Wow, it's like teaching infants to walk around here. You are kidding, right? No? Ok... let's begin...
Well Done, Dos! Add another name to the list of those unable to hold an adult discussion from differing points of view, and so resort to sarcasm and pedantic, ad hominem insult. I do so enjoy the schoolyard approach to discourse.
Nash...I realize you are quite passionate about your position, but I'm afraid you don't really get my point. Perhaps it's my miscommunication.
My arguement is based, in fact, on the inescapable principle that a government NEEDS to have secrets...take a look at the world, for Pete's sake. It's no more than a silly Utopian dream that any country, any government, can survive without protecting it's interests. National secrets, classified information, etc... are a critical part of maintaining advantage and security.
Furthermore...I perceive far more support for my position than the contrary...even coming from members of the press themselves.
Again I ask...what are the limits to freedom of the press? Are there no limits? Is there to be no accountability? No consequences too dire to stop some rag from compromising anything it sees fit?
At the very least, the people in government have something that the press does not; our legislators - good, bad or ugly - were ELECTED...chosen to make decisions and take action on our behalf. Like it or not, these people have the aegis of the American people to act. And we retain the right to disapprove of those decisions and toss them out on their ear.
No journalist I know of was ever elected to their position, so why should I trust their judgement? What reporter or editor has been chosen on the basis of their ability to make decisions about national security? Where did they get the right to risk compromising same? I don't know of a single journalist I'd trust to make those decisions...they simply do NOT have the background.
The American people have a right to know...to know when danger looms, when there have been illegal acts, abuses of power, corruption, etc... and
none of that exists in this case. Not a shred. Just personal indignation at perceived wrongs, and a powerful desire for it to
be wrong, so as to further justify one's anger.
There is, in fact, a lot wrong with this administration, and a lot I do not agree with. However, that's not a blanket justification to villify everything in sight, nor to blame everything you don't like on it. Furthermore, there has been a lot wrong with every administration I can think of, so I don't expect the song to ever change...only the lyrics.
The fact remains that the idea that our foundational rights are without any limit whatsoever is both mistaken in principle, and disproven in fact.
Robert E. Lee once said something to the effect that all the best generals in the country had apparently been drafted to be newspaper editors, and left only the poorest excuse for military leadership in the field...and that he should really go edit newspapers and let the self-professed experts who judge him from afar go ahead and lead the campaign in the field. Frankly, when it comes to matters of national security, pursuit of terrorists and criminals, etc...I don't think there is a reporter extant with the qualifications, nor the background, to make these kinds of decisions of their own accord, nor in my name. Nor did I empower them to do so.
Please let's not reduce this to some simple counterpoint suggesting that I think the government can do as it pleases, and that I'll gladly give up my individual rights and freedoms to "get the bad guys". In fact, we need to take a considered look at each case, and try to understand that these matters are complex and difficult. Protecting our rights is critical...as is maintaining and securing the system that recognizes those rights. Sometimes, these principles can be necessarily at odds, hence, the complexities.
We are faced with threats unlike any before faced by this society, and in a mode with which we are woefully unprepared to deal. We are in severe danger, we barly understand the psychology and motivations of the enemy, and we've not much historical experience in terrorism and jihad.
Blanket absolutes do not apply, nor are they realistic, in this case.
(PS...Sorry Rip, I'll try not to let it happen again.
)
