I read of a recent case where a government entity refused to disclose some of its technical operational data, that was requested for reasons entirely irrelevant to terrorism, because it "might" yield information on terrorism vulnerability. To the uninformed, just that statement was enough to me to flag that item as a realistic target.

Many of us are aware of potential targets of terrorism within the US and its areas of geographical interest, and what the effects would be if they were attacked. Some of us also believe we can contribute fixes to these "targets". Most of us, however, believe prosecution and vilification would follow the public disclosure of such information. On the other hand, most of us believe the general public should be allowed that information; for without it, the public cannot take its own safety measures, nor does it have enough information upon which to judge the performance of its governments "anti-terrorism" policies and agencies, such as Homeland Defense, Defense Department, CIA, FBI, FEMA, etc. I suggest for debate:

1. Should knowledge of the existence of "possible terrorist targets", and the probable consequences to the public if it/they were attacked, be allowed to be openly presented to the general public without consequences to the discloser?

2. If such information were to be made subject to clontrol, how would that realistically be done?

3. Would you rather know or not know such information?

1. Should knowledge of the existence of "possible terrorist targets", and the probable consequences to the public if it/they were attacked, be allowed to be openly presented to the general public without consequences to the discloser?

It depends on the situation. If there is reason to think that providing such knowledge would be of benefit to the public, it should be allowed. If there is reason to think that providing such knowledge would be of no benefit, and might actually aid potential terrorists, it should not be allowed. Of course, we have no choice but to trust the intelligence agencies to make this decision for us. Such agencies always want to be as secretive as possible.

If such information were to be made subject to control, how would that realistically be done?

Again, I think you really have no choice but to hope that the intelligence agencies make wise decisions. It would help to have as many checks and balances between these agencies and other parts of the government as possible, and to have a system which allows the activities of these agencies to be monitored by outside "watchdogs."

Who will watch the watchmen?

Would you rather know or not know such information?

As I said, it depends.

Let's consider a couple of hypothetical examples. If there is reason to suspect that a major terrorist attack is planned for sometime this summer, somewhere in the eastern United States, how would that information help me? It might also possibly aid potential terrorists to have such information announced prematurely. On the other hand, if it is determined that, say, the city of Atlanta has inadequate security at its airport, that information could help the city government and the airport work to correct the problem. That information doesn't necessarily have to be communicated to me, or to the public in general, but the local folks should be aware of it. As a third example, suppose there is reason to think that a particular brand of bottled water has been contaminated. Not only must the water company be alerted, to remove the item from the shelves, but the public must be alerted to avoid it.

My only choice is to hope that intelligence agencies are as professional and non-political as possible.

Well, now that it has become somewhat known that chemical plants, and by extension their whole infrastructure, are relatively unexamined "terrorist targets" and are relatively undefended and unstudied by our "Homeland Defenders" (And remember too that the Texas city explosion near Galveston Texas brought us more than enuf info to be sensitized into studying such!!), do you want to know the rest of the story? Or any part of it.

(I obviously did want to know. And I was amazed at what I "did not find" covered or considered!!!)

Or would you like to know a recipe for finding out what the rest of the story probably is on your own (or with fellow consenting adults)?

And you can say "it depends", but that is something you will have to find out for yourself too!

As for "trusting and depending upon" the law enforcement, military, and intelligence communities, think back upon their histories and some of their lesser stellar performances, before you trust blindly.

If nothing else, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty! (And there is not even an acceptable noun word for this since it got turned around and reversed by the "vigilante" word, in an older but somewhat similar situation regarding the rights and reponsibilities of and for a knowledgable citizenry!)