Thanks, Gillian. I think you're one of the coolest members on here. Also the nicest.
And we are supposed to say the "c" in "arctic", yes?

__________________
I want to go back to the moon.
I don't care which rocket you use, whichever one you pick, I'll like it, I swear.
"If you think the LHC will create black holes, you might as well believe Hobbits are at the bottom of your garden."- Dr. Mike Inglis
Rovers forever! - ToSeek

One of my exes was from the midwest. She told me she was from a town called Mad-Rid, and I was like, you mean, Mah-dreed?, as I know the proper Spanish pronounciation, anyways. Language is about communication. If you go someplace and they pronouce things differently, then you can't really be effective with communication.

As for the crew knowing whether or not they're on board a nuclear sub, if they're underwater for a few months, it's probably nuclear powered.

I know this because my security clearance is Executive Level. I know what they really have at Area-51.

__________________
All moderations in purple.

You ain't nobody 'til you've been banned.

I don't doubt your clearance level, but I am not involved in government at all and knew that from reading the fourth grade level book Ghost Liners.

__________________
I want to go back to the moon.
I don't care which rocket you use, whichever one you pick, I'll like it, I swear.
"If you think the LHC will create black holes, you might as well believe Hobbits are at the bottom of your garden."- Dr. Mike Inglis
Rovers forever! - ToSeek

Considering all our boats are nuclear powered, it's not that hard to guess.

Besides, the information on a boat's (or ship's) powerplant type is available on the Navy's web site.

Well, thank you kindly! I am very, very good at reining in my temper, anyway. Believe me, I can be as snarly as anyone. I just have the good sense to know when I'm being that way and to avoid posting.

Yes.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Things must have changed since the 1980s.

When I was involved in producing power units for boats, it was company policy and part of our security indoctrination that, outside the secure environment, we could only refer to our products as "power units". No mention of the particular technology involved in the production of power was allowed.

This was even in our classifier's manual, specifically concerning NOFORN and documents for release to the general public.

Guess the US Navy isn't as uptight as it was back then.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Exactly... so now the job must be repeated and done correctly...

Can you explain how much money was required to do an adequate job and what exactly was under-investigated for lack of resources?

__________________
In the progress of this discussion I shall endeavor to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance, that may seem to have any claim to your attention.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 1

...And, how much resource was used for this vs how much was used for Monica? Sure; the press reported more on the Monica thing, but that doesn't necessarily mean the 911 report was lacking.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

This is true... the unanswered questions suggest the lack...

What unanswered questions? Seriously. What more is there to know that throwing more money at another commission will resolve? The question of who knew what when? Only time will reveal that. It's not like the questions will get promptly answered the second time around if they weren't the first.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

All that needs to be done is to release the documents that concern the plane. Continuing to hold them does more to undermine the credibility of the report than anything else. If there is nothing in them why the hesitation?? The idea that it will do no good to release them is lame. In this country we don't classify documents because it will do no good to unclassify them...

So you suggest that the military/homeland security should publicly reveal parts of its methods of operation because some people wonder why they got an E4 airborne when in became clear the country was under attack?

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

I don't even think that the explaination needs to even go that far...

Why not question every police car, fire truck, and ambulance that left thier stations on that day. It's no different.

Emergency systems respond, whether they are civilian or military.

Response (in absence of response issues) means nothing, the actions taken by responding are what is worth noting.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

If there are reasons to keep the information classified, let those be publically stated. I dislike the attitude that information be classified and that the reasons for that are not to be talked about. OK... don't release the papers, but don't whine when people think it looks bad...

If there are reasons to keep the information classified, let those be publically stated. I dislike the attitude that information be classified and that the reasons for that are not to be talked about. OK... don't release the papers, but don't whine when people think it looks bad...

OK, I understand your point.

"we won't say" is not an answer, "we can't say because we don't want to disclose our emergency response protocols" is. Makes sense this way.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

I'm going to argue with you a bit on this, Gillianren. What makes a particular pronunciation correct is usage, plain and simple. Origins and spelling contribute to usage, naturally, but usage trumps in terms of correctness.

Heck, dictionary.com (based on Random House) already lists "noo-kyuh-ler" as one of the pronunciations of the word.

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2009 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

For now there has been absolute silence on this issue... a simple response may cause discussion, but at least a reason has been given. We live in a free society, and reasons for keeping information should be disclosed and freely discussed. In the end we are the government and we must be consulted as to what tradeoffs we wish to make between freedom and security.

I understand that point now. What confused me at first was that I did not realize you'd find a statement explaining why they can't give details as sufficient.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Not a problem...

And if they'd just as soon not associate an otherwise innocuous looking craft with their emergency protocols for whatever reason?

Camouflage is kinda pointless when your hidey hole is constantly being pointed out.

__________________
The last time I felt a warm fuzzy feeling, I was informed by my doctor that it was just gas.

Actually, you are about completely wrong on this one.

There is no reason for the public to be briefed on the particulars of what the military is doing to protect the country, and several good opsec reasons to not tell.

The most basic one I can think of is taking Nicolas' quote 'we can't say because we don't want to disclose our emergency response protocols'

If the USAF states this, they have just stated that launching an E4B is an emergency response protocol. If you know when the plane showed up, and know about how long servicing an E4B takes, you also just confirmed what facility the E4B came from. That means you also know where an EW unit is stationed. An EW squadron, if not a full wing. A quick trip to something like google, and now you could have a decent idea of what other aircraft are stationed at that airbase. Using what you know of US aircraft and US deployment patterns, you may be able to figure the loiter time of any CAP over the entire eastern seaboard.

This is very simple intel analysis. What the Army trained me to do. Any decent intel service could mine all sorts of info from seemingly innocent statements.

If you want an analogy, it is like playing a tough Sudoku. You may be stuck for a while, but then by just getting one number placed, you get a dozen more.

In intel, almost anything can be that one number that allows a huge amount of data points to be fit into a complete picture. It is then better to just say nothing.

No.... we live in a democratic republic... there are NO secrets unless we as a society determine that the situation should be such... The issue that comes up from such a situation has always been the trade-off between security and freedom. As examples I point to both the bay of pigs and watergate. In both cases the term "security" was used to pack away a lot of embarrassing information that some politicians and some in the military wished to keep quiet.

Yes, we do have secrets in this country and secret operations that are necessary for the security of the country, but there are no secrets so sacred that choices about their secrecy cannot be discussed. As an extreme example... if there were a sweeping electoral movement to dismantal the CIA be the great majority of voters in this country, it would be incumbent upon those elected to do this job to proceed as the electorate requested.

This country is a success because it is run by those of us who participate in elections. Ultimately WE, through our elected representatives choose what we wish to keep classified. The decision may be correct or incorrect, but the buck stops with us.

Having a government that keeps secrets from the population, on the basis that the government has the best interests of the people at hand is NOT want the framers of the US consititution originally wanted. That's why there's a Second Amendment.

__________________
All moderations in purple.

You ain't nobody 'til you've been banned.

We have a democratic republic... this allows decisions to be made in our name. However, ultimate power rests in our hands, although it may be mitigated by an independent judiciary. If a majority feels strongly that too many secrets are being kept, they may elect representatives who will dismantle the cloak of secrecy. The constitution does not promise wise government, it promises a democratic republic... democracy through elected representation...

Let's ask the Commissioner:Then, there's the glaring failure to allow the testimony of 'The Last Man Out of the North Tower', William Rodriquez.

__________________
*

Not quite. The second amendment is to make sure that the people have the ability to remove the government if it resorts to force when it starts acting against the best interests of the people.

Even in 1800 it was known that keeping your deployments and capabilities secret was a good idea.

This is true, but it is also true that the government acts as an instrument of the will of the people. If the people don't believe that the secrets being kept in their best interest, they can elect new representatives who will remove the classifications. This was most recently illustrated when people began to doubt the need for some past operations of the CIA being kept secret. New representatives were elected who appointed officials to disclose activities of the CIA that had been classified.

Correct. However, I dont recall voting on wether to dismantle the CIA, I dont remember voting to end all OPSEC in military ops, and I dont remember either of these even being a campaign issue.

The fact that some small portion of the people want something declassified is not sufficent reason to declassify it. Even if there is a majority of people that want it declassified isnt automatically a reason to declassify. The Congress does keep track of as much as possible. They do get the full briefings and explanations of classified materials.

You bring up the Bay of Pigs and Watergate. I will add Iran-Contra to the mix. In all three of these situations security was used to hide abuses. In all three of these cases, the people responsible got in alot of trouble. In all three cases, the security backfired and all three went public. One cost a president his job. I would state that this is evidence that while the current situation is not perfect, it does work.

I have given a perfectly resonable explanation of why the USAF is not going to discuss its deployments. This already is looked at by the oversight comittees in Congress. We already have the situation you describe. It already works