Quote Originally Posted by Oneironaut View Post
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.

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, it is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of support for an imperfect system that is the best of all possibilities. The people will retaliate when they find out a politician or group of politicians have gone too far or allowed too much. Of course that system is not completely dependable. What would be? But I do not agree that the public needs to know everything about what the military and DHS are doing.

Quote Originally Posted by Oneironaut View Post
I don't think anyone has implied that we need to know the missions or operations our soldiers are sent upon.
You did imply that when you said the government should not be allowed to withhold information or deceive. So did several others. The special forces example shows that sometimes it is necessary. That example encompasses a huge percentage of the special cases I am talking about.

Quote Originally Posted by Oneironaut View Post
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.
I definitely have limits on what I think is acceptable in that area. I don't think we are treating the Middle East as our enemy. I think we are liberating it. We are treating the oppressors of the Middle East as enemies. And we are going through a whole lot of bullshit in order to make that happen when we could easily turn that part of the world into a sheet of glass. That is what Al Qaeda would do to us in two seconds if they could, and that is the sort of element we are fighting.