Maybe. Just maybe.

Oh I don't know. Maybe. Just maybe you should be a bit more open about things that directly affect the public?

Oh no I forgot.

Anything that might be construed as detrimental (Read detrimental to pen pushers and government shills) should be locked in a nuclear bomb proof concrete box to be buried 100 miles underground and forgotten about right?

Purely in the publics interest of course.

How about some common sense

They already know who failed to prepare the document for release. There is a clear and well defined body of law (and internal corporate measures) to be applied to the bumbling idiot. How about using that for a change as it will be the only thing that is likely to make a difference.

Great Idea!

Can we apply the same principal to the Gun Lobby then and ban Guns?

Unfortunately, as anyone who has watched our clowns in the TSA operate knows, the TSA seem to be pathologically incapable of securing their own arses - even if you stuck a burning candle in them to show them where they are. The manuals just make this obvious to everyone instead of just us frequent fliers.

Fine, attack Wikileaks and Cryptome

Wikileaks has a Freenet mirror, and I'm pretty sure Cryptome could push one out fairly quickly. Don't know about Freenet? Think "every computer* connected to the network hosting the information you want taken down."

Goodluckwiththat.

* I know it's not every computer; Remember that this is for the goobermunt plebiscites benefit.

Oh, great...

...cue 50 posts from self-righteous commentards decrying the US as a police state because three congressmen asked a stupid question that will never have any effect on law, while their *own* country arrests them for taking photographs, watches them constantly with CCTV cameras, requires them to sign up to a watch list before they volunteer at a summer camp, and considers arrest without trial or conviction a reasonable rationale for denial of employment.

Here's a pre-emptive request: If you're not going to *clean* your house before attacking others, at least acknowledge that you're not exactly the poster children for liberty...

Three Stooges

Peter King, Charles Dent and Gus Bilirakis

Re: Yes but we all know...

Apparently not all of us know what you imply. I seem to remember some tards handing a Nobel "Peace" Prize to BHO for four days worth of work, which resulted in a "fantastic" decision to send 30k more troops.

Terrorists are certainly smarter than this. They certainly don't have to worry about the political bullshit, just making sure not to piss someone off who might kill first and ask questions later. If we want to defeat Terrorism, we should send Lobbyists to keep them in continual paralysis like the rest of the world deals with.

Utter fail...

Three Republicans

You may be sure that the reason this trio jumps up and down about this issue is the hope that doing so will somehow embarrass the Obama administration. It's all just posturing and drama with very little or no significance.

@The Indomitable Gall

"We all know that the US is a terrorist organisation."

Really? How about a side-by-side comparison of strategy and tactics, just so we can be clear on how terroristic we are:

Hijacks civilian aircraft and rams them into civilian/commercial buildings:

-- US: No Them: Yes

Leaves improvised explosives in public areas traversed by civilians and detonates them during high-traffic hours:

-- US: No Them: Yes

Engages in group ambush/guerrilla warfare tactics against legitimate (Red Cross/Red Crescent) medical and supply convoys:

-- US: No Them: Yes

Makes no attempt to distinguish between civilian and military targets and to reduce collateral damage:

-- US: No Them: Yes

Uses covert operations to target specific individuals suspected of being involved in deliberate attacks on civilians or civilian property:

-- US: Yes Them: Maybe

Uses both old and new media technologies as a means of recruitment and propaganda:

-- US: Yes Them: Yes

Encourages the elimination of fundamental rights and education for women:

-- US: No Them: Yes

Is in favor of establishing a dictatorial, authoritarian monarchy underpinned by so-called "religious" or "theocratic" principals:

-- US: No Them: Yes

/* sarcasm */ Yup. That's a score of 1.5/8 "the same," or about 18.75% "sameness" (based on the all-encompassing list above). We're **just like** Al-Quaeda, for sure...

This is not to say that there aren't any people within US Federal Government who do despicable things. There are; to declare otherwise would be naive. Like many of my country's citizens, I view its government with a measure of skepticism and cynicism. But on the whole, US-GOV isn't in the habit of running around murdering innocent people. (Trying to control and tax them, though, may be another story...)

memo to the 3 stooges

Write out 100 times "Security by obscurity does not work."

That is all.

State secrets online

Suck it down!

LOL

@K.Adams

Just to play Devil's Advocate, you understand...

Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, I suspect that a more critical comparison, bearing in mind the fairly indiscriminate blowing up of a stolen fuel tanker in a crowd of civilians, and the use of Predator to hit targets regardless of whether there will also be civilian casualties, may result in a few more Yes results against the US and its Allies. The US does not need to hijack civilian aircraft for its building rammings, as it has enough military ordinance to do the job without such methods.

I also suggest that visits by US right wing fundamental ministers, plus linking of aid to church oriented sex education might convert the last couple to "Yes, maybes" too.