Full Version: Keeping Secrets
I'd start this debate with a some quotes
"The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy; the best weapon of a democracy is openness." Edvard Teller
"When information which properly belongs to the public is systematically withheld by those in power, the people soon become ignorant of their own affairs, distrustful of those who manage them, and - eventually - incapable of determining their own destinies." Pres. Richard Nixon, 1972
"A popular government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy; or, perhaps, both." Pres. James Madison August 4, 1822
"The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings." John F Kennedy
Lately on the Debate Boards, especially the political ones, there seems to be a pattern of acceptability toward secrecy. An example could be, when in a debate dealing with GITMO someone may ask "what facts do you have, where are your sources" knowing full well that much of the things that are happening at GITMO are shrouded in secrecy.
From secret torture memos, minutes with ENRON, secrets at prison camps, to keeping papers about Bush's Nominee Bolton secret. I don't need to know the private business of our government in their homes, but is it wrong to think that public persons doing the people business should remain transparent, except on a very limited basis?? It seems that secrecy is rampant. What seems worse is a trend stand behind this secrecy while also demanding proof of any wrong doing.
Questions for debate:
Is secrecy of this administration becoming out of hand.
Are people becoming too comfortable with accepting secrecy within our democracy.
"The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy; the best weapon of a democracy is openness." Edvard Teller
"When information which properly belongs to the public is systematically withheld by those in power, the people soon become ignorant of their own affairs, distrustful of those who manage them, and - eventually - incapable of determining their own destinies." Pres. Richard Nixon, 1972
"A popular government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy; or, perhaps, both." Pres. James Madison August 4, 1822
"The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings." John F Kennedy
Lately on the Debate Boards, especially the political ones, there seems to be a pattern of acceptability toward secrecy. An example could be, when in a debate dealing with GITMO someone may ask "what facts do you have, where are your sources" knowing full well that much of the things that are happening at GITMO are shrouded in secrecy.
From secret torture memos, minutes with ENRON, secrets at prison camps, to keeping papers about Bush's Nominee Bolton secret. I don't need to know the private business of our government in their homes, but is it wrong to think that public persons doing the people business should remain transparent, except on a very limited basis?? It seems that secrecy is rampant. What seems worse is a trend stand behind this secrecy while also demanding proof of any wrong doing.
Questions for debate:
Is secrecy of this administration becoming out of hand.
Are people becoming too comfortable with accepting secrecy within our democracy.
Is secrecy of this administration becoming out of hand.
No, it's been out of hand.
Bush did not want a 9/11 Commission formed in the first place. There are 28 pages missing from the 9/11 Commission Report. Reason? "Security," no doubt.
The administration official who told Robert Novak that Valerie Plame was a CIA analyst has somehow never been found out.
Who authorized the flight out of the country of Saudis, including members of Osama bin Laden's family when the rest of the country was grounded after the September 11, 2001 attacks has never been divulged.
Why did President Bush say after the failure to capture Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora that this leader of al Qaeda was "no longer a concern" after he vowed several months earlier that bin Laden was going to be his number one priority?
Whose administration had so many leaving during the first term to "spend more time with family"? Was it because of George W. Bush's commitment to family values?
Forgive me for not taking the time to cite articles, for they are indeed numerous over the previous four years.
Are people becoming too comfortable with accepting secrecy within our democracy. I see a willingness to overlook a lot that has gone on with this President and his administration. Along with that, I see a tendency of many to view whistleblowers and journalists willing to ask tough questions as nuisances, traitors, whiners and (shudder) liberals!
And look at the man whom Bush wanted to name head of the agencies for Homeland Security--a real winner there. But, conveniently, there was a nanny in Bernard Keric's employ who turned out to be an undocumented worker or some such drivel, so Keric had an "acceptable" excuse to bow out. This man did not have clean hands, and the administration did a sloppy job if they actually made an attempt to check his background.
I am distrustful of this administration, and the secrecy appears to me to be covering up a lot of sloppy work.
Edit: Now I know that I addressed neither the allegations at Guantanamo Bay Detention Center nor the accounts from Abu Ghraib Prison. But I ask you, what are we to expect from a President who does not admit errors and whose people are already accustomed to routine obfuscation and denial?
As the bumpersticker says, "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention."
No, it's been out of hand.
Bush did not want a 9/11 Commission formed in the first place. There are 28 pages missing from the 9/11 Commission Report. Reason? "Security," no doubt.
The administration official who told Robert Novak that Valerie Plame was a CIA analyst has somehow never been found out.
Who authorized the flight out of the country of Saudis, including members of Osama bin Laden's family when the rest of the country was grounded after the September 11, 2001 attacks has never been divulged.
Why did President Bush say after the failure to capture Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora that this leader of al Qaeda was "no longer a concern" after he vowed several months earlier that bin Laden was going to be his number one priority?
Whose administration had so many leaving during the first term to "spend more time with family"? Was it because of George W. Bush's commitment to family values?
Forgive me for not taking the time to cite articles, for they are indeed numerous over the previous four years.
Are people becoming too comfortable with accepting secrecy within our democracy. I see a willingness to overlook a lot that has gone on with this President and his administration. Along with that, I see a tendency of many to view whistleblowers and journalists willing to ask tough questions as nuisances, traitors, whiners and (shudder) liberals!
And look at the man whom Bush wanted to name head of the agencies for Homeland Security--a real winner there. But, conveniently, there was a nanny in Bernard Keric's employ who turned out to be an undocumented worker or some such drivel, so Keric had an "acceptable" excuse to bow out. This man did not have clean hands, and the administration did a sloppy job if they actually made an attempt to check his background.
I am distrustful of this administration, and the secrecy appears to me to be covering up a lot of sloppy work.
Edit: Now I know that I addressed neither the allegations at Guantanamo Bay Detention Center nor the accounts from Abu Ghraib Prison. But I ask you, what are we to expect from a President who does not admit errors and whose people are already accustomed to routine obfuscation and denial?
As the bumpersticker says, "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention."
Is secrecy of this administration becoming out of hand?
I've been thinking about this and I do believe that there has been a post-Cold War trend to gratuitously stamp documents with the seal of secrecy. However, I'm not sure that this administration is any less or more "out of hand" than previous administrations. Or to put it more accurately, this administration has made foreign policy a key plank of its platform; foreign policy always gets stamped with secrecy more than other types of policy; thus, we are seeing more evidence of secrecy. In other words, I feel pretty sure that as far as foreign policy is concerned, this trend of secrecy is somewhat independent of administration. That said, I don't believe that this is any excuse.
Negative political implication is insufficient justification for hiding behind "national security". We live in a democracy, and until that changes, the trend should be towards openness and not secrecy.
Are people becoming too comfortable with accepting secrecy within our democracy?
Yes. I believe so. Clearly, there are times and good justification for secrecy. The key here is present the good justification for such. It is important also to consider that secrecy is more easily justified for "inaction" rather than "action". Through inaction, not publishing US strategic missile launch codes is well justified. Through action, violation of a nation's sovereignty based on "secret" intelligence may not be justified.
I've been thinking about this and I do believe that there has been a post-Cold War trend to gratuitously stamp documents with the seal of secrecy. However, I'm not sure that this administration is any less or more "out of hand" than previous administrations. Or to put it more accurately, this administration has made foreign policy a key plank of its platform; foreign policy always gets stamped with secrecy more than other types of policy; thus, we are seeing more evidence of secrecy. In other words, I feel pretty sure that as far as foreign policy is concerned, this trend of secrecy is somewhat independent of administration. That said, I don't believe that this is any excuse.
Negative political implication is insufficient justification for hiding behind "national security". We live in a democracy, and until that changes, the trend should be towards openness and not secrecy.
Are people becoming too comfortable with accepting secrecy within our democracy?
Yes. I believe so. Clearly, there are times and good justification for secrecy. The key here is present the good justification for such. It is important also to consider that secrecy is more easily justified for "inaction" rather than "action". Through inaction, not publishing US strategic missile launch codes is well justified. Through action, violation of a nation's sovereignty based on "secret" intelligence may not be justified.
Is secrecy of this administration becoming out of hand.I do not really think what the Admin does or aims to is all that secret. They are smart enough to keep Bush away from microphones because whenever he speaks he is a potential embarrassment. The idiotic misstatements that are the hallmark of George W are media gold. It is hard to maintain respect for a guy who can barely manage basic english.
Are people becoming too comfortable with accepting secrecy within our democracy.Definitely. Secrets protect what is wrong with the world. They are used when there is no way decent people would ever put up with what some in government do in the interests of national security or whatever other false pretense they use to justify their actions.
They allow corruption to fester like a cancer until it spreads so far and goes so deep as to become permanent.
Is it really a case of being too comfortable or is it willful ignorance as long as their existence and comfort are not disturbed?
Are people becoming too comfortable with accepting secrecy within our democracy.Definitely. Secrets protect what is wrong with the world. They are used when there is no way decent people would ever put up with what some in government do in the interests of national security or whatever other false pretense they use to justify their actions.
They allow corruption to fester like a cancer until it spreads so far and goes so deep as to become permanent.
Is it really a case of being too comfortable or is it willful ignorance as long as their existence and comfort are not disturbed?
QUOTE(droop224 @ May 26 2005, 10:02 PM)
Is secrecy of this administration becoming out of hand.
Secrecy in this administration has been out of hand from the moment the claims about the outgoing administration vandalizing the White House were made. Immediately following said claims there was an effort to obstruct the GSA's investigation into the allegations (the GSA concluded it's investigation by finding that none of the claims were found to be to the drastic extent reported, and were more at the level of pranks than vandalism). It continued with the Vice-President's refusal to allow public scrutiny of his energy task force's meeting notes. It continues today with the administration's notable lack of co-operation with media and refusal to address certain issues (The Downing Street Memo, for one).
QUOTE(droop224 @ May 26 2005, 10:02 PM)
Are people becoming too comfortable with accepting secrecy within our democracy.
I believe that far too many people are becoming comfortable with accepting secrecy and obfuscation from this administration, most notably the corporate media who have willingly participated in their own castration.
Edited to correct investigating agency (GSA not GAO).
QUOTE
Is secrecy of this administration becoming out of hand. (?)
I have to agree with Paladin Elspeth here. The entire history of government has been surrounded with shady deals and lies to any and everyone. Why would Bush's administration choose to break that trend? It never had a chance to grow out of hand, the secrecy was there and there is no denying that. So, for a concrete answer I would have to say no, simply on the grounds the lies and secrets were already out of hand.
QUOTE
Are people becoming too comfortable with accepting secrecy within our democracy. (?)
Think back to stories (or for the older generation simply think back) of Roswell, New Mexico. The government lied out their eye balls back then and only some crack-pot conspiracy theorists cared to peruse the subject further. And you know why? People were used to the lies fifty years ago. No one questioned the mighty government because they were, much like we are now, used to being lied to. The government can (lie and) say the secrets are for our own protection but words have never been cause for civil unrest, actions are needed and the truth can never harm a nation. Yes, people are growing accustomed to the secrets, in fact people now view it as a part and price of living in America.
Is secrecy of this administration becoming out of hand.
Yes, I think that this administration is overusing secrecy. Now, every administration tries to keep some of its activities in secret, but this administration seems to have institutionalized the notion of secrecy. I get the feeling that they only allow information out if they think it makes them look good -- or if they're forced to.
There are two good reasons for maintaining secrecy. The first is national security, and it is certainly a powerful justification for secrecy. However, the national security argument has always been greatly overused. Why do we need to maintain strict standards of secrecy over the prisoners we have been keeping at Guantanomo for years now? It's not as if they possess any information that could possibly have any utility to terrorists in the outside world.
The second good reason for secrecy is to insure that the President receives honest advice. If an advisor fears that his words will be splashed across the front pages, he'll be too reticent to give good advice. However, it's not too difficult to address this issue: what is spoken is not for public release, and what is written is. The spoken word cannot be proven in any case, and the written word can readily be checked for political correctness. This gives the public a healthy opportunity to see what their government is up to, while preserving freedom of advice within the administration. But of course the Bush administration would never consent to such an arrangement.
Are people becoming too comfortable with accepting secrecy within our democracy.
Yes, and I think that this comfort is partly partisan in nature. I should think that a Republican would have just as great a desire to know what his government is doing as a Democrat; the greater willingness of a partisan to acquiesce to secrecy suggests that partisans on both sides know perfectly well that their government is up to no good.
Yes, I think that this administration is overusing secrecy. Now, every administration tries to keep some of its activities in secret, but this administration seems to have institutionalized the notion of secrecy. I get the feeling that they only allow information out if they think it makes them look good -- or if they're forced to.
There are two good reasons for maintaining secrecy. The first is national security, and it is certainly a powerful justification for secrecy. However, the national security argument has always been greatly overused. Why do we need to maintain strict standards of secrecy over the prisoners we have been keeping at Guantanomo for years now? It's not as if they possess any information that could possibly have any utility to terrorists in the outside world.
The second good reason for secrecy is to insure that the President receives honest advice. If an advisor fears that his words will be splashed across the front pages, he'll be too reticent to give good advice. However, it's not too difficult to address this issue: what is spoken is not for public release, and what is written is. The spoken word cannot be proven in any case, and the written word can readily be checked for political correctness. This gives the public a healthy opportunity to see what their government is up to, while preserving freedom of advice within the administration. But of course the Bush administration would never consent to such an arrangement.
Are people becoming too comfortable with accepting secrecy within our democracy.
Yes, and I think that this comfort is partly partisan in nature. I should think that a Republican would have just as great a desire to know what his government is doing as a Democrat; the greater willingness of a partisan to acquiesce to secrecy suggests that partisans on both sides know perfectly well that their government is up to no good.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.