Why did Bush change his tune on secret prisons and prisoners? - Page 2

Donkey® · 09-07-2006, 01:08 PM

How long can one deny the sun rises in the east before people really don't care what you say?

Scrum · 09-07-2006, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

conservatives all over, such as myself, want to know why some in the media find it necessary to out many of our governments secrets, specifically military secrets in the time of a conflict. seems counterintuitive, not very smart, and certainly doesn't help our country much win whatever conflict we're in. sure, people might not agree with the conflict, but do they want us to lose? do they want to make it as hard as possible to win?

They want to make sure the people at the top aren't abusing their powers given by the people.

ballz2wallz · 09-07-2006, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

They want to make sure the people at the top aren't abusing their powers given by the people.

that's not their job. there are people (with power given by the people) in government positions to make sure the president isn't abusing his powers. just as there are proper procedures the government/president should follow to get wiretaps, there too are proper procedures of checks and balances. those do not include the media outing secret military operations in the time of war.

Publius · 09-07-2006, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

that's not their job. there are people (with power given by the people) in government positions to make sure the president isn't abusing his powers. just as there are proper procedures the government/president should follow to get wiretaps, there too are proper procedures of checks and balances. those do not include the media outing secret military operations in the time of war.

If Bush doesn't want to follow proper procedures with his job, why should anyone else? And by the by: As far as I know, there is nothing in the Constitution forbidding the press from divulging all information it deems fit to print.

ballz2wallz · 09-07-2006, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

And by the by: As far as I know, there is nothing in the Constitution forbidding the press from divulging all information it deems fit to print.

nor did i suggest such a thing

i just wonder why people would WANT to do this. why would they WANT to make it more difficult for a success in war? why would they WANT to divulge military secrets in a time of conflict? why would they WANT to undermine the government, who protects their right to publish what they want to begin with?

Publius · 09-07-2006, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

nor did i suggest such a thing

i just wonder why people would WANT to do this. why would they WANT to make it more difficult for a success in war? why would they WANT to divulge military secrets in a time of conflict? why would they WANT to undermine the government, who protects their right to publish what they want to begin with?

Because they feel that said government is not playing by the rules which are supposed to affect that government, perhaps?

ballz2wallz · 09-07-2006, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

Because they feel that said government is not playing by the rules which are supposed to affect that government, perhaps?

and is it their job to 'punish' the government for such a thing, or is it the job of the government officials in office that they elected to do such a thing? aren't there better ways of checks and balances besides a complete undermining?

Publius · 09-07-2006, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

and is it their job to 'punish' the government for such a thing, or is it the job of the government officials in office that they elected to do such a thing? aren't there better ways of checks and balances besides a complete undermining?

Can you think of a better way of holding an official accountable for abuses of power than publishing information on said abuse of power? I can't.

WickedLou9 · 09-07-2006, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

and is it their job to 'punish' the government for such a thing, or is it the job of the government officials in office that they elected to do such a thing? aren't there better ways of checks and balances besides a complete undermining?

It is one of the main purposes of a free press. It is possbily the most important reason that there is a free press. To keep the people informed about what thier government is doing.

ballz2wallz · 09-07-2006, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

Can you think of a better way of holding an official accountable for abuses of power than publishing information on said abuse of power? I can't.

of course not. and i'm certainly not against all of it. but to me, some things need to be published with discretion. there could be dire consequences of releasing classified information.

is the press free from accusations of treason?

Scrum · 09-07-2006, 07:10 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

of course not. and i'm certainly not against all of it. but to me, some things need to be published with discretion. there could be dire consequences of releasing classified information.

is the press free from accusations of treason?

I think anyone not under oath to protect or work for this country and it's constituition should be free from accusations of "treason".
You want to nail someone for the crimes involved in that, go for it. But "treason", no.

ballz2wallz · 09-07-2006, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

I think anyone not under oath to protect or work for this country and it's constituition should be free from accusations of "treason".
You want to nail someone for the crimes involved in that, go for it. But "treason", no.

do you think those that live in this country and enjoy the freedoms granted to them by the constitution should be a little more accountable to this country and its principles?

Diesel66 · 09-07-2006, 09:38 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

It is one of the main purposes of a free press. It is possbily the most important reason that there is a free press. To keep the people informed about what thier government is doing.

But it is a double edge sword. Just because we have a free press, doesnt give them the right to publish everything. They have the duty to tell us about govt abuse but they also must realize the govt needs secrets or we are all in danger.

avsp · 09-08-2006, 10:31 AM

isnt the notion of a free press & the oversight it provides & the informed consent of the populace all part of the checks & balances?

moving on
its one thing to have secret prisons etc but its another to fail to keep them secret, ..., strikes me as almost amateur, ..., why bother having them at all, aftera;; you've already got gitmo, ..., why involve other nations in questionible practices?

It is almost as if the admin knowingly seeks to undermine its own credibility & by extension that of the west & democracy. But then perhaps they are trying to build a case for stifling press reports?

Cliffs: If the nature of the media means that such things cant be kept secret then why bother doing them at all?

R-Type · 09-08-2006, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

But it is a double edge sword. Just because we have a free press, doesnt give them the right to publish everything. They have the duty to tell us about govt abuse but they also must realize the govt needs secrets or we are all in danger.

The situation gets very sticky when said officials use this 'national security' cover to cover their political abuses. It's the oldest trick in the book.. "for national security, you can't know this." "you are being held for national security reasons, sorry, no trial for you" etc.. It's an all too convenient cop out to get around accountability. If anything, a gov't in a free nation should side on transparency, not opacity, so I think the press should publish any dirt it can get its hands on. Hey, if the gov't can't keep something secret that should honestly be secret, then our officials STILL aren't doing their jobs, right?

The moment we place limits on the press is the moment government will blow the hole wide open so they can use it as a convenient way to silence opposition.

Diesel66 · 09-08-2006, 08:04 PM

Originally Posted by R-Type

The moment we place limits on the press is the moment government will blow the hole wide open so they can use it as a convenient way to silence opposition.

There are limits on the press every day. Do you think the NYTimes can print the blueprints to the B2 bomber ?

R-Type · 09-08-2006, 09:01 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

There are limits on the press every day. Do you think the NYTimes can print the blueprints to the B2 bomber ?

Do you think the press could GET the blueprints on the B2 bomber? I'm just saying that if the press gets the info, it can't be THAT critical to national security.

JaJae · 09-08-2006, 09:20 PM

Originally Posted by R-Type

Do you think the press could GET the blueprints on the B2 bomber? I'm just saying that if the press gets the info, it can't be THAT critical to national security.

People run with classified info to the NY Times all the time. And they usually don't have issues with printing it. They make no qualms about printing it and even defend it as "freedom of the press".

Diesel66 · 09-08-2006, 09:26 PM

Originally Posted by R-Type

Do you think the press could GET the blueprints on the B2 bomber? I'm just saying that if the press gets the info, it can't be THAT critical to national security.

Well when you have agents of the govt released classified reports daily (or stealing them like Sandy)

If they truly believe the public needs to know about a project because the govt is breaking the Constitution/morals etc.... fine. But releasing them just for the sake of releasing them is idiotic and dangerous.

Kytro · 09-08-2006, 09:26 PM

I disagree with state secrets, my government should have zero secrets from me