When it comes to the government? No. As I said before the only things that should be classified is military movement/stratagies, and military technology.
That's not a qualification on its own. I have another question: why would you talk about classification requirements if you clearly know nothing about them?
No. It's a warzone. If they have the time inclination? Cool, go ahead. If they don't? That's cool, too.
That was me. I still don't see any 'misdeeds'. Mistakes made in war aren't 'misdeeds'. I mean, unless we want to just back it absurd: a random ND in the chowhall would be a 'misdeed'. A guy cheating on his wife with some slutty E-4 is a 'misdeed'. If someone is trying to defend Manning, though? No, there's no real 'misdeed'.
No it doesn't. You just think it does.
Interesting. For example the military keeps all of my personal information on file, to include my social security number, birthdate, etc. Currently, this data is considered classified and it is illegal for someone to pass it out to the public.
Interesting. For example the military keeps all of my personal information on file, to include my social security number, birthdate, etc. Currently, this data is considered classified and it is illegal for someone to pass it out to the public.
Should that be available to anyone who asks of it? what about videos of my face or identifying information that would allow nutjob jihadists to target my family and home?
If the United States is spying on another government in order to determine its' movement/strategies and military technology so that we can shape our own movement/strategy and technology accordingly, should that be classified? Or should we ask the Chinese pretty please to describe to us precisely their capability and intentions?
If another power passes us information with the request that we keep it secret (for example, say, if the Brits have an agent in Moscow), should we abide by those treaty obligations and do so? Or out the agent, possibly get him killed, and degrade national security?
When you say "military technology", do you mean how the planes fly? Or do you also include how we collect? If information could only have come to us from classified technology, can that information be classified as well, or should we de facto describe our classified technology to everyone via it's capabilities?
It is a high qualification. One that IS considered. Or did I read it wrong and its not considered at all?
I know enough to know that the government does it far more than it should.
Under our supposed morals, yes they should. Otherwise they're being hypocritical.
A "misdeed" is doing something that was wrong. And again, it is not the mistake itself that I am talking about. (for the third time) It is the covering it up instead of at the very least apologizing for it that was wrong. I find it very disturbing that you think that it is perfectly OK to make a mistake that costs lives and not have to, at the very least, apologize for that mistake.
Actually it does. That is, in fact, why we have Ambassadors there in the first place, to present our policies to them, and then to present them to us, with on-the-ground analysis for policy makers here in the states to take advantage of. Analysis which is and must be classified in order to be effective or useful.
It is a high qualification. One that IS considered. Or did I read it wrong and its not considered at all?
I know enough to know that the government does it far more than it should.
Under our supposed morals, yes they should. Otherwise they're being hypocritical.
A "misdeed" is doing something that was wrong.
I find it very disturbing that you think that it is perfectly OK to make a mistake that costs lives and not have to, at the very least, apologize for that mistake.
Why must it be classified?
No, it's not. Lesser qualifications need to exhibit- by an original classification authority- that they fall under that. And a general "This is a cover up!" isn't going to do it. Seriously, you don't know about this, at all, so why are you arguing about it? People can do that **** on Coast To Coast AM, but I thought this was a rather serious format.
There are no morals in war. Just win.
Then missing the target was also a 'misdeed', because it was a mistake. Are you sure you want your criteria to be "things done wrong"? People die. Ostensibly, you have zero experience with war. You may want to consider going full pacifist, because it seems as if the whole concept of war is distasteful to you.
Because otherwise we would be unable to conduct effective diplomacy. Diplomats are expected to provide honest assessment of host-nation intentions and capabilities, including when that is unflattering. As an ambassador, to publicly send back the message that the current president of Yemen (making this up) appears to be losing his grip, but that you think if a coup happens perhaps we can make a deal with the new commander of the air force to keep the country from descending into another civil war would be incredibly destructive to not only US diplomacy, but regional stability. You can't exactly (as an ambassador) make public statements to the effect that your chinese hosts told you that they were behaving themselves in Tibet, but that information available seems to suggest that they are instead lying, blood-thirsty little bastards, and expect to be able to fulfill the duties as Ambassador afterwards. Our diplomats will be too busy constantly being kicked out of their host nations to ever have a second meeting with the host government. Diplomats are also expected to be privy to US negotiating strategies, which are also classified, not least to keep us from getting rolled and often in the hopes of avoiding conflict. Their communications will reflect that, as well as information gathered through classified means.
I can accept this. For the simple fact that it is about strategy. So long as it only pertains to strategy only.
So, what your sayinh is that there are no controls in place to protect this information and there is no such thing as "need to know"?
Again, they wouldn't deem it officially as a "cover-up". They would find a loop hole (which "interests of national security" is one HUGE loophole) to place it under.
Tell you what...why was that video deemed classified? Explain it to me. It showed no tactical advantage. It showed nothing beyond the fact that civilians were killed.
If the US government followed that mantra then I would agree with you. But the US government does not follow that mantra.
Yes missing a target is a misdeed. But not one worthy of critisizing.
The concept of war should be distasteful to anyone. Are you saying that you WANT war? That you are happy when we are at war?
Video @: [/FONT][/COLOR]Assange Speaks to UN - YouTube
Assange speaks to UN panel and calls on US, UK and Sweden and speaks to respect free speech, and protect whistle blowers, and to free Bradly Manning. Ecuador and others try to convince the US, UK, and Sweden to allow safe passage and go back to Sweden to try to clear up these "sexual acts" allegations.
Well, TurtleDude, that's the whole other issue behind all of this: if the US wanted Assange gone, it would've made him go away. Waiting until he's in Sweden on flase charges to try to extradite him (although it would've been easier in the UK, but whatever) would obviously be shady and then would beg the question: why not just take care of him in an actual illicit way, that wouldn't have left a smoking gun in their hand?
Assange conspiracy theorists can never answer that question. So they'll always pretend as if it doesn't exist. But it's important: there's really no motive for their to be a conspiracy to get him to the US.
Again, they wouldn't deem it officially as a "cover-up". They would find a loop hole (which "interests of national security" is one HUGE loophole) to place it under.
Tell you what...why was that video deemed classified? Explain it to me. It showed no tactical advantage. It showed nothing beyond the fact that civilians were killed.
If the US government followed that mantra then I would agree with you. But the US government does not follow that mantra.
Yes missing a target is a misdeed. But not one worthy of critisizing.
The concept of war should be distasteful to anyone. Are you saying that you WANT war? That you are happy when we are at war?
...ignorance, ingrained mental constipation, military style brain washing, believers, and just plain nonsense to no avail except to highlight the aforementioned atributes or shortcomings, depending on myopic lack of insight... not taking their mental laxatives.
Dude, it pretty much all pertains to position and strategy. that's what diplomacy is. warfare without shooting.
Because it could be used to piece together a whole bunch of ****. In no order:
#1- The distance the optics on the bird can see. If you know how fast an Apache can comfortably go (already online, probably thanks to people who think like you do), all you have to do is some high school math using the amount of time it took to complete an orbit to see how far away they were. Now you know: in 2006/2007, that's how far away a helicopter could be from a site to engage it. Do you think that's useful?
#2- You can now start to piece together what birds look for and what process they go through to engage. You can start to avoid some practices or engage in others specifically to dissuade their attacking you while you engage in nefarious activities.
Sure it does. All governments do. And then they try to sell their populace on morality, and the moralists among us (you?) want to believe it. So some of you do.
It depends on who you are. If you're supposed to be providing me overwatch and you miss repeatedly because of your own shortcomings, I'll feel okay criticizing you from my hospital bed.
I am, because I get paid more when I'm overseas. But you seem to have problems with the very fundamental aspects of war. Perhaps you should engage in some introspection.
Not really since those were known long before that video. Not to mention you couldn't tell from that video if they were at minimum range, medium range or long range before they started shooting. And if you think that other people, including terrorists, don't have that type of optical capability then you are seriously underestimating them.
lol yeah...camera men. :roll: As for the process...its the same process thats been used for decades. Again, you're underestimating your opponent. Always a bad move for any strategist.
If this were true then people wouldn't continue to try and make more precision type weapons. They'd just go in there and use a nuke or napalm or some other mass destruction weapon....sure as hell would be cheaper in the long run to do so.
Sure, if you repeatedly miss then yeah, you deserve to be criticised. But just once or twice? Not exactly front page news wouldn't you say?
So you care more for money than not shooting people and mass destruction. Good to know. Think i'm going to start taking your posts far less seriously.
Do you consider yourself a CTer?
It was admitted by the Pentagon that the info he allegedly released did little to no damage whatsoever.
Edit: Added in "little to"
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?