President Bush invoked executive privilege Monday to deny requests by Congress for testimony from two former aides about the firings of federal prosecutors.
2007-07-09 08:41:47 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
The only time when secrecy is justified is when the information can benefit the enemy. Even then, there are procedures such as closed sessions that could be used to deliver the information for a congressional investigation without compromising national security.
But, how is testimony about firing of federal prosecutors can possibly be a matter of national security? Where is the harm if people know the truth? Be honest to youself and answer this question: if Bush has nothing to hide, why not provide the information to prove that he has done nothing wrong?
2007-07-09 09:28:29 · answer #1 · answered by AJ 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I believe the government needs to hide MORE things from the Public. We elect Representatives in the House & Senate to receive this information, digest it, and react to it the best that they can. The American Public is grossly naïve on most government issues (that includes you & me)
When the Public hears of certain things they have a "knee-jerk" reaction (ie...Dubai Ports Deal, Guantanamo Bay, etc…) when if they rationally think about the situations, they will come to the realization that it has / had or would have been handled correctly by who we elected.
We would not have been nearly as successful in WWII had most Americans heard of how many people were dying each day.
2007-07-09 16:43:44 · answer #2 · answered by Eric R 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Less than 10% of what they call secret is really worth calling that. it is too often a mask for corruption and malfeasance. Like so much of what we have seen latly, shine a light on them and they scurry for cover of darkness. National security has become a blanket that is thrown over so much that we never really see what our government does in our names nor how much money of our's is spent makeing rich friends richer.
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.
Thomas Jefferson
2007-07-09 16:15:54 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes, absolutely. State secrets are necessary when combating enemies.
Mr. Conyers, Representative knows the Constitution. We have a separation of powers for good reason. It is our system of checks and balances. He is on a constant witch hunt, trying to pull down the president.
Firing attorneys, as everyone should know by now, is the President's prerogative.
2007-07-09 15:47:46 · answer #4 · answered by regerugged 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Only things that absolutely are a matter of national security. And at the least, if we are going to illegally and immorally invade another nation (Iraq), the President should at least have the decency to inform our own Secretary of State (Powell) before he does a Saudi Prince (Bandar).
2007-07-09 15:48:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yes. There is some information regarding intelligence, security, and military matters that should not be generally available public information.
However, I think that claim can be taken too far and the this current administration often does do that.
2007-07-09 15:48:50 · answer #6 · answered by katydid13 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
NO.
This administration is invoking the idea of CLASSIFIED and NATIONAL SECURITY to everything, anything, all things associated with its dealings over the past eight years.
What this is DOING is actually putting the things that are TRULY classified at risk.
It's a dodge, everybody knows it.
There are very few things - given the vast amount of info with which the White House is involved - which actually merit the "classified" status.
As we found out when bush and cheney DECLASSIFIED things when they felt it to be politically advantageous to them.
But of course, Homer Simpson probably doesn't remember any of that.
2007-07-09 15:48:28 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
There are some things we should know such as what political agendas are directly affecting the commoners, but I also think there are many things our government is involved in that we should not know about and frankly I would not want to know about!!!
2007-07-09 15:46:58 · answer #8 · answered by Chester B 1 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Yes. There are certain things our people and media have proven they can't handle in a mature and responsible way. Especially during times of war.
2007-07-09 15:47:21 · answer #9 · answered by jim h 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Sure - security planning and capability are just one area. Others might be military capability and tactics, economic weak points, infrastructure weak points, etc. Why advertise that we're vulnerable in certain areas?
2007-07-09 15:48:03 · answer #10 · answered by Ralfcoder 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋