2 ms·
It's really not, the justification is obvious; revealing information may very well also reveal how it was obtained. I understand the skepticism, and obviously
by EpicEng 12y ago
It's really not, the justification is obvious; revealing information may very well also reveal how it was obtained. I understand the skepticism, and obviously this justification could easily be abused, but it's not some imaginary thing.
My wife worked in Navy intelligence for six years. She was privy to classified information. She, at times, knew where information was coming from, and it is obvious that the information itself would have implicated its source if it were to be released.
I'm not saying that's the case here. I'm pretty damn skeptical of my government as well. That said, the Fed is under no obligation to reveal all of the information it has. I think we'll be in the dark on this one for some time unless things change in such a way that would require more information to be released.
- nitrogen 12y agoI think we'll be in the dark on this one for some time unless things change in such a way that would require more information to be released. I strongly dislike this paternalistic approach, and I'm rather tired of the people being treated like children. We know things are complicated. We know geopolitics are more complex than "USA good, NK bad" or vice versa. They could say a lot more than they are saying without compromising their intelligence gathering capabilities. If the US government wants support and trust, it needs to earn it from every new generation of citizens. If it doesn't care about support and trust, it has overstepped its bounds as a representative government and should be reeled in.