Free people are entitled to privacy. Public servants hired to serve our best interests are not. We're their boss, and we are entitled to know what they're doing. An ignorant electorate cannot make intelligent informed opinions. The difference in their privacy vs ours comes from who serves who.
An expert in any area (stem cell research, energy, weapons development, etc.) can have an opinion that he sincerely believes, but would rather not state publicly for a variety of reasons. The opinion may be controversial, and revealing it could have a negative effect on his stock price, for example.
How about a compromise - the consulants can remain anonymous, but what they say is public?
Dead, you seem like a reasonable person. Can you not see the immense potential for abuse here, and the danger of an ignorant electorate?
I like that idea - tho' in practice it might be rather tough to to keep secret the list of people who serve as consultants.
Free people are entitled to privacy. Public servants hired to serve our best interests are not. We're their boss, and we are entitled to know what they're doing. An ignorant electorate cannot make intelligent informed opinions. The difference in their privacy vs ours comes from who serves who.
This is not about protecting public servants, its about protecting the right of private citizens to consult in private with the government.
If a woman in Oklahoma writes to her senator about a health care bill and includes personal information about her son’s medical condition, do you have a right to read that letter? Does the NY Times have a right to publish her letter? If not, why not? How is that any different?
How about a compromise - the consulants can remain anonymous, but what they say is public?
It would be better, but it still may hamper a private expert’s freedom to give a totally honest opinion on a controversial matter. He may not want that information known to the general public, for a variety of reasons, but may think it important that a policy maker know. It could be information that only a limited number of people know, and revealing it would jeopardize his position. Or it could put somebody who works for him in a foreign country in a dangerous position. Demanding that information like that be made public may not necessarily make for a better informed public. It might just make for less informed policy makers.
Dead, you seem like a reasonable person. Can you not see the immense potential for abuse here, and the danger of an ignorant electorate?
Nobody is saying that a private-sector expert cannot reveal his opinions or information to the public after revealing them in private. But you’re trying to use the courts to force them to. Yours is the big-government opinion.
Remember brouhaha over Hillary Care? My, how times have changes.
Free people are entitled to privacy
Exactly. Presidents HAVE ALWAYS HAD the executive priviledge that allows for PRIVATE individuals to hold PRIVATE conversions with the Executive branch.
This has been around a long time.
There's nothing new about this...with the exception that it is George Bush's administration and nothing (NOTHING!) that any member of his administration does can be accepted as ok.
This case is not about who was at the meeting or "the why" (as you called it). It is simply about connecting the "EEEEVVIIILL" Dick Cheney with the "EEEEVVIIILL" oil interests, which include (GASP!) the "EEEEVVIIILL" Ken Lay of the "EEEEVVIIILL" Enron coporation. (Nevermind the fact that, at the time of the meetings, Enron was considered a respectable company; in fact, a darling amongst many financial and indsutry analysts).
It is political grandstanding, pure and simple.
I have to admit, freeeee, I have read many of your posts and wouldn't disagree with many of them, but I have to disagree with you on this.
Lastly, the "Anonymous Compromise" is interesting, but it would be impractical.
My local gov't goes into executive session all the time, which is private. No one seems to be too concerned.