Printable View
I just wanted to point out that it is, in fact, illegal to be a member of a terrorist organization and to know of an impending attack.Quote:
From Universal Mind
Being a member of a terrorist organization and being believed to have knowledge of a pending terrorist attack is not illegal. However, it is justification for interrogation.
Because, as I've pointed out, if people are told the truth then we get the usual tsunami of cry-babies who would rather protest our doing what's right than cry out against the evil acts we are facing. There are too many sympathisers in our midst, that's why.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
So, what you're saying is: Our government is excused from lying to us about anything, because it has the potential to create a "cry-baby" movement of people that are opposed to whatever action they are lying about? :wtf:Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaught
No, what I'm saying is that we the people don't need to be made aware of everything that goes on behind closed doors. There will always be people who don't understand that some things are done for the good of the country. We don't need to feed the constant stream of our own people working against us. We already have enough of our own citizens trying to tear apart our own country for lesser things, things they don't even understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Keep in mind that to make people fully understand why some things are, and need to be, done would require spilling too many beans. The last thing we need are more New York Times moments of people thinking that ratings are more important than our own national security. There's enough traitors amongst us already.
EDIT: So what I'm really saying is that the government absolutely does - and should - have the right to withhold certain breeds of information. If that means outright lying then, yes. In cases like this, it is not only justified but it's wise.
Heh. Ok, well being that I completely disagree with that last post (and your characterization of the people that may disagree with you) I'm just going to say that I feel that anything can be rationalized as being done "in the interest of national security" (especially now) and the gullibility that that concept gives to many Americans is a very dangerous thing. So we are just going to have to disagree on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaught
I don't think you have enough basis for concluding that, but it is still irrelevant. I used a real example to talk about hypothetical situations of how to deal with terrorists. So, in such a hypothetical scenario, what should be done? What should we do in such cases?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic7
It is illegal to plan, aid, or engage in acts of terrorism. The slightest role in such a conspiracy would be enough to ruin your life. But the mere association with a group is not illegal. There is freedom of assembly. But if you are a member of Al Qaeda, you will most likely be a major suspect for that which is illegal. And merely knowing of a pending attack is not illegal. If you find out about one and call the FBI, they are not going to arrest you for having known about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D.735
He was not saying that everybody who disagrees with his stance is like the extreme type he was describing. He was just saying that such an element exists and has to be dealt with accordingly. There are lots of people who have good intentions in their disagreements with current policy, but then again, there are also those who get the only self-esteem they have from opposition against the U.S. government and turn it into their religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
If you think we have to many people who disagree, what your saying is that we should basicly ignore them and let the government do whatever they want. The government doesn't have the right to hide anything from the people. Sounds like you want a government closer to china or russia where they decided whats 'good for the country' and they don't tell people a thing.
Our government has a very bad track record when it comes to with-holding information for our best interest, GH, which leads many to believe that they're not with-holding information for our best interest this time. It's not like they can claim the last dozen times the government lied to us it was out of greed but this one time they want to protect us.
I'm sure Nixon was just protecting our best interests, and Clinton, too.
Saying that is to say: Because this element exists, it is then justified to lie to the whole of the American people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
In the same vein, that would be justifying the government's (alleged) lying about 9/11, because of the backlash that it might create by the oppositional extreme. That is my point. If one thing can be justified as suitable for a lie, tell me, what can't? Take away all biased faith in the government of our homeland for just one moment and ask yourself what this ideology does not exclude them from doing. Have we now granted them passage to tell us all what they think the majority of Americans want to hear, regardless of the truth, in order to appease the percentage that might strongly oppose their actions? I have a serious problem with that train of thought.
It is not just about people who will strongly oppose the governments's actions. It is about people who will look for any tiny little loophole to hurt the government as much as they can, even if that means hurting the citizens. It is only on extreme matters of national security that I have this stance. My view on this is limited to the military and the Department of Homeland Security. The President is the commander of the military and in charge of Homeland Security, and the pass I give him and others on use of secrecy and deception is limited to matters concerning those bodies. That does not mean they can withhold and deceive in regard to everything. In terms of military and homeland security, being upfront about absolutely everything would be incredibly dangerous, and not just because of the rabid nuts who hate us. The built in check on how far the government will go on this is the fact that the citizens elect the officials. Politicians don't want to go too far, and neither do their political parties, because the public's sympathy only goes so far. When they do go too far in the eyes of the public, they get major wrath from their constituents. So it is a matter of discretion, but we also have discretion on their futures and the futures of those who work with and for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Yes, that's what I'm saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Don't draw this out to the extreme. I never said the government should "do whatever they want". But quit trying to tie their hand, preventing them from doing what NEEDS to be done; we've already got our own undermining Congress doing that. You've got to recognise the important distinction here: We are fighting a war. When you fight war you must hold your hand. If you show all your cards you lose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
You may not be pleased about the way things are being done but I'd rather those who are in the position to handle the situation do so and not have every armchair quarterback trying to argue and call the shots: especially since they don't have enough information to judge whether things are being done efficiently or not.
So, because we aren't being told everything you think I want the US to be communist? Think again. YES, the government does - and should - have the right to withhold information when it involves national security.Quote:
The government doesn't have the right to hide anything from the people.
We're talking about dealing with those who MEAN US HARM. What exactly do you folks not grasp about the nature of the situation? Seriously, what part of trying to keep you and me from being murdered by some religious fanatics' actions is so hard to understand? Surely the well-being of our country is more important than you knowing that Mahmud had his face slapped for trying to kill you and take our country down in the process.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
Or perhaps you guys don't give a shit about the future of your country - you know, the greatest country in the world. The very same country that allows you the right to disagree.
We're talking about things far more critical than who sucked Bill Clinton's pecker.Quote:
I'm sure Nixon was just protecting our best interests, and Clinton, too.
I know you didn't say they should be able to do whatever they want, but its what implied. What prevents them from doing whatever they want if they don't have to tell anyone? The simple answer is nothing.
They must tell the people everything, or else we have no way of knowing what they are doing is right or not. If something is highly classfied then of course they don't have to go on TV and tell everyone, though they still have to tell congress. And how they treat prisoners is not top secret information. Who they are are, what they do with them, and the reason they are there, should all be public information. Where they are being held, and details of their actions may be secret if its important to our security.
In this case, torture is something that should never be hidden. Yes people will complain and cry about it, but that is because its wrong and shouldn't be done. They know the country doesn't want anything to do with, which is why they are hiding it, and thats just as wrong.
Why do peopl mean harm to the USA?,Quote:
We're talking about dealing with those who MEAN US HARM. What exactly do you folks not grasp about the nature of the situation? Seriously, what part of trying to keep you and me from being murdered by some religious fanatics' actions is so hard to understand? Surely the well-being of our country is more important than you knowing that Mahmud had his face slapped for trying to kill you and take our country down in the process.
Could it be because you guys invaded Iraq under false pretences? Because you guys have control over iraq's oil, where you have no busines?
America isnt so innocent as you make it seem....
What future does a country have when it tortures people? Today its just the enemy and tomorrow its the citzens of the country itself. Thats not a path any of us want to walk down.
It's only implied if you choose to make those leaps in logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Irrelevant.Quote:
What prevents them from doing whatever they want if they don't have to tell anyone? The simple answer is nothing.
No, they must not tell everything. We don't need to know.Quote:
They must tell the people everything, or else we have no way of knowing what they are doing is right or not.
And you don't think that such matters of national security are highly classified? Sorry but, you are very naive.Quote:
If something is highly classfied then of course they don't have to go on TV and tell everyone, though they still have to tell congress.
But how we handle terrorists is. This is war, man. War. The rules change when the stakes are so high.Quote:
And how they treat prisoners is not top secret information.
Again, naivety is dangerous. You don't seem to grasp the weight of the situation or the nature of our enemy: at all.Quote:
Who they are are, what they do with them, and the reason they are there, should all be public information. Where they are being held, and details of their actions may be secret if its important to our security.
Look, we'll never agree on this. We have people crying for the reason Universal Mind mentioned. We have people crying about everything you can possibly imagine. Surely you wouldn't say that everything is wrong. The fact is that the world is full of cry-babies that will never be happy no matter what.Quote:
In this case, torture is something that should never be hidden. Yes people will complain and cry about it, but that is because its wrong and shouldn't be done. They know the country doesn't want anything to do with, which is why they are hiding it, and thats just as wrong.
But you make the mistake of thinking that the only motive for secrecy is to keep your thumb on opposition. You're wrong.
Uh, NO. We did not invade anyone under false pretenses. Here's another one not understanding what the war is all about.Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonoverlord
Try again. It's nice that you want to jump on the bashing bandwagon but you're wrong. It's funny how people want to bitch about the record high oil prices out of one side of there mouth and then claim that we somehow "control the oil" out of the other side. We don't have control of shit. But you get an "A" for effort. At least you tried. :roll:Quote:
Because you guys have control over iraq's oil, where you have no busines?
I've got news for you.... No one is "innocent". No government is perfect. Period. But I fail to see how that has anything to do with the discussion, except for it being yet another cheap shot at the victims in effort to distract the focus from the real issues: the cause of the problem.Quote:
America isnt so innocent as you make it seem....
Alright so you guys lassoed me into further "discussion".Quote:
Originally Posted by me
How is that Irrelevant? Its totally revelevant and a huge reason why we can't allow them to do things hidden from the public eye. You cant just label everything "national security" then refuse to tell everyone what is going on, thats wrong and its also illegal.
How we treat terrorists does not need to be a secret. Give me one reason why they can't say exactly how they treat them? And if your reason is, they can train terrorists in ways to resist torture so they don't give up information, you only prove that I am right. And the only reason they are not talking is because they are torturing people.
http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=44733Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonoverlord
Because the fastest way to lose a battle is to tell how you plan to fight... and to tell what you know. Rest assured that those who need to know, know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
Our most skilled soldiers are members of the special forces. They are all about performing secret operations. If their missions were announced ahead of time, they would all end up dead instead of accomplishing their missions.
How does revealing how captured terrorist are treated, reveal any sort of future plans? The simple answer is they don't.
So it is on sheer faith that you grant them the pardon to lie to the american people. It is a faith that their willingness to rationalize the lies only exists in matters of perceived national security. In a way, I understand where you are coming from - parents often lie to their children to "protect" them from certain things. But I'm also reminded of the movie "I, Robot" in which the robot mainframe designed to protect the humans realizes the self-destructive nature of the human race and figures its only way to protect humans from themselves is to keep them corraled as individuals and shut-off from the rest of the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
With the election process being what it is today, are you saying that humans are smart enough to elect the person that is right to "protect them," but not smart enough to know what that person does? I disagree with that. How about the fact that those claiming they have been wrongly tortured are being denied the right to send the government to trial because the ensuing dialog in said trial could pose a "national security risk"? Is that something you condone? I'm an American citizen just like any other American citizen, though I'm probably less willing to bend over and take it from government (at their word), than many others. I was an "adventurous" teenager once, and I respect the right for some of our teens to go out and do some of the things that you and I as adults (or even parents) may not always agree with. It is a part of growing up and something that parents must learn to either safeguard against or deal with. But, when it comes to things like government-issued video cameras on every street corner, mandatory GPS chips in the public and things of that nature, there is a certain line that I'm not willing to condone crossing, even for national security. I am simply not that afraid. Like has been said, if one can give pardon to blantatly lying to the people of America for their "national security," one is giving pardon to the government to file any (possibly) malicious intent under "national security," and is basically saying that, as long as they can use that as their premise, any action can go unchecked, because it is "for the greater good."
No. Very relevant. That is actually the reason why I started this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaught
There is a moral difference between telling us something is "classified information," and blatantly lying to us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaught
See my reply to UM.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaught
Those people are still Americans. That sort of reasoning is no different than the anti-liberal dialogue that permeates FOXNews. It has more prejudice than it does substance. Just because there are people that are just as passionate about being anti-corruption (even to a fault) as there are people that are passionate about pro-government (even to a fault) does not mean that Either group should be silenced and/or pacified by straight up lies by the people we elect into office.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaught
I don't think anyone has implied that we need to know the missions or operations our soldiers are sent upon. What may be in question are the moral ethics and humanitarian boundaries they are allowed to cross, to get the job done. Not everyone over on that side of the globe is our enemy, and I think that, in the name of war, many of us are granting our government too much authority to see them all as such. "Kill (or torture) them all, and let God sort them out" comes to mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
were not talking about announcing obviously secret missions that should be kept secret. were talking about the governments willingness to admit if they have captured someone, is that someone a terrorist, and what have they done to them. this information does not have to be released while it is happening if that is not in the best interests of national security, however
if we allow the government to hide everything in the closet, then innocent people who were mistaken as terrorists can be captured, tortured, and receive no apology, no compensation of any kind from the government other than "this never happened". or threats if they speak about the crime done against them.
and why this never happened would have nothing to do with national security other than the governments attempt to claim innocence when it was guilty
I'm with you on that one, for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
The only other alternative is to require that we receive an answer for every question posed. I'm sorry but not everything has to be answered just because the question is raised.Quote:
Like has been said, if one can give pardon to blantatly lying to the people of America...
I agree that they should have just used the answer "it's classified information". But even then, there will be people who consider that the same thing as lying to us because they think they have a right to know the answer.Quote:
There is a moral difference between telling us something is "classified information," and blatantly lying to us.
Now, the media is utterly dominated by Liberal spin and rhetoric. Conservative, such as myself, get a few lonely voices and suddenly we're "shutting every one out". I don't see it that way at all.Quote:
Those people are still Americans. That sort of reasoning is no different than the anti-liberal dialogue that permeates FOXNews.
Not prejudice: the other side of the story. Or, as I like to call it: "the truth".Quote:
It has more prejudice than it does substance.
Exactly, that's why we need the views of the likes of Fox, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck. By the way, Glenn Beck is on a network that's also dominated by the Liberal side of things (HNN).Quote:
Just because there are people that are just as passionate about being anti-corruption (even to a fault) as there are people that are passionate about pro-government (even to a fault) does not mean that Either group should be silenced and/or pacified by straight up lies by the people we elect into office.
So a few voices of balance are certainly not an overpowering, stifling of the left, as the left want us to believe.
Look, I'm just trying to get you to understand my side of things so you cans ee why I think the government shouldn't hide things. Remember in 1984 when the country just suddenly decided it was at peace with the country it was at war with and vice versa. That's how I saw Iraq, first we were there because Iraq was a threat to us, but then we find out... they weren't much of a threat at all and it's as if that reason for entering the war just disappeared off the face of the earth and suddenly it was all about democracy. Come on, democracy? If our country really cared about democracy then why do we keep taking out democratically elected leaders and replacing them with dictators that let our companies in?
Not every question raised has to be answered but, in being a representative of the people, it is an incumbent's obligation to treat us with some sort of intellectual respect, as a nation. Don't lie to us and tell us that you're doing something you're not, or not doing something that you are, because we're "too stupid" to handle the information as a nation and opine on it. Such a governmental position can be argued as "totalitariansim."Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaught
That is a part of living in a democratic society, I'm afraid. EVERYONE has a voice, even if it's not the voice you like. (and I use "you" in reference to the Administration)Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaught
Now that explains a lot. I am not a "left wing liberal" by any definition of the term, but I'm going to disagree with a lot of that. As someone that watches FOXNews, how often do you actually watch the other networks, as opposed to simply hearing about what they are doing from FOX? I, ritualistically, switch off between (mainly) FOX, MSNBC and CNN (by HNN, do you mean "HeadlineNewsNetwork?") and I can tell you that there are many more moderates (at least on CNN) than you give credit for. I had this same stance - though I may not have voiced it - when UM said that FOXNews is the "least biased" news network around. This was, simply, laughable to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaught
I look at all media with the same sort of scrutiny, and see the stories raised much more than the views expressed on those stories. If you actually spend a day or two at a time watching each network, then you'll see many of them (like CNN which is the one I do spend the most time watching) are equally critical of both sides of the spectrum. They are hard on both sides, whereas FOX has puppet "advocates" of the left (Such as Alan Combs), set amongst a slew(sp) of hardline far-right-wingers. Most of the people on CNN (at least, I know MSNBC has a little more liberal bias) are equaly as hard on both sides, and they actually bring advocates that can competently argue both sides, to a debate. "Conservativism" is not exclusive to the likes of FOXNews. Many, now, would call much of the voices of FOXNews and the like "NeoCons," unlike Conservative representative Ron Paul, who has been equally just as shunned by FOXNews as any liberal, even though he seems to be a very grass-roots republican. FOX is the epitomy of right-wing, and the people that they bring on to argue the other side are so incompetent that even I, some average mofo that just sits back and watches, will often look at them like "WTF is wrong with you?? :wtf:" In my eyes, the whole premise of FOXNews being "fair and balanced" is an absolute joke.
(And I'm sorry for the rant. This is neither here nor there, in relation to this discussion, but simply my response to your generalization that FOXNews represents not only the "opposite of left-wing" but "The Truth." I'm not here to argue which network is better, or even which political party is better, just on where we stand in regards to the Administration having the right to lie to the American people.)