Is some degree of secrecy a bad thing in a democratic form of government?

Question

If so, why?
If not then why are the libs complaining about Bush?

Answer 1

Degrees of secrecy are essential for governments, especially large ones. It is the responsibility of the government to maintain the peace and if that means keeping a secret, so be it.

Answer 2

There are obviously some things that the government must keep secret for security purposes. The Bush administration, however, has made documents that are the normal work product of government employees secret. There is no justifiable reason for this.

These public servants work for the American public. Some of the documents that the Bush administration has made secret include: contacts between the energy industry and Cheney, communications about contracts to Halliburton, cost estimates for the Medicare prescription program, etc.

This type of secrecy enables the abuse of power, cover-ups, lack of effective oversight and underhanded dealings that are not in the public interest and that may be contrary to the public interest. I don't know why any reasonable citizen would tolerate this.

Answer 3

I guess the question is how much secrecy is good and who should decide. Something is completely undemocratic when a President can claim executive privilege on any issue that he/she decides. Oversight and balance of power is the most democratic way to have secrets. If you have to have secrets, then they should be decided by outside observers that they are allowed.

In addition, the key issue from an ethical perspective is what should be the decision rule we use to decide. Should we error on the side of secrecy or error on the side of openness? This is an ethical question that our society must define. If a democracy were to error on the side of secrecy then the people are no longer making informed decisions in the selection and petitions to the government. The simple fact is that a democracy has an ethical injunction to be as open as possible and that when it creates secrets they are done through democratic mechanisms.

Bush doesn't do these. He invokes executive privileges, has undermined the democratically agreed procedures that we have instituted for opening of secrets after a sufficient amount of time, and has generally preferred deferring to his own elite knowledge rather than encouraging debate and informed discussion of policy options.

Answer 4

Some degree of secresy is needed for a government to operate. Since even in peace time, nation states are in competition with other nation states and what's in a governement's "best interests" may be at odds with another. So, some degreee of secresy is important.

That being said, the degree of secresy wielded by the current government has been excessive and has bred a little contempt amongst the people as a whole.

Answer 5

Most secrecy is designed to protect high level officials from being embarrassed by having their actions, decisions and abilities known to everyone. The only real need for secrecy is in tactical situations where surprise is needed to gain an advantage over an adversary - once the action is taken, the facts are known by all and there's no longer any need for secrecy.

Answer 6

Secrecy is never a "good" thing--but obviously it is sometimes necessary.

What is ALWAYS bad is secrecy without accountability. For example--no one objects to wiretaps, etc. to monitor possible terrorists. But Bush has sought to do this not only secretly--but without warrents. As a result of this illegal policy, we've already seen that the FBI has violated the law --based on government audits--over 1000 times since the (un)Patriot Act was passed. The NSA and CIA--bot h prohibited by law from spying on Americans--has beendoing so wholesale.

Files are being kept on people who are dissenters from the current administration policcies. Americans can be denied the right to travel on a plane--with no reason given and no appeal--and this is happening hundreds of times every month.

Yet--in the name of "exectutive privilege" criminals are being protected by this administration. . . .

But--again--the issue isn't 'secrecy" per se--its lack of accountability and oversight.

Answer 7

Not only is some degree of secrecy warranted, it's implied in our form of democracy!

We have the technological means to now electronically vote on every agenda, but that would expose those shrouded in secrecy for the protection of 'the people'. By electing representatives, we are choosing people to trust with our interests. That is why it is important to elect people we feel we can trust, then actually follow through and trust them (but hold them accountable)!

Lord only knows why the libs do the things they do!

Answer 8

I think that some secrecy is mandatory if a country is going to survive. When troop movements, morale, funding etc are published daily in the newspapers it gives enemies too great an advantage.

Many liberals will complain about Bush no matter what he does.

Answer 9

Can you imagine the Sh_t-Storm that would've occured if we had the same media in the 40's that we have now?

The Japanese wouldn've known about the Atom bomb before it was loaded on the plane.

The D-Day invasion would've been broadcast via streaming video, from the day the troops left for Normandy. We'd have gotten to shore and found the entire Axis forces waiting for us.

It's obvious that government needs secrets. Just try telling that to the Main stream media.

Answer 10

A small closely regulated amount would be OK. But you wouldn't believe the secrets they actually are keeping until you believe them then it would make you sick. It's so far beyond what you would expect it's ridiculous. That's why some are complaining, they can tell their is a big problem.