Transparent government

[gottaB]

Poll question: Transparent government

Should a democratic government be transparent to its citizens, or does it need to keep secrets from them?

Or is there a gray area?

[tom_paine]

1. While I am against the National Security State

that has now run amok, yes, there are times when a little opacity is warranted. But it should only exist as long as the need exists (I know that sounds ciruclar, but I am going off the old "need to know" dogma)

You see, what I would change about the "need to know" dogma, is that I would change it into "how long do they neet to NOT know?" and as soon as that ends...release.

So much of the Evil in this nation has been done in the name of National Security, and some Good, too.

[gottaB]

2. how long?

Isn't the question before the Supreme Court in the Padilla and Hamdi cases?

http://slate.msn.com/id/2099618/

Who has the power to suspend constitutional government? If that power is unchecked, then how can we put a check on its duration?

[gottaB]

6. Summary of the argument from the Korematsu amicus

Summary of Argument

The history of the detention of Japanese American citizens during World War II, and the legislation that followed, demonstrate that the Executive Branch does not have the unilateral power to detain an American citizen indefinitely, without charges or access to counsel.

The internment of 120,000 American citizens of Japanese descent during World War II was one of the darkest moments in American history. The American people have recognized that the indefinite detention of these citizens, without charges, was not justified. Indeed, to prevent such acts, Congress repealed the Emergency Detention Act of 1950.

Now, we stand at another crossroads where we face the same question ­ what circumstances, if any, justify the indefinite detention of an American citizen for suspicious activities, without charges or access to counsel?

In answering this question, it is important to look back at the lessons this country learned from the summary incarceration of Japanese Americans, including this Court's decision in Ex Parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944), and the history of the Emergency Detention Act, which was modeled after Executive Order 9066, the most notorious of the Japanese-American exclusion orders.

Although the Emergency Detention Act afforded detainees far greater procedural protections than the rights that have been granted to Respondent, Jose Padilla, many members of Congress viewed that statute as incompatible with basic due process protections. Ultimately, Congress rejected the notion that repairing the statute by amendment would be sufficient. Instead, Congress repealed it and passed the Non-Detention Act, a key basis for the Second Circuit's decision in this case.

The Non-Detention Act specifically provides that no citizen may be detained without Congress' authorization. Here, there is no such authorization. Because Congress has not authorized the indefinite detention of Mr. Padilla, without charges or access to counsel, the Second Circuit was correct to order the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.

Our system of divided constitutional government gives us ample protection against an Executive acting based on no authority but its own edicts. From time to time in our history, however, the judiciary has been called upon to reign in the Executive during moments of national crisis. Mr. Padilla's case arises during such a time. It is imperative that this Court uphold the delicate balance of power the Constitution envisions by requiring that the Executive seek congressional authority here.

Korematsu Amicus Brief

[tom_paine]

8. Whoa there! Who said anything about Padilla and Hamdi?

I'm sure we agree on that issue.

I said a LITTLE opacity, not Bushevik Iron Curtain Secrecy (thank God for the Internet)!

[gottaB]

10. Just an example of a checks and balances issue

A chance to draw some lines.

The DOJ is arguing that Congress has already authorized the President to use any means necessary to prosecute the war on terror. Several Justices are likely to agree with that argument. They will say, in effect, that if Congress decides to rubberstamp a century of dictactorial rule, it's up to Congress to unrubberstamp it. I find that deeply troubling, as I'm sure you do too, and fear that another four years of * will totally destroy our system of checks and balances.

[tom_paine]

11. Agreed about the destruction of the system of checks and balances

Even now, the damage may be irreperable. We'll have to see.
Having said that, I still stand by my initial point that sometimes opacity is required, but completely consistent with Congressional Oversight and the rest of our now-dying system of Checks and Balances.

[bacchant]

4. I agree, but only with appropriate congressional oversight

This is why BushCo has obliterated advice and consent.

[tom_paine]

7. Excellent point. Absolutely.

Secrecy within acceptable Constitutional bounds.

[TexasMexican]

3. Depends

I dont have too much problem with the Military and CIA keeping some stuff secret.

I definately have a big problem with every other federal/state/local government covering stuff up and claiming that it somehow for "national security" reasons.

[killbotfactory]

5. If all the evil crap our gov't has done is leaked, the terrorists win

We can't let the terrorists win.

[Leprechan29]

9. There is plenty of logic behind classifying stuff

But there is also a reason that the government is supposed to accountable to the people

OPACITY