one? How often will we "need" one? Are they going to get read-in to the security clearance? Are they going to have muzzle orders? 12 people a year? So some guy from Minnesota violates his gag order- because he doesn't care, he sees something he doesn't like and tells the world- and it compromises an operation and a source in Brazil gets arrested and now sources all over Latin America are hesitant to work with the US and US operations there are hamstrung and why? For what?
Yeah, some department is leaking our defense codes to our enemies, who cares, right... I mean, we wouldn't want some guy in Minnesota to leak that kinda crap out, someone might actually get caught, get prosecuted, might actually save lives, might actually save the whole world from utter destruction... I mean if we are gonna just make up wild scenarios that feed into the silliness...

I'm not particularly offended if you agree or not, you don't seem to and I sure as heck am unconvinced by our current system nor your endorsement of the eminent appropriateness of it capacities ... but I thought I said early on, we can just agree to disagree...
 
Now you are obfuscating... you don't think, if I recap correctly, that everyone should know the truth... I don't either, but I don't trust our elected hired hands

See, and I feel bad because you've been nothing but polite, but all you're saying is to hire more hands!

to always give me the straight up, and we, the people, do need to know when we are being lied to... you seem either unaware of or unconvinced that we should be concerned about any of that... in a democracy it is our duty to keep our eyes on government, keep them straight...

And in a republic, we elect representatives. You're basically just adding another layer to it and saying "Okay, THESE guys will do a good job." My point is I think that, if they're informed, they're going to end up doing the same thing you're upset about our representatives doing.

If you disagree, we no longer need converse on the topic...

I guess not? But I'll still respond to your next post (sight unseen, it can't be that bad).
 
Yeah, some department is leaking our defense codes to our enemies, who cares, right... I mean, we wouldn't want some guy in Minnesota to leak that kinda crap out, someone might actually get caught, get prosecuted, might actually save lives, might actually save the whole world from utter destruction... I mean if we are gonna just make up wild scenarios that feed into the silliness...

That's the risk that's run when people with no experience in this get involved randomly.

I'm not particularly offended if you agree or not, you don't seem to and I sure as heck am unconvinced by our current system nor your endorsement of the eminent appropriateness of it capacities ... but I thought I said early on, we can just agree to disagree...

Well, I don't care? We're not going to back an independent body that's too close (because you can't trust the federal government to police the federal government), nor too far away (because you can't trust some random people to know anything about that which they're overseeing), so it's a moot point. Congress does what you're talking about: you just don't like their conclusions. Well, I'm sorry to tell you, but anyone with any knowledge of these situations is going to end basically agreeing with our current Congress. So you're just doomed to be upset about it, until you're in one of those positions wherein you can learn about these things and then you'll probably be satisfied. But they'll be hundreds of other "yous" out there, still. And you can't please them all. So why bother? Why try?
 
See, and I feel bad because you've been nothing but polite, but all you're saying is to hire more hands!



And in a republic, we elect representatives. You're basically just adding another layer to it and saying "Okay, THESE guys will do a good job." My point is I think that, if they're informed, they're going to end up doing the same thing you're upset about our representatives doing.



I guess not? But I'll still respond to your next post (sight unseen, it can't be that bad).
Juries are not hired. I just went to Jury duty last week, if your employer does not reimburse, mine does, I think they said after the third day they would pay $15 a day, that is not being paid...

These would be citizens without pay trying to get to the truth... I am sure they could accept donations if needed, anonymous of course, wouldn't want any undue influence. They should be people selected by the whole country, from wherever... there are only two others who are selected by the entire country... so this would elevate them and give them necessary status... and they would be completely separate from the ruling elite class and its minions...and the real 4th branch of government, the bureaucracy.

What is it they would be doing in your opinion that is going to upset me? Keep the truth from me? If they are people of integrity, no influence, no pay off and only expected to give us the nod that its okay...or, tell us the unvarnished truth because he thinks that best, have that ability to do as they please if need be [ I am not as concerned about the guy in Minn doing something crazy, if he did so I would probably think I needed to pay even closer attention ]...
 
That's the risk that's run when people with no experience in this get involved randomly.



Well, I don't care? We're not going to back an independent body that's too close (because you can't trust the federal government to police the federal government), nor too far away (because you can't trust some random people to know anything about that which they're overseeing), so it's a moot point. Congress does what you're talking about: you just don't like their conclusions. Well, I'm sorry to tell you, but anyone with any knowledge of these situations is going to end basically agreeing with our current Congress. So you're just doomed to be upset about it, until you're in one of those positions wherein you can learn about these things and then you'll probably be satisfied. But they'll be hundreds of other "yous" out there, still. And you can't please them all. So why bother? Why try?
Right...;)

I am not nearly so fatalistic nor pessimistic, nor nearly so trusting as you seem... I believe in us.
 
Juries are not hired. I just went to Jury duty last week, if your employer does not reimburse, mine does, I think they said after the third day they would pay $15 a day, that is not being paid...

These would be citizens without pay trying to get to the truth... I am sure they could accept donations if needed, anonymous of course, wouldn't want any undue influence. They should be people selected by the whole country, from wherever... there are only two others who are selected by the entire country... so this would elevate them and give them necessary status... and they would be completely separate from the ruling elite class and its minions...and the real 4th branch of government, the bureaucracy.

What is it they would be doing in your opinion that is going to upset me? Keep the truth from me? If they are people of integrity, no influence, no pay off and only expected to give us the nod that its okay...or, tell us the unvarnished truth because he thinks that best, have that ability to do as they please if need be [ I am not as concerned about the guy in Minn doing something crazy, if he did so I would probably think I needed to pay even closer attention ]...

...why would they be called? How often? What motivation- because they have no experience- would they have to keep the things they know to themselves? This, frankly, is an atrocious idea.
 
Right...;)

I am not nearly so fatalistic nor pessimistic, nor nearly so trusting as you seem... I believe in us.

Half of everyone is dumber than average. I don't trust idiots. I'm sorry.

That still doesn't confront your idea that people that are in the know are too close, and people that aren't too close don't know enough. How does that fix that, because you seem to have come up with a perfectly horrible logic trap there.
 
...why would they be called? How often? What motivation- because they have no experience- would they have to keep the things they know to themselves? This, frankly, is an atrocious idea.
I'd like to know, for instance, what really happened in Benghazi... do YOU know? At least like to know who was to blame, who actually made the decisions, who didn't but should have...something very wrong went down there. Has the system we have figured it out for us? Are those entities, the ones which you would like us to depend on, likely to figure it out? What is atrocious is that you and many others do not want to get to the bottom of such things, even when we know for sure our government is lying to us [ that has been proven ]... and nobody in our government seems particularly interested in getting to the real truth.

Again, if you are interested in the truth, don't you think we, the people, have a right to know so we can fix that particular piece, the first step in resolving a problem is recognizing there is a problem and exactly what the problem is...

So it seems we just have a different view of what it is to live in a place in which we hope to remain free. Again, we are the masters, they are the hired help... we only give our consent to be led, not to be led astray.

Those of you who volunteer to be blind, to be led astray, we want different things, different results in this experiment called democracy. I want it to last, not to follow into some other form of governance.
 
Half of everyone is dumber than average. I don't trust idiots. I'm sorry.

That still doesn't confront your idea that people that are in the know are too close, and people that aren't too close don't know enough. How does that fix that, because you seem to have come up with a perfectly horrible logic trap there.
So throw your hands up in the air... I see the method of which you speak, just let it happen, take your hands off the steering wheel, go over the cliff, there is nothing that can be done... you give up... I don't, not until we are actually over the edge and going down. Even then I will be thinking about what I need to do to survive, not just sit there and wait for it to happen.
 
I'd like to know, for instance, what really happened in Benghazi... do YOU know? At least like to know who was to blame, who actually made the decisions, who didn't but should have...something very wrong went down there. Has the system we have figured it out for us? Are those entities, the ones which you would like us to depend on, likely to figure it out? What is atrocious is that you and many others do not want to get to the bottom of such things, even when we know for sure our government is lying to us [ that has been proven ]... and nobody in our government seems particularly interested in getting to the real truth.

So only this jury, this fourth branch would know? Or would they tell the entire world? What events would call this jury into action?

Again, if you are interested in the truth, don't you think we, the people, have a right to know so we can fix that particular piece, the first step in resolving a problem is recognizing there is a problem and exactly what the problem is...

So it seems we just have a different view of what it is to live in a place in which we hope to remain free. Again, we are the masters, they are the hired help... we only give our consent to be led, not to be led astray.

Those of you who volunteer to be blind, to be led astray, we want different things, different results in this experiment called democracy. I want it to last, not to follow into some other form of governance.

Democracy is pathetic, no one wants that. Republic...well, that's what we have.
 
So throw your hands up in the air... I see the method of which you speak, just let it happen, take your hands off the steering wheel, go over the cliff, there is nothing that can be done... you give up... I don't, not until we are actually over the edge and going down. Even then I will be thinking about what I need to do to survive, not just sit there and wait for it to happen.

Who said I'm taking my hands off of the steering wheel? You can actually get a job dedicated to working in the government and influencing policy and actions and operations, ya know. But does a plumber down the street need to know about intelligence? No. If they want to know, they can go into that field. Does a random teacher two towns down need to know about State Department internal policy? No. But if they care that much, they can become a diplomat.

Things are classified for a reason.
 
Back
Top Bottom