Politics

[Dicknose]

What if they are spying on just some people? What if those people are possible terrorists?
Should that be ok to make public?
What if instead of making it public, release it just to a journalist who is then going to release it, but before that happens they are caught and charged with releasing secrets that could affect state security... should the trial and evidence be public? That defeats the purpose of it being secret.

Its rarely black and white.
Sometimes its clear...
Yes unlawful killings by military (or contractors) is pretty obvious and it shouldnt be hidden by "ongoing operational issues".
Australia has just had an issue with this, looks like a reasonable number of our elite services in Afghanistan were involved in murder and covering it up. This was kept under secrecy as their operations are nearly always top secret. It ended up with whistle blowers from within units reporting it, nothing happening and then they "leaked" it to journalists. This lead to federal police raids on journalists. Which I think is possibly justified, but in this case the journalists had quite legitimate reasons to spill secrets.

Where its not so clear can be wholesale leaking of info. Or leaking of info for reasons that might be justified by the person but not by the country (eg "to save the world")

I just think your "suppression of truth is wrong" is a gross simplification. And saying it should be up to the people is also defeating the purpose of state secrets.

[Rare White Ape]

Each set of secret will be taken on its own merit, and the journalists would have a responsibility to assess whether is in the public interest to prelease the information. It would be something they learn in hack university, as well as by the standards set by their peers, editors, and the news organisations they work for. I don't think any journalist is a lone wolf working for their own interest. Even WikiLeaks, who is a team of people, not just one guy, would know about stuff that they would consider to be too dangerous to release.

So to anyone questioning the suddenly very very grey subject of which state secrets should stay secret, I would encourage you to make a list of all of the relevant checks a journalist should undertake in determining whether or not something should be made public. Include things like: is this in the public interest or not? How much trouble will *I* get into for releasing this? Will releasing the info be likely to endanger anybody, or will it jeopardise a currently active investigation or court case? What are the likely effects from the fallout?

Etcetera, etcetera, et-fucking-cetera.

I'm sure a comprehensive list could be drawn up pretty quickly. And once you read through it, rest assured that people went to hack university for many years to be given their journalist badge, so they ain't stupid, and in general you can trust that they're doing the right thing, in just the same way that you can trust the engineer who designed the bridge you drive over every day on your way to work.

[Crazed_Insanity]

I’m with RWA on this. Now, even Boeing engineering could still be corrupted by profit, but we are counting on whistleblowers who are not profit driven to reveal to us the truth.

It can’t be that hard to draft up something to help people to see if this particular gray is shady enough to make blowing the whistle worthwhile.

It shouldn’t be government having all the power to shut/lock people up in the name and of secret national security...

I also find it hard to believe that Aussie elite forces could be fucking around behind US and UK forces’ back.

I think based on #of Covid cases, we can plainly see which of the 3 governments work better at protecting its own citizens.

For sure I believe we have a better constitution, but our government is way more corrupted at this point. Trump deserves a lot of blame, but we were rotting before him. It’s the rot that helped fueled his campaign... and Sanders’ too. Too bad Trump won...

[Crazed_Insanity]

https://twitter.com/RepLowenthal/sta...816562176?s=19


We know who tried to get people money in this crisis, and who didn't.

If it weren’t for the Georgia senate race runoff, Mitch won’t even agree to $600!

As for the pragmatic democrats, they were willing to accept $0 checks too.

I thought the 2 senators pushed hardest for the direct checks were Sanders(I) and Hawley(R).

[Crazed_Insanity]

Speaks for itself. Read the tweet.

https://twitter.com/charles_gaba/sta...650180096?s=19

Sanders is technically right.

Sanders wasn’t making the claim that M4A would turn red to blue, right?

So for you blue state politicians, WTF is your problem with M4A and Sanders?

Sanders is a technically on the same blue team. Stop treating him as if he’s the enemy.

[neanderthal]

Screenshot_20201223-220234.jpg

Those pics that show the entire country as red and just a few blue (urban) areas don't show you the whole picture. There's a reason why urban areas can dominate the voting and not look representative: because NO ONE lives in the red areas. (Exaggeration.)

That's the map showing population of each county with a circle, and whether or not it voted red or blue.

[neanderthal]

https://twitter.com/riotwomennn/stat...098121728?s=19

I don't think the Democrats are going to win both seats in Georgia. Republicans have reverted to their stereotypical patterns: attacking Warnock as a "radical" which we know is coded language covering for racism: and Republican voters will racist.

I'm hopeful, but resigned to the outcome.

[neanderthal]

And of course the bill was rejected by the Republicans. Even though Trump said he wants $2000, and the Democrats agreed with him on the $2000.

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1...923497984?s=19

But you know who be on that "boTh p4rtiEs R tH3 sAm3!!!" shit.

[drew]

Pelosi called their bluff. No shock they didn't go for it.

Fuck these assholes.

[Crazed_Insanity]

Mitch only agreed to $600 hoping to protect his senate majority. Playing Scrooge won’t help Georgia run off.

Even roofer thought $600 is a joke.

Will Georgia voters really choose racism over money?

Hope not. If we end up with no money, I suppose people will have to automatically choose racism?

Trump has placed the GOP in a tough spot. Good for him and better for the democrats!