The Public's Right to Know

[Guest Vern Gagne]

You hear alot of anti-war people say they want proof that Hussein has weapons. What if the gov't has the "smoking gun", but thinks it would be a threat to national security to show the public. Does the President have an obligation to show the people or would only the UN have to be shown the evidence.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Well it was just discovered that Bush signed up for military action in Iraq 3 days after 9/11 and has just been spending the last year or so to find a reason to get in there......

[Guest Scarlet Pimpernel]

The best scenario, is for the US to continue building up the pressure and intensity on Iraq, to actually result in the Iraqi citizens to start a revolution. But I highly doubt that would happen.

[Guest DrTom]

Does the President have an obligation to show the people ...

In that situation, absolutely not. Especially in this post-September 11th world, we have a duty to national security. I'm all for the public's right to know, but if that could potentially compromise national security, then I don't think the President or anyone else should release that information.

[Guest Tim]

Listen, the government is preparing to send troops to war, and that means many casualties. The public cannot support war if it does know the reasons why. In any case, not being able to show evidence is a ridiculous notion. How difficult would it be just to gave a name and address to the UN inspection team and they could follow up on it? If they found something, fine, a justification for war. But, to say that there is proof of WMD, without giving details of the evidence, and without the inspectors actually having found weapons, is ridiculous. The public has every right to know the full reasons behind such a critical decision.

[Guest The Old Me]

We should only be entitled to information that doesn't compromise our security or safety.

 

NocalMike- any republican in office after Bush Sr was going to go straight for Iraq.

[Guest Kingpk]

How difficult would it be just to gave a name and address to the UN inspection team and they could follow up on it? If they found something, fine, a justification for war.

Isn't that what the US is doing? I read that the government was going to "share more of it's intelligence" to the inspection team. Perhaps those warheads found the other day was based on a tip form the US?

 

Off-topic: Can these anti-war protestors get some NEW arguements please? I can only take hearing the words "no blood for oil" so much.

[Guest The Old Me]

Oil is worth blood. How the hell am I supposed to get around without my car?

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Why does the public have the right to know? If evidence is given to the UN and they vote on a resolution for war isn't that what people wanted in the first place.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Oil is worth blood. How the hell am I supposed to get around without my car?

They should just take all the money they're planning to spend on this war and make an automobile that runs on blood.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

See, it's not so much the smoking gun thing for me as it is:

 

1. I wish they'd go seriously take care of this North Korea thing before taking care of the guy who MAY have WoMD.

 

2. I wish Bush could stop showing everyone else what a big man he is by talking about using his own nuclear weapons. If Iraq uses chemical warfare on troops during a ground invasion, that's terrible. But there's still plenty of ways left to attack with conventional warfare. There ought to be no reason to pull out bombs that are stored for end-of-the-world scenarios and drop them on a piss in the bucket country like Iraq.

[Guest Tim]

How difficult would it be just to gave a name and address to the UN inspection team and they could follow up on it? If they found something, fine, a justification for war.

Isn't that what the US is doing? I read that the government was going to "share more of it's intelligence" to the inspection team. Perhaps those warheads found the other day was based on a tip form the US?

 

Off-topic: Can these anti-war protestors get some NEW arguements please? I can only take hearing the words "no blood for oil" so much.

Perhaps those were. But, some 10 year old empty warheads:

 

So....

 

a) The US is not supplying the UN with intelligence

b) The US is supplying the UN with intelligence but it is of poor quality

[Guest NoCalMike]

If we are sending people over to Iraq to die, then a little reasoning besides, "Iraq is playing hide & seek" No one is asking for detailed maps and infrared scans of every factory in Iraq. However if this war is over chemical weapons, it would nice to see any trace of them what-so-ever.

[Guest EricMM]

Most news agencies i've seen agree, we'll be at war within a month or so. Bush fully intends to do it, he is moving a lot of people into the Persian Gulf not because he might go to war, but because he IS going to war. Multilaterally or Unilaterally, it's gonna happen. What the American populance decides to do about it is up to them, whether or not you approve of it is up to you, but it's gonna happen.

 

BTW it will most likely be Unilateral action because France said it would use it's Veto powers in the UN Security Council if the issue was raised for war.

[Guest DrTom]

IT IS WRONG TO BE FRENCH.

 

That is all.

[Guest CoreyLazarus416]

Kind of off-topic, but it does relate to the "The Public's Right To Know."

 

Know what pissed me off A WHOLE LOT about the bombing missions Clinton ordered on Iraq shortly after impeachment? The fact that you could turn on ANY news station, and they would practically give you every bit of information on when they're striking, where they're striking, and with what weapons they're striking with. I highly doubt Saddam has cable and not a satellite, so he could just rely on American news stations to get the information he needed to hide whatever he may have had that would be worth saving from explosions.

[Guest DeputyHawk]

does the public have a right to know? damn difficult question. i don't know the answer to that because i don't know the nature of the irrefutable evidence america claims to have, and how releasing that information would affect security, national or international.

 

the greater question from a global perspective is, do the other world leaders within the united nations security council need to know? that is also a damn difficult question, but is increasingly becoming the most important issue within this whole farce.

 

i used to think america had no irrefutable evidence, it was indeed a bluff; bluster and bravado on behalf of the hawkish bush administration as a pretext to finishing off his father's dirty work. my prime minister tony blair, now the only world leader prepared to unconditionally stand shoulder to shoulder with the bush administration, has convinced me that there is frightening evidence to be made for war, not by his words but by his lack of them. it is a shame the rest of the british public is not reading between the lines here and seem more and more to be turning on blair and his, in their eyes, unfounded and dangerous 'special relationship' with the bush administration because of this lack of clarity.

 

tony blair is not a warmonger. i honestly believe he and colin powell were equally instrumental in preventing hot heads prevailing in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, hot heads which gone unchecked would have lit the fuse on a potentially catastrophic situation. blair, the same as every other right thinking leader, was opposed to aggression towards iraq following the liberation of afghanistan. there was simply no need for it. america claimed otherwise. blair stood firm, opposed to action until proof was found. america continued to claim irrefutable evidence of weapons of mass destruction. no one believed them because they would not show their precious evidence to anyone. they became somewhat of an international laughing stock. blair travelled to washington to meet with bush, and when he returned his tone had changed completely. there is, he now said, no question that hussein will have to be removed from power and that iraq will have to be disarmed. where is the evidence? the press and public continued to ask. it cannot be revealed, said blair, but i have seen it.

 

whatever the bush administartion showed our tony during that visit, i believe it was something that he and he alone of the u.n. leaders has been trusted with and had shared with him. unlike bush, i trust blair implicitly, and there would be no reason for such a dramatic about-face if he was not sure of something. the switch has discredited him a great deal in domestic politics and many are calling for his resignation over what they see as a sudden move towards warmongering and pandering to america.

 

so two of the most important men in the world have decided for whatever reasons that the public do not have a right to know about whatever it is we do not know about. the farcical weapons inspections currently ongoing in iraq are being placed on a pedestal of importance by the rest of the world. bullshit. hans blix's inspections are a meaningless roleplay being acted out, the white house is playing the u.n. like a violin while they and the u.k. prepare themselves for whatever endgame is currently underway. this became obvious to me last week. everyone expected the bush administartion to jump all over the fact that blix found the empty warheads, a clear breach of the iraqi dossier. the white house blew it off as an irrelevancy. they weren't ready to take action yet. the u.n. finding weapons was an inconvenience to them, if anyting.

 

america and britain know exactly where saddam's weapons are and when (not if) they are ready to take them out, there will be no second u.n. resolution, there will be no debate within the security council, we will simply turn our tv's on one morning soon to find that iraq has had the absolute living crap ripped out of it. the troops aren't there to have a picnic, for christ's sakes. the extent of the information they have obviously cannot be made public, because as soon as that information is revealed, whatever weapons are positioned and/or primed will be moved to another location, one that we don't know for sure exists. the exact same goes for revealing the information to the rest of the u.n. as soon as the information is told, there would need to be debate, debate, resolution, debate, ad nauseum while hussein simply moves his weapons elsewhere. whenever a decision is reached about taking hussein & iraq down, it will be a precision exercise. bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, no more weapons of mass destruction, new government in baghdad. fuck you very much. then is when the public get to see the irrefutable evidence, at the same time as the rest of the world leaders, when it's been destroyed. and then is when the real problems start, because america will have made the rest of the world look like fools. and won't it just be so much fun to have russia, germany, france and china united and furious with us?

 

so does the public, and more importantly the u.n, have a right to know? damn difficult question.

[Guest HecateRose]

Another thing people need to realize is that important information is gathered by government agencies all the time that they don't tell the general public about. Why they don't tell everyone about it? Often times to tell would compromise the advantage they have by "secretly" knowing what they know. Other times it is because the "general" population could not responsibly handle the information. Plenty of things happen everyday that no one heres about. I hear about thing out here through AFN (Armed Forces Network) News that CNN does not report on. Why? Because the information is relevant to the Americans living here (considering the only people how can access AFN are members of the Armed Forces and their families) but it is not relevant to the people in America. A lot of the information seems like everyday BS to the Americans out here, but would seems like a very big deal (or would easily be blown out of proportion) to the people back in the USA. In most cases I do not believe the general population has a right to know. A lot of time even the people involved in some actions don't even have the right to know why they are doing it, so why would they tell just anyone. I think that it is better to control some information for security and to avoid any situations that could lead to mass hysteria. It's not necessarily that our government wants to appear to be keeping secrets but it is because it is best for whatever reason (strategic/security/economical) to keep it a secret. I'm not suggesting that I trust or agree with everything the government does or says, but sometimes they do know what is best for the masses. Besides, whether we like it or not, they are going to keep some secrets. I'm sure they don't like the fact that people around the world keep trying to demand proof, it does make them look bad (and we all know that they want to look good so they can stay in office). This is one of those cases where you just have to let go of the fact that they won't tell everything until it is in the best interests of the country (and themselves and their position) to say it. We also have to live with the fact that a lot of things that will happen that we will never know about. As disconcerting as that can be at times, that's just how it goes.