3 ms·

>Quite a few Good, then you know that everything classified is only for protecting important things and not hiding embarrassing things right? >Yea sure. Total

>Quite a few Good, then you know that everything classified is only for protecting important things and not hiding embarrassing things right? >Yea sure. Totally. Nuclear secrets, CIA operative locations, all plans and contingencies and movement of assets across the globe. Why not? The point of a clearance is to prevent foreign spying, not government oversight. Do you not believe all Americans are equal before the law?

ericmay 4y ago
It's an oversimplification, and I'm not sure what you are referencing w.r.t "embarrassing things". > Why not?... Do you not believe all Americans are equal before the law? I think the absurdity of your suggestion speaks for itself.
- someguydave 4y ago
  > absurdity Interesting. What is absurd about the people understanding exactly what the government is doing?
  - ericmay 4y ago
    It's not interesting. You know exactly why it would be absurd for everyday Americans to be able to have access to things like nuclear weapon launch codes or schematics, or be able to post the location of CIA operatives on Tik Tok, or know the exact locations and deployment schedule for military forces, or where the president would be at any given hour, or... any number of things. If you take your line of reasoning/questioning here to its conclusion you'd also wonder why can't an American walk on to an airfield and fly a Blackhawk away? What's so absurd about people using the things their tax dollars pay for? To deny that scenario is to admit that the government has the ability to keep things away from citizens, and you can clearly see how this extends to military or national security secrets as well. Framing this as "what's so wrong with the lil ole' people knowing a few things the government is hiding" is disingenuous at best. And if you wanted to make a concrete argument about "no secrets" you would make an attempt to do so abstracted away from the current geopolitical reality of the world because it's extremely obvious why this not only wouldn't ever occur but also shouldn't occur in the reality that we experience today. Idealism is only useful to the extent that it is also pragmatic. A better principle here would be something like maximizing the amount of information that American citizens have access to (why limit it to Americans and America though? Why can't I have access to all Chinese documents?) excluding national defense capabilities or some realistic parameter/line.
    - someguydave 4y ago
      The first words of the Constitution are “we the people” which identifies that sovereign power from which the government derives its power and legitimacy. I do not wish to abolish secrets - merely to make it clear that US citizens are the rulers of the country and therefore nothing should be kept from them. I can imagine many ways that could be done without the kinds of dire consequences you extrapolate.
      - ericmay 4y ago
        It sounds to me like you’re just speaking in generalities. I can just say “we the people” decided that this information should not be given to citizens except on a need-to-know basis as described by the institutions that we created.
        someguydave 4y ago
        Do you think that “we the people” created and are overseeing those institutions effectively? I do not. One aspect of that lack centers around excess secrecy, the borders of which seem unpatroled.
        ericmay 4y ago
        Maybe, maybe not? It's just a matter of opinion. For example, I'd say our institutions aren't being overseen effectively when they let criminals who try to overturn lawful election results go unpunished. I would say our institutions are effectively overseen with regards to classified information, partially due to personal experience, partially due to the FBI, DOJ, and National Archives who are investigating a breach of how those classified materials are handled. I'd say our election related institutions are not being overseen effectively. Governors and state legislatures in certain states are ignoring constitutionally mandated maps (like in Ohio) or are finding ways to make voting difficult. When you go down this path, you're just stating your opinion about how things should be and trying to anchor that to an interpretation you have of what "we the people" means. That's ok, but the problem you run into is that it's wildly open to interpretation. For every "we the people' argument you make, someone can put forth any number of contradictory but equally correct arguments.

ericmay 4y ago

It's an oversimplification, and I'm not sure what you are referencing w.r.t "embarrassing things". > Why not?... Do you not believe all Americans are equal before the law? I think the absurdity of your suggestion speaks for itself.

someguydave 4y ago
> absurdity Interesting. What is absurd about the people understanding exactly what the government is doing?
- ericmay 4y ago
  It's not interesting. You know exactly why it would be absurd for everyday Americans to be able to have access to things like nuclear weapon launch codes or schematics, or be able to post the location of CIA operatives on Tik Tok, or know the exact locations and deployment schedule for military forces, or where the president would be at any given hour, or... any number of things. If you take your line of reasoning/questioning here to its conclusion you'd also wonder why can't an American walk on to an airfield and fly a Blackhawk away? What's so absurd about people using the things their tax dollars pay for? To deny that scenario is to admit that the government has the ability to keep things away from citizens, and you can clearly see how this extends to military or national security secrets as well. Framing this as "what's so wrong with the lil ole' people knowing a few things the government is hiding" is disingenuous at best. And if you wanted to make a concrete argument about "no secrets" you would make an attempt to do so abstracted away from the current geopolitical reality of the world because it's extremely obvious why this not only wouldn't ever occur but also shouldn't occur in the reality that we experience today. Idealism is only useful to the extent that it is also pragmatic. A better principle here would be something like maximizing the amount of information that American citizens have access to (why limit it to Americans and America though? Why can't I have access to all Chinese documents?) excluding national defense capabilities or some realistic parameter/line.
  - someguydave 4y ago
    The first words of the Constitution are “we the people” which identifies that sovereign power from which the government derives its power and legitimacy. I do not wish to abolish secrets - merely to make it clear that US citizens are the rulers of the country and therefore nothing should be kept from them. I can imagine many ways that could be done without the kinds of dire consequences you extrapolate.
    - ericmay 4y ago
      It sounds to me like you’re just speaking in generalities. I can just say “we the people” decided that this information should not be given to citizens except on a need-to-know basis as described by the institutions that we created.
      - someguydave 4y ago
        Do you think that “we the people” created and are overseeing those institutions effectively? I do not. One aspect of that lack centers around excess secrecy, the borders of which seem unpatroled.
        ericmay 4y ago
        Maybe, maybe not? It's just a matter of opinion. For example, I'd say our institutions aren't being overseen effectively when they let criminals who try to overturn lawful election results go unpunished. I would say our institutions are effectively overseen with regards to classified information, partially due to personal experience, partially due to the FBI, DOJ, and National Archives who are investigating a breach of how those classified materials are handled. I'd say our election related institutions are not being overseen effectively. Governors and state legislatures in certain states are ignoring constitutionally mandated maps (like in Ohio) or are finding ways to make voting difficult. When you go down this path, you're just stating your opinion about how things should be and trying to anchor that to an interpretation you have of what "we the people" means. That's ok, but the problem you run into is that it's wildly open to interpretation. For every "we the people' argument you make, someone can put forth any number of contradictory but equally correct arguments.