3 ms·
I think their reasoning for withholding a list of names of Al Qaeda affiliates is a bit weak, but I can still see how it might make sense. After all, we're figh
by md224 13y ago
I think their reasoning for withholding a list of names of Al Qaeda affiliates is a bit weak, but I can still see how it might make sense. After all, we're fighting for transparency because we know information can be powerful, but that power is not always a positive force. Information can aid in organization, and we do have an interest in keeping our enemies disorganized.
The real question is, do other comprehensive lists of Al Qaeda affiliates exist? If so, then releasing this list would probably not substantially increase the information currently out there.
- unclebucknasty 13y ago>I can still see how it might make sense. Yeah, but as the good professor stated in the article, we are already dropping bombs on their heads, so they are pretty much aware that we know who they are (paraphrasing).
- md224 13y agoYes, members of the Al Qaeda affiliates know that we know who they are. But do potential sympathizers know who the Al Qaeda affiliates are?
- unclebucknasty 13y agoI don't know that it matters. When you think about it, it's actually kind of a silly notion that we don't name them because we don't want to give them free advertising. Like there are a bunch of guys itching to participate in jihad and strap themselves up as suicide bombers, but just can't figure out where to sign up? I think that's unlikely. And, I would agree with the professor's other point that the bigger risk is these secret wars and the fact that Americans don't know what's being done in our names. That's extraordinarily detrimental to a democracy, to say the least.