Bishop to Boycott Obama Commencement Speech
South Bend is heating up over the controversy surrounding Obama and the local bishop...Read the post2009 College Grads: We're the Lucky Ones
Why there is hope for the graduating Class of 2009, and how they can find work in a recession...Read the postBeer in Vending Machines -- What Drinking Age?
U.S. policies on drinking age seem restrictive when examining the rest of the world...Read the postHow The Press Can Remain Relevant
Is it any surprise that Obama has employed a strategy to cordon journalists that is similar to previous administrations?...Read the postBe Afraid, Cheney Warns. Be Very Afraid.
Just when you thought the Bush-era warnings of Armageddon around the corner were over, Cheney strikes again...Read the postObama: You Wouldn't Like Me When I'm Angry...
Obama threw down his stick, spat on the floor and growled in the face of cameras -- metaphorically... Read the postObama to GOP: 'I Won, I'm The President'
"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," Obama told GOP leaders...Read the postPalin Seeks $11M Book Deal, but Can She Read?
One can only imagine what Republican rising star Sarah Palin could possibly write about in her memoirs...Read the post
boston university
politics
Why Do Americans Oppose the Release of Information?
Matt Negin is now a contributor for The Cram, a student news arm of the newly launched PoliticsDaily.com. To follow his future work, click here.
In a new Washington Post poll, most Americans approve of Barack Obama's performance during his first 100 days in office.
But although the Post led its Sunday story with that finding, another response in the survey about the recently released torture memos is considerably more newsworthy. Apparently, 44 percent of the public disapproves of Obama's decision to release secret documents from the Bush administration detailing the interrogation of terrorism suspects. Fifty-three percent approved.
That key question also revealed a deep partisan divide, with three-quarters of Democrats backing the disclosure of the memos and just as many Republicans opposing the hotly debated move.
Why does access to more information fall along a partisan split? I was just as perplexed last year when I covered the Roger Clemens steroids-in-baseball hearing on Capitol Hill, and Democrats on the government reform committee harshly interrogated The Rocket while their Republican counterparts defended him. (I still can't figure out why, and Clemens has not been recorded by the FEC for any GOP campaign donations.)
But when did the issue of releasing information -- albeit from the secretive Bush administration about the sensitive issue of torture -- begin to irk conservatives? Shouldn't the availability of information be heralded by all, whether it be documents implicating a Democratic governor of New York in a prostitution ring or sexual instant messages between a Republican congressman from Florida and his congressional pages?
Whether the new information about counter-terrorist interrogations during Bush's term justifies the use of waterboarding or exposes a lack of understanding about torture methods, the very fact that the public can debate the use of torture with more understanding is valuable. Public debate without appropriate information is just yelling or pandering (or cable-news filler).
For example, one nugget from the torture memos released April 16 includes information (some in a footnote) about how simulated drowning, or "waterboarding," was used 266 times on two suspects. This news raised questions of not only waterboarding's effectiveness, but its frequent use. Advocates and critics of waterboarding can now understand better the controversial topic they're debating.
Yet even after that news has been reported, 44 percent of the public (mostly Republican but not all) still think it was a bad idea for Obama to make those documents available to be read by anyone, according to the Post poll. The question was not a matter of defending or criticizing the use of torture; it was, "Obama has ordered the release of previously secret records of Bush administration policies on the interrogation of terrorism suspects. Do you support or oppose Obama's decision to release these records?" Out of everyone asked, 32 percent "strongly oppose" the president's move, and another 12 percent "somewhat oppose" it.
One of the arguments against the memos' release is that potential suspects now have a wider view into counter-terrorist methods. (Still, fake drowning is fake drowning, whether you know it's coming or not.) And then there's the idea that because terrorists are potentially very dangerous, maybe the public doesn't want to know what it takes to get information that could help authorities prevent an attack.
These points appear to be valid, but certainly not partisan; nobody on Capitol Hill wants to make it easier for terrorists to strike. What they should want is the most information available to adequately serve public discourse.
In a new Washington Post poll, most Americans approve of Barack Obama's performance during his first 100 days in office.
But although the Post led its Sunday story with that finding, another response in the survey about the recently released torture memos is considerably more newsworthy. Apparently, 44 percent of the public disapproves of Obama's decision to release secret documents from the Bush administration detailing the interrogation of terrorism suspects. Fifty-three percent approved.
That key question also revealed a deep partisan divide, with three-quarters of Democrats backing the disclosure of the memos and just as many Republicans opposing the hotly debated move.
Why does access to more information fall along a partisan split? I was just as perplexed last year when I covered the Roger Clemens steroids-in-baseball hearing on Capitol Hill, and Democrats on the government reform committee harshly interrogated The Rocket while their Republican counterparts defended him. (I still can't figure out why, and Clemens has not been recorded by the FEC for any GOP campaign donations.)
But when did the issue of releasing information -- albeit from the secretive Bush administration about the sensitive issue of torture -- begin to irk conservatives? Shouldn't the availability of information be heralded by all, whether it be documents implicating a Democratic governor of New York in a prostitution ring or sexual instant messages between a Republican congressman from Florida and his congressional pages?
Whether the new information about counter-terrorist interrogations during Bush's term justifies the use of waterboarding or exposes a lack of understanding about torture methods, the very fact that the public can debate the use of torture with more understanding is valuable. Public debate without appropriate information is just yelling or pandering (or cable-news filler).
For example, one nugget from the torture memos released April 16 includes information (some in a footnote) about how simulated drowning, or "waterboarding," was used 266 times on two suspects. This news raised questions of not only waterboarding's effectiveness, but its frequent use. Advocates and critics of waterboarding can now understand better the controversial topic they're debating.
Yet even after that news has been reported, 44 percent of the public (mostly Republican but not all) still think it was a bad idea for Obama to make those documents available to be read by anyone, according to the Post poll. The question was not a matter of defending or criticizing the use of torture; it was, "Obama has ordered the release of previously secret records of Bush administration policies on the interrogation of terrorism suspects. Do you support or oppose Obama's decision to release these records?" Out of everyone asked, 32 percent "strongly oppose" the president's move, and another 12 percent "somewhat oppose" it.
One of the arguments against the memos' release is that potential suspects now have a wider view into counter-terrorist methods. (Still, fake drowning is fake drowning, whether you know it's coming or not.) And then there's the idea that because terrorists are potentially very dangerous, maybe the public doesn't want to know what it takes to get information that could help authorities prevent an attack.
These points appear to be valid, but certainly not partisan; nobody on Capitol Hill wants to make it easier for terrorists to strike. What they should want is the most information available to adequately serve public discourse.
Join The Discussion
Categories
Most Popular Stories »
- U.S. retailers are on sale
- The Rivalry: 145 games strong
- Slideshow: Lehigh-Laf week
- HAWKS SKIN LEOPARDS
- Macys thanksgiving day history
Recent Comments »
Page 6/6
Post Your Comments Below
Previous 20 Comments
John Krause
6:55PM 6:55PM May 2nd 2009
Can anyone recall what award George W. Bush won during The Special Olympics?
Can anyone ask Bush & Cheney:
"Where's our $10 Trillion Dollars?!!!"
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
Delilah
10:41AM 10:41AM May 3rd 2009
If a CIA , FBI, or a soldier in our military had given the information that Obama released to our enemies it would have been considered TREASON, why is there a double standard here?
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
Gregory Dittmer
5:12PM 5:12PM May 3rd 2009
Delilah
10:41AM 10:41AM May 3rd 2009
If a CIA , FBI, or a soldier in our military had given the information that Obama released to our enemies it would have been considered TREASON, why is there a double standard here?
****************************************************
There is one MAJOR difference between the POTUS and any ordinary FBI, CIA or military... the POTUS can calssify as well as declassify information. However, I really don't see how the memo release would amount to treason, particularly in comparison to the public outing of a CIA operative.
######################################################
Delilah
11:08AM 11:08AM May 3rd 2009
The reason we believe that he has not released his real BC is because in the 60's they did not have laser print also they would nt have put caucasian for white and they certainly would not have put African they would have put negro. I look into census reports all the time and African is not a color, you know there are white Africans too don't you?
*****************************************************
Obviously there were no laser printers in the 60's and I don't think anyone has attempted to pass off the copy as the original birth certificate given at his birth. I believe it is pointed out on Obama's site that the birth certificate presented is a LEGAL COPY of the original.
All of the information listed on Obama's birth certificate is accurate according to his birth but since it was printed in 2007 or 2008, the fonts, methods of printing and even some of the terminology will be up to date. Anyone that has lost their original copy can get a new copy for about $5.00 and it will, most likely, NOT look exactly like the original.
My wife could not find her birth certificate before we got married so she paid her $5.00 to get a copy. Long after we were married she happened to find her old birth certificate. As it turns out, the one she found is also a copy, NOT the original and it looks nothing like the OLD copy she found.
There is simply no way a person can simply look at the form and determine it is a fraud. Furthermore, each state can, and often does, use a different form to print out the certificates. Some states list practically no information while others like my wife's lists EVERYTHING you could imagine and then some.
Rating :
Report!
newcfam
6:20PM 6:20PM May 3rd 2009
Matt, your not only naive, your an idiot. If you think it doesn't matter if you know ahead of time, "that there not really going to drown you", and everything you will be subject to is really harmless, than you are dilusional. That would be like a commander-in-cheif telling the enemy soldiers when he will be ending a war. Oh wait we already did that one!!! You jokers need to understand, THESE TERRORISTS WANT TO CUT OFF YOUR HEAD AND SPIT IN YOUR NECK AND YOUR WORRIED ABOUT BUG IN THEIR CELL! The fact of the matter is, if obama is all about transparency and disclosure, then why hasn't he released is birth information, college records, disertations, etc. Not to mention the idiot needs a teleprompter to order a pizza. America under obama is turning into a nation of mamby pamby mammas boys. Or is that O'mamby pamby mammas boys?
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
Gregory Dittmer
5:39AM 5:39AM May 4th 2009
newcfam
4:51AM 4:51AM May 4th 2009
What obama submitted was a Certificate of Live Birth, NOT A BIRTH CERTIFICATE. They are entirely TWO different documents. I guarantee you the DMV wil not accept a Certificate of Live Birth when obtaining a drivers license. The birth certificate contains all of the OFFICIAL DATA recorded by the delivering physician/hospital, such as, date and time of birth, place of birth (city, state, foreign country), parents names, etc.
#################################################
You're just playing games with words and repeating the oft repeated Republican talking points.
You claim Obama submitted a "Certificate of Live Birth" and then claim "I guarantee you the DMV wil not accept a Certificate of Live Birth." Well how about a "certificate of birth registration," do you think the DMV might accept something like that? Does the DMV require information on delivery place, the doctor and parents names?
Where, SPECIFICALLY, did you find information spelling out the difference between a "birth certificate" and a "certificate of live birth?" Do you think YOUR source would explain the difference between those two above and a "certificate of birth registration?"
I see so many people making these statements as if they are a well known fact, yet NOT ONE SINGLE person has provided their source of infomation. Either you can provide PROOF of you evidence or you are nothing but hot air!
Rating :
Report!
Gregory Dittmer
11:31PM 11:31PM May 3rd 2009
newcfam
6:20PM 6:20PM May 3rd 2009
The fact of the matter is, if obama is all about transparency and disclosure, then why hasn't he released is birth information, college records, disertations, etc. Not to mention the idiot needs a teleprompter to order a pizza.
####################################################
Obama HAS released his birth information! Just because you refuse to accept the birth certificate presented by Obama, it does NOT mean it is a fraud. Apparently the people that do the vetting of Presidential candidates were satisfied with the certificate presented.
What possible need is there to see Obama's college records and copies of his disertations?! I NEVER heard ANYONE ask ANY candidate for such information. Besides, Obama is the POTUS so any information that may change the way a person would vote no longer matters.
Obama does quite well without a teleprompter. If you have watched any of his public appearences you would see he has not been using a teleprompter. It really doesn't matter though because people bitch if he uses one and they bitch if he doesn't have the absolute perfect answer for every question without hesitation or a moments thought.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
newcfam
4:51AM 4:51AM May 4th 2009
What obama submitted was a Certificate of Live Birth, NOT A BIRTH CERTIFICATE. They are entirely TWO different documents. I guarantee you the DMV wil not accept a Certificate of Live Birth when obtaining a drivers license. The birth certificate contains all of the OFFICIAL DATA recorded by the delivering physician/hospital, such as, date and time of birth, place of birth (city, state, foreign country), parents names, etc. A certificate of live birth just means you gave birth to a baby and that baby was alive. You could "hypethetically" have a baby born out of the country while on "vacation". The hospital would record that birth in the form of a Birth Certificate. When arriving home (USA) you could do the paperwork and receive a Certificate of Live Birth. This is done to basically enter the newly born baby into the government books. She probably did it initially to collect welfare payments.
Rating :
Report!
TRKR012
4:27PM 4:27PM May 4th 2009
ROUGE CAPITALISM SENT THE ENTIRE WORLD ECONOMY DOWN THIS SOCIALIST ROAD. OUR ONCE GREAT NATION, IS LEADING THE WAY. CORRUPTION HAS PERMEATED EVERY FIBER OF OUR SOCIETY. LIKE A CANCER, IT HAS ERODED THE FOUNDATION ON WHICH WE ONCE STOOD STRONG. WE HAVE NO ONE TO BLAME BUT OURSELVES. GOD HELP US ALL!
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
Previous 20 Comments