Indeed what's reasonably "secret" and what's not is a very tough one indeed. And personally I feel that there is a necessity for some things to be secret at least while they are directly relevant to situations at hand (or in the near future or in the near past).

There ought to be a way, though, to 'clear' (for documents, recordings, etc) a classification of 'top secret' and to review applicability periodically. If I was in the President's inner circle of security operations I'd sure appreciate that everything I did was classified as "top secret" but that really does give me license to take liberties I might otherwise not consider.

I look at things like the Roswell whatever or the Kennedy assassination and I say that lots of conjecture could be saved (and lots of mini-industries ended) if known facts were made available earlier. And surely NOW the WHOLE CASE regarding WMD in IRAQ warrants public exposure as long as names or person-revealing info is blacked out.
I know one thing... for those of us outside the U.S., when the U.S. next accuses some country of something (a-la 'Iraq has WMD and is able to use them against us')they'd better have pictures and witnesses. Especially with what's been coming out recently, most especially President Bush's conviction that it is his spiritually-instructed mission to free people of the world!

Have a good weekend


>That goes along with the old adage "If you only knew what I know." Scary, isn't it? I know from experience that some actions are taken based on information that the public does not have and sometimes should not have. Lets face it, I'm not sure the public is ready for ALL of the information and there are also the times when letting anyone know how much you know is more damaging than knowing nothing. Some would say let the public know and they can decide... Being on the inside and having some of the restricted information in the past does make me lean towards the opposite end of the pole though. Yet, too far in the opposite direction can lead to a government no longer serving the public but themselves. It is scary and I'm not sure what the right balance is...
>
>>Being in the military I know we have both seen zealots, who are to be found in any authoritarian political/military/etc. group. When Oliver North was on the hot seat I could fully understand what he did and why. How far you wish to take orders is up to you. If you are true to the corp you can be dangerous and loose perspective.
>>
>>Does someone working for the President have a moral/legal responsibility to the citizens of our country or to only the President?
>>
>>One concept I learned from the military is you can delegate authority but not responsibility.
>>
>>
>>>Their 'mission' was probably as ambiguous as all other government office missions so it is very easy to work outside of it even unintentionally. However, in this case, it was probably intentional. :o)
>>>
>>>>>>Jim,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>...it has been testified that Vice-president Cheney was hanging around FBI/CIA lower-levels and essentially telling them what they needed to "find".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'd like to read about that. Do you have a URL or other reference for it?
>>>>>
>>>>>This isn't testimony, nor does it specifically involve Cheney, the FBI, or CIA, but it is something similar:
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/01/pollack.htm
>>>>>
>>>>>As Seymour Hersh, among others, has reported, Bush Administration officials also took some actions that arguably crossed the line between rigorous oversight of the intelligence community and an attempt to manipulate intelligence. They set up their own shop in the Pentagon, called the Office of Special Plans, in order to sift through the information on Iraq themselves. To a great extent OSP personnel "cherry-picked" the intelligence they passed on, selecting reports that supported the Administration's pre-existing position and ignoring all the rest.
>>>>
>>>>I wonder if the members of the Office of Special Plans had instructions on what their mission was or if they just acted on their own?