How do we (the people) square the Bush Adminstrations Circle?

Tony,
Thank you for posting this.... now everybody write your representatives and newspapers.

Neither side is acting responsibly in these cases.

Undeniably, the current administration has stepped back from a healthy attitude toward transparency and open government. No argument there.

On the other hand, the press has overstepped its boundries into pure partisan politics also. Look at CBS hiring Mary Mape to coordinate stories with the DNC. Look at the coordinated timing of the release of the Abu Gharib photos, the recent videos by the AP, and so on.

Both the administration and the press have become entrenched into partisan politics.

It is rather absurd to criticize the administration for encroaching on a right that the press is so busy corrupting.

"Look at the coordinated timing of the release of the Abu Gharib photos, the recent videos by the AP, and so on."

Don't let yourself get driven into paranoia. No matter how strong your personal feelings, there's nothing 'partisan" or "coordinated" about either of these releases. In fact, the real question should be, why did it take so long to release the videos of those teleconferences about the situation in New Orleans? If either these videos or the photos from Abu Gharib were classified, they shouldn't have been. Information that is embarrassing to the administration but not a matter of national security should not be classified in the first place. The job of a free press is to find out what's going on and report it. This is true no matter what party is in office at the time. If the Democrats were in power and doing nasty stuff, you'd certainly want that reported. Since they're bound to be in power again sooner or later, be careful what you wish for.

No matter how strong your personal feelings, there's nothing 'partisan" or "coordinated" about either of these releases.

Quite to the contrary, Mary Mapes worked closely with the DNC on the timing of the release of these stories and others.

On the National Guard matter:see USA Today: CBS arranged for meeting with Lockhart
Lockhart, the former press secretary to President Clinton, said a producer talked to him about the 60 Minutes program a few days before it aired on Sept. 8. She gave Lockhart a telephone number and asked him to call Bill Burkett, a former Texas National Guard officer who gave CBS the documents. Lockhart couldn't recall the producer's name. But CBS said Monday night that it would examine the role of producer Mary Mapes in passing the name to Lockhart.

BAAAAA......BAAAAA.....We've been clipped and shorn of the mantle of 'blind faith' we have always worn.
The photos of Abu Gharib portray only the 'horrors' of war. What did we expect!!! A pure war....a 'holy' war. Perfection in the face of depravity.

It was entirely appropriate to air the story on Abu Gharib,....however

1) It was NOT appropriate to sit on the story of Abu Gharib for six months.

2) It was NOT appropriate to air the same story night after night when there was no new information.

3) It was NOT appropriate to in the words of Christopher Hitchens, "fail to constrast what Abu Gharib was like before".

Again, when the press ceases to be a press and becomes a partisan political entitiy....it SHOULD expect loss of right of access.

Lastly, give me the news, not views. After 30 years of listening to All Things Considered on NPR, I have switched to NEWSHOUR to get away from the overwelming bias in reporting.

Greg, I don't think I know enough to comment intelligently on the timing of news articles and the manipulation of public sentiment by the popular media. However, I wouldn't be at all surprised if your allegations proved correct, at least in part. And, I would never seriously argue that the popular media is not blatantly biased.

However, It is not the media who has chosen to classify documents without legitimate reason and it is not the media who is adopting this "initiative" against free speech and thereby, hindering responsible disclosure.

Question: why would the government wish to hide so many documents about so many different things if they were not up to no good? No way do I buy into the 'national security' line.

~~ How can this administration justify such blatant violation of constitutional rights?~~

They can't, and they don't have to. Many people are asleep, and too few of the others will take a real stand. This foolish could have been stopped a long time ago if we were willing to put weight behind our words. When it comes down to action, how many Americans will stop spending money, stop supporting the big wheels that are turning right over the top of us, and sit home in protest until someone listens? Not many.

As for timing - it isn't only the timing of articles. I don't see how we can pretend to be responsible people and not question the timing of many events in this administration.

Tony's right, the media isn't classifying documents, the Bush administration is. They started that on day one, rushing in to classify everything from the Clinton and Bush I administrations. Nothing to do with national security and everything to do with covering lies, which in my opinion makes us insecure.

a system built on theory must be tested. here is a test.
if you are responsible for making critical decisions for an organisation, but are at the same time not aloud to know what the organisation is doing, because it has been determined that it is in your best interest to not be informed. to whom interest are the decision that you make, relevant to?

this is a test of the emergency intelligence system, it is only a test.

Once more, Greg places the blame everywhere except where it belongs---with his political master.

1) It was NOT appropriate to sit on the story of Abu Gharib for six months.

Greg's timeline is askew; the Abu Ghraib saga begins with a story by Setmour Hersh in The New Yorker about abuses taking place at a military prison under US command. Concurrently, CBS/60Minutes had received a number of the infamous photos. It should be noted that DoD asked CBS not to release the photos.

2) It was NOT appropriate to air the same story night after night when there was no new information.

In reality, there was a lot of new info; as in any major news story, you start with the broad strokes of what happened. As more investigative resources are brought to bear--new facts come out.

) It was NOT appropriate to in the words of Christopher Hitchens, "fail to constrast what Abu Gharib was like before".

A really crappy argument. Basically, Greg and Hitchens are trying to argue that we can torture and maim and rape and murder--so long as we don't do it to the extent that Saddam Hussein did. This is akin to arguing Jeffrey Dahmer was a really good guy because he killed less people than the BTK killer.

However, It is not the media who has chosen to classify documents without legitimate reason and it is not the media who is adopting this "initiative" against free speech and thereby, hindering responsible disclosure.

As I said, "Neither side is acting responsibly in these cases."

A really crappy argument. Basically, Greg and Hitchens are trying to argue that we can torture and maim and rape and murder--so long as we don't do it to the extent that Saddam Hussein did.

What Jade is loathe to admit is that if she and the left had her way, Abu Gharib would be running its torture chambers 24/7 without a break for holidays.

There would have been one consolation to leaving Saddam and his boyz in charge of Abu Gharib, we would not have to endure the indignation of Jade and the left over issues like torture......they would be mum as clams.

I think the point that Jade is making is that we didn't go into Iraq to make a little bit better than it was under Saddam. Their grand abuses don't justify our slightly lesser abuses.

What Jade is loathe to admit is that if she and the left had her way, Abu Gharib would be running its torture chambers 24/7 without a break for holidays.

Actually this is a position held by your political masters, Greg. Paul Wolfowitz admitted as much when he said:

"[T]here have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people.... The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale that we did it.

But let's suppose Greg is right for a moment; let's suppose liberals are in favor of allowing repressive and despotic regimes to victimize their citizens 24/7. Perhaps, Greg will tell us why the Bush administration isn't attacking China or No. Korea or Sudan or the many other regimes that torture and abuse their people. In fact, Bush has cuddled up to some these repressive regimes and call them 'allies.'

Simple Jade, there is no way we could endure your bellyaching if we did.

Tony, transparency in government is important. It is important that the public have access to information because government information IS the public's property.

There are limits to this information though, and the limits are defined by the public good. For instance, when information puts security at risk, puts an investigation at risk or restricts individuals in government from speaking freely, it is not in the interest of the public to have this information in a timely manner.

On the other hand, the press has the responsibility to use transparency and access in a non-partisan manner. Unfortunately, this latest flap over an eight month old video that is just released as a "news" story by the AP and blatantly substitutes the word "breached" for the word "topped" suggests that the press should not have free access to White House data.

There is a balance between allowing the public access to data and allowing the Administration to function in an orderly manner.

Both the Administration and the press have repeatedly crossed that line.

Tony,
all this fighting here is proving that mature dialog on these important issue is still a long way off.

while i support the fight against terrorism, that is not an equal endorsement against insurgence. especially when one remembers that our country was founded on an insurgency.
the million man march was an insurgency, in truth all acts of freedom are born of insurrection. to stand and be all you can be, a unique individual is an insurgency against conformity.
article one is a victim of the over all problem in our current society. it is incomprehensible to the readers.

Congress
is a body of people elected by the people. hens the first part could read "The people shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Religion
(Latin: religio, ligo, "to bind together") A way of seeing, thinking, and acting.

Darren,

I would hardly compare suicide bombings of the market place to Bunker Hill. I would hardly compare a minority terrorist cliche representing an 18% Sunni population to the Constitutional Convention.. Neither would I compare executing school children to a protest in Washington DC.

Such comparisons reveal an inability to compare.

Let me start by saying I do not condon what is happining in Iraq, neither the internal fighting; I view it as murder; nor the American Invasion, a successful coup.

Two things about suicide bombings and Bunker Hill:

1.The people of the time did not have the bomb technology. They did, however, fight dirty against the British, thus using the technology of the day against whom they SAW(key word) as the oppressors. Be totally honest. Go back and re-read your history books.
2. Much less population spread out over a large region - less civilian death, and no television media to stir up "friends" and "neighbors".

Who are the oppressors?
Then, British - Bonnie Prince Charles wanted to keep his colonies, lord it over them and milk them for everything they had.
Now, America. The Bush administration looks, even to a good many of us, as a modern day royal who wants to create a colony, lord it over it and milk it for everything it has.

The factions over there are each struggling for power of their own, for the same reasons. Greed, power, preservation of a way of life.

You see, it does not matter how the world views the current day insurgents/terrorists, these people react to what THEY perceive, not what OTHERS do. It is a matter of perception.

Home, homeland and a way of life - these have the ultimate power over how humans live or die.

Greg.
you have made the comparison, not me..

Tony asked some questions one of which was...
"What effective mechanism do we have to hold on to our constitutional rights? "
my comment was meant to invoke thoughts about language and how it is being interpreted..
this discussion is moving further away from an answer to these questions. you seem like a smart guy, can we raise the bar? is it possible to have constructive dialog?

I would hardly compare suicide bombings of the market place to Bunker Hill. I would hardly compare a minority terrorist cliche representing an 18% Sunni population to the Constitutional Convention..

Greg needs a remedial course in history.

Let's not forget our Founders fought a war against the British that was remarkably similar to what we deem as 'terrorism' today. Many of our forces fought without wearing uniforms and retreated back into civilian populations after mounting hit-and-run actions.

Terror was a tactic employed by both sides.

And let's not pretend the colonies were completely united in breaking away from England. In fact, those who supported independence were the wealthy--businessmen and planters.

Thanks for the incisive article brining forth such good comments. I wish mine brought out more comments.

I believe we should allow our media to sit on a story for safety, but IT MUST BE THE MEDIAS DECISION. With no strong arming!!!! I don't respect the Bush administration, courts or others for trying to silence a story. Nor we should not be lied to, and the media should be unbiased.

Let's not forget our Founders fought a war against the British that was remarkably similar to what we deem as 'terrorism' today.

Terrorism is not defined by the reluctance to wear uniforms. Terrorism is defined by the tactic of targeting innocent civilians.

The fact that you people cannot distinguish between Bunker Hill and blowing up a bus full of school kids suggests that you have been literally driven insane by the echo-chamber of leftist ranting.

In fact, those who supported independence were the wealthy--businessmen and planters.

Quite the opposite is true....of course.

In 1759, having resigned as Virginia's military commander to become a planter, Washington married Martha Dandridge Custis. Washington's marriage to the colony's wealthiest widow dramatically changed his life, catapulting him into Virginia aristocracy.

The list of other revolutionary leaders is like a who is who among the wealthy and elite. Hancock, Hamilton and so on.

Greg
your so angry, all that is being said, is that democracy is born out of opposition to power. and that opposition is always filled with brutality. what we did to gain independence was brutal, what we did to African to sustain that independence, was brutal, what we did to native Americans to extend our supremacy, was brutal and what we are doing in Iraq is brutal. we are a nation born of, built on and sustained by various levels of brutality.

I am angry? Sorry, but you are projecting your anger onto me.

I am not the one who is comparing the senseless violence directed at civilians to the American Revolution. Sure revolutionary/insurgencies are messy affairs, but murdering supporters, detractors, men, women, adults and children at random......is not a revolution, or an insurgency....it is terrorism pure and simple.

One key distinction in Iraq is that "the insurgency" is a minority of a minority who are not seeking freedom for the people of Iraq but a return to a brutal suppression of the people of Iraq.

Another key distinction between revolutionary insurgency and the terrorists in Iraq is that there is a means of changing government peacefully there. There is a political process. If George Washington and Ben Franklin were given the opportunity to vote away King George and the British, they would have done it that way instead of murdering school children.

Why am I not surprised that the left embraces the murder of innocents, that has always been their way of doing things

what we did to native Americans to extend our supremacy, was brutal and what we are doing in Iraq is brutal. we are a nation born of, built on and sustained by various levels of brutality.

So that is how you justify blowing up a market place with a truck bomb?

Kind of reminds me of Noam Chomsky trying to defend Pol Pot.

O.K., i have to admit that I've been a tad lost in this thread. My main reaction to the article that I referred to was: The Bush administration, arguably hitherto irresponsible in it's classifying of information, has initiated a policy that seeks to hinder individuals from sharing information by threatening legal action.

Personally, I've seen nothing in the actions of the Bush administration that convinces me they will conduct such a initiative responsibly.

To the argument that these times require extraordinary measures, I'm reminded of the qoute, attributed to Benjamin Franklin:

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither"

And, Greg, with all due respect, I think:

<center>Why am I not surprised that the left embraces the murder of innocents, that has always been their way of doing things</center>

is over the top and uncalled for.

Tony,

Ignoring the rancorous posts for a second, good article! The more certain necessary freedoms are abridged, the harder the abridgers cling to the flag to proclaim their patriotism.

We can't have a President who cries "this piece of paper" in a fit of frustration, and expect that same President to respect the intent of the Constitution. He's repeatedly demonstrated that he can't be bothered with the details.

And, typical of jingostic reactions, those decrying the loss of personal freedom are rebuked as "unpatriotic", "giving aid and comfort to the enemy", etc. etc.

By the way, I love how liberals or people not agreeing with the current administration are characterized as the "left" fairly indiscriminately. Gives it the nice flavor of McCarthyism that it deserves.

Thanks again for the thought provoking piece.

Sorry Tony, I believe it is dead-accurate.

Elements of the left have not only embraced Saddam, knowing fully who and what he was but are, as evidenced by numerious posters on this forum, embracing terror against innocent civilians.

In the past, the left embraced Stalinism...and Maoism...with all their attendent horrors.

The statment may be uncomfortable but it is dead-accurate.

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither"

True, but there are problems with the polar opposite. We live in a society where a murderer can be released onto the streets because of a technical violation of procedure.

We live in an era where the media abrogates its responsibility to inform then demands that government act responsibly.

What concerns me is the tendency to complain about one and ignore the other.

The media has no responsibility. They are commercial interests with shareholders and boards of directors.

"Good" journalists are supposed to behave ethically. However, there is no Constitutional requirement for them to do so. The media-consuming public is supposed to vote with their wallets regarding their support or lack or support. If they act too aggregiously, they can be sanctioned with libel etc.

Government, on the other hand, does have responsibility. To the governed. And, unfortunately, you can't cancel your subscription to bad government like you can with a newspaper that pisses you off.

Ignoring bad media is the only recourse you have.

Sure, I agree, Eric.

However we have laws about access. If the media wants something to bash Bush and the administration does not want to give it to them, then the administration can use the laws at its disposal to deny access.

If the media still wants access they can go through the courts.

Either way the law is served.

If however, what we want is a free-flowing of information then we need to create a climate in which that is possible which means jerking the chain of the media.

To the governed. And, unfortunately, you can't cancel your subscription to bad government like you can with a newspaper that pisses you off

If you do not like what government is doing, use the vote to change it.

Yup.

The government isn't set up as a commercial enterprise though. It takes a VERY long time (relative to cancelling your subscription) to cancel bad government.

Imagine that your newspaper subsciption, cable and radio station listening could only be changed every four years. And, you and your neighbors had to agree on whether or not to cancel it. Wouldn't that suck...

Administrations change every four years, Congress every two, the Senate every six and courts whenever there is a death or resignation.

There is wisdom in the stability of this. There is also wisdom in protecting these institutions from the mob, i.e. the media.

am angry? Sorry, but you are projecting your anger onto me.

you have given me a great deal of undeserved power. what is the meaning of leftist?
personally i think i am more amidextrious, i have artistic qualities as well as musical talent, but i also have acute verbal skills. but my views are hardly left. i am some were in the middle.

it is very immature of you to name call, i have not labeled you, and i wont. metallica addressed this in there song "The unforgiven" the verse gos like this "i label you, you label me and we both remain unforgiven"

Darren, I am not interested in discussing you, or me. I am however disgusted by the inability to distinguish between the ethics of blowing up people at random in a market place and establishing the world's first representative government.

Greg
i agree with you. what i am pointing out is our use of language. why call them terrorist or insurgents? why not just criminals, why not deal with them as criminals. if our criminal justice system is not adequate, then why not make it adequate? why are we idealising them with these titles that some how put them in a category that is unapproachable with conventional justice?
what i see is that all this language is a designed distraction, a means to an end of our civil values.
have we become so frail that we must bend to the power of these supreme enemies, as if they were a supper threat? come on are these criminals more powerful than the Soviets? there was no patriot act for Stalin or Hitler, why are we so afraid of these guys?
the weakness of this administration is a disgrace to the blood that built this country, to cower before the criminals of the world is a revolution to the American values that have sustained us.

"Undeniably, the current administration has stepped back from a healthy attitude toward transparency and open government. No argument there."

not exactly an admonishment - but fair enough.

"Elements of the left have not only embraced Saddam, knowing fully who and what he was but are, as evidenced by numerious posters on this forum, embracing terror against innocent civilians."

goddamit, greg.

who put hussein in power?

who gave him the gas?

who looked the other way?

who's blowing his trial?

"you're dessssssspicable."


tony - please include "politics" in your tags. thanks.

I agree with you. what i am pointing out is our use of language. why call them terrorist or insurgents?

The term "terrorist" applies because it fits precisely.

The word "terrorist" has a specific meaning. According to Webster, a terrorist uses "violence ...in order to intimidate a population ... into granting their demands".

The operant term here is "intimidate a population". Terrorists in Iraq function the precise opposite of how a revolutionary or insurgent would act. Here the insurgency is using terror against the population to return the control of the country to a minority within a minority.

"a terrorist uses "violence ...in order to intimidate a population ... into granting their demands"

you don't need us greg - you do this so well by yourself.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

see: preemptive invasion of iraq.

Let's play imagination here for just a moment...the year is late 2008 and we have a new president elect: Greg Schiller. Now, what will he do in the oval office, besides rant against and falsely accuse anyone who disagrees with the whitehouse as 'lefties'? Will he continue to claim these same people as Saddam sympathizers, and create legislation to put them in those prisons without due process? Will he continue to read into their comments something that is not there? What will he do? Will he continue to bring into his arguement the American Revolution rather that the War for Independence? You know, under these circumstances, maybe it would be better that all correspondance from the white house be classified as top secret, and the media should not go anywhere near Washingto DC. under any circumstances. There's plenty of other things to report on. Imagine the hassle that the American folk will be spared. Will he ever express his own point of view instead of parroting the party line? What will he do?

inquiring minds want to know!

LOL! Martin - you da man!

Tony,

You wrote a good article.

Barbary, Thanks. But with all this stuff, I'm surprised you could notice.

All,
I have to say that I was surprised by the tone of many of the comments to this article. I intended to point out a course of action that is proposed by the Bush administration that I believe will have short- and long- term consequences. But after seeing, in these comments, the personal attacks, the name calling, the failure to accept that another view might be legitimate, I'm thinking maybe this isn't the serious issue I thought it was. Maybe we have much bigger problems to deal with.
I, for one, amy calling it a day.

3/7 ... and the debate continues, LOL.

I'm late to the thread so I'll go back to the beginning.

Seriously. Interesting article Tony. I disagree with the premise which avers that Article 1 of the bill of rights dictates that the government release all of its information. Practicality, precedents and court tests dictate that exceptions are available to the government. Classification of documents is one of those. While I am not an expert in the area I think we can all presume that there are reasons wherein the government can limit accessibility to those documents, chief among them is "National Security." The government also has a right to enforce this classification through existing laws that limit access.

That being said, because of the secrecy of the information and inability to provide viable over-site, the government has an obligation to maintain as much transparency as possible while at the same time protect national security. An important balance that this administration is apparently abusing on a regular basis.

Certainly the appearance is that the administration is classifying documents that would be embarrassing rather than true security issues. The declassification of documents initiated during the Clinton years is now being referred to as the REclassification program by the press. Apparently the government has reclassified documents, that have been in the public domain for years. Some as old as 50 years.

Perhaps the over-classification of documents should be punished with the same zealousness and with the same penalties as the release of classified ones. Then we might see a little more balance.

Your example of events that would not have been bought to light under the current laws, Watergate" does not support your article. The RNC does not have the ability to classify its documents. The reporting done by Woodstein were based on some leaks of embarrassing but non classified information. It was just good reportage.

As for the rest of the thread...WOW.

--What the press does is not germain to how the government does its job.
--Abu Gharib
--Torture
--China, North Korea, Sudan
--Suicide bombings
--Terrorism
--The revolution

Talk about smokescreens.

Peter Sheinhouse
agreed, i apologise for moving so fare away from the topic. i have spent some tedious hours reading thru CIA and FBI memos and briefs. and i think that what is being hidden is not so much about embarrassment as it is strategy. for instance the aiding and abetting of despot to over through legitamently elected governments in south America. when compering the time tables to corporate profits in the regions effected, it becomes more clear who's interests are being served.

oh, my.

let's talk about transparency, everyone. let's discuss how to better this government through honest politics, and partisanship.

THIS GOVERNMENT KNOWINGLY LED, NO, LIED US INTO A WAR IN IRAQ. KIDS ARE DYING.

pardon my anger. carry on.

Darren,
No need to apologise, it can become tough not to follow the threads. The tactic used in arguing the points can be confusing. The smokescreen is my favorite. Take a fact, that may even be unconnected, dispute it and use that to debunk the original thesis. See the Logic Project Ron Hall's effort to define the tactics.

Regarding the CIA and FBI memos and briefs you've read, if they reflect current actions that reflect ongoing strategies that affect national security then I have no problem classifying them. If on the other hand they are complete and their only impact is embarrassment, either personal or national, then they should be released.

The government must be accountable for its actions, whether overt or covert.

Ok, I just stopped reading the comments.

Tip to all, if you are going to quote other comments, use quotation marks!! I keep getting confused about who is taking what stance.

Having said that, it is a good article. We need to contact our representatives, we need to know what our government is doing, and if that means everyone else knows too, fine!! If we are doing no wrong, no one will attack us.
Most Germans didn't know what was happening in the camps in 1940s. Their leaders felt it not necessary to make things public "for the better of the country"
If sources must be revealed, then America's Most Wanted should broadcast callers' names and addresses to the criminals. I want my rights back, I want my country back, true Patriots would not approve of anything this Administration has done.

"mid-term election year"

You said it! Now vote!

Or write to the candidates for this Fall's election and tell then what they have to do to win your vote.

If on the other hand they are complete and their only impact is embarrassment, either personal or national, then they should be released. - Peter

Careful there.

The rights of the public to information is absolute. All government information is owned by the public.................BUT the timing of release is not a public right.

The administration has the necessary right of privacy to its work product. Politics do not function in a glasshouse. There is no reason why this information cannot be released -- in 30 years.

I don't know about anyone else, but i cannot WAIT to find out why no one expected the levee's to break ... in 2035.

Now, what will he do in the oval office, besides rant against and falsely accuse anyone who disagrees with the whitehouse as 'lefties'? Will he continue to claim these same people as Saddam sympathizers, and create legislation to put them in those prisons without due process?

Interesting.

-You gave a precise description of what Abraham Lincoln did to 13,000 Anti-War activists.

-Some 20,000 people were jailed during WWI.

-Italians and Japanese were put in camps during WWII.

-Johnson spied on the anti-war left.




And you act like the sky is falling when the Administration refuses to release documents and permits the NSA to wiretap phone calls abroad?

I am utterly baffled.

The nation has survived much worse than this, yet from the sound of it one would think that the apocalyse is at hnd.

We have a problem, but not with the administration. We have a problem with too many hysterical people screaming into the echo chamber of the internet.

We could also have a problem with people justifying present day bad behavior with the bad behavior of our predecessors. I think it's called deflection. Do two wrongs make a right now?

Breaking the law is breaking the law, regardless of whether I choose to point out our current president or follow you on your tour of the bad boys of American history.

Exactly my point, Jack, but then, I must be one of those "hysterical people screaming into the echo chamber of the internet. " After all, if it was good enough for our forefathes, it's good enough for us... I already know how my reps in Washington feel about what is taking place, and who will get my vote; and if I can find any ligitimate organization that is actually ready to begin the process of impeachment, I will physically join them.

Jack,

How can two wrongs make a right when the administration did nothing wrong?

I know of no law being broken in the re-classification of documents.

As for FISA, it is not a law. It does not exist and it never did exist because FISA unconstitutionally encroaches on the power of the executive branch.

However, my comments to Joyce were written to temper the hysteria. Apparently, there are those who would flee a building at the first whiff of smoke, or feel that the sky is falling at the first drop of rain.

Despite all the hysteria over The Patriot Act and the wiretaps, I ask, and the first thing the courts will ask is "who has been harmed?".

Once a whirling dervish pointed me in the direction of a link to a case in Las Vegas where supposedly there was an abuse of the Patriot Act (the only recorded instance of such abuses)......and what is the status of that case now?

Does anyone know?

Dropped?

So who has been hurt by wiretaps?

Can I get a specific name?

Anyone?

If the sky is falling........it has got to have hit someone....don't you think?

What information has been denied us that is so terribly important?

Anyone?

Methinks thou dost protest too much, no?

Anyway, Greg, you know that's a loaded question. You said yourself we won't know the best (worst, in this case) classified information until 30 years' time has passed. Either that, or another Deep Throat steps forward, don't you think?

greg: "I am utterly baffled."

no shit - i've been saying that for weeks now.

"Despite all the hysteria over The Patriot Act and the wiretaps, I ask, and the first thing the courts will ask is "who has been harmed?"."

all of us, greg. all of us. it sets a precedent - an un-american precedent.

Greg,
By definition, we don't know what meaningful information has been denied us.

Having an "absolute right" to information does not mean that the government should keep it from us for 30 years any more than they can take your home to house troops even though you own it. Don't we want accountability while those involved are still alive?

Having an "absolute right" to information does not mean that the government should keep it from us for 30 years any more than they can take your home to house troops even though you own it.

Sure it does.

While transparency in government is a great idea in concept, the courts have agreed it is often a lousy idea in practice.

If you want a dysfunctional government, put it in a fish bowl. Transparency works well to provide the governed with information to make decisions but it also creates a government where CYA is far more important than getting anything done.

Who would tell an agency anything when they know that the work product is available to reporters? So, if a regulator asks a manufacturer "are you planning to market a product containing the substance 'xyz'", the manufacturer will respond by saying "call my lawyer" who will then spend 6 months making sure the data has a court seal to keep it away from the competition who scans public data for information on competitors.

On the other hand some of this is just plain politics, and yes, the courts have agreed for good reason that agencies cannot function if they are exposed to constant political pressure with their work product.

Of course the press, and at this point in tme, the liberals, will be howling for information. The press has no responsiblity for a functional government, their only motivation is a story. The liberals have no responsiblity for a functional government....until they assume power.

"If you want a dysfunctional government"

we already have one. try again.

Wow! What a read! Went to my book "Games People Play," by Eric Berne, M. D. Grove Press, NY. Still trying to figure out who's Parent, Adult, Child, in this thread. I guess that with absolute power comes absolute responsibility, hell, lets trash that too! Terrorist, insurgent, freedom fighter all depends on which end of the gun your looking down. Give me Proportional Representation, time to take this representative government back to the drawing board for some realignment, this football mentality of winner takes all has gotten us into a national political crisis a brewing!

CNN just reported Sunnis are leaving Shiia neighborhoods and vice versa. Look what our great government has provided for these poor people.

While transparency in government is a great idea in concept, the courts have agreed it is often a lousy idea in practice.

This is one of Greg's standard tactics: the creation of a strawman. It is akin to beginning every statement with Everyone agrees...

What cases?

If you want a dysfunctional government, put it in a fish bowl. Transparency works well to provide the governed with information to make decisions but it also creates a government where CYA is far more important than getting anything done.

US citizens are entitled to this information as taxpayers. Why should a Dick Cheney be allowed to formulate US energy policy without as much as revealing which oil company lobbyists he met with?

Who would tell an agency anything when they know that the work product is available to reporters?

Because that work product is bought and paid for by US citizens. Greg's analogy about patent and trademark infringement is bogus because they would be protected regardless.

the courts have agreed for good reason that agencies cannot function if they are exposed to constant political pressure with their work product.

Again, the mystery court cases make an appearance.

And now the slew of links and stenography can commence.

Anyway, there's a similar story going on in the area I write about right now: information technology (IT). A file format called OpenDocument is being promoted as an alternative to Microsoft Word because with programs like Word the user actually does not own the documents they are creating. It's not right if you think about it, because you have to buy Microsoft software to view your files, many of which I'm sure end up as articles here on Gather. Same thing with the government. They work for me, so Greg's argument is largely irrelevant. If I want information I am paying for with taxes that's my right, regardless of whether or not those in elected office think it's a good idea for me to be accessing it.

Besides, no one in the current administration has proven to me they are any better at managing intelligence than I would be.

US citizens are entitled to this information as taxpayers. Why should a Dick Cheney be allowed to formulate US energy policy without as much as revealing which oil company lobbyists he met with?

Because he was elected vice president.

Greg's analogy about patent and trademark infringement is bogus because they would be protected regardless.

Greg said nothing of patents or trademarks. What he was speaking of was trade secrets, specifically the ability of a company to hide marketing information from its competitors.

We call these things trade secrets because these things are……..secret.

Entities do not patent their trade secrets because the patent process is not...........secret.

For instance, Ms Gold, please tell us what the exact formula is for Coca-Cola. I am sure that with your expertise in patent and trademarks that retrieving the formula would be for you.....child's play.

Now let us assume Ms Gold, that a regulator or even a vice-president might have a regulatory of policy reason to know a trade secret, like what is in a can of Coca-Cola. Do you honestly believe that this information would be given………if it were then to be made public?

I'm beginning to think my points aren't being taken seriously. How unfortunate.

Jack, please don't think your words are wasted on Greg. Others are reading and some of us even applying logic and intelligence.

Others are reading and some of us even applying logic and intelligence.

Now that would be a pleasent change coming from the left. All I usually see is the fundamenatlism of deeply held faith coming from that quarter.

Stop the name calling, Greg, now. Anyone who disagrees with you is a lefty - that's a pitiful mentality. Get some psychiatric help. The only person on this thread who appears to be hysterical is you.

Joyce, I think the qualifying words were ALL I USUALLY SEE.

What I read here is a group of adults trying to reason with a child...if I read Greg right, he would be totally comfortable with a totalitarian regime...but I do have a feeling that he is a shill for the administration and given that, Joyce is correct in that the boy is a few cents short of a dollar...LOL!...but it is true that we are footing the bill for our government...OUR government, not the Republican's, not the Democrats, the PEOPLE's goverment...so yes, we the people do have rights to some transparency in government...I will digress here for a moment...just what the heck is national security?...what does hiding potentially embarrassing information have to do with national security?...now Greg, if you are still reading...one of the issues the revolutionaries had with England had to do with taxation without representation, i. e. the Tea Tax and hence the Boston Tea Party...now we are all taxed here in this country and I believe that we the taxpayers have a right to an accounting of what is being done with our money because it is OUR government...Greg are you saying that it's OK for a so called democracy to totally ignore the hand that feeds it...in a sense to bite it....remember the words of one of our greatest Founding Fathers, Benjamin Franklin - "The king's cheese is half wasted in parings; but no matter, 'tis made of the people's milk. " - also if you are saying that the Bush administration has a right to work in total secrecy and release disinformation then I have a problem with that too...you seem to have a problem with the press, as does Uncle George does...which is why I have a gut feeling you are a government apparachik in the employ of either Dick or George...especially with the ease you label people who don't agree with you....you seem to forget the long history of our government's involvement with the destabilization of hundreds of countries over the years, kept totally secret because of 'national security'...again I will digress here...why is all the information regarding the Kennedy assassination kept locked away for 'national security' reasons?...that one really doesn't make any sense at all...Greg you forget the vast amount of cooperation and secret information being traded back and forth with other countries yet is kept secret from the citizens of the USofA for 'national security' reasons....China was allowed a spy station in Long Beach in the former location of the US Naval Shipyard there, ostensibly a container station but everyone knows better...most of the funds for the 9/11 attack were funneled through Dubai and Saudi Arabia....most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia...yet these are George Bush Sr's biggest clients...not to mention Jr too....in fact the Bush family is beholden to these two countries as well as the UAE and Kuwait...something to do with oil and oil profits....believe me, if push were to come to shove, whose interests do you think the Bush's would hold more important...a civil servant's paying job or the billions in consultancy fees....doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out....now if Bush Jr is so worried about Iran's nuclear potential, why is he just winking at North Korea, an important axis in the terrorist world...can't have anything to do with oil right?...and there are the nuclear programs in India and Pakistan and China...but I digress again...in the end Greg, in my humble opinion you sound as if you are an inflexible idealogue and I do feel sorry for you because you do sound awful lonely...

I agree, and repost Dean's words: Congressional apathy is both a cause and a symptom of the problem of meaningless representation. Until corporate domination of the system ceases, and until we can have totally clean elections where all sides are represented without dependence upon financial contributions, we shall continue to have a corrupt, unconscious system. I see no other way out.

How do WE go about demanding this? Do we ask for federally funded elections? Do we demand each candidate be given the same amount of television time? Do we get rid of lobbying?

The Vermont legislature at the promptings of various Town meeting referendums may take up consideration of an impeachment resolution. According to what is being said up here -- Jefferson published a manual of supplemental rules which are part of the rules of the United States House of Representatives which allows a State to petition for an impeachment vote. I do not think that Vermont will actually adopt the resolution even though it has carried by a substantial margin in each Town that has had a referendum on it. The reason is we are a democratic leaning state and we want to get on with the business of governing and trying to straighten out the mess the Bush Administration has made of our country.