Should Governments Keep Secrets?

[Commodore]

I was on another board where people were discussing the recent Navy SEAL mission in Somalia and how much media attention it has received. Now this board was littered with comments from military veterans who expressed concern at the amount of detail the government made available about what was supposed to be a classified mission. Others though, praised the government for its transparency and saw it as a sign that the government is actually starting to respect the people by putting them "in the know".

This leads me to the question of this thread: Do you think that a government needs to keep some things secret in order to function? If so, what things do you think the government should keep from the people? Or do you feel it is completely unacceptable for a government to keep any secrets from the people?

I am of the opinion that details of military operations should be kept from the people simply for the reason that they don't need to know and it could cause an unnecessary amount of unrest. Now I know this sounds bad when you read it, but if the government allows it's own people to see how the military operates, then that means potential enemies can see it too. I hope I don't have to explain why that is not a good thing.

 

[Silurian]

Yes.
The question should be for how long after the event should it keep them.

 

[Commodore]

Yes.
The question should be for how long after the event should it keep them.

That's a good point too. So what things do you think it is okay for the government to keep secrets about?

 

[aronnax]

It's easy to demand that the government should never ever hide anything from the people and want total government transparency. Lots of Hollywood films set in intrusively controlling future and the government keeps secret of processing old people into food and so on.

And although I agree with the idea that governments should be compiled to release as much information as possible, I do think that in certain situations, it is necessary for the government to keep certain information secret for the protection of either the people or the nation.

Like military secrets or wartime situations, such as the Somali Mission. Intelligence action. Where the President will be at a certain time.

 

[Cutlass]

Yes, but only the bare minimum and for the shortest time necessary. The presumption should be that the government's actions and information are the property of the citizens, unless they can meet a high standard of evidence for not allowing the information out. Lives in danger, that sort of thing.

 

[downtown]

Uh....duh? Of course it should.

 

[Yeekim]

Uh....duh? Of course it should.

Pretty much what I was about to say.

 

[Commodore]

Uh....duh? Of course it should.

I know that, I just wanted to see if there was anybody on this forum that honestly felt there should be no secrets between a government and its people and their justification for that sentiment.

 

[Silurian]

The personal information that the government holds should not be released for 100 years.
Details of battles, diplomatic cables etc 20 to 30 years with some redaction, everything after 100 years.

 

[Glassfan]

The personal information that the government holds should not be released for 100 years.
Details of battles, diplomatic cables etc 20 to 30 years with some redaction, everything after 100 years.

Good points.

What about the Witness Protection Program? And the Nuclear Launch Codes. And although unpopular, information concerning our espionage efforts.

 

[Yeekim]

everything after 100 years.

I am pretty sure we could come up with something that would still be better to keep quiet about even after 100 years.

 

[Silurian]

The names of the people being protected by the Witness Protection Program is personal so should be kept secret. The total number of people being protected and the cost is not and so should be public - maybe a yearly report.

The method of generating nuclear release codes should be kept secret until that method is no longer used.

 

[NickyJ]

It most certainly should! I would hate to have terrorists know ever single detail of every single strategy of everything. Our nation wouldn't be safe.

Uh....duh? Of course it should.

/thread

 

[GenMarshall]

Yes, especially if it concerns with national security. But after a decade or two, should reveal them and not tightly hold them as they are doing with the conspiracy with the JFK assassination or something dubious like Area 51.

 

[kochman]

Absolutely the gubbamint should be able to keep secrets... which is why we heavily vet our democratically elected officials, who in the end, are in charge.

I still want to know the truth about a few things... JFK's assassination being one...

 

[Commodore]

Wow. Nobody's going to argue the other side? Not even to play devil's advocate? Does that mean that there really is no good argument for 100% government disclosure?

 

[kochman]

Wow. Nobody's going to argue the other side? Not even to play devil's advocate? Does that mean that there really is no good argument for 100% government disclosure?

Everyone knows you can't give all your secrets to the Red Chinese!!!

 

[Commodore]

Yes, especially if it concerns with national security. But after a decade or two, should reveal them and not tightly hold them as they are doing with the conspiracy with the JFK assassination or something dubious like Area 51.

What if disclosing that information would ultimately undermine the stability of the government? Then would the government be in the right to keep it under wraps indefinitely?

 

[Samez]

I think the important question is not if the government should keep secrets or not but how the people can control the government to keep only the important things secret. If this does not happen democracy can be undermined quite easily. There is often also the problem that when the people of your state gets to know a secret opponents will also get the info...

 

[bhsup]

Uh....duh? Of course it should.

More proof of DT's presidential cred! Thread winner.