The amount of information that passes through the television, through the internet, the newspapers and even through word of mouth is astounding. Are there some things that should be kept secret or from the public for their own safety or do you feel that the general public has the right, needs to know everything? Tell me your feelings on it, be thoughtful, honest and specific. Remember there is no right or wrong here, just a free exchange of thoughts on the matter.
2007-03-20 12:59:53 · 9 answers · asked by jprofitt303 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I'm reading your answers as you're putting them down and I'm impressed with how thoughtful they all are!
2007-03-20 13:28:11 · update #1
Really good question! Let me start with a distinction. This is our nation that we or our ancestors fought and died for, so we have a RIGHT to know everything. We even have the right to know government secrets unless the greater public good requires they remain a secret for the our national security. The government would have been safe telling my mother (who had a security clearance) how to make an atomic bomb, but that knowledge would not have useful to her and would have posed a danger to the nation. There are few secrets that fall into that category. Military strategy and weaponry being the prime exception. However, you asked if we NEED to know everything. No, but if we want to know political secrets that do not endanger national security, we have a right and our OWN need to know. The government cannot hide behind executive privilege, like both Democrats and Republicans have done or have tried to do, simply to save themselves from political embarrassment. The Supreme Court shot that strategy down when Nixon tried it during the Watergate scandal. I work for a local government and citizens ask me for information almost daily that I don't think they need--but how can I be the judge of that? I think the best government is the most open government. Obviously, national security trumps open government, but it should never be used casually or illegitimately. Thank you for a thoughful question in the area of this site that often lacks that asset.
2007-03-20 13:17:20 · answer #1 · answered by David M 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think matters of national security should be kept secret for a time, and than made public when they no longer are need for security reasons. Specific military locations, stratagies, and things like that.
However, I don't think the goverment should meet with the energy company CEO's in secert than announce a new energy policy, those meeting should be public.
I am somewhat alarmed at all the grand jury testimony that is being leaked. I think that is very dangerous to our society. Not that this issue is dangerous or anything, but Barry Bonds testified under oath to a grand jury, this was then leaked. This has happened several times. If I where to be called to testify to a grand jury and I had ooddles of cash I would think in today's environment you could get away with a 5th amendment claim.
2007-03-20 13:15:41 · answer #2 · answered by Jerry 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
the answer is NO. You are on the right track in saying that
media plays a huge roll in blurting out information that can be absolutely crucial to a case, the War, or even a persons livelyhood, and they do so without consience or consequence.
One time (During desert storm) Hiraldo Rivera was interviewing with some commandos, and they were telling him where they were fixing to go and what they were to accomplish , They did so to inform him of the danger for himself and his camera man; Hiraldo blurted out the whereabouts and his camera man fixed his camera on
the makeshift map that was drawn in the sand. All he could say is OOPS. But he did recant on the mission and leave the middle east. Damage was already done, the plans were
shown live and now the entire mission was a blotch.
2007-03-20 13:26:53 · answer #3 · answered by Justme 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The news should be a rendering of the days events, not a commentary. The problem I see often is a story is reported, but is not accurate. I therefore believe a story should not be reported until the facts are in. Then the majority of people can make their own decisions. In matters of national security, I think that the elected officials we have are going to make the decisions and the rest of us will be informed as the time dictates.
2007-03-20 13:19:06 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
There are some things which are not public, these are called classified. Intelligence that is a matter of national security, like where all of our nuclear missile subs are at any given time, is not public knowledge.
2007-03-20 13:05:37 · answer #5 · answered by msi_cord 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I believe people have the right to know what they want to know. Although some knowledge can be harm full to the individual or group. It is generally impossible to know everything.
2007-03-20 13:09:00 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes the people should know everything but many people prefer to be led like cattle and taken care of and told what to do. You cannot trust anyone to take care of your welfare because they do not care about your interests, only theirs. Like with tobacco, no doubt about it tobacco takes away years off your life but it is profitable and kills you before you retire and become a burden on society so even today the surgeon general will likely not say specifically tobacco is harmful to your health as much as it is.
2007-03-20 13:07:46 · answer #7 · answered by Dazed and confused 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I'd like to make up my own mind. but some people are just incapable of being rational. i have mixed feelings i guess in this case im for the better good.such a shame though.
2007-03-20 13:06:48 · answer #8 · answered by Dori S 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think when it comes to National Security that it is absolutely necessary to keep it classified. To divulge secrets is treason to me because it can effect the outcome of necessary projects that protect us.
2007-03-20 13:05:41 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋