Theos-Talk Archives (May 1997 Message tl00222)

At 11:30 AM 5/18/97 -0400, you wrote:
>I agree fully with what you guys said about dirty missions. There is no
>excuse for those, and if that's why there's secrecy, I'm against it.
>However, I know that sometimes the government needs to keep something secret
>to protect us, but really to protect us. Just for instance, during WWII our
>soldiers weren't allowed to tell us at home where they were. If that weren't
>secret, an enemy could figutre out from a number of letters where our troop
>movements were, and that would have made D-Day, for instance, more difficult
>and would have cost more casualties. If today we were to plan to dispose
>Sadam Hussein, it would have to be done with secrecy if it were ever to
>succeed, because if we did it out in the open, he'd sneak away for sure. So
>sometimes secrecy is justified, but not to kill and torture innocent people.
>
>Liesel

  I think we need to bring back our focus to the question of running of
civilian organizations. It would be very hard for these to justify secrecy.
Whom are they protection against whom? Mostly the decision makers who like
secrecy are self-deluded into thinking that they are protection an ideal, a
person, an act, or an organization. The problem with secrecy is that in
todays world of instant communication, bits and pieces of information start
leaking out until the information becomes a torrent. It may take time, but
ultimately much comes out. During this course, the bits and pieces make the
organizations and their leaders look bad and at times dumb and stupid. Once
this kind of opinion or conclusion is built in the minds of men and women,
it cuts into the trust in the words and deeds of the leadership and the
organization. Once the trust is lost, it is lost for ever and can never ever
be regained. It affects both the individuals concerned and the organization
for a long time.

YMDMV - Your mileage and direction may vary.

   ....doss