Court ruling shields public safety info due to potential ‘terrorists’

page: 2
14
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 01:04 PM
link   

MysterX
reply to post by jrod
 


Did terrorists need to be told flying aircraft into buildings or planting bombs could be bad for the publics health then?

Or am i missing something.

It seems Terrorists are quite able to determine what might be a high value target on their own, whereas the public rely on public safety information to remain safe, don't they?



Familiarity with the manner airport security operated at the time did allow the terrorists to enter the country and to board several flights with items that security did not look for.




posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


The goal is to deter critical information from being used for reasons other than intended.

If the report shows that our supply / system of drinking water has vulnerabilities, and goes in depth into those security issues, why would we make that information available?

To goal is to deter, not supply a blueprint.

As I said earlier, Im ok with releasing some of the info, provided the release does not endanger the area in question. otherwise wait a few years then release the info.
edit on 27-1-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


You mean a few years AFTER everyone in the area is dead? Not sure what your point is, you seem to like defending actions that would otherwise be considered shady at best... Are you so afraid, that you will let them take everything from you in the name of 'safety?' I'm guessing so. You will probably respond that this is only a minor thing, and there's little to be concerned with. Except, that's how it always goes. Baby steps. One little piece at a time, until there's nothing left to take but your life. Would love to see your face when they come to your home and 'relocate' you, for your own protection, of course. To where? Can't tell ya... considered too much a 'risk.' What's the emergency? Don't know, 'need to know, only.' Now get in the truck.



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


We have radically different ideas of what forms and what is required to maintain a free, informed and active electorate to the ongoing process of Government.

That doesn't come by being spoon fed and sheltered from information directly dealing with threats to us. Now this information is the subject of a new ruling, as this is about. It's now restricted, where it hasn't been in the past. Why *SO* much now requiring restriction and protection from ..us... when it hasn't before?

We aren't suggesting the war on terror is going so poorly that it's MORE dangerous now to have such information out, than it's ever been in our nation before...are we? If that's the case, I know exactly who we can start firing and replacing to solve the issue at hand and not the one these show a symptom of...if an issue even exists to really justify it.

on their logic.



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


That makes sense.

It should not take a court ruling to make that kind of information classified, the same goes for contingency plans often that high-lite vulnerabilities and worst case scenarios. Like you said, a 'blue print' for an attack.

However common sense things such as being at risk for a chemical leak or spill because of a plant, being in the evacuation zone in the event of a nuclear meltdown, or in flood inundation area is pertinent information for the citizen to know. I think some of that information is even required for homeowner's insurance.
edit on 27-1-2014 by jrod because:




posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Chronogoblin
 


Wow.. you don't know me at all. If you take the time to read my posts, in this thread as well as others, you would see i'm a huge proponent of an open government that is held accountable by the people.

With that said, you need to stop viewing things solely from the paranoid of government view point. Not everything they do is shady, not everything they do is illegal and not everything they do is to screw over the civilians.

In case you missed it, we don't live in a democracy, we live in a representative republic. Why is it important to understand that? Because in a rep-rep the people send an elected representative to act on their behalf to government. That means the elected reps can gain access to material that the general public does not.

With that said, why would we want to publicly demonstrate our vulnerabilities when its been determined that civilians are valid targets for some of these groups?

infrastructure - Communications / Airports / Seaports / transportation / water / food / agricultural.

the list goes on and on and will include areas you would not even think of being vulnerable or important when it fact they are very much important and are very vulnerable.

When a government entity starts to spend money on "securing" something that makes no sense, it telegraphs the location might be something of interest.

sometime, being 100% transparent can do more damage than good.

Suggestion - instead of accusing me how about you contact your rep and tell them how you feel? I am merely pointing out some of the reasons I see as to why the ruling makes sense.



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Wrabbit2000
We have radically different ideas of what forms and what is required to maintain a free, informed and active electorate to the ongoing process of Government.

Actually I think we are more like minded than what you may think. I would rather be shot and killed while on a traffic stop than watch the second amendment get eviscerated in the name of safety.

I would rather see a serial killer walk free than be convicted on information that was in direct violation of the 4th amendment.



Wrabbit2000
That doesn't come by being spoon fed and sheltered from information directly dealing with threats to us. Now this information is the subject of a new ruling, as this is about. It's now restricted, where it hasn't been in the past. Why *SO* much now requiring restriction and protection from ..us... when it hasn't before?

This report has been restricted. Is there something in it not contained in other reports? Does it reference information that, of released and without context, could cause a person to jump to a conclusion? this ruling applies to this report, not all of them and the people in question can still appeal.



Wrabbit2000
We aren't suggesting the war on terror is going so poorly that it's MORE dangerous now to have such information out, than it's ever been in our nation before...are we? If that's the case, I know exactly who we can start firing and replacing to solve the issue at hand and not the one these show a symptom of...if an issue even exists to really justify it.

on their logic.


I guess it depends. If information is released, is it appropriate for citizens to demand a change in police coverage to watch these facilities at all times while neglecting other areas they are responsible for? Would the citizens agree to tax increases in order to pay for the added cost of more officers and security upgrades?

What if the information deals with something that is every vulnerable with no fix possible?

I am all about an open government and the people holding it accountable. however, when you have 300 million plus citizens with 600 million ideas on how things should be done, what would the most prudent course of action be?

serious question



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   

jrod
That makes sense.

It should not take a court ruling to make that kind of information classified, the same goes for contingency plans often that high-lite vulnerabilities and worst case scenarios. Like you said, a 'blue print' for an attack.

From what I gathered the court case resulted from the report not being released. Then judge himself in the end agreed with the decision. While people may not agree with it, we can only speculate since we don't know what the report contains.

Assuming worst case scenario when its not is no more helpful than by withholding info from the public.

where is the balance between the publics right to know and the governments requirement of protecting the people?



jrod
However common sense things, like be at risk for a chemical leak or spill because of a plant, being in the evacuation zone in the event of a nuclear meltdown, or in flood inundation area is pertinent information for the citizen to know. I think some of that information is even required for homeowner's insurance.

All of which is made available to the public.

my question / example on this -
A city has established areas that act as shelters for the public ranging from weather all the way up to nuclear incidents. Should the public know those shelters exist, what they protect from, where they are located and how to safely get to one?

absolutely in my opinion.

with that said, is it paramount for the public to know that if the shelters are activated that law enforcement will be responsible for safeguarding medicines / supplies coming into the area and where those supply points are located? Is it paramount for the public to know how many officers will be assigned to escort shipments and what route those convoys will take? Is it paramount for the public to know where makeshift morgues are going to be located?

How about the location of emergency communications equipment?
What about internal planning for emergency services as to how many officers are deployed, what their schedule is, where they are stationed etc?

The tornado in Joplin Missouri demonstrated a plan that worked, restricting information until such a time that info could be released in proper context.

As an example 2 of the 3 911 comm centers took massive damage, the radio network was destroyed, cell towers / coverage interrupted.

Since it was a natural disaster things returned to somewhat normalcy a few days later, when the plans were in place and functioning.

My concern is not natural disasters. My concern is providing a blue print to people who don't mind attacking civilian areas and civilian infrastructure. We work hand in hand with state agencies on developing plans, and most of that info can be accessed by the public through their respective SEMA / EMA entities for their specific areas.

Is there a reason a citizen located in Newton county MO (west side of state) needs to know what Cape Girardeau MO (east side of state) plans are in specifics?

That's what im talking about / referring to - specifics.



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



Critical infrastructure goes beyond what most people think, and to release these reports would provided information that could be used to cause major damage. Critical infrastructure is dependent on individual factors as well as reliance upon other critical infrastructure areas in order to effectively operate. All it takes is to damage one low level category to cause mass issues in other areas (domino effect).


I think we're coming at this from two different mindsets, really. Maybe not to the extent I had thought previously, but certainly different mindsets.

If we were facing Billy Joe Bob Racist in Christian Identity...I could see some logic to restrictions on the National Dam Inventory database and what it produces. I've been into that data personally, often enough ..and have a thread on here in fact about a Dam in New York State which private land owners got to pay for. That one took me in since they instituted some of the "security measures" on data vs. what it had been prior to that, in other years. It's totally absurd.

Terrorists in the context they mean, aren't idiots by any stretch. The foot soldiers are, but they are the fodder wearing suicide vests. Idiots don't think up national infrastructure attacks. Either in sheer scale for the high side or sheer intelligence and creativity for one of the nexus points and much smaller. In fact, the terrorist organizations seem to really favor Engineering degrees, to look at past examples and education levels/directions. I'm certainly talking about Al Qaeda, but by no means ONLY Al Qaeda.

This is akin to decades of hiding everything down to the mundane from the Soviets and on military things ...which the Soviets were very literally reading before everyone in a slow chain could even get around to reading their official stuff here. Pointless for the vast majority then, and now.


Anything a terrorist would want to attack, I think I have the same right to know, as one of those 'We the People's to know my personal vulnerability and potential exposure, as the certainty 'they' will find a way if actually there and determined to do something evil.....(with or without public records, in their case).



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by jrod
 


The reality is the ruling will keep the public in the dark so we are not outraged when it happens.

Just so we will never know what hit us.
Population control.
Who cares they will still have the Illegal immigrants to vote them in
or relect them.



posted on Jan, 27 2014 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


And just because a court decides to apply common sense to certain information does not mean there is a conspiracy or illegal actions by the government / business.


So more Darkness for We The People , By The People , For The People ?
Sounds awesome to me Dumb US All Down.
We Don't Need to Know What's Going on Anyway.
After all We Need this Secret Government that we have all ELECTED.
Just to Keep US SAFE.
Wouldnt All Communist Agree ?



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by bluesman1955
 


If you are going to respond to my posts would it be possible for you to actually read them?



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Thank you for the source reference.

This is similar to the recent "State Secrets" act passed by the Japanese parliament. The Japanese legislation will make it illegal for reporters to report on anything of an environmental (read Fukushima) or public health threat unless it is from 'official sources'.

The recent water contamination in West Virginia, is an example of that type of 'news item'. The West Virginia Governer recently stated that it was up to each citizen to determine if the water was safe to drink or not.

thinkprogress.org...




Amid growing concerns over whether or not the water is actually safe for 300,000 West Virginians following a massive chemical spill into the water supply, the state’s governor said it was up to each of them to decide whether they use it.
“It’s your decision,” Gov. Tomblin told reporters at a press conference on Monday. “If you do not feel comfortable drinking or cooking with this water then use bottled water.”
“I’m not going to say absolutely, 100 percent that everything is safe,” Tomblin continued. “But what I can say is if you do not feel comfortable, don’t use it.”


Think it's safe to drink? Or is he just shilling for the bottled water companies.

Thanks for the info.





new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1   >>

log in

join