I am curious about whether secrecy in government is ever a good thing.

You have argued that there are cases where individual documents, for example, should be allowed as a state secret, but reviewable. So, if in a particular case the government asks that some document be kept a secret, that claim must be reviewable by a court.

In the case you cited, you pointed out that the documents showed, contrary to what the government argued, that there was no information that was vital to remain a secret except information that would have been useful to the plaintif. You said here,

"...As it turns out, the documents were obtained 50 years later by one of the victims' family members and the Government's claim was an absolute lie -- there were no state secrets, but there was highly incriminating information establishing the Air Force's negligence - so you're right that the privilege has been abused from the start."

I suspect that this will always be a potential finding. The state will try to cover up its illegal or unethical behaviors by trying to claim it should all be a secret.

I wonder, shouldn't these five gentlemen, and any others in a similar situation, be set free immediately and awarded significant damages set by the court as a consequence of this appeal to state secret doctrine. My thought would be, Yes, they can keep secrets, but it should not benefit them against anyone.

So, what you're saying is that it's all for show. The Government puts on a Press conference and the reporters show up saying they want to find out stuff, but that's all a fake. It might as well have been fimed in a warehouse somewhere with puppets. The government really wants the people to hear certain things and it has its ways of getting that message out. The Press conference and the reporters are there to give the appearence of truthfullness and skepticism when there really isn't any.

I think that this is, unfortunately just about right.

Why would they go for this though? They go along with this puppet play because they agree that the United States is a fragile operation, a few awkward questions and the realities might show through. So, if reporters had asked some tougher questions, then we might have seen President Bush fall apart on camera where he could not have made a reasonable response. It might have then become apparent that there was no good reason to invade and destroy another country.

I wonder whether this puppet play going on at Press conferences is now in Obama's interest? If he is wanting the country to have confidence in him, unlike Bush who didn't care, doesn't he have to encourage better questions, follow up, and fact checking on the part of the media? So, then, shouldn't he want to encourage the most searching questioners?

And if they don't ask him questions, shouldn't he ask them questions?

My own experience is that the Democrats want to be 'conduits', or, in other words, 'slaves.' They don't really want to have some doctrines or positions of their own because that might hinder their ability to make coalitions with others.

Democrats are mixed. Some of them are business Democrats, where their allegiance is to most of whatever corporations of some sort want that will be in their interests. The business ideas don't mix well with labor's ideas so you find business Democrats will be different from and in a lot of ways opposed to labor Democrats.

But the Democrat that is one or the other will not themselves have any ideas that they keep separate from the business or labor people. The Democrat is just a 'slave' to one or the other.

Why isn't there an independent set of goals or values or ideas that unifies Democrats? Probably, there is no such unification because any ideas strong enough to move people are going to be opposed by the other interest groups that Democrats have been slaving for. So, for example, Ralph Nader has been around a long time. He has a strong position on a number of central issues facing our country. They aren't just ideocyncratic to him. There are others who have the same concerns. Why isn't he even a Democrat? Because he thinks a great portion of what Democrats have been supporting as slaves for business or labor, or whatever, is not in the country's interest.

Chomsky's views about what is wrong with the country and how it might be fixed are the same way. They are strong ideas, have a lot of empirical support, he makes a good case to the people who pay attention to him, but Democrats do not advocate his position because it is not in the interest of business to do so.

You have advocated on specific issues for the 'rule of law,' and even that is not something the President fully supports. Maybe as a Democrat he thinks there's something valuable in being able to do things in the dark.

Maybe the Democrats have a party where their governing ideas are not set in concrete. One can still change its direction. But, they are able to do this because, unlike Nader or Chomsky or others with principles, they'll do anything someone tells them to do just to get elected.