It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
We will have to agree to disagree, no deal should have information witheld its dishonest,a military action is not a deal quit mixing the 2
(("That depends what it is, defence and security equipment certainly couldn’t be public knowledge as that could again cost lives down the line. "))
No you seem to be mixing stuff just to argue, are you talking a privet aucton or public auction
You keep changeing your example, .Should a used car sales give all the information to the buyer,or with hold some info because that may mean he cant sell the car and has to take the loss instead of pass the loss to some one else? really you think that is ok?
whats being sold at a privet auction is privet ,no matter the item, is.,whats being sold at a government auction, which means, that the item being auctioned,was payed for and built by my taxs dollars , so you dam wright show how much we made on the item ,it was my money also.
What do you feel? as someone who feels above all, should we not be privy to?
If such and such congressmen sends and email, to someone saying he think the middles east tradition is wacked out.
It gets leaked out,middles east gets mad. So what , If it effects them, to the point that later they dont want to do business with such nation who the congressmen was from,...Then i say to you, you sad lil country get a grip, get ,thicker skin ,and if it makes them feel better dont do business with them.
but the person who invaded the email and leaked it should be punished , for invasion of privacy.
But Who is the person makeing the decision to sanitize ,this information anyways.?
If our governments are really responsible governments, why would they hide plans from their own people?
So how far does ATS think transparency should go?
For example in armed conflicts should we know military plans?
Same question to you, would you want this openness even if included a report on the bleak outlook of your economy which could lead to investment drying up, job losses etc? Or should the government keep this quiet and try to maintain investment?
If the government assesses an industry to be fundamentally uncompetitive who wins by this information being public?
Or what about the example I gave a few posts above of policy makers being punished for speaking frankly?
Are there no cases at all where the government should maintain secrecy?
And if secrecy is for shills only can you give me all of your bank details please?
And I have asked you what about those instances where making information public would adversely affect the public?
So you agree that some limits do apply to government transparency?
I agree that the public should know the argument for war but even here aren’t there grey areas?
Given your agreement that information could be withheld to protect lives would you agree that there are certain types of intelligence that could not be published because of the risk it could pose to intelligence agents or informants?
Similarly in government to government deals it would be foolish to publish your terms for all to see as it would give competitors, even in a free market, information on how to outbid you.
Putting yourself in the position of a policy maker who needs to A) keep his job and B) get re-elected would you be willing to discuss an issue in public that you knew would probably cost you your job or would you shy away from discussing it?
If there is nothing that should be kept then what do you say about the examples I gave of areas where transparency would negatively impact something which is in the public interest?