I find most people who say things like this greatly exaggerate the importance and difficulty of their work.
My point is that the default reaction to the government concealing information should't be "does it help my team win an election."
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Obama asserts executive privilege on Fast and Furious documents
- Thread starter Weenerz
- Start date
- Status
I find most people who say things like this greatly exaggerate the importance and difficulty of their work.
My point is that the default reaction to the government concealing information should't be "does it help my team win an election."
Sirpopopop
Member
No - it covers the entire executive branch. (See: Wiki)
TBQH I think that government documents should stay classified as long as there is a good reason for them to be so. The government transparency argument literally only gets thrown around to try to make whoever is in charge of something look bad. We already know Fast and Furious was a shitstorm; this feels like just fishing more more materiel before November. I want Obama to beat Mittens.
brucewaynegretzky
Member
It's not about difficulty or importance of work. People are dumb. Plain and simple. The second the public gets hold of any information they actually manage to start clamoring for things that are actually AGAINST their best interests. It's absolutely mind boggling what people claim they want. At the end of the day people who have spent their lives reaching the highest levels of government need to have the flexibility to make decisions, just like a CEO or Board of Directors would in a private corporation. That's why documents need to be kept secret sometimes. You want them to be able to at least have the conversations and throw around ideas without everything being subject to public scrutiny.
Flip that coin son. Do you think that the committee would be seeking these documents so assiduously were this not an election year?
WeAreStarStuff
Member
Which shows an inherit flaw with the system. It shouldn't matter the year or the political party. If you’re a Democrat you’re not supposed to laugh and mock when the Republicans do something they should not. If you’re a Republican you’re not supposed to laugh and mock when the Democrats do something they should not. Both parties are supposed to work for us. Corruption on either side is an affront to the people these politicians are supposed to work for. I couldn’t care less about protecting Holder or Obama or any other political elite. I want the damn truth no matter who goes down with it. This entire two party political system has so greatly skewed the way people view government that it is mind boggling. It’s no longer about ‘me’ it’s about my ‘party.’
No, I absolutely do not want that. Not even slightly.
What's your point? If there is nothing to hide there's no reason to hide. Names of operatives and details of ongoing operations can and often are redacted with no problem.
brucewaynegretzky
Member
Then you're just being idiotic. You're view of public service is just unrealistic. Options need to be discussed. They only need to justify it to the public when action is taken. The previous statements before decisions are made deliberations and not a matter of public concern. Those things are political, they're administrative, and if you can't tell the difference I feel sorry for you.
It is a shame, but government secrecy is an incredibly complex issue. A government that tells its citizens nothing is bad, but a government with total transparency can be easily exploited by those that would seek to thwart it. In general, I believe that the current American government could do with more transparency in certain aspects, but I feel strongly that the DoJ (and a few other departments) should have a little more leeway to operate without needing to answer to the public every step of the way.
There is absolutely nothing unrealistic about the expectations of government transparency. The process of decision making is every bit as important as the eventual decision that is made.
If you make statements or advocate positions that the public would find so distasteful that you feel the need to make them under the cloak of secrecy then I feel sorry for you.
wasn't operation fast & furious made public and officially halted January 25, 2011?
Why in the world would the investigation require documents after that date? Any of the documents issued after Feb 4 would be internal process crap irrelevant to the scope of the house committee's investigation.
Why in the world would the investigation require documents after that date? Any of the documents issued after Feb 4 would be internal process crap irrelevant to the scope of the house committee's investigation.
The public is dumb. The public doesn't want to pay taxes, but wants jobs and protection and a higher standard of living. Sometimes, the public needs to be told to suck it.
What if Romney wins?
Sirpopopop
Member
The public won't tell him to suck it. He doesn't want them to pay taxes and he's going to deliver the jerbs!
brucewaynegretzky
Member
I'd say the same. For things like this, where we're talking about administering a program without any allegations of actual corruption absolutely. If we were talking about something like bribery I'd say otherwise but that's not really at issue here.
This program was a colossal blunder, and for it to have resulted in so many deaths is the height of stupidity. But I guarantee you that most of the people crusading for these documents don't give two shits about the Mexicans that died, and probably only care about the agent that died insomuch as it gets them the public outcry they want for their witch hunt. The fact that they'll drag this out as long as it's politically beneficial to do so really makes me not fault the people who don't want to comply.
That said, I wish Obama wouldn't have done this. If Holder was intimately involved in this program he deserves to be shamed for it.
That said, I wish Obama wouldn't have done this. If Holder was intimately involved in this program he deserves to be shamed for it.
Putting partisan politics before principles, the truth, and ascertaining responsibility is not a wise path to travel.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I'm pretty sure everyone knows Holder was involved, as the AG/head of DOJ. My question: who cares, especially the administration? If republicans want to blame the death on him and go into the gutter...again, who cares. This was a dangerous intelligence program, it's not surprising someone died
1. We have no way of knowing that.
2. What in this nations history makes you give the government the benefit of the doubt when discussing covert operations?
Wouldn't that be proving my "the public is dumb" point
I don't really know what you're asking here.And yet, everybody has an agenda. Those who don't play the game lose it.
Wouldn't that be proving my "the public is dumb" point
You're fine putting absolute and complete trust in this government, but are you fine doing the same for every government? Were you ok with Bush's various uses of privilege for political purposes?
brucewaynegretzky
Member
1. There are no allegations of it either.....
2. We're not talking about "covert operations." We're talking about the administration of government. The administration isn't hiding the details of the programs, just internal discussions.
Wow. That is an incredibly naive sentiment. Please show me this non biased champion of truth and principle that is on the everlasting search for what really happened.
Republican Rep. Darrell Issa?
Yeah, no I'm sure he doesn't have a dog in that fight.
What do documents from AFTER the program's conclusion have to do with proving that Holder was involved DURING the operation of the program?
Don't put words into my mouth. I don't put complete trust in this government.
The justification put forth has been that the reason these documents can't be released is because there may be principals names involved. If those names are secret, this is necessarily a covert operation.
There is no reason for the administration of government to be hidden from the people. I understand you're a bureaucrat or were at one point so it's more convenient for you to do your job without your employer looking over your shoulder, but that should be the price of living off of the resources of the people.
As someone who has dealt with Issa's witch hunts, I can say that evoking executive provlidge is probably just a way to end the madness. His actions actually result in proper government functions being shut down in order for workers to engage in his mad search for incriminating evidence for political reasons.
Kapura said:
You're putting complete faith in the government to determine what is ok for the public to know. This essentially negates open records laws.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Bush used executive privilege 6 times I believe. This is the only time Obama has used it. I don't remember the media making a big deal when Bush did it, but it's been a while, and my memory is a bit foggy.
The guy who pulled the trigger.
I don't care if the only thing they find is that after creating this program he didn't tip the guy that delivered the food. When you cost people their lives, you deserve the derision. It's shit that it's an election year and that the Republicans would prop up that agent's body in front of the White House if they could in order to fire up their base...but there it is.
brucewaynegretzky
Member
I knew what you meant.
EatinOlives
Member
But...but...I want Obama to winz!!!
I'd love to see some people's reactions here if it were Mexico that did something similar. They'd be screaming bloody murder, but so long as the blood is not spilled here and it's not Americans*, who the hell cares? Lock the documents up, I want the dude I'm rooting for to win so I win my $20 bet I made with James last week!
*(On that note, I'd love to see some people's reactions here if Terry hadn't been killed. Most wouldn't give a fuck.)
You keep telling me what I think, but you're still incorrect. i think that classified documents are often classified for a reason. I don't think they should be classified indefinitely, but sometimes it's OK when the DOJ says "Hey, is it OK if we hold onto these few for a few more years?" To an extent, yes, the government can control what information is made public when. I accept that as a necessary evil. Hindsight is 20/20, and ultimately people will have to answer for the secrets they keep. That is good enough for me.
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
Pretty much. From Bush fiascos, to Osama trial (lol), to killing of "American citizens", to Scott Walker, to Fast and Furious. Its hilarious to see how people will do a complete 180 on an issue against a similar issue due to the person having a "D" or "R" in front of their name on the news.
But yeah, anyway this is bullshit. But what are you going to do? Usual politics BS.
Who did a 180 on anything involving Walker? What has there been to do a 180' on that guy?
No, I'm not telling you what you think, I'm telling you what you typed. If we allow the government to classify by default and only declassify when they deem it's ok then we are putting full faith and confidence in the government to determine what the public can and cannot know.
To me that is dangerous. The government should have to go to extraordinary lengths to keep information from the citizenry, it shouldn't be a matter of course.
No, I'm not telling you what you think, I'm telling you what you typed. If we allow the government to classify by default and only declassify when they deem it's ok then we are putting full faith and confidence in the government to determine what the public can and cannot know.
To me that is dangerous. The government should have to go to extraordinary lengths to keep information from the citizenry, it shouldn't be a matter of course.
itwasTuesday
He wasn't alone.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
What? This seems contrary to what I've seen of your opinions in other situations. Isn't the responsibility on the drinker to make the decision when they've had enough? (I mean, I agree that the responsibility is on the bartender, but I wouldn't think you would)
Not when it affects other people. We live in a society. You know I'm huge on personal responsibility and that isn't changed but it's a different issue than personal LIABILITY. Bartenders are individuals too. A drunk driver going out and killing someone is responsible for THEIR own choice to drink and drive, but that doesn't mean a bartender has no liability for giving them that last push when they knew they were already wasted.
Bottom line is that Republicans have been fishing for a scandal to nail Obama with since he took office. They're trying to blow this up into one to embarrass the President and win an election later this year.
I did literally laugh out loud when Issa talked about the dead Mexican citizens, considering that he has personally supported programs and issues that have led to the deaths of thousands of Mexican citizens.
I did literally laugh out loud when Issa talked about the dead Mexican citizens, considering that he has personally supported programs and issues that have led to the deaths of thousands of Mexican citizens.
Nowhere did I say that was OK. I trust that if the American government classifies something, it has a good reason. I put trust in them to declassify them when they no longer have cause to be classified. If 100% of things are censored for many, many years, I'd have a problem with the government. You clearly don't understand the difference, so it's also clear that talking to you is just a waste of my time.
okay... so why are they requesting documents from beyond 10 days after the program had ended?
Everything about Fast & Furious and its operations and who was involved should be available to them in the documents from before February. Anything after the date is ex-post-facto.
The House committee is basically saying "Well, this letter that was written to us during our investigation of a possible coverup by Holder and withdrawn due to inaccuracies had a section in it saying there wasn't a coverup... THAT MUST BE THE INACCURACY! GIVE US EVERYTHING FROM AFTER THE DATE SO WE CAN PROVE IT!"
It's like police showing up to your house without a warrant and asking to search your home, and if you don't allow them to search your home, your denial can be used to establish probable cause, which grants them permission to search your home.
I'm glad things are so clear for you, because my understanding of your position is impenetrably opaque. You trust the government to determine what should and shouldn't be classified (I trust that if the American government classifies something, it has a good reason. I put trust in them to declassify them when they no longer have cause to be classified.) yet get mad when I say you trust the government to determine what should and shouldn't be classified.
One of us is very confused, quite probably both of us.
The speed with which the repubs are going forward for a contempt charge should tell everyone what this was all really about. And sadly it's not the people that died.
EatinOlives
Member
Make that three. His stance makes absolutely no sense to me.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I think the key word here is "by default". He isn't necessarily comfortable with the idea of all information being classified by default, but he is alright with some information being classified if its "judged to be necessary"
This.
American sanctioned action that killed Americans with guns that were under our control that we let go missing. I am completely disgusted by this administration and their lies.
- Status