More About Spying on Chatrooms

[sagegirl]

True enough. But while you view one approach to this situation as simplistic, you take much the same tack with your own view.

The fact is that government has a need for secrecy in some areas. Technology, military capabilities and deployments, counter-terrorist measures, state department agreements with other nations are all examples. The need for government security and the right of citizens to know what their government is up to are competing interests. Somtimes our "right" to know is actually detrimental to the nation as a whole, because if we know it, so do our enemies. At other times, government may seek to prevent information from getting out to cover up incompetence or corruption.

So it's a balancing act. Neither view is always correct.

One critical difference would be that usually the government especially politicians, their appointees, and military personnel ,take an oath......the ordinary every day citizen has not taken an oath. This is an issue that really makes me angry.....I really dislike the phrase "for your own good". Please, empower me with the truth. The excuse that there is a need to keep some things a secret just doesnt hold up when you consider that some of these people are being questioned by the very representatives that we the people elect to oversee the action of our governement. Sadly many Bush appointees have been very reluctant to appear before oversight committees and if and when they have shown up they have been less than willing to cooperate. Ours is a system of checks and balances....we must demand that the actions of our government be subject to our scrutiny.

 

[musicman]

Excuse me for butting in here, sagegirl. I just wanted to say that I can certainly appreciate your feelings. But, wouldn't you agree that there are some situations where secrecy is necessary?

Quite early in WWII, Allied cryptographers did the impossible: they cracked the Germans' practically incomprehensible Enigma code. Unbeknownst to the Germans, their every secret communique was being read and understood in full. But, for the Allies to tip their hand about this knowledge would have been disastrous. In order to protect this secret - i.e., for the GREATER GOOD - much Allied shipping and many Allied lives were knowingly sent into harm's way. Without a doubt, men died who could have been saved.

What a horrible decision to have to make! What a terrible, crushing responsibility! And yet, such is the nature of war. And make no mistake about it, sagegirl, we're very much at war. Wouldn't you agree that there are some things that the public doesn't need to know - shouldn't know - CAN'T know?

 

[KarlMarx]

One critical difference would be that usually the government especially politicians, their appointees, and military personnel ,take an oath......the ordinary every day citizen has not taken an oath. This is an issue that really makes me angry.....I really dislike the phrase "for your own good". Please, empower me with the truth. The excuse that there is a need to keep some things a secret just doesnt hold up when you consider that some of these people are being questioned by the very representatives that we the people elect to oversee the action of our governement. Sadly many Bush appointees have been very reluctant to appear before oversight committees and if and when they have shown up they have been less than willing to cooperate. Ours is a system of checks and balances....we must demand that the actions of our government be subject to our scrutiny.

Oversight committees? I believe that the Bush Administration cooperated with the 9/11 commission and others. Many of those "oversight committees" were just political ploys to either make Bush look bad or cover up something (like why was Jamie Gorelik on the 9/11 commission when she was the one that helped set up that wall between our Intelligence and domestic law enforcement?).

Plus if an administration official refuses to tesify before a Congressional Committee, that official can be subpoenaed by the committe. Refusing to answer a subpoena is Contempt of Congress, which is just as bad, if not worse than Contempt of Court.

Of course, speaking of failing to comply with subpoenas and not cooperating with Congressional oversight.... hmmm... that rings a bell somehow.... wasn't there was a president and a first lady that did that?.... now who could that have been? Hmm... I just can't think of their names! Oh well... it couldn't have been that important after all it was only about sex!

Strange that many who oppose the war don't expect more scrutiny of the UN. What was that about the Oil For Food scandal? Twenty Billion Dollars funnelled out of the program while under the oversight of the UN? And where did that money end up? In Saddam's pocket... to help finance suicide bombers in Palestine.... and there wasn't a connection between Saddam and terrorists? And who is the biggest contributor to the UN? The American Taxpayer! Yes, indeed.... we should be demanding greater scrutiny and accountability of Koffi and Company!

Of course, it is odd how all of this scandal at the UN has drawn little attention from liberals and the main stream media. After all, it was the Left that was demanding that we have the UN get involved with Iraq, have the UN oversee the troops in Iraq, how there wasn't any evidence of terrorist ties with Iraq.... strange.... but then not surprising!

 

[sagegirl]

Excuse me for butting in here, sagegirl. I just wanted to say that I can certainly appreciate your feelings. But, wouldn't you agree that there are some situations where secrecy is necessary?

Quite early in WWII, Allied cryptographers did the impossible: they cracked the Germans' practically incomprehensible Enigma code. Unbeknownst to the Germans, their every secret communique was being read and understood in full. But, for the Allies to tip their hand about this knowledge would have been disastrous. In order to protect this secret - i.e., for the GREATER GOOD - much Allied shipping and many Allied lives were knowingly sent into harm's way. Without a doubt, men died who could have been saved.

What a horrible decision to have to make! What a terrible, crushing responsibility! And yet, such is the nature of war. And make no mistake about it, sagegirl, we're very much at war. Wouldn't you agree that there are some things that the public doesn't need to know - shouldn't know - CAN'T know?

Okay, I will agree that there are times when secrecy is needed to protect our troops, and possibly times when our policies must be kept secret but what about the Iran/contra scandal.....what about trading weapons for the release of hostages? These investigations took place after the fact , after the elections, I think reporting in a timely manner to the congress could not have caused harm except to those who had abused the power of their positions. Also I very much acknowledge that we are at war....we have young men and women, troops very much in harms way. We must do all we can to be sure that their lives are not in any way jeopardized by a failure to keep some information classified for some period of time. Still there comes a time when the information should be declassified. If the information is held secret too long the public tends to forget the issue or those responsible for any wrongdoing move on.

 

[fuzzykitten99]

I AM??!! :fifty:

LOL!

how do you think they trace pedophiles?

with a little help from the ISP you are with, they can track you down if they feel you are doing something suspicious.

 

[sagegirl]

Oversight committees? I believe that the Bush Administration cooperated with the 9/11 commission and others. Many of those "oversight committees" were just political ploys to either make Bush look bad or cover up something (like why was Jamie Gorelik on the 9/11 commission when she was the one that helped set up that wall between our Intelligence and domestic law enforcement?).

Plus if an administration official refuses to tesify before a Congressional Committee, that official can be subpoenaed by the committe. Refusing to answer a subpoena is Contempt of Congress, which is just as bad, if not worse than Contempt of Court.

Of course, speaking of failing to comply with subpoenas and not cooperating with Congressional oversight.... hmmm... that rings a bell somehow.... wasn't there was a president and a first lady that did that?.... now who could that have been? Hmm... I just can't think of their names! Oh well... it couldn't have been that important after all it was only about sex!

Strange that many who oppose the war don't expect more scrutiny of the UN. What was that about the Oil For Food scandal? Twenty Billion Dollars funnelled out of the program while under the oversight of the UN? And where did that money end up? In Saddam's pocket... to help finance suicide bombers in Palestine.... and there wasn't a connection between Saddam and terrorists? And who is the biggest contributor to the UN? The American Taxpayer! Yes, indeed.... we should be demanding greater scrutiny and accountability of Koffi and Company!

Of course, it is odd how all of this scandal at the UN has drawn little attention from liberals and the main stream media. After all, it was the Left that was demanding that we have the UN get involved with Iraq, have the UN oversee the troops in Iraq, how there wasn't any evidence of terrorist ties with Iraq.... strange.... but then not surprising!

Okay.....you seem to assume a few things that are untrue. First of all I do not support the UN I think they have lost almost all if any credibility they ever had....oil for food....what a stupid idea . But since you brought up the Clinton scandal,(whether you meant Monica or whitewater I dont know) I will bring up the Iran /contra scandal, and all the complications of arms for hostages etc. talk about the un....Ronald Reagon played the game well I dont play favorites here! Oh yes and Mr. Cheney hasnt been very willing to report to us about Halliburton has he???? If any politician or public official from either party, (both major parties are equally guilty) wants to hide their corrupt and illegal activities from the american public they should be exposed for what they are, no passing the buck, no pardons, no excuses. I do hold them to a very high standard and I dont apologize for it.
I dont quite get some of your comments .... regarding the american taxpayer contributing to the UN ......I seem to recall that we are not paying our "dues at all". Any connection between Saddam and Osama have yet to be established.....The war in afghanistan was generally opposed by the neocons who had a plan to invade iraq but couldnt get the votes for it at camp david and had to EXPAND the war into Iraq later. (The events leading up to all of this are well documented and have been in the public domain for some time) Remember Powell's comment about the pottery barn????
Also the failure of numerous Bush cabinet members to fail to report to oversight committees is on public record.
So I really think that much of what you say is what you want to believe, more than based upon public record.

 

[Patriot]

Someone needs to step away from the bong....

 

[musicman]

Okay, I will agree that there are times when secrecy is needed to protect our troops, and possibly times when our policies must be kept secret but what about the Iran/contra scandal.....what about trading weapons for the release of hostages? These investigations took place after the fact .

And House Democrats were only too relieved and overjoyed to see those investigations end. Oh, they and their media allies had a grand time throwing around terms like "scandal' and "arms for hostages". But when the truth began to ooze out, believe me - the only ones trying to shroud the episode in secrecy were liberal Democrats and the liberal press.

In the first place, there were no arms traded for hostages. That is a baldfaced lie. Since you'll never hear the truth from the media or revisionist historians, let's examine the two simultaneously occuring crises being dealt with by the Reagan administration during that time.

From the luxurious vantage point of history, we can see that President Reagan's courage and resolve helped to break the back of Soviet tyranny. What history will not show is that he did this over the nonstop objections, cries of gloom and doom, and - sometimes - outright treachery of the American left. One example of this was the Democrat Congress' implementation of the Boland Amendment. Still reeling and trouser-soaked from Vietnam, Congress used this legislation to tie the Chief Executive's hands when it came to the allocation of funds for military operations.

The only problem was that this same Congress - in the person of House Speaker Jim Wright and some of his colleagues - was engaged in what would prove to be embarrasingly friendly relations with one Daniel Ortega. Ortega was the centerpiece of a Moscow-financed, equipped, and trained series of Marxist insurgencies in Central America. Think about that. Soviet-orchestrated violent communist revolution in the Western Hemisphere, with the witting or unwitting aid of the U.S. Government - and the President of the United States powerless to do anything about it!

Parallel with this was the infuriating specter of Americans being held hostage in Lebanon. Since early in his administration, President Reagan had been building a friendship with moderate factions in Iran ( a friendship which, incidentally, served Presidents Bush the elder and Clinton well, and may yet prove useful to America). These Iranian moderates had the ear of the Lebanese extremists, and President Reagan saw a chance to get something done, regardless of the treachery, stupidity, or both, of his very own countrymen.

So, in a way that was perfectly legal, the U.S. sold arms to moderate factions in Iran - not an unwise move from the standpoint of American interests anyway. In return, these moderate Iranians promised to use their influence with the Lebanese in getting the hostages released. The profits from these sales then went to fund the Contras in Central America, who should have never had to wait for America's help in fighting communism in the first place. President Reagan later expressed regret for having tied the whole thing together like that - only because of the convoluted and mysterious appearance it gave. But, no law was broken. We got our hostages back. The spread of communism to our very doorstep was halted. Doesn't sound like much of a scandal to me.

Lt. Col. Oliver North was tried for, among other things, violation of the Boland Amendment. He was convicted on that charge, but that was overturned on appeal. For their part, House Democrats were only too glad to see it all end. Some of the communique's between themselves and Daniel Ortega came off sounding like junior high school mash notes. Had the investigation into the "scandal" continued, they'd have been exposed as complete dupes or rank traitors - not exactly fit for further government service in either case.

I agree, sagegirl - sometimes the light of day is just the thing. Let's just be sure we understand where the darkness is coming from.

 

[sagegirl]

And House Democrats were only too relieved and overjoyed to see those investigations end. Oh, they and their media allies had a grand time throwing around terms like "scandal' and "arms for hostages". But when the truth began to ooze out, believe me - the only ones trying to shroud the episode in secrecy were liberal Democrats and the liberal press.

In the first place, there were no arms traded for hostages. That is a baldfaced lie. Since you'll never hear the truth from the media or revisionist historians, let's examine the two simultaneously occuring crises being dealt with by the Reagan administration during that time.

From the luxurious vantage point of history, we can see that President Reagan's courage and resolve helped to break the back of Soviet tyranny. What history will not show is that he did this over the nonstop objections, cries of gloom and doom, and - sometimes - outright treachery of the American left. One example of this was the Democrat Congress' implementation of the Boland Amendment. Still reeling and trouser-soaked from Vietnam, Congress used this legislation to tie the Chief Executive's hands when it came to the allocation of funds for military operations.

The only problem was that this same Congress - in the person of House Speaker Jim Wright and some of his colleagues - was engaged in what would prove to be embarrasingly friendly relations with one Daniel Ortega. Ortega was the centerpiece of a Moscow-financed, equipped, and trained series of Marxist insurgencies in Central America. Think about that. Soviet-orchestrated violent communist revolution in the Western Hemisphere, with the witting or unwitting aid of the U.S. Government - and the President of the United States powerless to do anything about it!

Parallel with this was the infuriating specter of Americans being held hostage in Lebanon. Since early in his administration, President Reagan had been building a friendship with moderate factions in Iran ( a friendship which, incidentally, served Presidents Bush the elder and Clinton well, and may yet prove useful to America). These Iranian moderates had the ear of the Lebanese extremists, and President Reagan saw a chance to get something done, regardless of the treachery, stupidity, or both, of his very own countrymen.

So, in a way that was perfectly legal, the U.S. sold arms to moderate factions in Iran - not an unwise move from the standpoint of American interests anyway. In return, these moderate Iranians promised to use their influence with the Lebanese in getting the hostages released. The profits from these sales then went to fund the Contras in Central America, who should have never had to wait for America's help in fighting communism in the first place. President Reagan later expressed regret for having tied the whole thing together like that - only because of the convoluted and mysterious appearance it gave. But, no law was broken. We got our hostages back. The spread of communism to our very doorstep was halted. Doesn't sound like much of a scandal to me.

Lt. Col. Oliver North was tried for, among other things, violation of the Boland Amendment. He was convicted on that charge, but that was overturned on appeal. For their part, House Democrats were only too glad to see it all end. Some of the communique's between themselves and Daniel Ortega came off sounding like junior high school mash notes. Had the investigation into the "scandal" continued, they'd have been exposed as complete dupes or rank traitors - not exactly fit for further government service in either case.

I agree, sagegirl - sometimes the light of day is just the thing. Let's just be sure we understand where the darkness is coming from.

There is some truth in what you say here, but I dont agree with it all. For instance Oliver North was granted immunity and thus not even prosecuted for acts that even the special prosecutor later said could have been proven without North's "testimony". A poor precedent to make and a poor decision in this case especially. Your comments tend to dismiss the need to investigate the actions and that is where I take real exception. I wonder if someone who dismisses investigations into our government's policies can reconcile that with supporting the special prosecutor's expansion of his investigation of Pres Clinton to include Monica.
Sometimes the investigations (demands for accountability) are used for political purposes and both parties do it. It is really too bad that we do not use these procedures to really analyze the actions of our government as much as we do to play the blame game. We can learn from our mistakes but we must first be willing to admit them and then propose better more effective ways to avoid them in the future.
Secrecy is not the way for a free society to operate, yes there is a need for some national security, but the need also exists for us to be informed. (minus the political b***s*** that seems to overshadow most inquiries)
Once again I say I hold these individuals to a higher standard and do not apologise for it.

 

[musicman]

There is some truth in what you say here, but I dont agree with it all. For instance Oliver North was granted immunity and thus not even prosecuted for acts that even the special prosecutor later said could have been proven without North's "testimony". A poor precedent to make and a poor decision in this case especially. Your comments tend to dismiss the need to investigate the actions and that is where I take real exception. I wonder if someone who dismisses investigations into our government's policies can reconcile that with supporting the special prosecutor's expansion of his investigation of Pres Clinton to include Monica.

QUOTE]



What crime was determined to have been committed, then - by North or anyone else? The end result of the Iran-Contra hearings was basically a "no finding" - and it certainly wasn't for lack of investigative zeal. For their part, the Democrats were greatly relieved to see the end of the witch hunt they themselves had initiated. The truth is no respecter of persons or political parties - it just goes where it goes.

I'm sorry if I seem to be playing favorites here - I really try hard not to. But, the Clinton affair (oops) seems far less exotic to me; a simple, cut-and-dried case of perjury by the Chief Executive. Nor do I see any noble motives or international intrigue here - just an asshole with power, no respect for women, and a serious problem with the truth. Clinton has told the lie that getting caught with his pants down - literally - is proof that he is a victim of political persecution. He's told it so effectively, and so unceasingly, that it is accepted by some as gospel. More's the pity.