It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Government transparency: Where do you draw the line?

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


We will have to agree to disagree, no deal should have information witheld its dishonest,a military action is not a deal quit mixing the 2
and what some one will pay for anything ,is only derived from the info they can collect,about the item,


(("That depends what it is, defence and security equipment certainly couldn’t be public knowledge as that could again cost lives down the line. "))

No you seem to be mixing stuff just to argue, are you talking a privet aucton or public auction>

quit mixing privet and public crap dude .

You keep changeing your example, .Should a used car sales give all the information to the buyer,or with hold some info because that may mean he cant sell the car and has to take the loss instead of pass the loss to some one else? really you think that is ok?

whats being sold at a privet auction is privet ,no matter the item, is.,whats being sold at a government auction, which means, that the item being auctioned,was payed for and built by my taxs dollars , so you dam wright show how much we made on the item ,it was my money also.

If you are talking privet company to privet company deal,still dosnt change the fact that the info offered to both parties to form an opinion about the deal ,should not be hidden from one of them.

What would the government be selling, that we as a nation who funds the government , be selling or buying from any country, that we as the nation should not be informed of??Are you talking arms, and jets, and planes,ect. ?

If we as a nation buy and sell anything with our tax money, we should know about ,

What do you feel? as someone who feels above all, should we not be privy to?

And as far as the sensitive issues,again really ,who cares what some says in privet not every one or every nation is going to be liked,

If such and such congressmen sends and email, to someone saying he think the middles east tradition is wacked out.
It gets leaked out,middles east gets mad. So what , If it effects them, to the point that later they dont want to do business with such nation who the congressmen was from,...Then i say to you, you sad lil country get a grip, get ,thicker skin ,and if it makes them feel better dont do business with them.

But to be afraid of said leaked opinion , that it might start a conflict, Really i cant get my head around that. It was an opinion, if some ones opinions is not the same as yours who friggin cares you control freak, geez get over it.

but the person who invaded the email and leaked it should be punished , for invasion of privacy.
Thats it.

But Who is the person makeing the decision to sanitize ,this information anyways.?

Who is it that you feel, should, or should not, know , about what gose on in the world ?

What should be hidden from the people who do not have such clear grasp on the world such as your self?what subjects.




posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 03:57 AM
link   

We will have to agree to disagree, no deal should have information witheld its dishonest,a military action is not a deal quit mixing the 2


I didn’t say they were, I’m not sure where you got that idea from.


(("That depends what it is, defence and security equipment certainly couldn’t be public knowledge as that could again cost lives down the line. "))

No you seem to be mixing stuff just to argue, are you talking a privet aucton or public auction


Neither, the auction was just an analogy. I have always been taking about government activities only using the private as analogies.


You keep changeing your example, .Should a used car sales give all the information to the buyer,or with hold some info because that may mean he cant sell the car and has to take the loss instead of pass the loss to some one else? really you think that is ok?


Eh? I’m not actually talking about used car salesmen or whether a seller should or should not withhold information on their product. I am simply observing that in trying to either buy or sell, whether on a national or personal scale, there is information that can be exploited by either the seller or a competitor. You can have total and free exchange of information on the product but that is not the only kind of information available, it is sensible to withhold information on what you are willing/able to pay for example otherwise you risk being exploited. I fail to see how keeping this information is dishonest unless you think haggling to get a best price is dishonest.


whats being sold at a privet auction is privet ,no matter the item, is.,whats being sold at a government auction, which means, that the item being auctioned,was payed for and built by my taxs dollars , so you dam wright show how much we made on the item ,it was my money also.


I’m not talking about an auction; that was just an analogy.


What do you feel? as someone who feels above all, should we not be privy to?


That’s what I’ve been trying to explain. When a government enters into negotiations with either another nation or a private company the aim is to get the best value for what they’re buying or selling; for reasons I’ve already explained this is made more difficult by total transparency. Thus it is not in the public interest to have all information on business/trade negotiations made public.


If such and such congressmen sends and email, to someone saying he think the middles east tradition is wacked out.
It gets leaked out,middles east gets mad. So what , If it effects them, to the point that later they dont want to do business with such nation who the congressmen was from,...Then i say to you, you sad lil country get a grip, get ,thicker skin ,and if it makes them feel better dont do business with them.


Again this isn’t what I’ve said though it is a valid point.

My example related to intranational debate where a policy maker wishes to discuss an issue that could impact his/her job and/or chances of being re-elected. It is an undeniable fact, as it has happened, that certain arguments can be political suicide regardless of their veracity or importance. A policy maker therefore has two choices in a transparent system, first he can give his opinion and risk his job or he can keep quiet and say what he thinks his electorate wants to hear. Either way serious issues are likely to be ignored; alternatively you can allow policy makers to have a private opinion and these issues will be discussed. Which is better?

With regards to opinions of other countries it is all well and good to say that they should get thicker skin or that “it’s just an opinion” but the fact of the matter is that expressing an opinion will affect relationships between states for a multitude of complex reasons. When the consequences are real you don’t really have the option of saying:

If it effects them, to the point that later they dont want to do business with such nation who the congressmen was from,...Then i say to you, you sad lil country get a grip

If that sad lil country doesn’t want to do business with you then real people lose their jobs; part of a governments responsibility is to look after those interests.


but the person who invaded the email and leaked it should be punished , for invasion of privacy.
Thats it.


So then should politicians/diplomats etc be allowed to have opinions on public matters in private?


But Who is the person makeing the decision to sanitize ,this information anyways.?


Those who have risen or been elected through meritocratic or democratic means. That’s not a perfect system but it is better than any other that I can think of.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 04:50 AM
link   
It is too late for our Federal Government to be transparent.

The entire National Wealth of the United States has been pilfered, stolen, and embezzled. Everything. Gone.


Our Federal Government is now 100% insolvent. They collected just enough last year in tax revenue to pay the Annual Interest Payment on the Federal Debt. They have Zero revenue to fund ANYTHING else.

Hence why Congress refused to pass a budget for the year. "ObamaCare" was rush passed because it is a new mandatory Federal Tax. Since it was passed it enabled Congress to borrow from future Revenue they will receive in 2014 from that new Federal Tax.

Every single day they can kick this country down the road 1 more day....is another day Hundreds of Billions can be pilfered, stolen, and embezzled by someone.

If the American people realized Hundreds of Trillions have been stolen, pilfered, and embezzled over the last 10 years....there would be a mutiny. Hence why we have turned into a Fascist State and Open Government will be no more.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 

That is what i am talking about which you refuse to see with all your diluted mentality.

Privet is privet, what some one says in privet ,regardless whether the information was released,or not, ITS an opinion (DUDE ) do you not understand that,ITs an opinion,Its not friggin real ,do you get that?can you not see ,regardless,of what someone thinks,Its not physical ,Get thicker skin, you sad little dude/country,geez grow up.


Anything government,(you must be a young man or brainwashed/work by people in power ),that we pay for is ours,also,....do you not agree?

That said, how it is sold and how much it was sold for,and why it was sold for that price,(idont care what it is...,friggin securities,junk bonds,jets amo,whatever ) I have the wright to know everything about the deal,before during and after, before I come up with a price I am willing to spend.Would you buy anything site unseen?

But in your thick head, who only wants to see what you want. What some one is willing to pay is privet. Why?? dose that seems to be what you keep coming back to, as your point? None here have said that what some one is willing to pay has to Be known ..you are the one saying that in your example not me.

(listen/read carefull,lil buddy,) The price of anything is what the willing buyer is willing to pay ...Do WE Not agree?? geezz its real simple to see. And is the value of said /whatever regardless who the buyer and seller is(government or indavidual)derived from the facts that can be gathered about the deal?? Do we not agree??

And all the information about the physical deal ,should be able to be seen by each party interested ,to form a complete value, do we not agree?? what they are willing to pay ,is a result of the information presented. So drop the what the buyer pays. geez dude read, none yet has said that anyone anywhere has to tell some one what they are willing to pay.

you keep going to that ......(("Neither, the auction was just an analogy. I have always been taking about government activities only using the private as analogie")).....Then LIKE I said QUIT mixing the 2, A government auction is not a privet auction.

And regardless privet or not all info needs to be seen by both parties, for it to be a fair deal . Do we not agree? The price is a privet personal choice.and dose not have to be told.Do we not agree? ITS privet,But a privet auction is only privet because the public where not invited,and that is fine and dandy. But if the government holds or attends a privet auction and uses my money to buy anything, Then that auction becomes public ,sorry if you want to rule me thats the way it has to be. I have the wright to know what was paid,and all the information about how/why our government paid what they paid when my money is beeing used , Do we not agree?? .Who said anything about haveing to know what the other guy is willing to pay.

That thinking trying to apply it to this post is stoopid,no one ever in the 42 yeas of my life has insisted in any deal, that i tell them what i am willing to pay unless, i tell them what price range im looking in

when has it ever in free trade ,been required/suggested for anyone tell all, what they are willing to pay??Really

not one person here has said that what some one is willing to pay should be part of the deal, have they?

It never has been as long as i can remember , but what has been is, all the information that will be used in a sale of anything,to form a value of anything ,should be made for the buy and seller to see and study if they like,nothing with held.

Leave what some one is willing to pay out of this, its a moot point,

In any deal, what (information )do you feel that the buyer/seller of said deal should not be privy too??what should be with held?

In what case do you feel it is wright to hide/deceive the buyer or seller of any information about any deal?

When it comes to my! money ,that I! earn, and that the government takes ,by force,threw taxes,and then turns around and wants to buy something with my! money ,I have the wright to know,We also have a wright to see the governments books and how they manage our money,Or should that be with held as national security?

Bs. If I cant see the books, how do i know if the people ,WHO YOU say where elected and given this power over our money and the sanitizeing of what i can and can not know ..LOL you amaze me.

If i cant see this info because TPTB think it may (the way they spent the money)piss americans off and change public opinion, that it is ok to be with held?????Really? because the government screwed up and dont want to admit it!! and dont want to change public opinion , they have the wright to hide details of what they did ? To hide the fact that they made a bad deal ,or got screwed on a deal. Really?

TPTB, you feel can hide that info and we should just go along?because it might make someone in america mad ..

Again, I ask, who? is anyone to think for me ,or tell me what i should or shouldnt know, So you beleive the people ellected by us are above us ?? more noble? more elite ? which gives them the wright to think for us?

You have no clue dude .USA is a government OF the people and for the people ,not of the government for the government,

Understand this who ever you are, WE PAY our government, THEY work for us , If we dont like it, we fire them and ellect new people,

Just because we vote someone in office dosent mean they rule us this isnt the UK we dont bow to queens and kings,we just higher them to represent us globaly not state wide .state governments, thats their job not the feds.

Wake up dude no one has the wright to tell you what you can and can not do,

but again understand this ,If our money is used (dont you want to know where your money gosse ??)It is our wright to know where it went.regardless of what is was spent on , If the government cant tell us what they spent it on because it would make us mad/scare us.....< think about that...Kinda leads me to think they did somthing that ,we as a whole, would not like??? Really!! .That is ok??

No they shouldnt have done the wrong thing to begin with ....

I will use the same thing they use when they want to spy on us or be able to read emails, this is what the government thinks,,

(If you have nothing to hide ...who cares if we spy..hmmm same to ya...If the government is not doing anything that would piss me off or shaddy , then let us know??

Who is it that puts the people we vote to office ,on this high horse,..They are human just like me and you no different and no better.

WHO gives anyone the wright to be above some one else,Yes im talking about your stoopid queen, oooppss dont let that out it may make UK mad because i called their queen stoopid OOHH NNOOO!!! OOOOO


Give me a break,.. get a back bone... people.

and a democracy is useless,, when in any time in history has it ever been fair for 51% of the people to control the other 49%, democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding who will become dinner.

A constitutional republic is the what we are ...you just have forgotin that.......... en.wikipedia.org...









edit on 2-12-2010 by controlled chaos because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by controlled chaos
 


Alright I didn’t start this thread to wade through half a page of insults, bad spelling and indecipherable grammar and I’m certainly not going to waste my time talking to someone who can’t hold a conversation without acting like a child. If you want to carry on the discussion I’d be more than happy to but without the immature jibes.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 

Sorry for spelling and such, at ,work typing fast. the jibes you deserve, reading my grammar you do not sorry for that.

Read this,You just have a very narrow perspective, of freedom.
This explains, in great, detail, even tho it is very short,it explains freedom.

ezinearticles.com...



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike_A
 


Mike_A, the logic is as simple as that:

If our governments are really responsible governments, why would they hide plans from their own people? If they have war plans, why would they keep them unknown to the the very people who gonna suffer and die from these wars, while the politicians will enjoy the security of bunkers? This is why we HAVE to know everything that they are plotting.

To make secret oaths and have secret programs that only a tiny part of the political elite knows makes these people ABOVE any accountability, as since almost nobody knows of their true actions, they become above criticism and judgment coming from the legal channels, like law suits, commissions, etc. Wikileaks is doign nothing else than to force upon this elite a major change in the way they make things, and to hopefully hold them accountable.
edit on 2/12/10 by Echtelion because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Pervius
 

One of the most accurate explanations, and statements I've heard on that point in like forever,
entire banking cartels are funded with our currency, entire private and corporate holding of the select few are realized by that plunder you just described.
Mutiny?
I believe Benito looked better in his final photo than these nasty evil pricktards would if the people would wake enmasse.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Echtelion
 



If our governments are really responsible governments, why would they hide plans from their own people?


Because you can’t reveal plans to your own people without revealing them to your enemies and competitors.

If there is nothing that should be kept then what do you say about the examples I gave of areas where transparency would negatively impact something which is in the public interest?



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   


So how far does ATS think transparency should go?


For the bigger problems www.abovetopsecret.com...

For the smaller stuff, money is an issue. All government accounting should be able to be audited by the people. If you cannot be honest about where the public dollars are going then I have serious concerns that it is not being spent wisely. I would also like all private bank accounts and net worth to be open to peer review as well. If someone cannot be honest about how much they earn and are worth, then it is very likely that they have too much. Hidden bank accounts, funds, foundations, ect have help build the 'greed is good' culture. I know the Swiss have a long culture of not talking about money and others will strongly contest such moves. I admit this does raise issues of competition and 'how to play the game'. Where is the money?



For example in armed conflicts should we know military plans?


The worlds military is coming together under a UN charter after we have final learnt how to communicate with words instead of weapons. The next stage is very complex and interconnected requiring all hands on deck to learn, comprehend and understand just what it is we are truly facing.



Same question to you, would you want this openness even if included a report on the bleak outlook of your economy which could lead to investment drying up, job losses etc? Or should the government keep this quiet and try to maintain investment?


I see the alternative being that we end up as a race of Borg considering the circumstance. Risks both way, but we stand up and learn how to think for ourselves or relinquish our self determination.



If the government assesses an industry to be fundamentally uncompetitive who wins by this information being public?


Either way there is going to be a lot of change, society is moving way to fast. Individually we are idiots, together we are strong. We are going to need a lot of cool heads and peer review and some time to come to terms with it all. This information will not kill us, but reinforce our resolve and unite the world to confront it.



Or what about the example I gave a few posts above of policy makers being punished for speaking frankly?


This is what has gotten us into these troubles. Putting your head in the sand just cloggs it up and makes you blind to challenges. Yeah, some challenges are big and discarded to the 'too hard basket'. We need to address this soon or it's festering will explode and take us all out.



Are there no cases at all where the government should maintain secrecy?


Perhaps there are, but after the dust settles if you cannot be honest about it was it really the right decision?



And if secrecy is for shills only can you give me all of your bank details please?


About 20-40K in assets (depends how you measure it), 14k in the bank, no regular income. 35 y.o.



And I have asked you what about those instances where making information public would adversely affect the public?


There does need to be an increased level of peer review into many aspects of our lives. Some jobs are difficult and judgements have to be made. Public debate can help indicate where resources do need to go. As responsibility increases there needs to be a wider array of support to help correctly assess all the issues and prepare the most beneficial responses.



So you agree that some limits do apply to government transparency?


There is already way too much information in our lives to digest and comprehend it all. If someone cares about a topic and is interested in they should have a free reign, self determination. There are many complex issues that need addressing and support as we either stand on our own feet or fall to the galactic community. In times of crisis people can been seen in their best colours, united under the common enemy of ignorance and fear. The transition will be long and tough with many such debates and different out comes. We need to be able to talk about it if we are to have any chance.



I agree that the public should know the argument for war but even here aren’t there grey areas?


No war is black and white. But provide the best overview we have and let competition decide.



Given your agreement that information could be withheld to protect lives would you agree that there are certain types of intelligence that could not be published because of the risk it could pose to intelligence agents or informants?


This needs a critical analysis of all the risk. Deception can be a very effective tool for survival, once it has been discovered it is useless. I do not see the fight we face as one amongst ourselves, sure some people will have difficulty with reality but if we remain open and supportive the communities will bond through it.



Similarly in government to government deals it would be foolish to publish your terms for all to see as it would give competitors, even in a free market, information on how to outbid you.


The economy is very sick and broken and need a major overhaul. It needs a lot of economists and others working it out.



Putting yourself in the position of a policy maker who needs to A) keep his job and B) get re-elected would you be willing to discuss an issue in public that you knew would probably cost you your job or would you shy away from discussing it?


There are lots of things that need fixing, when people realise the scale of the threat they will reassess everything they believed in.



If there is nothing that should be kept then what do you say about the examples I gave of areas where transparency would negatively impact something which is in the public interest?


Is a failure to respond due to lack of information in the public interest?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join