Merlin1047 said:True enough. But while you view one approach to this situation as simplistic, you take much the same tack with your own view.
The fact is that government has a need for secrecy in some areas. Technology, military capabilities and deployments, counter-terrorist measures, state department agreements with other nations are all examples. The need for government security and the right of citizens to know what their government is up to are competing interests. Somtimes our "right" to know is actually detrimental to the nation as a whole, because if we know it, so do our enemies. At other times, government may seek to prevent information from getting out to cover up incompetence or corruption.
So it's a balancing act. Neither view is always correct.
One critical difference would be that usually the government especially politicians, their appointees, and military personnel ,take an oath......the ordinary every day citizen has not taken an oath. This is an issue that really makes me angry.....I really dislike the phrase "for your own good". Please, empower me with the truth. The excuse that there is a need to keep some things a secret just doesnt hold up when you consider that some of these people are being questioned by the very representatives that we the people elect to oversee the action of our governement. Sadly many Bush appointees have been very reluctant to appear before oversight committees and if and when they have shown up they have been less than willing to cooperate. Ours is a system of checks and balances....we must demand that the actions of our government be subject to our scrutiny.