I'm getting the idea that some folks here think that everything the gov't

[cali]

knows/does/has, should be accessible in real time to the public. I bring this up, of course, because of Wikileaks. I support wikileaks- particularly because of what I'm hoping will shine a light on the corrupt banks, but I don't believe that every word spoken by a gov't official, or all classified info should be available, in real time, to the general public.

[leveymg]

1. You will agree, I hope, that 95% of what is currently classified as less than Top Secret can and

should be routinely declassified within 24 months? I'm talking about State Dept cables, not nuclear warhead designs.

If so, what's different about Wikileaks, except it sped up the declassification process and made it easier for everyone concerned?

[cali]

3. I'd guess that would be true, but I just don't know.

[treestar]

14. Then 24 months is the rule for a reason

Speeding it up breaks that rule. Very simple.

[leveymg]

15. I threw out 24 months as a for-instance. See how arbitrary rules can be?

the actual rule is 25/30 years for automatic review of classified agency and executive department documents. Even then, there are a number of exceptions to the declassification rule.

[shraby]

2. The rules and regulations about what is secret and what

is not has to be made so it's not just a way to CYA if the official in it has goofed. Maybe a citizen's panel to make the decisions on what is worthy of being a government secret and change the panel every 5 years and put new people in charge to hopefully limit opportunities for corruption to dictate what is secret.

[ThomCat]

4. Real time would be impossible.

But everything should eventually be accessible. It is just a matter of when and how.

As a first line of openness; nothing should be restricted from review from academic researchers and scholars who study government, and from journalists.

If it is restricted because it is a national security issue, that restriction should always expire within a very short period of time so that researchers and journalists can get to it in a reasonable period.

Nothing should ever be hidden for long.

Making information accessible to everyone else, all of us, would be more difficult and might require a longer delay. But researchers and journalists definitely need access quickly.

[cali]

7. I agree with everything in your post

though I think there are a few exceptions- information that would endanger lives should be kept secret until it no longer does so.

[ThomCat]

11. Yes, but how long does any information really endanger

someone?

If any information is going to endanger someone for the rest of their life, then they need to be offered a safe place to go on the assumption that the information will get out to someone during their lifetime.

Otherwise, this type of exception would becomes the easy automatic excuse for hiding anything and everything. Government can and would routinely start claiming that "if this information is released someone's life would be endangered. It must be kept classified until end of life." And because we can't ever know whose life, that means indefinite secrecy.

By the time the public could find out that it was a convenient government lie in order to justify secrecy, and nobody's life was ever really endangered 50, 60, or even 80 years would have gone by and the system of secrecy is entrenched and accepted as perfectly normal by then.

Am I being cynical? Of course. But then we always have to look at how any system can be used and abused when power is involved.

[Riftaxe]

13. That's really going to be harsh for

those in the Witness Protection programs, not to mention undercover agents of any Federal or National Agency. But i am sure there are those out there who will like a whack at anonymous whistle blowers and informers.

[ThomCat]

16. Do you think that nothing ever gets redacted by

journalists to maintain people's privacy? Standard rules about the privacy of information about individuals would take care of this, especially where there is a known risk of danger or retaliation, without using this as an excuse to hide huge chunks of government data the way it is now.

[xchrom]

5. secrecy is a bad way to run an open democracy.

'informed consent' seems to be a forgotten concept in these modern times -- even by some 'liberals'.

[RandomThoughts]

6. They should have thought about that before passing the patriot act

[Nye Bevan]

8. That *should* be the default. Unless it can be demonstrated that there is a good reason for secrecy.

We elect these people and pay their salaries. They are working for *us*. I am a strong believer in freedom of information. Obviously there need to be exceptions for military and diplomatic matters but most of what the Government does should be public knowledge.

[truedelphi]

9. I don't think that many of us want every word of every statement known.

For instance, what a nightmare would ensue if the nuclear launch codes were known.

But when our government officials are plotting wars in secret, it might be nice for us citizens to know about it.

And the "real media" is too busy blathering about Lindsey Lohan to bring us much information along those liness.

[noise]

10. I think people are sick of backroom deals

and concealment of corruption by way of abusing secrecy laws.

[BlueJac]

12. Obama talked of transparency, which he didn't bring.......

so we are getting some and people are afraid of it. I say bring it on in the name of DEMOCRACY and the Freedom of Information Act.