Posted on September 15, 2003 @ 3:41 pm by Ed
Kevin -
I agree wholeheartedly with you. I said that there ARE justifications for keeping certain things secret under the auspices of National Security. My point was that it's hard to take this administration seriously when they claim national security because they label so many things as a National Security issue.
Ed
Yes there are justifications for keeping things secret under the auspices of National Security. The main point I was trying to make though is just who is qualified to deem what material secret? If we buy your argument that it is Phyllis Schlafy then I, most of my former unit, my friends, my family, and other loved ones, are dead. Period.
If on the other hand we accept it is the president, whomever that maybe, who happens to be cleared for just about everything under the sun as it relates to National Security. Then I have no problem with him making that determination. Simply because of the clearance that the president has by the very virtue of his office he is qualified to make those deteminations. Phyllis Schlafy isn't, and neither are you.
Bottom line. I always laugh at people who think they know everything as it relates to matters such as this. They don't. I don't either, but I do know more about it than you do Ed.
I said it before, and I am going to say it again.
A transparent government is just fine in theory. In practice it has a way of getting people killed.
No comments:
Post a Comment