How is the public supposed to have confidence in evidence implicating Syria when it's kept secret?

[bigtree]

from Milbank:


____ The public heard about another “slam dunk” case a decade ago and, then as now, Democratic and Republican lawmakers agreed that the secret evidence was compelling. And it turned out to be wrong. Now, administration officials are telling Americans to trust their assurances that the secret evidence is convincing and that their war planning is solid. But they won’t provide details.

Estimates of collateral damage? “Lower than a certain number which I would rather share with you in a classified setting,” Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey told lawmakers.

Response of the Arab and Muslim countries? “This is something I’d be happier discussing in greater detail with you in the closed session,” Kerry said.

Safeguards to keep military action limited? “We can talk about that in a closed session,” Dempsey said.

How would Russia and other Syrian allies respond to a U.S. strike? “We all agree that that would be best handled in a classified session,” Kerry said.

No, we don’t all agree.


read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-on-syria-whos-got-a-secret/2013/09/04/9cc5b360-15a8-11e3-a2ec-b47e45e6f8ef_story.html

[leveymg]

1. My understanding is the secret evidence shown Congress is really no more solid than the public case.

There may not be any real case "there" there.

[randome]

2. The public is not the CIC. That's not how a Democracy works.

For the most part, all we have to go on is the character of the people we elect. We can ferret out details on our own, even demand them, but in the end, it's someone else's call whether or not to proceed.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[bigtree]

4. well, it's certainly understandable to question these assertions by the government

. . . makes no sense at all to call people conspiracy nuts when they ask these questions of proof, as many proponents have, as if the truth was self-evident.

I wonder just how many Americans are comfortable with that level of paternalism from their government?

[tkmorris]

12. Has anyone anywhere suggested otherwise?

However we the public ARE entitled to an opinion on the matter; indeed those very officials who make these decisions serve at our pleasure. They NEED us to approve of their actions, otherwise they are not fit to hold the office we elected them to. You may well be comfortable electing people and then trusting them to carry out the duties of their office in good conscience but I am not anywhere near that trusting.

[jsr]

3. Kerry is a pathetic liar.

[HooptieWagon]

5. Because if the evidence was public we'd have even less confidence in it.

CWs is just a pretext.

[KittyWampus]

8. the large number of dead civilians attacked by shells coming from where Assad forces were

is pretty clear. But when you are attracted to conspiracy theories, they fill in for lack of knowledge.

[HooptieWagon]

9. Then lets see the evidence. nt

[KittyWampus]

11. Read my Journal. Plenty there.

[pampango]

15. Sanders and Warren have seen it and are convinced of the guilt of Assad's forces though, thankfully,

they appear leaning to voting No on the resolution since it makes the situation worse. Now we can all demand to see top secret reports before we make up our minds. And in a perfect world we would have them. This ain't it.

If I do not want to be convinced of something there is nothing (top secret or otherwise) that you can show to convince me of it. I try to fit that tendency on my part because I know that the tea party/fundamentalist wing of the GOP does want to believe in global warming or evolution and there is no evidence that will change their minds. Closing my mind to new evidence is not where I want to be.

To me the most important question is not of Assad's guilt but whether this is the right, or even a helpful, response to it.

[KittyWampus]

6. Well, Germany's Intelligence has seen it. Anyone who has any expertise has opined it was Assad.

There is a reason only pathetic rags are pushing "false flag" or "rebels".

[avaistheone1]

10. Colin Powell's former Chief of Staff, Lawrence Wilkerson said this could very well be a false flag

operation.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/09/01/former-chief-of-staff-raises-israeli-false-flag-terrorism/



Or should we believe the Al Qaeda rebels instead?

[Jefferson23]

7. I won't spell out what they can do with their secret evidence. n/t

[dtom67]

13. I don't think public opinion will matter....

yes , there might be a surge of pro-attack articles,editorials and posts in the blogosphere , but I think the die is cast.
We will strike and, predictably, there will be blow-back. Then we attack some more. Since you cannot really target chemical weapons dumps, we will have to choose other targets. After Assad ( who is a king-sized piece of shit ), we will have to keep the chemical weapons out of al qaida's hands. That would seem to necessitate boots on the ground. It would also necessitate more blank-checks to defense contractors. So, while My mother and father's ( divorced for nearly 40 years ) social security checks are put on the chopping block and prices rise on the food they eat, we will be busy sending a quite costly message to someone most of us don't give a shit about.
And speaking of " not giving a shit" ; look at Congress.

They won't stop the march to war. Its a great cover for a fucked up economy. Besides, I'm sure most will have jobs promised to them if they lose in 2014(, or '16), in exchange for the proper voting record, natch.

kinda sad when you have to defend your opposition to random " death from the sky ".

But this is one of those situations that Lippmann said the " bewildered herd " was not prepared to handle.

Was he right?

[Zorra]

14. We're all just cows here for the 1% to milk and our confidence in their actions

means nothing in regard to their consideration of using military action to gain more profit and power.