4 ms·
> States have a reasonable need to keep things secret, even against the immediate best interest of the citizens Do they? Perhaps this is the crux of the matter
by gampleman 5y ago
> States have a reasonable need to keep things secret, even against the immediate best interest of the citizens
Do they? Perhaps this is the crux of the matter, as I would say that a democracy has no reason to keep anything secret against the best interests of its citizens. It may have some operational need of secrecy for things that are in the interest of its citizens (i.e. it's in my interest that nuclear launch codes are kept secret) or can balance these with other rights and responsibilities (i.e. the right for privacy of its officers or the duty of care in not disclosing the dispositions of its forces in a war).
- brbrodude 5y agoNot to mention, the secret that they wanted kept that started it all wasn't about "special secret things that should be secret". Jump out of the platonics debate, reality's truth is just ugly.
- rich_sasha 5y agoSome dodgy businessman might be a crook and criminal (no reference to Assange), but also a vital intelligence asset. It might be in the immediate interest of citizens to know that, and have the guy tried, but not so in the *long term. I would expect a competent intelligence service to keep the guy safe and his misdeeds under cover. Of course that can go badly wrong, I just mean, a priori, there may be very good reasons to keep secrets from your own people. But then this is why intelligence services need civilian supervision, just like armed forces do.