Has the US government ever needed motivation to supress or hide information? It's what they do. Clinton once said, "You can't say you love your country and hate your government." For me, he couldn't be more wrong. Hate is a strong word and yet I do feel that way at times about the government. And I don't trust them at all times. The motivation? The investigation is being led by the Malay government and they clearly have been uber sensitive about "leaks" that have come from the American side/media. They will deny it and then within 24 hours confirm it. Detente maybe. Then you have to consider the "Gambler" theory. You never count your money, blah, blah, blah. If we say what we know, perhaps we expose our hand in terms of the amount and quality of surveillance we conduct in that part of the world. It could be considered spying by the Chinese, lol. Isn't it interesting that all data has come from the air? Who wants to sneeze first and admit they have subs off the coast of China? What if....the plane did land somewhere? If we play dumb, it's an advantage. I don't know, red. I'm just surmising like everyone else. We have always led the international community in intelligence gathering. Why should this be any different?
I think it's very possible that military resources have have information, but are reluctant to release the information because it would tip their hand to their capabilities and/or knowledge.
I wouldn't rule it out, but I doubt it. If we knew where the plane was or where it crashed I think that information could be passed to the Malaysian government through back door channels without compromising any capabilities.
Not if we're someplace we shouldn't be or have to explain technological capabilities we're not ready for people to know about.
Well . . . yes. There is a reason for everything. There is no discernible gain from suppressing information in a humanitarian effort that I can see. There is every political reason to upstage China, which has been exposed as having almost no surveillance or investigative capability, no influence over Malaysia, and little military capacity beyond the South China Sea. I have never understood this anti-government sentiment that with roots in the extreme right wing. With all due respect, I can only describe it as paranoia. Nutjob Montana militia and Timothy McVeigh came from this very un-American viewpoint. The government is We The People. We turn out incumbents regularly, there are no dictators. If we don't like it, we change it. We vote. We have a free press. The government is not the enemy. It's no secret that we have subs wherever there is water. It's no secret that we have bases throughout the region. Our satellites are no secret and neither are the undersea listening systems. The only intelligence assets that I could see us trying to protect would be covert CIA assets on the ground in Malaysia. But those would be of little use in a surveillance effort. How? What could we possibly gain from withholding such knowledge? I see no motivation to impede this investigation at all. I've thought about this since you asked it. The only possible reason for the United States to withhold information on this matter would be if the US was responsible for it somehow. That seems like a very long shot to me. Are you suggesting this? It's not, really. As far as surveillance, we are supreme and we are already heavily involved. But the investigation on the ground in Malaysia is not something we are entitled to just take over. Why should we anyway? We are not the world's policeman. This flight was mostly Malaysians and Chinese. It's really their ballgame. That is why if we do discover something about the plane it will probably be reported quietly to Malaysia first before being made public. I would not characterize that as withholding information, but being diplomatically proper in not stepping on Malaysia's toes.
Red I agree with your base comment. I don't understand the anti government paranoia either. However it isn't limited to the right wing or is that where the modern roots are. The modern roots are in the '60s anti Vietnam war effort. Remember Jane Fonda's ex Tom Hayden, President Obama's mentor in Chicago the mad bomber. Between 2001 & 2008 there were as many on the left who expressed a paranoia as there are on the right today. I heard comments on Radio Pacifica and other places that Cheney wouldn't let President Obama become president and stage a coup. Unfortunately there are many paranoid nut jobs on both sides of the political spectrum. Your last statement "The government is We The People. We turn out incumbents regularly, there are no dictators. If we don't like it, we change it. We vote. We have a free press. The government is not the enemy." is spot on. We can debate the role of government in specific areas and how it is run but that is a debate within the margins of your main point.
Times change, amigo. 50 years ago the radical left had some anarchists. But 50 years ago, the South was solidly democratic, the Supreme Court was liberal, and women had no role in politics. We are talking about today and the anarchy has definitely shifted to the radical right in the last 25 years.
I think knowledge is irrelevant to the matter. And while irrational fear is a connotation of paranoia, it is the general distrust that I was referring to. Perhaps phobia is a better word.
I've been flying and following aviation for 40+ years and this is without a doubt the strangest accident investigation or lack thereof that I've witnessed.
