It’s like when a wife accuses her husband of having an affair and he denies the affair but refuses to let her see his phone and/or credit card statement.
~~~
I’m not a lawyer, but even when married, I should think the husband has the right to refuse showing those things.
But that’s not your point. It’s the appearance of impropriety when someone doesn’t cooperate with interrogation. N’est pas?
I don’t understand why everyone thinks it’s okay to unveil state and national security seccrets.
Sure you are curious.
So am I. I was reading books on this stuff while my peers were reading comic books or Tokien or whatever. Like spooky Mulder ‘I wanted to believe’, but I’m hyper skeptical and it’s almost all just as concocted as the aforementioned comic books and fantasy novels.
So the arguments I’m getting is that these are bad people, bad corporations, and nobody can be trusted.
But what is the point of the transparency besides rabid curiosity?
I’m looking at it from a risk/reward standpoint, and while poeple can tell me what the risks of keeping national security secure are, they can’t seem to convince me that there is some great reward for ‘transparency’ that is worth it. The motives seem selfish at best, and as I have said in other threads, I just don’t trust that the driving forces behind the push for transparency aren’t friendly to us.
The legislation that was killed exempted national security secrets from public disclosure.