• 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

Gaugingcatenate said:
Has a bit more to do with active and vigilant citizenry... boils down to that's what you don't like... I am quite sure there are some things that should, indeed, remain in safekeeping, but I am also quite sure that a lot of it shouldn't be.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with a vigilant citizenry. Be informed when you vote!
 
Yes. Everybody (which is a lengthy list of professors, constitutional lawyers, the ACLU and many other watchdog groups, politicians on both sides of the isle including from the intelligence committee, a SCOTUS judge, former presidents and millions of Americans, not to mention foreign protests,) thinks that government is bad!
 
Jango said:
1) Bull****. The government also classifies information that is embarrassing or would make it look bad I.e. dirty laundry.

2) Specific sources of foreign support
Click to expand...

I am reminded of the USSC case Reynolds v. U.S. I think it's 345US1 from 1953. It took decades for it to become public, but in the end the government committed serious perjury in front of the Court by invoking "national security" for the first time ever in a legal proceeding. It turned out the case had nothing at all to do with national security, but everything to do with government negligence in aircraft maintenance, just as the widow plaintiffs alleged in suing under the Tort Claims Act.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Exactly the intention. And if we get the accurate information we need, we can vote with a lot more confidence. Glad you agree. Under the current system, we haven't a real clue.
Click to expand...

lol no, be informed about the politicians. You don't decide policy, they do (that's why they're called politicians). Be informed about them and their stances.

You're not getting access to classified information without a clearance though, sorry.
 
Jango said:
1) Bull****. The government also classifies information that is embarrassing or would make it look bad I.e. dirty laundry.
Click to expand...

Is that in the classification guide?

2) Specific sources of foreign support
Click to expand...

So...sources and means and methods. Okay.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
lol no, be informed about the politicians. You don't decide policy, they do (that's why they're called politicians). Be informed about them and their stances.

You're not getting access to classified information without a clearance though, sorry.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about we don't decide policy. Sure we do. Public opinion definitely helps shape and decide policy. Did you see how fast Rumsfeld left after the second GW election? Holder should be gone but the public hasn't enough information, which is not being told us with the assistance of the accessories after the fact, the MSM. You don't think Obama is going to have to regroup and retrench as his poll numbers go down down down? With the approach of election 2014, Democrats will be scrambling to find a place to hide with the debacle of the un-ACA. Think any of that would have happened if we had a black out on information as you suggest. If we knew, only had information on the politicians, had not been informed of their policy lies and misstatements, we might think them all saints.

You were here earlier in the thread calling most of the public stupid... and you apparently want to keep the other half stupid as well. That is not how it goes. And stop with the red herring of the clearance. We have gone over that previously, you are just using that as a distractor.
 
Who needs clearance to access classified information when you have Ed Snowden. :)
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
What are you talking about we don't decide policy. Sure we do.
Click to expand...

No, you don't.

Public opinion definitely helps shape and decide policy. Did you see how fast Rumsfeld left after the second GW election? Holder should be gone but the public hasn't enough information, which is not being told us with the assistance of the accessories after the fact, the MSM. You don't think Obama is going to have to regroup and retrench as his poll numbers go down down down? With the approach of election 2014, Democrats will be scrambling to find a place to hide with the debacle of the un-ACA. Think any of that would have happened if we had a black out on information as you suggest. If we knew, only had information on the politicians, had not been informed of their policy lies and misstatements, we might think them all saints.
Click to expand...

All of those actions were executed by politicians.

You were here earlier in the thread calling most of the public stupid... and you apparently want to keep the other half stupid as well. That is not how it goes. And stop with the red herring of the clearance. We have gone over that previously, you are just using that as a distractor.
Click to expand...

You're not getting that information, I'm very sorry. Vote for the politicians that you believe best support your stances. Inform yourself on their platforms. But you're not getting classified information, stop whining about it.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
So argument is you don't know, you just have a hunch. Great.



What? Why would you think that would refute anything I said even if true?
Click to expand...

What's the point in even discussing these matters with you? I know you're not ignorant of these issues, yet you argue against them repeatedly. Your gimmick is stale, man. Everyone who has a lick of knowledge in government classification knows that government classifies in an abundance more than is necessary and it is to hide inconvenient facts, journalists know this, transparency hounds know this, government workers know this, etc.

You claim that the reason the 28 pages are classified is because of sources, means and methods. How can that be true if you haven't read the 28 pages? You didn't even know the title of the section. But you act as if it is beyond your comprehension that in those 28 pages, it says something like Saudi Arabia officials and intelligence professionals helped facilitate and coordinate the 9/11 attacks.
 
Jango said:
What's the point in even discussing these matters with you? I know you're not ignorant of these issues, yet you argue against them repeatedly. Your gimmick is stale, man. Everyone who has a lick of knowledge in government classification knows that government classifies in an abundance more than is necessary and it is to hide inconvenient facts, journalists know this, transparency hounds know this, government workers know this, etc.
Click to expand...

lol over classification means something different than what you're talking about. But yes, it is a problem.

You claim that the reason the 28 pages are classified is because of sources, means and methods. How can that be true if you haven't read the 28 pages?
Click to expand...

BECAUSE THAT'S WHY THINGS GET CLASSIFIED. That's it, as far as intelligence goes. Technology gets classified, but that's well outside the realm of intelligence (which is what the report deals with).

You didn't even know the title of the section. But you act as if it is beyond your comprehension that in those 28 pages, it says something like Saudi Arabia officials and intelligence professionals helped facilitate and coordinate the 9/11 attacks.
Click to expand...
lol BECAUSE I KNOW WHY THINGS ARE CLASSIFIED. Seriously, you don't seem to know anything about intelligence community, so I'm not sure why you have such strong feelings about it. As I said, that (the Saudi thing) has nothing to do with what I'm saying, regardless of whether it'd be true or not. And I tried to explain that to you, but I guess I'll repeat it: whether or not that's what it says, it would be classified because that information would jeopardize sources or means and methods. Or both.

For example, let's say Putin has a weird freckle on his balls and he keeps it a secret and the US knew of it. That information would end up being classified, not because people are trying to keep poor Jango in the dark and classifying pointless things, but because if it got out that the US knew it, Russia would then know that Putin's wife/girlfriend/physician/whatever had most likely been turned and was working with foreign intelligence agents. If there's a Chinese sub that sinks and China keeps it a secret, but the US finds out about it and what the last thing the radio operator said was, that information gets classified. Not to keep Jango at debatepolitics.com down, and to take away his precious freedoms, but because if it got out, it would indicate to China that the US had broken their cryptography and was listening to their transmissions.

So 28 pages are classified. I know you think there's a good chance it's something nefarious and evil and it's a big ol cover up and if only Jango and like-minded individuals knew it, they could force this government to change and respect your god-given constitutional rights. I'm saying those pages are classified to protect sources (as would be the probable result of the Putin scenario) or means and methods (the probable result of the China example). You can talk about Saudi Arabia and Wahhabis and whatever til you're blue in the face, that's not gonna change why those pages were classified, BECAUSE THAT'S WHY THINGS ARE CLASSIFIED. I don't care if you think that's stale, I think your repeated criticism of something you know nothing about is pretty stale.

"Hey guys, the Nissan Sonata sure does suck! That SUV is horrible! ...What? Oh it's a Hyundai? It's not an SUV? Whatever, it still sucks!" Learn about things before you jump into complaining about them, it might be helpful.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
lol over classification means something different than what you're talking about. But yes, it is a problem.
Click to expand...

This approach will help prevent over-classification and maximize the disclosure of homeland security and other information within the scope of the Information Sharing Environment that must be disseminated to prevent and to collectively respond to acts of terrorism. To facilitate this change, this measure will accomplish several key objectives: (1) promote a common understanding among Department employees and contractors that classified markings are not to be used to protect political turf or to hide embarrassing facts from public view
Click to expand...
House Report 110-776 - REDUCING OVER-CLASSIFICATION ACT OF 2008

The dangerous, if natural, tendency to hide embarrassing or inconvenient facts can mask vulnerabilities and only keeps critical information from the American people.
Click to expand...
- TOO MANY SECRETS: OVERCLASSIFICATION AS A BARRIER TO CRITICAL INFORMATION SHARING
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Which doesn't refute anything I said. When you talk of overclassification, it's about compartmentalizing things between agencies. The public is a huge afterthought: because they really don't matter.
Click to expand...

Sure they don't :roll:
 
Well...they don't? What role do they play in national defense? None.

Anyway, did you have anything to say about my in-depth, patient explanation to you of why things are classified? How your Saudi hypothesis is totally irrelevant?
 
The public doesn't matter! Typical position of the oligarchy. Things get classified to protect national security and things get classified to protect the government of their crimes. The NSA is sweating because of the latter. Deal with it.
 
Last edited:
OldWorldOrder said:
Well...they don't? What role do they play in national defense? None.

Anyway, did you have anything to say about my in-depth, patient explanation to you of why things are classified? How your Saudi hypothesis is totally irrelevant?
Click to expand...

1) What role do citizens play in national defense? Let's see, first off all, they front the ****ing bill for all the manpower and equipment and extraneous materials national defense calls for and requires. Secondly, they act as the suppliers of bodies to the machinery of national defense. Thirdly, they act as the last line of defense when all other options have failed.

2) You seem to think I don't understand protecting sources, means and methods. In fact, I do understand. I have already said that any of that stuff could be easily redacted. We, collectively, DO NOT need to know that C.I.A. Ground Branch agents Thompson and Diego (who got a tip from a Mossad agent named Goldstein) used phone taps, surveillance and shadowing techniques to discover that Saudi nationals, including their IC professionals, helped facilitate and coordinate the 9/11 attacks alongside the nineteen hijackers. However, collectively, the American people should know if the Saudi government had a hand in the 9/11 attacks or not. Nothing outrageously in-depth, just an official confirmation one way or another. There should be nothing in said confirmation that would give away our ability to safeguard our nation, which is the last thing I want, even though I want to know and am a transparency hound.
 
Jango said:
1) What role do citizens play in national defense? Let's see, first off all, they front the ****ing bill for all the manpower and equipment and extraneous materials national defense calls for and requires. Secondly, they act as the suppliers of bodies to the machinery of national defense. Thirdly, they act as the last line of defense when all other options have failed.
Click to expand...

So they pay the bills? That's it? Because when they "supply bodies" they stop being the public and start to be the people I'm talking about. Who do your think works at the NSA? You think those people aren't citizens? The public pays, then. That's it. The rich pay the most, by far. But after they foot the bill, they're done.

2) You seem to think I don't understand protecting sources, means and methods. In fact, I do understand. I have already said that any of that stuff could be easily redacted. We, collectively, DO NOT need to know that C.I.A. Ground Branch agents Thompson and Diego (who got a tip from a Mossad agent named Goldstein) used phone taps, surveillance and shadowing techniques to discover that Saudi nationals, including their IC professionals, helped facilitate and coordinate the 9/11 attacks alongside the nineteen hijackers. However, collectively, the American people should know if the Saudi government had a hand in the 9/11 attacks or not. Nothing outrageously in-depth, just an official confirmation one way or another. There should be nothing in said confirmation that would give away our ability to safeguard our nation, which is the last thing I want, even though I want to know and am a transparency hound.
Click to expand...

Apparently you don't, because redacting names wouldn't really help when it came to Putin's balls or a Chinese sub. A name wouldn't help, just knowing the information would be enough to burn the source ore the means or method. So it's classified. Not a big deal, just means the information isn't for public consumption.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
So they pay the bills? That's it? Because when they "supply bodies" they stop being the public and start to be the people I'm talking about. Who do your think works at the NSA? You think those people aren't citizens? The public pays, then. That's it. The rich pay the most, by far. But after they foot the bill, they're done.



Apparently you don't, because redacting names wouldn't really help when it came to Putin's balls or a Chinese sub. A name wouldn't help, just knowing the information would be enough to burn the source ore the means or method. So it's classified. Not a big deal, just means the information isn't for public consumption.
Click to expand...

The 28 pages has *zero* to do with your analogies. You know there are ways to protect information while releasing information, it happens on a daily basis with FOIA and routine declassification. Quit being so ****ing stubborn.
 
Jango said:
The 28 pages has *zero* to do with your analogies. You know there are ways to protect information while releasing information, it happens on a daily basis with FOIA and routine declassification. Quit being so ****ing stubborn.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely wrong. But then, you haven't really shown a grasp of even the most regular of intelligence operations.

Again:

1- learn
2- then criticize
 
OldWorldOrder said:
You're absolutely wrong.
Click to expand...

You know there are ways to protect information while releasing information, it happens on a daily basis with FOIA and routine declassification.
 
Jango said:
You know there are ways to protect information while releasing information, it happens on a daily basis with FOIA and routine declassification.
Click to expand...

You know you have virtually no base of knowledge about the things you're talking about, right? You didn't even know what level of clearance the vast majority of what information NSA deals with.

But keep fighting the good fight: I'm sure there's something the public just has to know in order to...well...in order to something. Something about tyranny or the constitution or liberty or something.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
You know you have virtually no base of knowledge about the things you're talking about, right?
Click to expand...

So you're denying this: "You know there are ways to protect information while releasing information, it happens on a daily basis with FOIA and routine declassification."

So, how does the government release formerly classified information then, and why are portions still blacked/boxed out?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom