Should members of Congress be silenced by making information classified as secret?

[joko104]

The White House has been giving classified security briefings of it's proof that the Assad government is who used chemical weapons. However, it is not providing original proof, but rather statements of someone summarizing the proof - and declaring the summary "classified" and refusing to even allow actual transcripts to be seen or heard.

In this, any member of Congress so informed would be releasing classified information to the public if that member of Congress explained specifically why they do not believe what the White House is telling them.

In this, there can't even be any debate publicly or in Congress - and rather it forces everyone to basically declare they are pro-America by being pro-war or anti-America by being against going to war against Syria.

Releasing information might endanger lives. But declaring information secret protects lies and prevents independent investigation, including by the media and press (and others).

If a member of Congress is told s/he must vote for war because of classified information the member believes is false, a fraud or is being falsely presented, should that member of Congress be forced to remain silent because the information is "classified as secret?"

 

[SBu]

Re: Should members of Congress be silenced by making information classified as secret

The White House has been giving classified security briefings of it's proof that the Assad government is who used chemical weapons. However, it is not providing original proof, but rather statements of someone summarizing the proof - and declaring the summary "classified" and refusing to even allow actual transcripts to be seen or heard. In this, any member of Congress so informed would be releasing classified information to the public if that member of Congress explained specifically why they do not believe what the White House is telling them. In this, there can't even be any debate publicly or in Congress - and rather it forces everyone to basically declare they are pro-America by being pro-war or anti-America by being against going to war against Syria. If a member of Congress is told s/he must vote for war because of classified information the member believes is false, a fraud or is being falsely presented, should that member of Congress be forced to remain silent because the information is "classified as secret?"

I think if they believe they are receiving incomplete or inaccurate information, then they should vote no until the proper information is obtained. They should also be given an unclassified summary so they can do their job in Congress. The burden of proof is on the administration at this point since they are asking for Congressional approval.

 

[joko104]

Re: Should members of Congress be silenced by making information classified as secret

The best historic examples? Both about Vietnam. The justification for war was a claim North Vietnam attacked one of our ships. The proof? "Classified." Two decades later? It admitted it was 100% false. Tens of thousand of Americans dead, many times more crippled, a million dead Vietnamese, and trillions spent. And the "Pentagon Papers," which proved the White House and military had been deliberately and massively lying about the war to continue their agenda. With the release of the "classified" Pentagon Papers and the truth coming out, support for the war finally collapsed.

 

[Medusa]

Re: Should members of Congress be silenced by making information classified as secret

innocent american people are forced by imperialist governors to support a war made with the intention of controlling other countries

many who support these imperialist wars never admit that USA is a world power which cant help ****ing the world

they just claim their national interest is being harmed

it must be their " imperialist interests

modern crusaders seem worse than the previous ones

at least they didnt claim to be democrat

 

[jamesrage]

Re: Should members of Congress be silenced by making information classified as secret

The White House has been giving classified security briefings of it's proof that the Assad government is who used chemical weapons. However, it is not providing original proof, but rather statements of someone summarizing the proof - and declaring the summary "classified" and refusing to even allow actual transcripts to be seen or heard.

In this, any member of Congress so informed would be releasing classified information to the public if that member of Congress explained specifically why they do not believe what the White House is telling them.

In this, there can't even be any debate publicly or in Congress - and rather it forces everyone to basically declare they are pro-America by being pro-war or anti-America by being against going to war against Syria.

Releasing information might endanger lives. But declaring information secret protects lies and prevents independent investigation, including by the media and press (and others).

If a member of Congress is told s/he must vote for war because of classified information the member believes is false, a fraud or is being falsely presented, should that member of Congress be forced to remain silent because the information is "classified as secret?"

I picked "No, democracy and debate in Congress requires information, not blind trust ". About the only thing the government should be allowed to keep secret is troop movement during a time of war with a country we declared war with.

 

[Linc]

Re: Should members of Congress be silenced by making information classified as secret

Should the Joe Wison idiots of the Nation be allowed to grandstand about previous "scandals" like Benghazi? You know, derailing the hearing? Are you comfortable giving classified intel to these idiots in Congress? Not me. Shoot first. Talk later. Like his predecessors.