• 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

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.

Congress watches directly. Not all of them. The institution. This isn't debatable.
 
Congress watches directly. Not all of them. The institution. This isn't debatable.

It is debatable, particularly when certain members of Congress get campaign contributions from the very bureaucracies they're supposedly overseeing.
 
It is debatable,

The institution, Congress, has oversight. That is a fact.

particularly when certain members of Congress get campaign contributions from the very bureaucracies they're supposedly overseeing.

Whether it's true or false has nothing to do with whether or not Congress has oversight. It does. And again, now, I guess I need to make clear: the institution of Congress. If I meant "every Congressman has oversight", that's what I would've said. But I didn't. I said Congress has oversight and that's a fact. You were wrong.
 
Congress watches directly. Not all of them. The institution. This isn't debatable.

Yours is a very naïve statement, not based too much on reality.

There are many examples of Congress not having a clue about what certain branches of the government are doing.
 
Yours is a very naïve statement, not based too much on reality.

There are many examples of Congress not having a clue about what certain branches of the government are doing.

No, it's reality. And it's a fact. Two things you've struggled with for quite some time.

Maybe you think there should be more. Maybe you don't agree with what they do. But it exists, and it's a fact.
 
No, it's reality. And it's a fact. Two things you've struggled with for quite some time.

Maybe you think there should be more. Maybe you don't agree with what they do. But it exists, and it's a fact.

With your track record, how is it possible that even your gross over simplification could be correct. When you say Congress, it is plural and indicts the entire group. Those bubbles in your bathtub will only occur when the smellier end of the digestive tract is doing the talking, as the case may be.
 
With your track record, how is it possible that even your gross over simplification could be correct. When you say Congress, it is plural and indicts the entire group. Those bubbles in your bathtub will only occur when the smellier end of the digestive tract is doing the talking, as the case may be.

Stop talking.
 
The institution, Congress, has oversight. That is a fact.



Whether it's true or false has nothing to do with whether or not Congress has oversight. It does. And again, now, I guess I need to make clear: the institution of Congress. If I meant "every Congressman has oversight", that's what I would've said. But I didn't. I said Congress has oversight and that's a fact. You were wrong.

Congress is made up of Congressmen and Congresswomen. Oversight is supposed to be one of their functions. But that function is no longer prevalent when the overwhelming majority of Congress CANNOT execute their duties of overseeing. As I have said from the beginning, only certain members of Congress, in effect, provide oversight because they're the only ones being read-in into the secret and top-secret programs the U.S. conducts. Thus, it gives Congress, the institution, the appearance of oversight, not genuine oversight as you would lead our fellow compatriots to believe.
 
Congress is made up of Congressmen and Congresswomen. Oversight is supposed to be one of their functions. But that function is no longer prevalent when the overwhelming majority of Congress CANNOT execute their duties of overseeing. As I have said from the beginning, only certain members of Congress, in effect, provide oversight because they're the only ones being read-in into the secret and top-secret programs the U.S. conducts. Thus, it gives Congress, the institution, the appearance of oversight, not genuine oversight as you would lead our fellow compatriots to believe.

No worries, we don't believe it.
 
Its been 12 years... can you give a plausible scenario in which this material still needs to remain classified? Declassify and if there is nothing there, it will give us, perhaps, a little more faith in government... which is sorely lacking...

The classified portion contains information about intelligence assets and operations that could be harmed if exposed.

There's your plausible scenario.
 
The classified portion contains information about intelligence assets and operations that could be harmed if exposed.

There's your plausible scenario.
No doubt true... possibly.

Well, but here is the deal... I don't trust my government enough to believe that in this case, and truthfully in a bunch of others. So, would at least like someone I do trust, from completely outside government, to give it a good look-see. Its like knowing nothing about how a car works and going to a mechanic that you don't know... is he telling you the truth about all the work that needs done or is it just a big ruse to get you to spend a whole wad of cash on nothing except increasing his paycheck?

What do you do in that case is totake a friend that you trust that knows a little about how cars work, find out if there might be a real problem or not. There are probably better analogies, but with the obligation of citizens in a free democracy to keep their eyes on the hired employees, as we are all ultimately their bosses, we need a better mechanism to make sure they are staying in line, following the proper mandates.

You know, the Constitution.
 
Congress is made up of Congressmen and Congresswomen. Oversight is supposed to be one of their functions. But that function is no longer prevalent when the overwhelming majority of Congress CANNOT execute their duties of overseeing. As I have said from the beginning, only certain members of Congress, in effect, provide oversight because they're the only ones being read-in into the secret and top-secret programs the U.S. conducts. Thus, it gives Congress, the institution, the appearance of oversight, not genuine oversight as you would lead our fellow compatriots to believe.

Congress has oversight. You were wrong.
 
Well, but here is the deal... I don't trust my government

That's all this comes down to. So you want to create another body, and in a few years someone will say that don't trust that, and want to create a new organization, and so on and so forth. You can't please everyone. Where do we draw the line? When should we stop creating organizations to convince people of things? Whenever you're happy?
 
The founders stressed that the entire constitution would have to be diligently monitored that way as well. Otherwise it would be slowly chiseled away at. If men were angels they said. But they are not and no one can be trusted. So rotation and constant overhaul, the diligence to witch they spoke. IT'S WORK MAN. But work that must be done, nonetheless.
 
No, it's reality. And it's a fact. Two things you've struggled with for quite some time.

Maybe you think there should be more. Maybe you don't agree with what they do. But it exists, and it's a fact.

Yes, rather like the 100 year flood or the 100 year passing of a comet.

Congress is inept and corrupt, following most other governments in that regard.
 
The founders stressed that the entire constitution would have to be diligently monitored that way as well. Otherwise it would be slowly chiseled away at. If men were angels they said. But they are not and no one can be trusted. So rotation and constant overhaul, the diligence to witch they spoke. IT'S WORK MAN. But work that must be done, nonetheless.

If they could read the Unpatriot Act or the NDAA amendment, they would not believe how criminal today's government is.
 
If they could read the Unpatriot Act or the NDAA amendment, they would not believe how criminal today's government is.

Right. So why is that opaque to so many then?
 
That's all this comes down to. So you want to create another body, and in a few years someone will say that don't trust that, and want to create a new organization, and so on and so forth. You can't please everyone. Where do we draw the line? When should we stop creating organizations to convince people of things? Whenever you're happy?
No, not quite, you mis-gauged a bit again. These would be ad hoc, formed regarding a specific situation..say the OP situation or the Benghazi thing. May not have mentioned that to you in our posts, but did state that early on in the thread and would have supposed, apparently erroneously, that you had read that...

No, this would be more case specific, not some ever present body. Initially, they would be called to find something out, see if there were indictable offenses committed. If they found out other things wrong along the way other than were applicable in their original "commission" of investigation, let it lead where it may.

We, the people, are the boss.
 
Why do people continue to talk about them as if they matter? Christ, this hero worship has got to stop.
You ARE kidding, right? We don't worship them, we are just truly appreciative, grateful for these blessings they have given us, this wonderful framework for governing, for working out our various differences yet working together for the furtherance of common goals of our nation.

These guys, they understood human nature like no other cohort group in the history of the planet... and that which they gave us to live by we should diligently work with, and on, so that we may pass these blessings down to our posterity.

Those following us deserve these benefits at least as much as we do.
 
No, not quite, you mis-gauged a bit again. These would be ad hoc, formed regarding a specific situation..say the OP situation or the Benghazi thing. May not have mentioned that to you in our posts, but did state that early on in the thread and would have supposed, apparently erroneously, that you had read that...

No, this would be more case specific, not some ever present body. Initially, they would be called to find something out, see if there were indictable offenses committed. If they found out other things wrong along the way other than were applicable in their original "commission" of investigation, let it lead where it may.

We, the people, are the boss.

Right, right, until you think that body isn't doing what you want and want to create another.
 
Back
Top Bottom