4 ms·

I know this is going to be a controversial opinion, but to me it seems that this is perfectly reasonable. As great as it would be for the government to be compl

I know this is going to be a controversial opinion, but to me it seems that this is perfectly reasonable. As great as it would be for the government to be completely transparent, that is simply not practical. Transparency would hurt the US's security, so this is simply the best option.

nitrogen 12y ago
...that is simply not practical. Transparency would hurt the US's security... I've said it before, and I'll repeat it here: this claim needs to be justified with actual evidence, not just assertions and speculation.
- crimsonalucard 12y ago
  Unfortunately, the evidence is classified.
  - mjcohen 12y ago
    I could tell you, but I would have to kill me.
mcculley 12y ago
This would be a more believable assumption if the US had a history of legitimate use of such power. The last couple decades are full of examples where the US government has used security as a reason to cover up bad behavior.
crimsonalucard 12y ago
It's a choice between security and corruption. How much secrecy contributes to either is up for debate. The irony is that it's all top secret so there's no way any of us can know for sure.
Zigurd 12y ago
> As great as it would be for the government to be completely transparent, that is simply not practical. That's a naked assertion. Do the thought experiment: What if there was a "super-Snowden" who, after a warning to enable spies to escape, leaked ALL classified information. Everything. The whole ball of wax. How much day to day security would the US lose? Would the Russian navy land on the shores of Brooklyn? Would the Chinese somehow become an instant dominant power? The fact is, Snowden did not ding our security one bit. The transparency he forced was probably beneficial. So let's stipulate there is some down-side to total transparency. Would you take the bet that the benefits are greater than the costs?
beedogs 12y ago
In order for the state to keep secrets, it must prove why they need to be secret. You don't just get to blanket everything you do with that excuse.
IkmoIkmo 12y ago
I hope it's not lost on you that history is riddled with corrupt regimes who employ that kind of rhetoric. I hope it's also not lost on you that US history has a fair share of incidents where lack of transparency and honesty led to some of the worst policy one could have imagined. You may think of say, the rise of Iran in an area where its counterweight in Iraq was virtually destroyed, leaving a power vacuum and enough weapons and a lack of proper governance that allowed sectarian violence and the likes of Isis to arise, after a brutal decade long war against people who rightly so viewed the US as invaders into their country. A war which was justified and explained on the basis of evidence that was not public and that a decade later looked unsubstantial and partially fabricated. But who cares right? We need to elect people who lie to us and keep secrets from us, for our own good. And if we have to let our government affect the courts, the separation of powers, and run policy through supposedly non-governmental government-backed organisations, why the hell not. Not like an independent court or a separation of powers has any value, right?
- mreiland 12y ago
  > I hope it's not lost on you that history is riddled with corrupt regimes who employ that kind of rhetoric. All governments are corrupt, are you implying governments don't have a need for secrecy? I don't really have an opinion on this subject, but your response appears to ignore the other side of the issue.

nitrogen 12y ago

...that is simply not practical. Transparency would hurt the US's security... I've said it before, and I'll repeat it here: this claim needs to be justified with actual evidence, not just assertions and speculation.

crimsonalucard 12y ago
Unfortunately, the evidence is classified.
- mjcohen 12y ago
  I could tell you, but I would have to kill me.

mcculley 12y ago

This would be a more believable assumption if the US had a history of legitimate use of such power. The last couple decades are full of examples where the US government has used security as a reason to cover up bad behavior.

crimsonalucard 12y ago

It's a choice between security and corruption. How much secrecy contributes to either is up for debate. The irony is that it's all top secret so there's no way any of us can know for sure.

Zigurd 12y ago

> As great as it would be for the government to be completely transparent, that is simply not practical. That's a naked assertion. Do the thought experiment: What if there was a "super-Snowden" who, after a warning to enable spies to escape, leaked ALL classified information. Everything. The whole ball of wax. How much day to day security would the US lose? Would the Russian navy land on the shores of Brooklyn? Would the Chinese somehow become an instant dominant power? The fact is, Snowden did not ding our security one bit. The transparency he forced was probably beneficial. So let's stipulate there is some down-side to total transparency. Would you take the bet that the benefits are greater than the costs?

beedogs 12y ago

In order for the state to keep secrets, it must prove why they need to be secret. You don't just get to blanket everything you do with that excuse.

IkmoIkmo 12y ago

I hope it's not lost on you that history is riddled with corrupt regimes who employ that kind of rhetoric. I hope it's also not lost on you that US history has a fair share of incidents where lack of transparency and honesty led to some of the worst policy one could have imagined. You may think of say, the rise of Iran in an area where its counterweight in Iraq was virtually destroyed, leaving a power vacuum and enough weapons and a lack of proper governance that allowed sectarian violence and the likes of Isis to arise, after a brutal decade long war against people who rightly so viewed the US as invaders into their country. A war which was justified and explained on the basis of evidence that was not public and that a decade later looked unsubstantial and partially fabricated. But who cares right? We need to elect people who lie to us and keep secrets from us, for our own good. And if we have to let our government affect the courts, the separation of powers, and run policy through supposedly non-governmental government-backed organisations, why the hell not. Not like an independent court or a separation of powers has any value, right?

mreiland 12y ago
> I hope it's not lost on you that history is riddled with corrupt regimes who employ that kind of rhetoric. All governments are corrupt, are you implying governments don't have a need for secrecy? I don't really have an opinion on this subject, but your response appears to ignore the other side of the issue.