by The Cat-Tribe » Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:50 pm
by Maurepas » Mon Aug 10, 2009 4:08 pm
by Brewdomia » Mon Aug 10, 2009 4:09 pm
by Katganistan » Mon Aug 10, 2009 4:12 pm
by Yenke-Bin » Mon Aug 10, 2009 4:13 pm
by Marcuslandia » Mon Aug 10, 2009 4:21 pm
by The Cat-Tribe » Mon Aug 10, 2009 4:24 pm
Marcuslandia wrote:Despite the fact that I voted for Obama, I must say that there are a number of things that have not been done in regards to what I perceived as campaign promises. One was that he had stated he would take off the lid of secrecy on many wrongs committed at Gitmo and abroad; he has apparently changed his mind. Another was his repeated statement that (paraphrased), "If there is a finding that former Administration officials were guilty of crimes, they WILL be prosecuted." However, it seems obvious that if one refuses to even look, there can be no finding of wrongdoing.
Are those abuses of or extensions of the state secrets privilege? It seems that my opinion on the subject (and the opinions of millions of other Americans I'm guessing) doesn't matter. The only opinion that seems to matter is Obama's. Which we are NOT privy to, because he doesn't seem inclined to explain the details of why he's backed off on fulfilling those promises.
by Der Teutoniker » Mon Aug 10, 2009 4:34 pm
Katganistan wrote:There'd better not be a flamefest.
South Lorenya wrote:occasionally we get someone who has a rap sheet longer than Jormungandr
Austin Setzer wrote:We found a couple of ancient documents, turned them into the bible, and now its the symbol of christianity.
ARM Forces wrote:Strep-throat is an infection in the throat, caused by eating too much refined sugar! Rubbing more sugar directly on it is the worst thing you can possibly do.
Dumb Ideologies wrote:Communism and anarchy; same unachievable end, different impractical means.
by Marcuslandia » Mon Aug 10, 2009 4:37 pm
The Cat-Tribe wrote:The things you complain about re campaing promises have nothing whatsoever to do with the state secrets privilege.
Accordingly, I won't argue about whether those complaints have merit.
by The Cat-Tribe » Mon Aug 10, 2009 4:40 pm
Marcuslandia wrote:The Cat-Tribe wrote:The things you complain about re campaing promises have nothing whatsoever to do with the state secrets privilege.
Accordingly, I won't argue about whether those complaints have merit.
I seem to recall that when Obama announced that he would NOT release all of the Abu Ghraib (spelling?) photo evidence, he cited Security concerns -- which I now associated with state secrets. Quite possibly he did NOT directly cite SSP as the foundation to follow through, but it does seem to be in the same general subject matter.
by Ostronopolis » Mon Aug 10, 2009 4:45 pm
by The Cat-Tribe » Mon Aug 10, 2009 4:46 pm
Ostronopolis wrote:Well, considering the State's Secrets had to do with national security (what it's stated intentions were) I'm concerned he's NOT implementing it.
by Ostronopolis » Mon Aug 10, 2009 4:47 pm
The Cat-Tribe wrote:Ostronopolis wrote:Well, considering the State's Secrets had to do with national security (what it's stated intentions were) I'm concerned he's NOT implementing it.
by JuNii » Mon Aug 10, 2009 4:50 pm
The Cat-Tribe wrote:The state secrets privilege is a specific rule relating to whether certain things can be disclosed in a court of law.
The general nature of concerns for national security and/or government secrecy is tangentially related to the states secret privilege, but they are not the same thing.
I'm not accusing you of a hijack. I'm not saying that whether Obama should release items like those photos isn't a legitimate topic. I'm just saying that it has nothing to do with the MYTH I am trying to dispel.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Bombadil, Bovad, Corporate Collective Salvation, Corrian, Cyptopir, Estebere, Ethel mermania, Fractalnavel, Gotham Chess, Kyorlui, New Temecula, Pasong Tirad, Shrillland, Southglory, Trump ALMIGHTY, Waffland, Washington-Columbia
Advertisement