[DarkFish]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Not that I am disagreeing with you (nor agreeing with you for that matter), but when people throw out the word "Right", I like to ask them for their source.

Where is it written that the public has a right to know specific details about what their government does?

I'm not talking about some kind of legal right that's written in your laws. Just about a symbolic one.

If the decisions are not in agreement with the citizens, in a representative government, the citizens can elect someone else.

But how can the citizens know these decisions are not in agreement with them, if these decisions are not known?

Originally Posted by Aramike

Ummm, how does secrecy in government in any way have anything to do with the difference between a dictatorship and a democracy?

Honestly, are you suggesting that all American citizens be allowed to, say, know the deployment of our special forces at all times?

The government makes decisions on behalf of its citizens. The government is chosen by those same citizens. Now if you remove the ability for those citizens to know what the government does, how can the government be a truthful representative of the citizens? It can't.
One of the requisites of democracy is this ability to know about the actions of the government. Because voting is based upon these actions. Remove this ability, and you remove the ability to truthfully vote.

Furthermore, the deployment of troops or the execution of military commands is not on the government level.
If the government would release any details on military operations, yes, the military would be at risk. But the government generally doesn't make those detailed plans, the military does. The government tells the army "Invade Iraq", "Kill Bin Laden" etc.
I think the public should know whether or not for example a war is imminent. This way they have the opportunity to oppose against it if it's not according to their wishes.

If a government-issued command endangers an operation, I think such information can and should be withheld - UNTIL the end of the operation. When the operation is completed this government-issued command should be released to the public, so they can form their own opinion about it.

Example: Obama decides Ahmadinejad should be killed. He commands this to the CIA.
Up until now, the public shouldn't know about it. If it does, Ahmadinejad can be tipped off and go into hiding.
The CIA sends a kill squad to Iran and shoots the target.
When the target is dead, it should be revealed that it was done by the CIA, or at least that the CIA had an ongoing operation to kill him. If the public is dead against the assassination, they can oppose it by for example not re-electing Obama.

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Who should you be mad at? The government that does the shady and rotten things that endanger its troops or citizens? Or the person who brings it out in the open?

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, electric light the best policeman.

Exactly