Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

301 comments

Can't wait... (0, Troll)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386166)

Can't wait 25 years to know how my president mislead us into this Iraq quagmire. We just lost 100 people so far this month and counting! Very sad indeed. More American lives have now been lost in Iraq as compared to those that died on 9/11.

Re:Can't wait... (4, Insightful)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386196)

> Can't wait 25 years to know how my president mislead us into this Iraq quagmire. We just lost 100 people so far this month and
> counting! Very sad indeed. More American lives have now been lost in Iraq as compared to those that died on 9/11.

I don't know what you expect to find. There's nothing unique about the US intervention in Iraq - it's for exactly the same reasons as all the other meddling in other countries affairs going back through most of the 20th century. No cover ups or conspiracy theories are required - it's been taking place quite openly. You might want to start with `manufacturing consent` or `hegemony or survival` by Noam Chomsky for what's been going on, and how the a free media like that in the US handles it.

Re:Can't wait... (3, Funny)

fat32 (620360) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386294)

Q: What's the difference between a clueless noob and a Slashdot moderator?

A: A clueless noob watches FOXNews 24/7. A Slashdot moderator watches FOXNews by day, and MSNBC by night.

Q: What's the difference between Noam Chomsky and Che Guevarra?

A: Che Guevarra wasn't a pompous asshole.

Q: What's the difference between Noam Chomsky's analysis of 9/11 and George Bush's analysis of 9/11?

A: Nothing.

Re:Can't wait... (-1, Flamebait)

Killall -9 Bash (622952) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386504)

Q: What's the difference between Noam Chomsky's analysis of 9/11 and George Bush's analysis of 9/11?

A: Nothing.
Yeah, they both know the 9/11 attacks were an inside job.

Funny how the mass media doesn't focus on column segments cut at neat 45 degree angles, the pyroclastic flow that blanketed Manhattan*, the eyewitness testimony of police firefighters ambulance workers of explosions, the pancake theory not accounting for the collapse of the central columns, etc.


*(They talk about the cloud of dust, but don't mention that you only normally see one of those during a volcanic eruption, or how much energy it would take to create a city covering cloud of hot air.)

Re:Can't wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17386718)

You might want to start with `manufacturing consent` or `hegemony or survival` by Noam Chomsky for what's been going on, and how the a free media like that in the US handles it.


While I agree with your general sentiment, you need to find somebody to cite that's not quite the anti-Semitic socialist crackpot.

Yes, Chomsky's a professor of linguistics. Period. It would appear that he makes the same mistake many of the Phd's that I work with do, which is that somehow he thinks his points on other topics are more valid than the rest of us. No dice.

Re:Can't wait... (2, Funny)

baldass_newbie (136609) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386806)

Yes, Chomsky's a professor of linguistics.

And yet he only speaks one language. How funny is that?

Re:Can't wait... (0, Troll)

SQL Error (16383) | more than 7 years ago | (#17387496)

Not funny at all to thousands of working linguists who believe that Chomsky has set the field back by decades.

Not funny when you consider that Chomsky's so-called "Universal Grammar" looks just like English.

Not funny when you consider that Chomsky's reputation as a thinker comes entirely from his work in linguistics, when that work is, at best, junk.

Re:Can't wait... (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 7 years ago | (#17387306)

Yes, Chomsky's a professor of linguistics. Period.

You like sticking people into nice little labeled cubbyholes, don't you?
this 1972 article [chomsky.info] reprinted from the New York Review of Books, should go some way towards explaining what linguistics are, and Chomsky's reputation in the field.

And if linguistics still sounds rather esoteric, and inapplicable to, other things, say, Artificial Intelligence, what of it? Would he be more qualified to speak of East Timor if he taught political science or worked for Fox News?

Re:Can't wait... (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 7 years ago | (#17387572)

I'm also puzzled as to how a Jew can be deemed anti-semitic.

Re:Can't wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17387670)

He isn't anti-semite just opposes Israel/zionism.

Re:Can't wait... (2, Insightful)

fuzzix (700457) | more than 7 years ago | (#17387412)

Yes, Chomsky's a professor of linguistics.

Oh, well that completely excludes him from being able to comment on the semantics and euphemisms used by the mass media to mask the truth.

Re:Can't wait... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17386204)

What about hundreds of Iraqi people's lives that were lost? That doesn't count eh?

Re:Can't wait... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17386218)

What about hundreds of Iraqi people's lives that were lost?
Those terrorists don't count.

Re:Can't wait... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17386330)

Hundreds? Try hundreds of thousands.

Re:Can't wait... (1)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386298)

Firstly there wont be a lot of documentation, why would you document crap you just make up about WMD and Al Quaida links although perhaps the source of the hilarious and utterly incompetent Nigerian yellow cake forgeries might emerge.

Secondly, and most importantly, no one will care. In 2002 the documents which showed the US had basically been knowingly supplying Sadam with materials to develop chemical weapons (yes Mr Rumsfeld you) emerged and no one batted an eyelid.

Re:Can't wait... (5, Insightful)

oggiejnr (999258) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386346)

You would be suprised about the anount of documentation. If people lower down in the food chain want to cover themselves the first thing they do is put it in writing. Take the Suez Crisis for example. There is clearly documentation to show that the British used sexed up intelligence to manufacture a war against Egypt to reclaim Suez. If documentation exists to show this then I wouldn't be at all suprised if the same is true of Iraq

Re:Can't wait... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17386398)

Yeah, but the point is no one will care.

We don't need to open secret archives to know the Iraq war was a bunch of bullshit but no one really cares.

Re:Can't wait... (1, Interesting)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386410)

You point is taken, and I agree is usually the case. However you are overlooking the stunning arrogance and self deluded incompetence of the Bush administration. These are people who believe the world is the way they say it is and not the way reality dictates. When they said Iraq had WMD that was enough for it to be true and explains why no supporting evidence was needed or produced and in all likelyhood does not currrently exist in reality of forgery.

Re:Can't wait... (1)

InThane (2300) | more than 7 years ago | (#17387428)

The kind of people who do this kind of documentation aren't the ones who came in with the administration - they're the rank and file of the federal bureaucracy, who predated the administration, and the administration can't easily get rid of them due to union laws.

Those are the guys who write the memos that embarrass the heads of state.

Re:Can't wait... (1)

Denial93 (773403) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386372)

Actually, "25 years ago" includes the beginning of the Iran-Iraq War [wikipedia.org] , which the US were involved in to an extent unclear as of yet [wikipedia.org] . So that could certainly shed some light on the history of US involvement in Iraq. However, since that information heavily involves George Bush senior, I very much doubt it will actually see light.

Re:Can't wait... (3, Insightful)

Malc (1751) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386392)

"More American lives have now been lost in Iraq as compared to those that died on 9/11."

Why exactly did you draw that comparison? They're two unrelated events. Why not say: more American lives have been lost in Iraq than in Pearl Harbor? Even if 10,000 lives had been lost on 9/11, there would still be no justification for attacking Iraq based on it, and thus no bench mark to compare against.

Re:Can't wait... (5, Funny)

Charcharodon (611187) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386572)

There was plenty of justification for attacking Iraq.

The president said "Hey let's attack Iraq" and Congress said "America!...Fuck Yea!" and then Congress said to Americans "Hey let's attack Iraq" and they said "America!...Fuck Yea!" and that's all there is to it.

There are no bench-marks or justfications for war just details and more importantly the willingness to goto war.

Re:Can't wait... (0)

(A)*(B)!0_- (888552) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386672)

Saddam Hussein was in non-compliance with the ceasefire of the first Gulf War; his invasion of Kuwait and subsequent behavior was the justification for going into the country. Do you believe that Clinton was justified in launching missile attacks against Baghdad?

Re:Can't wait... (1)

Charcharodon (611187) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386854)

It doesn't matter what I believe.

All that is required for anything is willingness and maybe ability, justifactions be damned. Justifications are the details we use to paint a pretty picture we paint for ourselves to make events appear moral or imoral, but since there are no such thing as morals, only things we are willing or unwilling to do, we end up right back where we started.

My whole point was to make fun of people who go on and on about how the President missled everyone, which was horseshit. They all went along with it because they were more than willing and that's exactly how wars begin.

Personally I think the war in Iraq is a big mess at the moment. Hussein kept a lid on the multiple groups by using heavy handed tactics. If that is what is going to be required to keep peace there, then we should just split up the country along factions and give the pieces to the neighboring countries that have similar factions and get the hell out. It either that or we are going to have to pick one of the three sides then wipe out the other two. Based on precidence in other countries in the middle east we are going to be there for decades if we think we can hold onto the situation until things calm down. The only other option is to let Hussein go back into power and let the Iraqi's have the kind of leader they seem to deserve/need.

But what the fuck do I know? I'm not from Iraq or the Middle East.

Re:Can't wait... (1)

(A)*(B)!0_- (888552) | more than 7 years ago | (#17387492)

Ah, I see; I misunderstood your point.

I do disagree with you though. Ignoring this current situation for the moment and to use your language, the people of the United States were willing to escalate the action in Vietnam based on their understanding of the events in the Gulf of Tonkin that led to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution; because of that event, they were willing - without it, they would probably have been unwilling. That justification is the determining factor in what someone is willing to do.

Re:Can't wait... (1)

Lost Penguin (636359) | more than 7 years ago | (#17387256)

The truth is, Bush had rights to attack any nation involved in 9-11.
His lie to Congress and the American people was that Iraq was behind 9-11.
These lies continue to this day.

Sadam killed terrorists in Iraq

Re:Can't wait... (1)

Heikell (887104) | more than 7 years ago | (#17387464)

You forget that he supposedly had intelligence that supported his cause against Iraq which I have yet to see any of.

Re:Can't wait... (3, Informative)

TheNinjaroach (878876) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386726)

Why exactly did you draw that comparison? They're two unrelated events.

Those two events are closely related. Nobody would have supported our "War on Terror" or the invasion of Iraq had we not been attacked on 9/11.

Re:Can't wait... (1)

baldass_newbie (136609) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386832)

the invasion of Iraq had we not been attacked on 9/11.

Uh, we invaded Iraq about a decade before 9/11. Saddam violated the terms of the cease fire and we resumed hostilities like we did in 1998 using the exact same intelligence.

Re:Can't wait... (3, Insightful)

Guuge (719028) | more than 7 years ago | (#17387162)

It makes perfect sense to compare two deadly events by counting deaths. For example, the Asian tsunami was far deadlier than hurricane Katrina. That doesn't make hurricane Katrina justified, but it does give one some perspective.

In this case, it's clear that Bush is deadlier to Americans than Osama bin Laden. The comparison suggests that we reevaluate our priorities.

Re:Can't wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17387518)

Actually, it means being in Iraq is deadlier to Americans than Osama bin Laden.

Your logic is broken. Demonizing your enemy doesn't help anything.

Re:Can't wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17386406)

You don't mention the Iraqi lives that have been lost or destroyed since the US-led invasion of Iraq. Each of those lives is equally valuable. Secondly, you mention that the US deaths are now greater than 9/11 deaths, which may be an interesting constrast in it's own right however it's also prudent to recollect that the pretense for US-led-invasion of Iraq was WMN - not a relationship with 9/11.

Perhaps you're simply taking the same line as this guy:

"We don't do body counts"

General Tommy Franks, US Central Command

Re:Can't wait... (0)

Charcharodon (611187) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386442)

On average 120 Americans were killed just yesterday. Men, women, the young, the old, hell even family pets. There is no grand government conspiracy there, it's called the automobile.

Let's not just be US snobs, in the time it took me to bang this short reply out 10 people died globaly due to the dreaded four wheeled machine of death. Where is the outrage? Where is the horror?

Sure war is a terrible thing, but try to get a little perspective here folks.

Re:Can't wait... (3, Insightful)

Iron (III) Chloride (922186) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386532)

It's true that automobile deaths are extremely prevalent, but they are usually more the result of 1) poor training or 2) excessive alcohol consumption or 3) road rage. It's something that cannot be easily dealt with because it concerns the whole of society. People will always get angry, people will always get drunk, and people will always get mad. It's part of human nature that probably is very hard, if not impossible, to change. It's unlike racism, where you have one clearly defined ethnic group targeting another. Oh, and accidents may also happen due to carelessness, which cannot be avoided.

On the other hand, the war is a single product of a single administration and the entire US public's attitudes (apathy, ignorance?) towards a single issue. It's much more preventable; it's much more treatable. Thus, naturally we'll be more easily angered about a more preventable bad decision by the administration and its incompetence and arrogance. Perspective is much less the issue here as opposed to the ability to succeed.

-FeCl3

Re:Can't wait... (0)

Joe Snipe (224958) | more than 7 years ago | (#17387028)

It's true that automobile deaths are extremely prevalent, but they are usually more the result of 1) poor training or 2) excessive alcohol consumption or 3) road rage.

I can reduce your causes to 1) communication problems 2)Poor Judgment Faculties 3) Lack of foresight, and planning
Which can further be reduced to an inability to clearly see the present situation, compare it to the past, and apply said information toward future goals. All of humanities issues can be attributed to these three things, whether or not it involves someones death. That we have an "administration to blame", doesn't fix anything; unfortunately it makes it easier to dismiss the problem by pointing to a scapegoat. The GP was correct in that we need perspective, but it should be a perspective of erudition, not apathy.

"Where is the outrage? Where is the horror?" (1)

Pink Tinkletini (978889) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386578)

I know you didn't really ask, but right here [streetsblog.org] . Scroll down to "Weekly Carnage."

Re:Can't wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17386846)

Here's a little perspective. There are approximately 140,000 US troops in Iraq. If 100 of them were killed in December, that's about 0.071% killed. The US population is now around 300 million. If the same percentage of US population were killed in December it would be around 214,000 people killed. And of course we're not counting Iraqi casualties.

Re:Can't wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17387710)

Yes, and "bread is deadly" right?

You are suffering from enormous logic fallacies. Will leave it up to you to research "which ones"...

Re:Can't wait... (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386444)

EVERY classified document produced by the US Government is subject to a declassification timeline, usually much sooner than this magical 25 year timeline. Only certain documents are afforded an exemption from declassification guidelines, and only when declassification would reveal sources, methods, or plans. Any Private in Army Intelligence knows this, so why can't the media get it right?

If you all want open access to intel sources, great: just don't expect any security in exchange.

Re:Can't wait... (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386494)

Here is a source for my information, Executive Order 12958, Classified National Security Information, April 17, 1995: http://www.dss.mil/seclib/eo12958.htm [dss.mil]

Re:Can't wait... (1)

SnapShot (171582) | more than 7 years ago | (#17387050)

While technically the rule for keeping documents secret is if they would reveal sources, methods, or plans. In reality -- and I doubt I'm being too cynical here -- the real criteria is if they will embarass the anyone who has friends in government.

Re:Can't wait... (4, Interesting)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386700)

Nothing of interest will be there. The interesting info would be in Reagan's term. But just before the info was to be release, W. did an executive order that allows a president or their heir or a current admin to redact any info that they think would damage their reputation. Hopefully the next president will have some morals and allow us none people to see exactly what what past presidents have been and done. That should include ALL of the reagan info including his irangate as well as his work in having Iran hold our hostages before the election and his dealings with Sadaam as well as OBL.

Re:Can't wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17387396)

Yeah, can't wait to find out about all the perfidy of the Carter administration. That will be the major eye opener. Too bad Clinton's administration isn't covered in this release.

Re:Can't wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17387512)

Fox News already declared that Carter is the devil. We don't need any documents written by stuffy intellectual elites.

Re:Can't wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17387654)

Carter's stuff was out back in 2000. He is well known. There was very little ethical issues with the carter admin. In addition, he is the most underappreciated president of the last 60 years (as well as bush I). It was Carter's policies that brought back the economy that Nixon and Ford had killed so badly. Ever wonder why the economy came back to quickly in the early 80's? That was due to the deregulation of the airlines and oil/gas. It had NOTHING to do with Reagan. As to Clinton, well, he will be interesting. Overall, his lack of ethical issues is personal (of course, I would guess that Hillary had no issues with it). I suspect that overall we will find little issues with his professional ethics (as opposed to both Reagan and Bush II who are about the most corrupt and least intelligent presidents of the last 100 years).

Re:Can't wait... (1)

mathmetalmike (1044394) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386852)

Can't wait 25 years to know how my president mislead us into this Iraq quagmire. We just lost 100 people so far this month and counting! Very sad indeed. More American lives have now been lost in Iraq as compared to those that died on 9/11. Are you one of those left wing nuts that thinks Bush blew up the towers too??? We all had the same information on the WMDs so lets not go blaming one person for an entire goverments mistakes! The left and the right had the same info and they ALL voted to go to iraq. The information was wrong,.. thats all there is. And no, the number of lives lost isnt "many more" then those who died on 9-11. The tally on American troops who have died PROTECTING this country from those religous nutjobs who want to come here and kill YOU and me, its about the same now... just under 3000. No one said boo in WWII when 17,000 died in a few months... it was for the greater good, it was understood that we had to be there. But these days its all bleeding hearts afraid to die for something, like love of country and family.... and o so sad and wrong when someone else does! Its time to rethink what you have been thinking, IF you ever thought of it for yourself. If you change the way you see things.... the things you see will change.

Re:Can't wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17387360)

The left and the right had the same info and they ALL voted to go to iraq.

I didn't. 6000 others in my hometown didn't either, I know because on Feb 15, 2003 we were in the street protesting to prevent this unjustifiable invasion. About 13 million other people all over the world joined us, for some cities it was the largest protest event in their entire history.

I also remember that these protests were instrumental in the US going back to the UN for a last-ditch attempt at international legitimacy, and that all of this was reported even in the US media.

If you think there was clear consensus in going into Iraq, you were deluded.

Re:Can't wait... (1)

Guuge (719028) | more than 7 years ago | (#17387706)

No one said boo in WWII when 17,000 died in a few months

Actually, people were extremely upset in the months after WWII began. Hitler claimed that the invasion of Poland was an act of self-preservation but everyone knew that he really wanted to expand his dominion. In the end, WWII was a tremendous disaster. The death toll was huge and it didn't get Hitler anything but an early grave. I'm not sure I'd put even the Iraq War in the same category of disaster as WWII.

What do they have to do with each other? (1)

Cigarra (652458) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386886)

Yeah, OT, but I'm really sick and tired of how happily these comparisons go on and on, about how there are more dead soldiers in Iraq than 9/11 victims.

Please, repeat after me:
Iraq had NOTHING TO DO with the 9/11 attacks. Nothing at all.

Re:What do they have to do with each other? (1, Flamebait)

Guuge (719028) | more than 7 years ago | (#17387350)

Every history book on the Iraq War is going to mention 9/11, just as every history of World War I mentions Francis Ferdinand. The plain truth is that 9/11 was used to stir up fanatical nationalism and loyalty to the central government, which set the stage for the abuses of power that led to the Iraq War. I'm not saying that 9/11 was necessary for Bush's plan; it was simply available. Similarly, the assassination of Francis Ferdinand was not necessary for WWI to ignite.

I suppose comparing the Iraq War to 9/11 shows how we've become that which we despise.

Re:Can't wait... (1)

dapsychous (1009353) | more than 7 years ago | (#17387624)

That's great and all, but as another has said further down the page, the events are unrelated and therefore, it is not acceptable to use one as a benchmark for the other.

Besides, 3000+ for an entire military action (notice the lack of the word 'war') is really not that bad. Modern technology has greatly increased the survivability of our troops. Compare 3000+ for an entire action, with anywhere from 20,000+ to 60,000+ per day during the civil war.

Now, I'm not trying to justify this particular action. I was against it from the start, and when Shrub was first elected, I jokingly said that we'd probably be going after Iraq. Woe that I couldn't see the future. That being said, I do believe that, since we've gotten mixed up in this mess, we need to see it through until Iraq says, "Get the hell out, already" (which in all hope will be soon).

Just my 37.5 cents (inflation, you know)

in other words (5, Funny)

macadamia_harold (947445) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386168)

it may actually take months or more for the National Archives and Records Administration to make those pages available for public consumption.

in other words, it takes the government a few months to go over every line on every page with a black marker. The pages might be declassified (but see if you can read the information!)

Re:in other words (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17386260)

in other words, it takes the government a few months to go over every line on every page with a black marker. The pages might be declassified (but see if you can read the information!)


That's not censorship! They're just making us a favor by highlighting [theonion.com] all the good stuff.

Re:in other words (0, Troll)

riff420 (810435) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386270)

i'm not worried. i heard Bush himself did all of the penwork. i'm willing to bet he used a yellow highlighter, though. he's not the smartest president we've had in 6 years.

Re:in other words (5, Funny)

WgT2 (591074) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386296)

Don't worry. Perhaps they'll release the blacked-out material as Word docs.

You'll be able to read everything then!

Re:in other words (-1, Troll)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386386)

in other words, it takes the government a few months to go over every line on every page with a black marker. The pages might be declassified (but see if you can read the information!)

Actually, given Bush's penchant for re-classifying classified information that might embarrass the government, the delay is in retyping the whole stack in disappearing ink.

Re:in other words (4, Funny)

amliebsch (724858) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386540)

Maybe, but the real challenge will be to read them before Sandy Berger stuffs them in his pants and "misplaces" them.

Re:in other words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17386760)

Here's a thought: maybe if the Republicans weren't so busy turning their own ethics on and off when it suited them, they could have done something about that when they found out what had happened.

Re:in other words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17387048)

Haha, I get it! Blame the Democrat! You guys are so clever. Fortunately, classified documents aren't the only things to be cleaned out of the government in January.

Re:in other words (2, Funny)

Charcharodon (611187) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386454)

,i.in other words, it takes the government a few months to go over every line on every page with a black marker. The pages might be declassified (but see if you can read the information!)

Yes but the real reason for the slow up is not the actual marking out things with a black marker, but the bidding process to provide the government with the correct mil-spec markers.

Re:in other words (1)

TheSlashaway (1032228) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386712)

Re:in other words (1)

Charcharodon (611187) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386776)

hahaha, great minds think a like I guess. :D Maybe they'll give me a job?!

Re:in other words (1)

kayditty (641006) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386570)

see if you can read the information!
you can if you copy and paste [slashdot.org] .

Re:in other words (1)

mwilliamson (672411) | more than 7 years ago | (#17387134)

black marker...that's so old school. White-out tape + xerox is the new way of doing this.

Too many exeptions. (4, Interesting)

packeteer (566398) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386174)

The least of acceptable exceptions is too long. If a document involves multiple agencies it wont be free. This will do nothing to calm down conspiracy theories, but it will be interesting for historians.

Re:Too many exeptions. (0, Troll)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386188)

Well, like Bush says, the iraq adventure will only be a comma in the history books... his choice of adjective, not mine.

Re:Too many exeptions. (1)

AxminsterLeuven (963108) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386216)

Where's the adjective in that phrase?

Re:Too many exeptions. (1)

Vengeance (46019) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386364)

It's redacted, to be released in 30 years, if requested.

Re:Too many exeptions. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17386258)

Whoa! For a moment I thought I was reading Daily Kos.


What is it with you moonbats? Why is everything Bush's fault? And I thought you thought you were the reality based community.

Re:Too many exeptions. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17386974)

Surely you can't blame Bush for the things he says. The Democrats must be using mind control on him.

among the secrets to be revealed (0, Troll)

fat32 (620360) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386222)

Kennedy was assassinated by Vice President Johnson (duh).
We never went to the moon.
We never went to Mars, and most space photos are faked.
AIDS (HIV anyway) is a hoax.
Retroviral therapy kills people.
Diet Coke causes siezures.
Flouride is an industrial pollutant (ask Europe).
Gulf War Syndrome is caused by depleted uranium tank rounds.
Al Quaeda doesn't exist.
Dick Cheney planned, financed, and executed 9/11.

Happy New Year!

Finally (4, Funny)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386224)

The secret invasion by aliens will be revealed. I, for one, welcome our new overlords. I've been watching them for years on Lost in Space, Star Trek, V, Battlestar Gallactica and The Smurfs. I am looking forward to the secret being revealed and my release from the asylum.

Re:Finally (1, Funny)

nra1871 (836627) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386280)

V is an excellent documentary on the Reptoids' plans for us. Don't be fooled, the best place to hide the truth is in plain sight.

Re:Finally (1)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386374)

I understand my friend. Fortunately the Reptoids' can be fooled into thinking I am a rock merely by encasing myself in foil. The egyptians almost had it right by wrapping their dead in cloth, but foil works much better. Peace be with you.

Re:Finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17386360)

In Soviet Russia, government secrets classify you!

[Tumble weed rolls past, glass breaks, baby cries]

Re:Finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17386558)

Well, it was true.

Re:Finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17386412)

...also the White House

Re:Finally (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 7 years ago | (#17387690)

...my release from the asylum.

There is no release except death.
Now get back to posting inmate #953670

Don't expect much (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17386310)

At any particular time, archiving, especially archiving the whole truth is very low priority. Involved parties tend to solve everything by employing their personal influences and relations, without written orders and most certainly without explanations. No officials ever incriminate themselves in the records. Official records are often daily propaganda-ridden and full of euphemisms. Sometimes, they are embellished to make particular official look good. So if you think there will be some major revelations and breakthroughs in historical science only because of declassifying (without very tedious research, analysis and clarifications by several living witnesses), think again.

What about? (0, Redundant)

otacon (445694) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386422)

I'd like to know exactly how the government killed Kennedy and also how they killed Martin Luther King Jr.....hold on someone is at the door...

Call it cynicism, but... (4, Interesting)

paganizer (566360) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386530)

I'll be pretty shocked if anything actually of use turns up. I'll definitely try to take a look myself; I've been searching for years for some of the info on the nuclear tests done in the late 50's, as my dad was in 13 of them.
Hearing him talking about how much fun it was being in a foxhole 1.5 miles from ground zero, and digging out the rad badges and other stuff he kept as a souveneir, then seeing that there is no record to be found ANYWHERE that his unit was anywhere near where the tests were done has always fascinated me with the subject; hopefully someone will slip up and release a unit list for the Guinea Pig troops.

Re:Call it cynicism, but... (3, Funny)

TodMinuit (1026042) | more than 7 years ago | (#17387456)

I've been searching for years for some of the info on the nuclear tests done in the late 50's, as my dad was in 13 of them.

What kind of super powers does he have?

It's nice to see they've solved the problem (5, Informative)

MarkusQ (450076) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386566)

I was recently pleased to discover that our leaders have hit upon an ideal solution for the perennial problem of that pesky public eventually getting their hands on documents like this. It's so simple, I don't know why they didn't think of it sooner.

Don't produce the information that will make you look bad in the first place.

For instance:

  • After a government report showed an increase in terrorism around the world, the administration announced it would stop publishing its annual report on international terrorism.
  • A rule change at the U.S. Geological Survey restricts agency scientists from publishing or discussing research without that information first being screened by higher-ups at the agency. Special screening will be given to "findings or data that may be especially newsworthy, have an impact on government policy, or contradict previous public understanding to ensure that proper officials are notified and that communication strategies are developed.
  • The Treasury Department stopped producing reports showing how the benefits of tax cuts were distributed by income class.
  • After the Bureau of Labor Statistics uncovered discouraging data about factory closings in the U.S., the administration announced it would stop publishing information about factory closings.

Of course, the old trick of covering up / reclassifying things is still in use as well:

  • The FBI attempted to retroactively classify public information regarding the case of bureau whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, including a series of letters between the Justice Department and several senators.
  • President Bush issued an executive order limiting the public's access to presidential records. The order undermined the 1978 Presidential Records Act, which required the release of those records after 12 years. Bush's order prevented the release of "68,000 pages of confidential communications between President Ronald Reagan and his advisers," some of whom had positions in the Bush Administration.
  • The Federal Communications Commission blocked access to a once-public database of network outages affecting telecommunications service providers. The FCC removed public copies and exempted the information from Freedom of Information Act requests, saying it would "jeopardize national security efforts."
  • The Federal Communications Commission ordered destroyed all copies of an unreleased 2004 draft report concluding that media consolidation hurt local TV news coverage, which runs counter to the administration's pro-consolidation stance.
  • ...and so on.

Still, I think the new approach is much more elegant and will probably save the taxpayers a lot in the long run.

--MarkusQ P.S. Sources and many more examples here [tpmmuckraker.com] .

KEEP MODDED UP PLEASE (1)

macdaddy (38372) | more than 7 years ago | (#17387700)

If it was possible to mod you even higher I would.

An unnecessary secret is a failure (3, Insightful)

Bromskloss (750445) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386576)

I'm not very much for the state having secrets to its people -- the state is created by the people because they needed one, after all. If there still is a great need to keep a secret (just a small need doesn't cut it for me), then so be it, I guess. BUT, any fact kept secret without reson to do so i an abomination! There should be measures taken to ensure that everything that can be revealed is revealed (not the other way around).

I'm not talking specifically about the USA here -- I'm not an american -- but the same thing applies to any state.

Re:An unnecessary secret is a failure (2, Insightful)

sbben (983577) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386648)

There should be measures taken to ensure that everything that can be revealed is revealed
And there are such measures! And you are looking at them. It is required that US documents be declassified after a certain period of time. That's the point of an article like this.

What I think you meant is why are secrets ever kept in the first place. Well, for very good reason. You can't have military plans circulating weeks before an attack can you. Secrets are there for good reason. The public can't be trusted with everything. This is the very same reason why the US doesn't use a popular vote to elect its president. The electoral college was put into place to keep too much power being placed on the layman.

Re:An unnecessary secret is a failure (1)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386916)

The electoral college was put into place to keep too much power being placed on the layman.

What?!?

The only reason it uses delegations was because they didn't have things like communications back when. The electoral college gives each person's vote more power, because they are more likely to be the deciding vote on a smaller segment of the population, than the entire population at large (i.e. 50 votes could be "the one that mattered" instead of only 1 vote nationwide).

Now, if you were talking about our representative form of government, with congress and senate, that would make your point a lot better.

Re:An unnecessary secret is a failure (1)

um... Lucas (13147) | more than 7 years ago | (#17387384)

Except that the members of the electoral college aren't necessarily bound to vote in the way that the constituents in their district voted. Which serves as a "buffer", i suppose, so that if everyone wanted to elect an ax-murderer who won the majority of votes, the electoral college could still nix it. So yes, the electoral college had a place due to lack of communications, but it also serves other rolls as well..

Re:An unnecessary secret is a failure (2, Insightful)

xappax (876447) | more than 7 years ago | (#17387692)

Secrets are there for good reason. The public can't be trusted with everything.

The ability to keep secrets from the public is a form of power. This power can be used sparingly and responsibly - like your example of keeping battle plans secret before the battle. I don't think anyone would claim that absolute transparency should be expected - I don't want the nuclear launch procedures and authentication information to be public information!

Like most forms power, the ability to keep secrets can also be exploited and abused for the benefit of those in power. The ability to keep documents detailing your wrongdoings out of the public eye empowers you to commit even greater and more brazen wrongdoings without fear of reprisal - nobody will know until it's too late.

I'm of the opinion that government officials tend to abuse and exploit the power granted to them most of the time, and we should therefore be working to strip them of all power that's not absolutely necessary for the functioning of society. While a limited power of secrecy is understandable, the degree of power that officials have over information today is far, far beyond what is beneficial to society.

The trouble is that although the government infrastructure which keeps things secret no longer serves the interest of the public, it does serve the interest of the vast majority of our government officials. I suspect that it will take a vast, radical change to the structure and philosophy of our government before we can expect officials to voluntarily relinquish the power which insulates them all from the repercussions of their actions.

Released... as Confetti (1, Funny)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386594)

So that's where all that NYE confetti comes from! I always wondered. Thanks, Feds! Party on!

Mod parent up! (1)

Dark_Gravity (872049) | more than 7 years ago | (#17387656)

Who moderated the parent off-topic? Grow a sense of humor! The parent post is hilarious.

UFOs!!!!!!! (4, Interesting)

curtisk (191737) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386606)

Wow. The 25 most used search terms in the last month [ucia.gov] at the CIA's FOIA document request.

UFOs are at the top!

Considering the rest of that list, its very interesting how pervasive the questions around UFOs are. Sadly, sasquatch has fallen out of public favor...

Re:UFOs!!!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17387592)

What does this say about the American public? Think for a moment of some of the real matters in the country that might merit investigation. It seems the kooks and gullibles vastly outnumber the rational inquirers ... no wonder our President is getting guidance from "God" and dismissing science, evidence, and reason in general. It just shows we have a real representative government.

great! (1)

dead.phoenix.616 (948836) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386878)

now we maybe able to find out who actually shot JFK,
and if lucky enough, the where-abouts of Elvis too!
*duck*

the date is wrong? (3, Insightful)

name*censored* (884880) | more than 7 years ago | (#17386902)

uh, if they're being declassified at exactly the start of the new year(ie, 1 second after 11:59:59 12/31), then wouldn't that mean that they're ACTUALLY being declassified on the 1/1? The new day actually begins at 00:00:00...

Also with this september 11/conspiracy theory/craziness spin that this thread has taken... If they were clever enough to blow up (their own) building and cover it up, surely they would be clever enough to
1) Do a good job of covering it up (recycled argument from moon landing conspiracy)
2) Pick something that wasn't so difficult to orchestrate (rigging an inner city building with explosives with no credible witnesses willing to testify) eg, a chemical attack (like the 95 subway thing), a car/truck-bomb (terrorists seem to like those), or attacks on foreign US embassies.
3) Pick something that more strongly supports attacking Iraq - they had to do an AWFUL lot of fancy footwork to get from "an afghani terrorist blowing up a US building" to "attack a regime which had little to do with 9/11 (although still guilty of terrible atrocities)"
4) Forget trying to attack anything.. the government spin engine is an incredibly powerful one, it would be just as easy to justify a war with no 9/11 than having to orchestrate a 9/11 attack AND THEN justify a war with it.

It's a little ignorant to say what SHOULD happen and compare it to what DID happen, considering there are thousands of variables involved that we'll never accurately know (how much fuel the plane had, its exact speed, its exact mass, the exact condition of the building, its weight load, its natural fault lines, the fault lines created by the impact of the plane, other environmental elements etc etc etc). Plus, if the conspirators didn't expect it to fall over (enough to put use secondary explosives, which would be a big giveaway) just from a plane crash, then why would they think that we wouldn't figure it out? There are enough demolition experts out there that it would be a glaring omission to ignore the fact that the experts would notice that a plane couldn't do that on it's own. It's much like how you cannot see the stars in the background of the moonwalk, it's too obvious for such a big conspiracy to miss, the "moon's reflection makes too much contrast" argument is so weak that it must be true. It's much more sensible to disregard the conspiracy given that it's unnecessary and far too difficult a conspiracy to organise.

predictions on what the docs might say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17387000)

1) the government is controlled by illuminati
2) Aliens from outer space did land in Rosswell, and a crash was faked in order to have
them stay
3) John Lennon and Elvis are alive and well in a secret government program

Yes Minister (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17387322)

Jim: How am I going to explain the missing documents to the Mail?
Sir Humphrey: Well this is what we normally do in, circumstances like these. [hands over a file]
Jim: [reading] This file contains the complete set of papers, except for a number of secret documents, a few others which are part of still active files, a few others lost in the flood of 1967. [to Humphrey] Was 1967 a particularly bad winter?
Sir Humphrey: No a marvellous winter, we lost no end of embarrassing files.
Jim: [reading] Some records which went astray in the move to London, and others when the War Office was incorporated in the Ministry of Defence, and the normal withdrawal of papers whose publication could give grounds for an action for liable or breach of confidence, or cause embarrassment to friendly governments. [to Humphrey] Well that's pretty comprehensive. How many does that normally leave for them to look at? [Humphrey says nothing] How many does that actually leave? About a hundred? Fifty? Ten? Five? Four? Three? Two? One? Zero?
Sir Humphrey: Yes Minister.

How is that "will" to be understood? (2, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#17387450)

Is it a will as in "they will do it", or one as in "they should, but will come up with a reason not to do it"?

I've seen my share of US politics lately, so I'm compelled to ask.

How long until ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17387516)

we see a new Google search called Google Classified?

Who Shot JFK (1)

dwayner79 (880742) | more than 7 years ago | (#17387680)

That's what I want to know. Shouldn't those be in the mix?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...