4 ms·
I agree, but I also disagree. There are many secrets they should not have, but there are many state secrets that should be secret. Just because a politician is
by helthanatos 9y ago
I agree, but I also disagree. There are many secrets they should not have, but there are many state secrets that should be secret.
Just because a politician is a politician does not mean they should have no privacy but they should also expect to not be able to have secrets.
It's all a fine line and it is really annoying.
- Benjammer 9y agoIt's really not that fine at all. It's their job. Everything related to their job should be tracked and publicly accounted for. When they are "off the clock" so to speak, they can have as much privacy as they want.
- ruleabidinguser 9y agoYou overestimate the publics ability to be a good accountant
- badosu 9y agoThis does not sound very reasonable, what about meetings regarding diplomatic and military strategies? Should that be public?
- Benjammer 9y agoI'm open to considering certain cases of specific redaction when it means protecting things like this. Also we might be able to have a delayed disclosure process that would declassify the records after a certain period of time or something.