The problem is that there are other countries on the planet. If you’re doing something that could make another country want to attack ours should it ever be publicly admitted, that’s a bad thing.
The Cold War was able to be fought without going for the big guns because everyone was willing to do a whole bunch of slimey stuff that they wouldn’t have to admit to. Would you have rather MAD?
Yes – a bad thing to do it, not to admit it.
We did have MAD. We could have won the Cold War without cozying up to Thieu or Somoza or Pinochet or the Shah or doing any other “slimey stuff.”
Am I imagining a difference between “property of the American People” and “everything in public all the time”? I thought the order was fishy because it seems he wanted complete power over the records. As if GWB personally owns everything and can have a huge bonfire if he pleases. Just because I object to that doesn’t mean I’d want a “No Secrets” policy. There is some room for the records to remain property of the USA (with appropriate oversight) and still be confidential enough to get things done.
I also see some room for other outcomes in between the free-for-all Slimy Stuff and MAD.
I was commenting on “complete transparency”.
Judicious, checks and balances sort transparency is of course something I have no problem with.
As left-wing as I am, there is such a thing as a legitimate national security reason to withhold information: military specs, strategies, negotiations, and so forth.
My impression of the Bush/Cheney secrecy is that “national security” was over-extended to cover pretty much everything they ever did or said. That’s taking the principle too far.
I hated how secretive the Bush admin was, but this would be too far in the other direction.
Let logic, reason, fairness, and common sense rule, please.
TV just said an executive order has been signed closing Gitmo within a year. Substance over form.
Let me amend, then…retain the “national security” designation for necessarily-secret documents, but it needs to be time-constrained (10 years, 20 years) and it somehow needs to be watchdogged to make sure that nobody is pulling a Bush (where EVERYTHING becomes “national security” just to keep it from going public).
I’m not absolutely sure I can stand behind the idea that we can keep things secret just so we don’t piss off another country. The thing to do is not to DO that thing, rather than try to cover it up. In the same way that the way to not get in trouble for doing illegal things is to NOT DO the illegal thing, not try to keep anyone from finding out. My sympathies for an administration do not extend to some sort of sorrow that the coverup didn’t work.
I can’t even go that far, jayjay. There’s a good reason why certain secrets are classified and we (presumably laypeople in the intelligence biz) shouldn’t feel free to redefine the rules.
For instance, suppose some bright spark in the U.S. military research division invents a weapon. Do we just hand out the specs for that weapon after 10 years? 20 years? 50 years?
Suppose somebody in the government detects there’s a critical weakness in our national security that will take decades of work to quietly fill in. Do we release that document to the public?
Suppose the FBI is investigating some mob boss, or somebody in organized crime, but they haven’t enough to prosecute? Releasing the information too soon could jeopardize legitimate law enforcement.
I admit I am not wise enough to set the rules for what constitutes a good timeframe for releasing secrets, but I suspect that a blanket “10 years, all government documents revealed, no more secrets, no exceptions” is just asking for trouble.
Eh. I don’t have to be practical. I’m never getting near the levers of power (other than the levers behind that curtain every couple of years), so I can uphold an ideal instead of having to grapple with the ins and outs of the position.
Why not? Someone else will have invented it by then anyway.
We sell them or give them to allies. Even the abomb did not stay secret. If money can be made it will . Secrets are very hard to keep.
Trusting your government to do the right thing as opposed to finding ways to help themselves is a problem. Was Bush interested in doing the right thing or was he keeping secrets to protect himself and his minions? Transparency is what we should strive for. There should be oversight not controlled by those who benefit from secrecy ,but by a seemingly neutral agency.
Your “right now” is important. He presumably has the power to issue another executive order rescinding this one before leaving office.
At that point when he does that, I’ll criticize him. At the point where he’s issued this one, I’ll praise him. May I trust that you’ll do the same?
Daniel
Hey, Brain Glutton, if you want to go knocking on the Army’s door and make that argument, go right ahead. I’m just a layman when it comes to military intelligence, but it seems to me that two countries with a secret weapon is preferable to two hundred countries with a secret weapon. If your math shows differently I’d love to see it.
I can say that Churchill’s book World War II, though published in six volumes starting in 1948 and winning the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1953, had to be heavily redacted:
He also did not reveal that the Americans had broken the Japanese naval codes, or Patton’s role in the fictional First Army Group. Not all military secrets need necessarily be weapons. 
I think complete and total transparency in government is not only impossible, but impractical. I would be extremely hesitant to suggest that there’s no valid reason to conceal anything government ever does, ever, for any length of time — I do not like sweeping generalities, because the devil is always in the details.
I agree with Obama’s take on the FOIA. Err on the side of releasing information to the public, but examine every request on a case-by-case basis. Don’t make the applicant prove his need for the information, make the government prove the case for secrecy.
This is big, not huge. When Obama gets enough time under his belt, he will rescind or change this order limiting its’ capability, I will bet my hat. This falls under the “nobody needs to know how the hotdogs are made” category. He’s attempting to look like he’s keeping promises, but he’s actually got to deliver the goods from a logistical standpoint before they’re kept. I’m going to say wait and see, and I’ll say too that I’m not sure how much difference this will make in the long run.
I’m not sure where the folks who are so certain he will rescind this order are getting that idea from. W and Reagan were the only presidents to issue such an executive order. From what I understand, Obama has returned to the situation we have had since Johnson, and only W Bush and Reagan were foolish enough to think that situation was unworkable.
I would like to bet you one (1) hat. I say that Obama will not rescind or change this order.
I am very curious as to what we might see come out about Iran-Contra stuff. I always thought that Reagan was much dirtier than we ever knew. 
Of course, it could also sully the reputations of lots of other people…