Do you believe that there should be some level of confidentiality within and among governments?

[ProSense]

[hfojvt]

1. you dare to question the absolute beneficence of Wilileaks?

You are gonna get it.


And you deserve it too, if only because you made me look up the spelling of "beneficence". Curse you, Red Baron!!! :argh:

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

5. Did it hurt?

[hfojvt]

13. I am generally in total disagreement with Bokonon.

Mostly because of the constant pain from the diodes on my left side.

[jmowreader]

10. You may also have wanted to look up the spelling of Wikileaks

Put me down in the "anti-Wikileaks" category.

Right now they're releasing "historical" documentation, most of which is pretty boring--well, MOST classified documents are pretty boring--but eventually the fucker is going to get into releasing current-ops stuff, and then our guys will be screwed. There's a reason a lot of it is classified: because people can get fucking KILLED if it gets into the wrong hands. Quick example: Valerie Plame. When the Bushies decided to get even with Joe WIlson by blowing his wife's network, a lot of the people in it were rounded up and killed by the governments they were working for. We were all shocked and mortified by Bush's people doing it. But this Assange turkey does it, and everyone here is all "this is wonderful, this is great."

[hfojvt]

12. TANJ! If only I could see

or figure out how to change the font size on this stupid new computer.

[EFerrari]

15. That both of you have to resort to blanket statements says a lot. n/t

[hfojvt]

20. Well I didn't have to

but I got a cable from the SOS instructing me to, and when you've got a job to do, you've got to do it well. You've got to give the other fellow HELL.

Or at least the truth, and that will seem like hell.

[EFerrari]

23. Sure you did.

:)

[laconicsax]

2. Are taxpayers entitled to know what is done with their money and in their name? n/t

[bemildred]

3. Sure, the question is what level and who is responsible for maintaining it? nt

[wildbilln864]

4. no! nt

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. So our leaders can cover up war crimes?

No.

[jpgray]

8. Incompetence in maintaining secrecy doesn't inspire faith that secrecy is competently invoked

Or that it is applied to competent acts. :)

[Motown_Johnny]

9. "confidentiality" Yes : "Illegality" No

[ProSense]

19. And they are not the one in the same. n/t

[wickerwoman]

41. +1

Sensitive documents should be confidential unless they reveal unethical or illegal conduct.

[Autumn]

11. No. Abraham Lincoln gave a speech

that I believe has a lot of truth in it.

"It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."

A government of the people, by the people, for the people is the government we deserve.

[ProSense]

21. Do you believe

Abe Lincoln didn't discuss things or conduct government affairs in confidentiality?

[Autumn]

24. Do you think anything said by a President, and

I know how defensive you are about Obama ,is going to be in these leaks? I quoted the words from Lincoln's speech because those words are about transparency, something Obama was for, before he was against it. Diplomats fuck up and say nasty things about other countries, and leaders, I don't care if they get embarrassed. Orders go out to spy on UN members from Rice and Hillary, just more of the same. If our SOS and President and the former President and SOS are embarrassed by that, then they should be.

[ProSense]

25. Hmmm?

"I know how defensive you are about Obama ,is going to be in these leaks?"

Is this where I respond about how anti-Obama some people are?

"I quoted the words from Lincoln's speech because those words are about transparency, something Obama was for, before he was against it. Diplomats fuck up and say nasty things about other countries, and leaders, I don't care if they get embarrassed. "

I don't care about embarrassing fuck ups. Embarrassment is a pretty pathetic standard for transparency.

[Autumn]

27. Good grief. You are making no sense at all,

these leaks are about transparency, which you seem to be very much against. I'm not. You have a nice day.

[ProSense]

33. How do you know what they're about?

You have no idea, except that the information is being released.

[Autumn]

34. I didn't claim to know what they are all about.

I leave the all knowing claims to you. I've read a couple of the cables, I am capable of reading the information that has been released. I said I am all for transparency. I like it. By the way ,have any CIA agents been outed from Wikileaks ? I would think since you are so good at research you would know.

[JackRiddler]

14. Yes, but I don't believe your inoccuous generalities speak to the issue of Wikileaks in the least.

Don't dally, just go straight to this: "Do you believe Julian Assange should be allowed to murder your pets?"

[Forkboy]

17. LOL.

The people bothered by this are cracking me up. They're working it as hard as they can. :)

[de novo]

37. It only makes me want to dig in to the leaks more.

Some folks are really shaken up about this latest leak. I'll guess we'll learn why in due time.:)

[Forkboy]

43. There's somewhat of a trend forming in the people against these leaks.

Many, though not all, are what I would call hardcore Obama supporters. I don't want to ascribe nefarious motives to them, I just think they're trying to protect someone they strongly support.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

16. Other: they're free to try, but if they get busted, fuck them. -nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

18. i understand that pragmatically governments may need secrets

like, the nuclear bomb and its codes

however, in many cases, i would like to know what is being done in my name. this government belongs to us, and i dont think the government has a right to have that many secrets from its citizens.

this is one of those gray area issues that i think we all believe we have some rights to knowledge (otherwise investigative journalism would be dead) and the govt has some duty to protect us and cant do it without some secrets.

[ProSense]

22. Open government is good.

I find it interesting that people are willing to cite statements by past Presidents when this is the first administration ever to release the WH visitors logs.

Transparency is a good thing, but foreign policy is not being conducted in an environment in which all parties value Democracy and transparency. If representatives fail to show or believe they can't speak freely, that is not condusive to diplomacy.

No one makes a justification for keeping illegal activities secret. It's important to protect those who are willing to expose criminal activities.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

28. if your question is about this administration being treated unfairly, thats the question you should

ask. instead of asking whether or not i believe in open govts.

[ProSense]

35. No, it's not a question

it's a point among others.

[inna]

26. not at the expense of the governed. unrec.

[Hugabear]

29. No secrets...100% transparency

Imagine that...no secrets...full public accountability...would have been a lot tougher for Bush to pull his whole "Iraq/WMD/Al Qaeda" bullshit. There shouldn't be anything going on that they would be ashamed of the public finding out. Imagine our foreign policy if everything was out in the open.

[BzaDem]

30. It would also end diplomacy and make diplomatic resolutions all but impossible. n/t

[inna]

32. only for those tirelessly defending the status quo. nt and gb

[BzaDem]

42. Not really. If problems can't be discussed in private and can't be dealth with diplomatically

then they are dealt with in other ways than diplomacy.

[TheKentuckian]

31. Very little and the press ought to be digging into everything

Our government and most in the world should only be trusted as far as one can throw them, monuments and all.

You and some other folks need to give up the Obama filter. If a Bush was in there or Reagan, you'd be thinking a lot differently on a general basis. Obama's administration deserves the exact same level of "confidentiality" as Bush, they hold the same office.

[L0oniX]

36. The problem is that you have to trust that they will only conceal what really needs to be concealed.

...and not use it to cover up their crimes, manipulation of the people, corporate bribes, etc.

[de novo]

38. Within nations? Yes, some. Among nations? No.

The deals and deceits should be for the nation to see. Secret clubs and clandestine actors launching wars all over the world have not served the people of this world well.

[stray cat]

39. No privacy for anyone -wiretaps and recorders should be mandatory for everyone

So we always know what everyone in everyones life is thinking and more importantly everything you do.

[stray cat]

40. Should the presidents schedule and security be published in advance online?