• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Secrecy ... vote and tell me what you think.

Secrecy ... the article and do you ...?


  • Total voters
    12

Turin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
1,479
Reaction score
813
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Last edited:

To some extent, I agree. There is a need for secrets.

But when it's blatant violations of the Constitution, of human rights and of very basic Western values the government is hiding, like in case of Manning and Snowden, there is absolutely no, nada, justification for secrecy, and this government secrecy is nothing but cover-up of huge crimes against the people or even against humanity. The government is not above the law, and it's every citizen's first duty to hold the government responsible for its transgressions.

Manning and Snowden are heroes, not traitors.
 
I used to live and work in DC. A friend of mine's father was a high ranking mucketymuck in the criminal investigative division of the FBI. In various discussion with him on various things (like me just being a light-hearted conversationalist about X-Files, UFO's, and the like) we would sometimes come back to the subject of how investigations usually worked. He strongly opposed digitization and sharing of information for reasons that things like this could happen. He felt it would be a disaster if someone were ever able to get access to a computer and download the files for their open cases, be that China, or organized crime, or even just some random idiot. He was a strong believer that old fashioned fill the cardboard box case work, while not efficient, was the best way for cases to be handled.
 
I agree that some things need to be secrets. The difference between Manning and Snowden is that Manning disclosed diplomatic secrets. Equating that with someone who disclosed what the government has been doing to us all these years doesn't compute.
 
I marked agree but it does also bother me they broke their oaths. Manning bothers me even more because he was a service member. Manning is slightly more of a POS than Snowden. But just a little.
 
I can see the need for some information to be kept secret temporarily such as active criminal investigations or military operations. However this information should be made available after the fact. I generally feel that most secrets are kept for less legitimate reasons. They are simply afraid of other peoples reaction toward their actions and in many cases probably rightfully so.
 
To some extent, I agree. There is a need for secrets.

But when it's blatant violations of the Constitution, of human rights and of very basic Western values the government is hiding, like in case of Manning and Snowden, there is absolutely no, nada, justification for secrecy, and this government secrecy is nothing but cover-up of huge crimes against the people or even against humanity. The government is not above the law, and it's every citizen's first duty to hold the government responsible for its transgressions.

Manning and Snowden are heroes, not traitors.
You did not understand the article; how good is your English?

It criticized the indiscriminate nature of the leaks.

You agree there is a need for secrets, some secrets? Well, what Manning-Snowden did was
reveal all secrets without any attempt to determine whether some of them might be legitimate.
 
Would we consider the guy who gave away secrets of the manhatten project a hero if he had leaked the information to the press?
 
You did not understand the article; how good is your English?

It criticized the indiscriminate nature of the leaks.

You agree there is a need for secrets, some secrets? Well, what Manning-Snowden did was
reveal all secrets without any attempt to determine whether some of them might be legitimate.

Well, considering your "the government is always right" attitude, I assume your German is very good at least. ;)
 
To some extent, I agree. There is a need for secrets.

But when it's blatant violations of the Constitution, of human rights and of very basic Western values the government is hiding, like in case of Manning and Snowden, there is absolutely no, nada, justification for secrecy, and this government secrecy is nothing but cover-up of huge crimes against the people or even against humanity. The government is not above the law, and it's every citizen's first duty to hold the government responsible for its transgressions.

Manning and Snowden are heroes, not traitors.

I believe government is a necessary evil, as such I believe that the only thing the government should be allowed to keep a few secrets.Like troop movements during a time of war or maybe a raid on a wanted criminal's house. However on the same token Manning should have the book thrown at him,
 
I believe government is a necessary evil, as such I believe that the only thing the government should be allowed to keep a few secrets.Like troop movements during a time of war or maybe a raid on a wanted criminal's house. However on the same token Manning should have the book thrown at him,

Manning revealed war crimes in Iraq. Those responsible in the government should be brought to justice.
 
Well, considering your "the government is always right" attitude, I assume your German is very good at least. ;)
That is not my attitude, and it is not the article's attitude, and whether or not I speak German is irrelevant.
 
I will only vote if this poll is Secret!! :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom