The underlying question seems to be: Is having an informed debate a threat to national security?

[Electric Monk]

(with regards to the whole wikileaks / Greenwald / Snowden / NSA 'thing')

[leveymg]

1. Having an uninfomed populace has proven to be the greatest threat to US national security.

Just look at the economic and geopolitical consequences of the invasion of Iraq, for instance. That could not have happened if the American people had made it their business to educate themselves sufficiently to know -- as did many of us here -- that the Bush Administration was making shit up, and many of "our" representatives and the media were going along with the game.

[Aerows]

8. "Having an uninfomed populace has proven to be the greatest threat to US national security"

That's the real issue right there for government. An informed populace is a great threat to politician's personal security.

[Rex]

2. Having an informed debate was so in before 2000.

Now it is like 'what to hide, what to discuss' without freaking out half the American population. IMO, THEY are scared of what WE think about them and WE in return are scared of what WE think THEY know about us!

Creates a really huge amount of trust between the two groups.

[geek tragedy]

3. There's always going to be a tension

between transparency/effective governance and effective intelligence/spying operations.

It can't be avoided, it can only be managed.

[winter is coming]

4. If it's too perilous to debate, it shouldn't be happening. n/t

[Electric Monk]

5. I agree, but here's the counter-argument

[winter is coming]

6. LOL. I've found that "You can't handle the truth" usually means

"I can't handle what you might do if you knew the truth."

[valerief]

7. If by nat'l security you mean 1% security, yes. nt

[Aerows]

9. Bingo. n/t