• 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

American citizens concerned about their civil liberties are not insisting on being in the loop when it comes to intelligence and State Dept. internal policy, that's just a red herring. What they want are ASSURANCES (which is much more than words and lip service) that their civil liberties are not being violated! Period. Since there have been many professors, constitutional lawyers, politicians (even within the senate intelligence committee) investigative journalists, groups such as the ACLU (and many other groups) SCOTUS judge, ex-president and many others expressing concerns over the NSA's over reach, it deserves the attention it is getting, it is not conspiracy theory and won't be marginalized as such. Jim Sensenbrenner's recent statement, further evidences the necessity of real reform to this agency.
 
So only this jury, this fourth branch would know? Or would they tell the entire world? What events would call this jury into action?
Hey, not to worry, we'll let you know... I mean, you do not seem all that concerned anyhow, you just want to leave it up to others, even the ones you know are lying to you.



Democracy is pathetic, no one wants that. Republic...well, that's what we have.
You know very well that a Republic is a representative form of democracy. Truly, why play that kinda game?
 
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.
You can have independent people, people who actually care about what is right and are not beholden to special interests, do not have those long deep hooks in them like those employed by the government inherently just do... people who are familiar enough, smart enough, to get into a situation and learn more than enough to decide if wrong is being done... you can pretend its just too too complicated, but a dogged approach by a determined person can shed a whole lot of light on something that could probably use a little sunshine every once in a while.

Sunshine is often a darned good antiseptic.
 
Hey, not to worry, we'll let you know... I mean, you do not seem all that concerned anyhow, you just want to leave it up to others, even the ones you know are lying to you.

Who's lying to me?

You know very well that a Republic is a representative form of democracy. Truly, why play that kinda game?

Because you're pushing direct democracy, in which everyone's opinions are equal. I'm sorry, stupid people's opinions aren't equal to intelligent people's. That's why we have a republic.
 
You can have independent people, people who actually care about what is right and are not beholden to special interests, do not have those long deep hooks in them like those employed by the government inherently just do... people who are familiar enough, smart enough, to get into a situation and learn more than enough to decide if wrong is being done... you can pretend its just too too complicated, but a dogged approach by a determined person can shed a whole lot of light on something that could probably use a little sunshine every once in a while.

Sunshine is often a darned good antiseptic.

Who says those people don't exist now? You? Simply because you don't like the conclusions they're coming to?

Sunshine also gives cancer. Things will always be classified: you won't know them. And that's good.
 
Who's lying to me?



Because you're pushing direct democracy, in which everyone's opinions are equal. I'm sorry, stupid people's opinions aren't equal to intelligent people's. That's why we have a republic.
Too long a list.

I pushed nothing of the sort... so lets have some intellectual honesty here. Plus, I am not nearly as enamored with elitism as you seem... elites, often highly-educated university level idiots, get us in far more problem situations than normal everyday people just living their own lives... you see they seem to think they have a right to tell us how to live our lives as if they really had the answers.

Direct democracy, btw, can work just fine in small increments, its just that if it becomes bigger and bigger it becomes too unwieldy, too many people and too many things to know and vote on.

Our republic is currently in a similar situation where it, too, has become too big, too unwieldy. Government, the Federal government, has become almost a cancer, growing larger, taking over too much, taking ever larger bites, eating away our individual liberties with its voracious appetite...
 
Too long a list.

I pushed nothing of the sort... so lets have some intellectual honesty here. Plus, I am not nearly as enamored with elitism as you seem... elites, often highly-educated university level idiots, get us in far more problem situations than normal everyday people just living their own lives... you see they seem to think they have a right to tell us how to live our lives as if they really had the answers.

Anyone who has enough intelligence can go work for the State Department, FBI, Capitol Hill, CIA, NSA, NGA, whatever. Nothing is stopping them. If you want to know, go work for them. If you don't want to work for them, I'm sorry: there's things you can't know. That's just the way it is.
 
Too long a list.

I pushed nothing of the sort... so lets have some intellectual honesty here. Plus, I am not nearly as enamored with elitism as you seem... elites, often highly-educated university level idiots, get us in far more problem situations than normal everyday people just living their own lives... you see they seem to think they have a right to tell us how to live our lives as if they really had the answers.

Direct democracy, btw, can work just fine in small increments, its just that if it becomes bigger and bigger it becomes too unwieldy, too many people and too many things to know and vote on.

Our republic is currently in a similar situation where it, too, has become too big, too unwieldy. Government, the Federal government, has become almost a cancer, growing larger, taking over too much, taking ever larger bites, eating away our individual liberties with its voracious appetite...

Don't allow the debate to be hi-jacked. It's not about people wanting to be privy to the inner workings of intelligence agencies, but about people demanding safeguards against civil liberties violations.
 
Anyone who has enough intelligence can go work for the State Department, FBI, Capitol Hill, CIA, NSA, NGA, whatever. Nothing is stopping them. If you want to know, go work for them. If you don't want to work for them, I'm sorry: there's things you can't know. That's just the way it is.
Well, if that is the way you really want it, when the rest of us do find out, we will our best to try to keep it from you...

That really is a ridiculous statement, and I have no doubt you are aware of the fact. So, you don't read any history, you don't listen to any news... is that it? I mean, those people didn't all "go work for the State Department, FBI, Capitol Hill, CIA, NSA, NGA..." and so could not really, not truly, know about what they speak, and you, being above all that, surely would not listen to them since they cannot really know, not being close enough to it, not actually working in the field of which they speak... am I right?

Now you have gotten to the point of absurd. So, if I am concerned about more than one area, I should go to work for one, moonlight in another... what if I am concerned about even another area...

Say for example, NSA spying on Americans, prying into areas they probably have no constitutional right to pry into unless there is probable cause... but then have global warming skeptic concerns... so I should try to get a job with the NSA to find out, then a second job at some university, maybe get my PhD in meteorology... but what should I do about that Benghazi thing now, perhaps part-time it at the State Department? Think they will hire me if I already have one full time and one part-time job?

Then what if I want to know about...

Well, you get my drift. Your view of how to solve the problem, by the time I get hired, get the proper advanced degrees, get into the right department [ they will no doubt put me where they want to put me, where there is an opening... maybe having nothing to do with where my interests lay ]... I mean, come on, get real.
 
Well, if that is the way you really want it, when the rest of us do find out, we will our best to try to keep it from you...

lol okay

I'm sorry that you think classified things should be open to the public if they just really, really, really wanna know bad enough. It doesn't work that way and, thankfully, it never will.
 
lol okay

I'm sorry that you think classified things should be open to the public if they just really, really, really wanna know bad enough. It doesn't work that way and, thankfully, it never will.
You misstate my point, your posts generally seem too incisive/canny for you to be simply unaware of that... be that as it may, again, we will just have to agree to disagree. ;) :peace
 
You misstate my point, your posts generally seem too incisive/canny for you to be simply unaware of that... be that as it may, again, we will just have to agree to disagree. ;) :peace

I distill your point: there's things you think you should know, simply because you want to know them. Unfortunately, they cannot be widely disseminated. You don't care about that, you just want to know. Unfortunately, your desire doesn't really matter.
 
I distill your point: there's things you think you should know, simply because you want to know them. Unfortunately, they cannot be widely disseminated. You don't care about that, you just want to know. Unfortunately, your desire doesn't really matter.
Slight mis-guage there [ pun mandatory ]. As I thought I had clearly stated, I don't have to know personally. I want someone I can trust to have given it at least the once over, thorough once over. I don't trust at all those that are telling me whats what now. I have a right to that, as a citizen, as a pretty good citizen. We all do.

Nobody said anything particularly about anything being widely distributed.

Yet if someone I trust thinks it should be, well, I might probably be with them on that. That is the expectation we have of anybody, any good body...cause if you don't know the truth and you don't wanna know...what good is knowing much of anything?
 
Slight mis-guage there [ pun mandatory ]. As I thought I had clearly stated, I don't have to know personally. I want someone I can trust to have given it at least the once over, thorough once over. I don't trust at all those that are telling me whats what now. I have a right to that, as a citizen, as a pretty good citizen. We all do.

Nobody said anything particularly about anything being widely distributed.

Yet if someone I trust thinks it should be, well, I might probably be with them on that. That is the expectation we have of anybody, any good body...cause if you don't know the truth and you don't wanna know...what good is knowing much of anything?

It's going to be widely distributed if you have have random people get access to anything you want, whenever you want. That's exactly why things are classified. And again, all you want is "new people". Vote for new representatives, then.
 
It's going to be widely distributed if you have have random people get access to anything you want, whenever you want. That's exactly why things are classified. And again, all you want is "new people". Vote for new representatives, then.
Got it, unpersuasive, but got it. ;)
 
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?

Bull****. Certain members of the legislative branch are read-in, but even then, not 100% of the time.
 
Got it, unpersuasive, but got it. ;)

This is a bi-partisan resolution, with 80% chance of passage by the House, sponsored by a Republican (yep, surprise) and co-sponsored by a Democrat. There remains one here who is arguing that Americans don't need to be privy to the inter workings, fine details, and operational proceedures of the intelligence community. That is nonsense, I've seen NOBODY ask for that. Obviously, the House agrees that there is information (that would not compromise national security) that needs to be presented to the public. My hunch is that it will be information that dovetails with other disclosures that our intelligence agencies need an overhaul. This sentiment is being voiced around America (and abroad let's not forget) by people from all different walks of life. People want to be secure, they want intelligence agencies to do the jobs they were created and tasked for. But from Ben Franklin to the present, Americans understand that compromising liberties for security will deprive them of both. So yeah, let's take a look at what's in those 28 pages!!
 
Last edited:
Bull****. Certain members of the legislative branch are read-in, but even then, not 100% of the time.

No one said they all were read-in, so what are you saying bull**** for? The legislative branch already has oversight. That's a fact.
 
Everyone is jumping to conclusions because of their vast knowledge and experience dealing with classified information. :roll:

I'm not jumping to conclusions at all. It is old news indeed that the federal government's modus operandi is deception. US v Reynolds, 345US1 is from 1953, in which the government deliberately lied to the Court.

A more compelling question is "does the government EVER tell the truth?"
 
I'm not jumping to conclusions at all. It is old news indeed that the federal government's modus operandi is deception. US v Reynolds, 345US1 is from 1953, in which the government deliberately lied to the Court.

A more compelling question is "does the government EVER tell the truth?"

I imagine that in the event, however unlikely that may be, that the truth was beneficial to the cause, that yes they would.
 
No one said they all were read-in, so what are you saying bull**** for? The legislative branch already has oversight. That's a fact.

Again, no its not. Certain members of the Senate and Congress are read-in into certain programs, but not all of them and not all of the time.
 
I imagine that in the event, however unlikely that may be, that the truth was beneficial to the cause, that yes they would.

Which makes one wonder if the truth is EVER beneficial to the government cause?
 
Again, no its not. Certain members of the Senate and Congress are read-in into certain programs, but not all of them and not all of the time.

Who said all of them or all the time? Congress has oversight: that's done via committees. Congress has oversight of the US intelligence community. I don't know why you think that includes all the members of it.

McDonald's is in China; that doesn't mean every employee is in China.

So again, Congress has oversight.
 
Who said all of them or all the time? Congress has oversight: that's done via committees. Congress has oversight of the US intelligence community. I don't know why you think that includes all the members of it.

McDonald's is in China; that doesn't mean every employee is in China.

So again, Congress has oversight.

So in the beginning of your post you admit that they don't have oversight and at the end of your post you say they have oversight, talk about doublethink. Nevertheless, Congress does not have oversight: they have the appearance of oversight. As the Snowden revelations have illustrated, there were plenty of Congressmen and Congresswomen out of the loop entirely, even on the Intelligence Committees. The reason being, only certain members, the so-called gang of eight, are read-in on most stuff, but most still isn't everything. And since they aren't read-in on everything the IC, Pentagon or everyone else does, that's not oversight.

Oversight - Noun
Management by overseeing the performance or operation of a person or group.

Overseeing - Verb
Watch and direct.
 
Back
Top Bottom