4 ms·
He claims the release of information facilitates terrorism, without sharing any argumentation: no examples, not even hypothetical scenarios, nothing. He's aski
by sspiff 13y ago
He claims the release of information facilitates terrorism, without sharing any argumentation: no examples, not even hypothetical scenarios, nothing.
He's asking to restrict the sharing of information, supposedly information on how "the government fights terrorism". He glosses over the fact that once law enforcement can persecute people for sharing some information, it is incredibly easy to persecute people for the sharing of _any_ information if it choses to. Power creep is a scary and dangerous thing, and it is very hard (impossible?) to guard against it.
- userulluipeste 13y agoYou are right. If this is acceptable, there isn't really anything to prevent restriction of any kind of knowledge, like even the pure scientific material, on the ground that it may somehow be used by the boogeyman. Lets imagine the consequences...
- bobbydavid 13y agoWell, oversight might lead to a restriction of unchecked governmental power, which would reduce their ability to combat terrorism.
- hobs 13y ago"I think there is going to have to be a look at what happens when somebody possesses material which is secret without having authority." I think there is going to have to be a look at what happens when someone with a huge blindspot implies we should make a law about something they clearly don't understand.
- bjelkeman-again 13y agoThis is from a person who persued the initiation of an illegal war. I was watching as Blair said "If you knew what I know, you would support [our war]" (paraphrasing). It turned out of course that he knew nothing that would justify a war. Why would we expect anything less than draconian measures from Blair on the issue of state secrets? Reference for illegality of the war: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War