Ramblings

Is the latest terror threat valid?Even if it is,is the treatment valid?If it weren't for Snowden and the NSA hype would this threat be treated differently?I've thought from the beginning that something was amiss.This is not the way that a credible terror threat would ordinarily be handled.It looks to me as if the purpose is to justify
the NSA surveillance.Why the surveillance should not be addressed,I don't know.It just creates another disappointment with the Obama administration and its promise of openness-very disappointing.The irony of  the situation is that if this is a valid threat ,then it is being treated more openly,even if the response is exaggerated.That's precisely why I'm skeptical.Do the embassy closings have anything to do with Benghazi?

Why is all of the secrecy necessary?What should be kept secret?I know that NSA surveillance shouldn't be kept secret.What happened to transparency;of course,if you use a word like transparent instead of open or honest,you can be pretty certain that secrecy is close behind.Transparent usually implies a deceptive intent;at least in most cases.Secrecy is rampant;pandemic.Is Snowden guilty of treason for exposing secrecy?Who is really being betrayed?The government or the public that the government is supposed to represent?I cannot justify secrecy from the American people.There has been established abuse of this surveillance,extensive abuse.Snowden's claims have been pretty well substantiated,so it's time to investigate and abolish or revise NSA surveillance.