How much bullshit do you really believe?

No, I'm not a proponent of torture.
I'm not for bombing a whole area to get one man.

From either account, this was a direct action with immediate execution.
Like lancing a festering zit with a needle.
Done, over with. No drama.

BTW, I'm all for transparency.
But I'm also of the opinion that certain aspects are NOT public.
ALL info is not privy.

This would be like me telling you what my bank account # is.
Or how I took a shit this morning.

 

So what's the criteria exactly? Direct and immediate? Is that it?

Are you all for transparency? Or is it translucency? Maybe spotty transparency? You know, withholding certain records and black marker type shit.

The public is on a need-to-know basis?

Sure the Act has an exception where an Executive Order can withhold information to be "kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy." But why withhold information about this operation?

I think this is a good question considering the issues of accountability that the U.S. is facing in recent months.

No it wouldn't be. I don't know where you get that idea.

 

Hmm...I'm going to give you an answer that's not going to satisfy you...but it satisfies me.
I'm for as much transparency as possible, but there can be some discretion that may be important to not reveal.

This does include some withholding...non-disclosure. Until a more appropriate time.
And yes, this is delegated and designated by certain authority figures, depts and judges.
If you want the info, then file a FOIA form...allow a judge to determine this.
Sorry, don't always get what you want.
But, I've been on the inside too...and there are things that are not for public consumption unless otherwise needed.

And the US as well as other nations including your own all have issues of accountability...unless you're telling me Canada reveals EVERYTHING.
This varies back & forth from one administration, bureaucrat, mgmt staffmember, etc. to the next.
We have certain laws, protocol, elections, etc...which help determine what is allowed to be revealed.
People who love Wikileaks want EVERYTHING to be revealed...which I disagree with.
There are safety reasons for some, and quite frankly...some advantage reasons for others. Why reveal your KFC secret recipe to your competitors???

You want to withhold information about this event for a variety of reasons.
Methods...so opposing intelligence members can't figure out "exactly" our military standards.
Equipment...it was a big loss to get that stealth copter to crash...they blew it as much as possible. But China was delving into it the next day.
Personnel...Yes, there are not just special forces which themselves need anonomitity, but potential agents, allies, etc... Any connection can be traced.

See...unlike yourself it seems, at least by your questioning...I don't take one extreme or the other.
I'm balanced and pragmatic...would I prefer info be known...yes, because it's fascinating, every aspect is another facet.
But I also know that there should be secrets too.
And some "flavoring" of events are often protrayed....Why? Because some aspects may be exaggerated on or even used as an emotional instigator.

Do I believe in "cover-ups" of fuck-ups like what happened with the Pat Tilman? Not at all.
No, I don't care whether OBL was shot while naked ...or peeking out a door?? No...forget about it. I've got better things to worry about.

Now, this guy...who had Top Secret/SCI clearance...he may be in trouble with the Feds.
And believe me, they take this shit seriously.
The FBI/IRS/Secret Service already go up and down you...and investigate everything about your for 15 years of your life,
including asking your friends and neighbors about you and your "living patterns" just getting you cleared in the first place.
So I can't imagine how much he's going to be under the spotlight for this friggin' "reveal". Doesn't seem worth it.

Then again, I'm not a raging anti-Obama flag-waver either...so maybe it was for him.
This whole thing smells of "Swift Boat" all over again.
Either being revealed AT THIS TIME for political gain or attack...or for maximized marketing or sales...or both.
Because otherwise, they would have been wise to allow the govt to take the time to review it first,
for things that may get him in trouble. (even the major media does this...)
but it sounds like they rushed the whole thing out. Well, there may be consequences for that rush.
I hope the GOP'rs are willing to fund his legal fees...and give him a nice job now.

Me? I don't fuck with the Feds. Not even on this board.
I respect what I signed, I know the consequences...and I like a nice quiet life.

 

Just to refresh my memory I read three different accounts of battle. Some "between the lines" reading tells me this: The 101st Airborne was trucked (mostly) into Bastogne as a desperate defensive move because they were all that was available. No military doctrine envisages using an airborne division as a defensive formation, except in desperation. They did a superb job of holding Bastogne, a major road junction/hub. The topography dictated that there was no way around Bastogne. So the the Germans would have to dislodge the defenders to move through Bastogne to reach their real objectives.

I could find nothing in support your idea that the 101st could have advanced on their own from their position in Bastogne, no matter how well supplied. Yes, the 101st was the reason Bastogne was held, but by Christmas day was pretty well "used up" and could not have held out much longer. They were in no condition to move out offensively on their own, and wars are not won by holding defensive positions.

 

rogue49

I don't know how you can call my position extreme, when I'm merely asking how your position comes to terms with the Freedom of Information Act, both in relation to Bin Laden and some of the recent dealings of U.S. forces overseas. Your position itself seemed extreme in its "ends justify the means," and so I wanted you to clarify, as I didn't think you necessarily held such extreme views otherwise. Maybe just in this situation, as I can understand why people would feel that way with Bin Laden.

Also, it's not extreme to want a government to abide by a piece of legislation enacted in the best interests of the public.

 

Thanks Plan9r! I'll try to serve up some more. I don't think I've made anybody jizz in his pants since high school. At least then he got his hands on my... well, you know. Is it really THAT unusual that a gurrrl would have some knowledge of things military? I read a lot, and a lot is history, biography, and military. Like in the spring I read Brothers, Rivals, Victors a study of Gens. Patton, Bradley, and Eisenhower in WW2. It was why I had a fairly fresh memory of the Ardennes Offensive.
I am fascinated by the "endgame" of wars, especially WW2.

Just to be relevant to the thread: If the end is sufficiently vital, extreme means are justified. An example would be Harry Truman's decision to use the atomic bombs.

Lindy

 

You were offended? Should you grow the fuck up too?

All Islamists had a hand in habouring Bin Laden? Is that what you're saying?

What about those who acknowledge Islamofascism and were offended nonetheless?

I'm far more concerned about the death toll of conflicts caused by such things as geopolitics, totalitarianism, and scarce resources. Of course, the "Islamic threat" is really high profile and an easy sell despite the numbers.