Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 8th Dec 2010 12:16 UTC
Permalink for comment 452855
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-11-29
You may be right, but who decides what is "need to know info", and where is the line between redacting and censorship?
I do believe there are exceptions to the rule "be honest all the time", but is a mentality such as "people shouldn't know because they are not qualified to understand" a good one? How can there be any democracy (we're talking about the thinnest kind here, i.e. representative democracy) work if the people don't even know what the government is doing? How can you hold the government accountable for anything if you don't know anything about it?
Total exposure to the truth may be an extreme but in my opinion it's far better then what there is now. Secrecy is a (sometimes useful) tool that should only be given to those who understand what they forfeit by using it.
As for security concerns, the Iraq leaks, for example, come after the end of the war (let's face it, it's over). As well as the afghan ones.