Boys Gone Wild

If you see oppression of the poor, and justice and righteousness
trampled in a country, do not be astounded
--King Solomon
_____________

Ranger understands fuzzy math -- that is numbers and calculations that require removal of the boots. But fuzzy logic has no place in a paper like the Wall Street Journal ("The Bush Secrecy Myth.") I see Mr. Murdoch has done his magic as this article is slap full of it. To call the consistent and intentional obfuscation by Bush and his administration a myth is illogic, or just a downright lie.

I know it is like shooting fish in a barrel, but I just had to plow through it and untwist some of it. Like slopping the hogs, then taking a shower:

Using Speaker Pelosi's decision to suspend action on FISA revisions as example, the editorial argues for the confinement of "policy alternatives. . . to small groups of reliable officials." And who would ordain these latter-day Solomons?

That is not the way democracy works. It is a garden best tended in sunshine, and via consensus.

What evidence exists that FISA revision is urgent? One would think that capturing Osama bin Laden would be much more urgent. FISA's suspension was another check removed from an administration gone wild, running roughshod over our civil rights.

"Our democracy faces a challenging conundrum. On the one hand, openness is an essential prerequisite of self-government."

"On the other hand, secrecy is an equally essential prerequisite of self-governance."

Huh? You can't have it both ways.

"When one turns to the extraordinary business of democratic governance -- self-preservation carried out through the conduct of foreign policy and the waging of war -- the imperative of secrecy becomes a matter of survival."

Closed doors and secrecy are not the same concepts. Decisions made behind closed doors are reported in the Congressional Record when those decisions become law.

These are the arguments used to perpetuate ths Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©). But there is no evidence that the survival of the U.S. is contingent upon the PWOT. Only a delusional fool doped up on a steady stream of FOX news drivel would subscribe to such hogwash.

"But there is an element of this war on secrecy that is extra-legal, and that has already endangered American security: namely, leaks of classified information to the press."

Uh, yeah --like the Valerie Plame outing? But if the White House leaks, it is good; if it is done in the name of the People, that is bad. It ain't called "white" for nothing. Every illegality perpetrated by this administration thus far has gotten the whitewash.

"As in the Nixon era, America today is a country deeply divided over a controversial war. Today, as then, there is no shortage of disgruntled present and former government employees willing to dump secret documents into the public domain. Today, as then, these malefactors are aided by a press eager to glorify their actions."

Why are the documents classified? To hide secret prisons, torture, rendition and secret unwarranted surveillance until a group of unctuous lawyers can contort the torts til they look like a good thing? Secrecy is legitimate only when it is legal.

"Also, foreign governments cannot depend upon the U.S. to protect their secrets, and therefore cannot share them. When that happens, communication even among friendly states, a vital part of intelligence, dries up."

Much of what is called intelligence generated by friendly states is actually self-serving garbage that is intended to influence U.S. policies. Kind of like Colin Powell's United Nations presentation in the run-up to war. What credence does any intelligence have that is generated by Saudi Arabia or Egypt? The U.S. should rely upon information that its own agencies gather.

"What's more, leaks aimed at influencing policy subvert the rule of law and the democratic process." Democracy is controverted if it is conducted in secret. The secret diplomacy following WWI producing the miasma that is the Middle East serves as an example. That imbroglio shows that secrecy and democracy do not mix.

"Decision-making that is supposed to be the work of a democratically elected government is supplanted by the decision-making of anonymous officials and Pulitzer-Prize seeking journalists -- individuals who have private agendas." Politicos don't have agendas? George W. Bush's egocentric, imperial style lacks for democratic features.

The piece ends saying "the American people have assigned their elected officials the responsibility of keeping secret the information vital to their safety." However, most of the secrecy is not the result of actions by elected officials, but rather the Executive branch and the military/intelligence communities.

Secrecy is not the answer. If it were, then what is the question?