[citation][nom]wavebossa[/nom]/sighIt's wonderful to be blissfully idealistic. Its one of humanities greatest strengths. However, it is not always rational. People love to declare and assign themselves rights that do not exist. The right to know where are the most vulnerable places to attack in the US.. exactly what entity entitles you to know that again? And If you say the constitution I may just squirt coffee out of my nose.Secondly I will agree you that the attacks were done by their supporters. But I will not take back what I said about them being a mistake. That was simply my point, you are implying things that were never stated in my post. If you assume I back our government 100% in everything it does, then you are wrong. But if you assume privacy should be done away with 100%, you dead wrong.Some people use the reasoning that, "We pay their salaries with our tax money, we deserve to know what is going on" I fully agree with this to an extent. We need to reach an agreement that their are some things that SHOULD be leaked and some things that SHOULD remain private, and we need to elect people who we have enough faith in to tell the difference.Besides, you (i'm sure) work for some employer. There are somethings that you MUST divulge to them (i.e. credit, job history, drug test, criminal record, etc), but there are somethings that are not pertinent to your ability to function in your workspace, and thus your employer has no business knowing (i.e. when you had your first kiss, when you lost your virginity, a full list of your internet history, a video-log of how you spend your time outside of work, etc).Do you understand what I am getting at? There are some things that should be brought to light, however there are some things like (what is the best and most effective way to launch a bio-attack on the US) that just do not fall under the banner of "exposing governments lies"If you cannot discern the differences between the two, I shall leave you in your ideology, and just hope one day you are able to think more rationally.[/citation]
I haven't seen the exact document that you keep referring to, but for example, I've seen one which states that the US government were funding Turkey's invasion of Greek air space. Should the public not be privy to that kind of information? And this is just an example of the MANY secrets contained that the US G. would rather keep secret.
And of course there were going to be document's endangering their national security but this is not just about the US, and that was MY point. Should they have gone through all 250.000 of them to see which were too sensitive? Yes. But what's done is done and I can't wait to see the backlash this will have.