Good News For Open Government, Secrecy Blogs and Taliban Rising

You're only as sick, as you think you are superior, in more cases than not.

"Transparency" is up for debate, like anything else. Personally, I recognize the need for "secrets" in the operation of a federal government, particularly as it pertains to our relationships with foreign nations.

It makes me believe the government is doing what it should be doing, when the NSA is mining data for intelligence about foreign operatives operating inside of our country, or operating with someone inside our country.

I reject the idea our Defense Department or CIA are in any way subverting our civil liberties, or openly, directly, and actively subverting American values.

In fact, I would suggest the USSC was gregiously in error when it ruled oh so liberally 5-4 that enemy combatants should be accorded the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

Your perception of the world isn't absolute, even if you think it is.

Thank You for your interest fellow citizens.

Sorry but an öpen" anything having to do with intelligence operations is a no-no! There are soemthings that just cannot be "open" no matter how much we wish it.

As with all things in life, there is a balance that needs to be struck here. Some intelligence is valid and needs to be secret. At the same time, "who watches the watchers" applies... there are always those who use the "secret" designation to hide mistakes and blunders. And that needs oversight. We cannot allow absolute power in anyone. Congressional and court oversight are part of our Constitution and a bedrock foundational concept of democracy itself. These must exist and must be respected. So yes we do need to ensure that those things that truly are secret stay that way, and we also need to ensure that things that are merely embarassing or awkward do not get called "secret" just to protect someone's ego. And.. we need to ensure that "secret" is not used to subvert the Constitution.

I agree with Lynn 100 percent. There needs to be checks and balances. I don't care who is president, that individual cannot be above the law. I suspect this administration has stretched our laws to the limit and in some cases stepped over the line. We need to know this and we need to address them. Congressional and court oversight have been dismissed by the current administration and it needs to stop.

There are checks and balances, it is what the entire constitution is about. The Executive cannot "dismiss" oversight by either Congress, or the Judiciary. You are free to believe whatever pleases you, however "suspicions" are little more than non educated guess in this instance, because their is no possible way any of us could know if Bush is breaking the law or not.

Personally, I'll err on the side of giving the benefit of the doubt to Bush.

Thank You for your interest fellow citizens.

I agree with everyone on secrecy issues when it comes to operation secrecy. But the fact remains that the NSA is not datamining for terrorists outside this country, they are datamining and using rolling, sweeping wiretapping on American citizens and there is a possibility that John Bolton was caught up in this and spying on American State Department members who were working at the UN. That is not the kind of secrecy and government power we want in this country.

And about Congressional oversight: it's been a joke under this admin. Ask Jane Harman, the most trusted Democrat on the House Intel committee. She's furious because she has been kept out of the loop on so many critical intel issues. That's what you call oversight?

Sean, you should try unbuttoning your coat and relaxing a wee bit. Yes, some American citizens are the subjec of NSA wire taps. Why?? Because there is a suspected terrorist on the other end of the line in another country. Why is this so hard to understand?

If you have PROOF, if ANYONE has proof, I'd like to see it, that PROVES the NSA wire taps have EVER been conducted on a domestic to domestic call with NO TERRORISTS involved.

If you know of such an instance, and can verify the claim in some tangible way, PUHLEEZE show me, would you???

If congressional oversight is a "joke" I'd love to know what "critical issues" Mzzzzzz Harman feels she's been left out of, perhaps, she isn't entitled to EVEN BE briefed, I don't know. You haven't offered enough specifics for me to make a qualified guess.

"Bush stole the election" or "Bush lied people died." Your sloganeering is pathetic. Please offer us some hard specifics, or quit offering us empty accusations.

The politics of personal destruction is a very destructive force in American politics. It is a shame so many willfully play such a dangerous game, particularly as they stand oh so righteously, far above the hoi polloi.

When it comes to self righteous arrogance, the enlightened liberal left doesn't have to take a back seat to anyone, including their fabled enemy of the right, the bible totin' activist wing of the republican party.

Thank You for your interest fellow citizens.

Jack,

Show me where I wrote this:

"Bush stole the election" or "Bush lied people died." Your sloganeering is pathetic. Please offer us some hard specifics, or quit offering us empty accusations.

Really, I want to know when and where I ever said that. Show me hard facts and evidence before you smear me.

You are the one who needs to unbutton your coat and relax. I travel to Muslim countries and non-Muslim countries on a regular basis, I am going to Iran in a little over a month. So don't tell me I am not relaxed. Unlike so many people who claim to know so much about our enemies I actually go out and meet them. I don't see that kind of courage evident in Republican circles, for them it's simply, "bomb them."

As for Ms. Harman: she is the ranking minority member of the House Intelligence Committee and has a statutory right to be briefed on everything the president has a right to be briefed on for purposes of oversight, except certain aspects of "sources and methods" can be withheld from her. But as to new programs and many other aspects she has a legal right to know and has been denied that right. So has Senator Rockefeller.

As for proof of NSA tapping internal to internal phone calls: just watch AT&T Ed Whitacre's testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee. That should answer your question. Clearly an invasion of privacy, prima facie.

Sorry, jJack, the facts just aren't on your side.

Sorry Sean, you don't even know what the facts are.

2+2 still equals 4, jJack, sorry, but it does.

Seanie is bent on trying to prove that America is EVIL. Our enemies are banking on people like you. You need to wake up.

Thanks for the spare change Charles. It's adding up and going to help fund my trip. Muchas gracias!

OH BROTHER *ROFL* is our boy Sean actually attempting to finance a trip from gather point ??? *ROFL*

Actually, the money I make here at Gather goes to charity. A Palestinian charity, that is.

wow what a humanitarian you are *ROFL*

It's the Christian way to be, right? You're welcome for my interest in my fellow citizens, dig?

Sean,

thanks for a great article. Transparency has been the enemy of many an aspiring authoratarian. In this country we have public servants. The people have a right to know what is being done with their tax money.

Bush has doled out billions to the likes of Halliburton and other shady government contractors. The danger is what goes on in our name when no one is looking. A true patriot is ever vigilant, even when his guy is in power!

Sean, great article. IT simply fascinates me that folks like Charles just breeze by threads like this, toss a few "liberals hate America" stink bombs, then whizz off on their little clouds of self-righteousness. It's really kind of funny in a sick-twisted-democracy-destroying kind of way. jJack, since you want so dearly to hear it, I'll say it in a way you may find refreshing: Bush was HANDED the election - by the Supreme Court in the year 2000.
Now, in spite of many stories I've heard about voter irregularites in 2004, I must maintain that he was HANDED that election by the hundred million citizens who couldn't be bothered to get their lazy asses out of bed to vote.
Just thought I'd help out. Oh no, here comes Anthony Soprano- uh Charles!
Namaste

Bush was HANDED the election - by the Supreme Court in the year 2000.

Yeah, and this was before he even had a chance to stack the deck and put all his own "cronies" on the bench.

Mike, such a silly accusation is the stuff of bipolar disorders. You know as well as I do, if what you suggest were true, the Democrats would have DONE SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

As it is, you've simply been whining now for six years. Get a grip, grow up, and deal with it.

And no Sean, it isn't the "christian way to be." It is the pseudo christian way to be perhaps, from a misguided secularist point of view, maybe.

Thank You for youru interest fellow citizens.

jJack,

The US Supreme court kept all the votes from being counted in Florida in 2000. Had they all been counted as the Florida Supreme Court had ordered, Gore would be in the White House.

That's not a silly accusation. It's history.

Thomas, the Florida Supremes didn't have the authority to do that, hence, the USSC had to step in. There is no mechanism for a court to write the laws of Florida, particularly when the election is still on-going.

The Florida legislature is the sole source of laws for the state of Florida. The Florida legislature had a set process, with a set timetable in place. Within X number of days the ballots all had to be counted, and the results declared.

When the Florida Supremes ILLEGALLY tried to usurp the role of the Florida legislature, and change the process in mid-flow, by altering the time available for the counting of votes, by logic, and by law, the USSC was REQUIRED to step in.

Your input is ludicrous Mister Heaney.

Thank You for your interest fellow citizens.

Ah, yes, the Conservatives who were so supportive of state's rights until, well, they get in the way of conservative power.

Your input, Mr. McKnight is ludicrous.

Thank you for your interest fellow citizens!

In The Transparent Society, David Brin argues that we will likely give up much of our privacy simply due to technology. He postulates, however, that the only thing that can keep us from living an Orwellian nightmare is true transparency.