Sometimes, just saying so is enough of a security issue to reflect that certain plans, locations, responses, etc. might be in effect. Sometimes not, and not saying say is enough to keep 'em guessing.

I really don't think the government could care less about the zanies. They're far more concerned, IMHO, that the release of information one way or the other might confirm/deny certain things our enemies simply have no business knowing.

If that keeps 'em guessing, that's good enough for me, and the zanies can go jump in the lake for all I care.

__________________
If I set the budget, we'd have Ares and more. Unfortunately, I don't set the budget, and Ares is just too expensive and too far out for us to accomplish our goals within the budget we were given.

If we halt the ISS, all versions of Ares, and transport Orion and Altair aboard DIRECTv3's Jupiter family of Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicles, we just might make it back to the Moon by 2020.

I really don't think the government could care less about the zanies. They're far more concerned, IMHO, that the release of information one way or the other might confirm/deny certain things our enemies simply have no business knowing.

Good assessment. Just because someone wants to know something, it doesn't mean they have a need to know. There's no way to reveal something sensitive to the population at large without everyone else finding out about it, too.

My work requires me to work with classified information, some of it secured at very high levels. Just because I have the clearances, it doesn't mean I have the need to know everything that is classified at those levels. I have access to the info I need to do my job and nothing more.

Well... its not all "zanies"... If we want the answers badly enough, we will put people in place who will release the information. It started in the last election...

Ahhhhh but in this country if a majority of people want to information declassified badly enough they have the right to elect representatives who pledge to declassify the information. There are no secrets in this country that are "above the law". In the end we as a society determine what secrets we will allow to be kept and those we choose to have released.

And my point, which still stands, is that if a majority send their representatives, legislative and executive, to washington to declassify this information the information will be declassified. That's how our system works...

If we did get to the situation you describe, you will prolly be shocked when the congressional majority that pledged to make all secrets public all of a sudden broke that promise. Probably without explaining why, too.

There are no secrets "above the law" but there are plenty that are "really really stupid to release no matter how many want it released" and even congressmen can occasionally tell the difference.

Interesting question... we live in a representaive democracy. It is not just the congress it is also the president that we elect. If we were serious about this we could continue to vote out those we chose until we voted in those who did what we wished. We are already voting in representatives to limit the Patriot Act and other domestic spying legislation... not to meantion curtailing unwanted wars...

It doesn't really matter, most of these issues come to light by leaked information by those we do elect to shed light on secrets that we don't believe in.

Those who leak secrets they agreed to keep make it so that the next group wont even get told. The habit of leaking increases questionable security choices not decreases it.

You are running really close to the edge of politics Lurker. Talking about hypotheticals or history is fine. Talking about the current situation is not.

Just pointing out that there are no secrets that are sacred. That's what comes from living in a democratic republic. We each have a say in whether they should remain classified or whether they should be made public. I'll wait for a warning for the mods' call as to how close to the edge I am...

Yea - tell it to Major John Andre. Oh, wait...

__________________
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

technically 1780 wasnt it?