3 ms·
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
by 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.