I'm not convinced there are really any important national security secrets other than passcodes and so on. The rest seems to be excuses for hiding corruption of various kinds. Secrecy in government is incompatible with democracy by definition.
You have to think about how people respond to things. Social media in its current state has basically turned into a system that takes an event, removes all context, spins it in the most negative way imaginable, and then dogpiles on it to no end -- virtue signaling for imaginary points. There are often lots of things in government, and in life in general, where you must choose between two very negative choices. And the decision there does not necessarily imply that you're in any way satisfied with it, but you see it as the decision least likely to produce an awful outcome. Social media and this sort of logic are wholly and completely incompatible.
Take Khashoggi as a contemporary example. Undoubtedly there have been countless heavily classified conversations weighting the pros and cons of any action against Saudi Arabia or MBS as a result of this. How we are extremely dependent on Saudi Arabia for reasons outside the scope of this post, and they know this. And this is all happening at a time when Saudi:US relations souring would greatly stand to strengthen the geopolitical position and power of nations such as China and Russia. In my opinion it's extremely likely we will do nothing, but that's because it's better than doing something. If this was not classified, social media would throw a nonstop hissy fit. Not because they actually care or think we're making the wrong decision, but because it's an incredibly easy way score those imaginary points and followers which are the hottest commodity since sliced bread. Another issue here is that knowing the mechanisms of our decision making here, and how close we came to 'breaking', would be incredibly valuable information to nations such as Saudi Arabia which they could then use to exploit the US.
So while I do agree with you that classification is very often abused, I also think there are indeed vast amounts of information that must be classified. People are not mature enough to impartially process our decision making processes, and the details of such processes would provide invaluable information to other nations which could then be used to exploit the US.
Khashoggi is obviously a canard; the Saudi Arabian government is currently running torture chambers in Yemen where they roast people alive[1]. The US has had no problem with this for years; we ourselves appointed a known torturer to head the CIA, the organization which is supposedly agog about Khashoggi's assassination. The CIA itself has been running an extrajudicial assassination program for over a decade now. Talk about "virtue signaling".
These people, the ones who are part of the security apparatus, are not in any position to make moral choices for the rest of us. They are highly immoral actors. I want to see them removed from government. The idea that they are capable of making good decisions in secret, without public input or oversight, is belied by the two decades of war, torture, assassination, and general chaos that they have actively fostered.
The problem, really, is that all of the secret policy conversations about Saudi Arabia have been about how to get them to continue buying weapons from American arms merchants, a policy greatly to the detriment of the American public, which would, in general, favor a policy more like: disengage from the Middle East, stop supporting torture, and transition away from fossil fuels. If we had spent $6 trillion on that instead of funding pointless wars and building up the Saudi torture state, we'd be much better off.
Let's stop having unaccountable, immoral people decide in secret what is good for America, and get back to letting the American public decide. We're better at it.
About this: "buying weapons from American arms merchants, a policy greatly to the detriment of the American public"
American arms merchants employ the American public. People get jobs. Taxes are paid. Suppliers and subcontractors benefit too.
A detriment would be if Saudi Arabia bought from China or Russia, enriching people in those nations instead of the American public. We'd also have far less influence over Saudi Arabia... really, they could be a lot worse.
In the narrow sense I think you are correct; in the long term deeply incorrect. There are many ways for the American public to be employed. A society built on arms manufacturing seems the least desirable to me. This is the detriment I speak of. Much of our effort and economy is wasted making guns and bombs rather than more useful and less destructive things. This industry sucks up a trillion dollars in government support annually; if it were reduced and that effort (spending) directed elsewhere we would all benefit. We might, e.g., direct it to developing fossil fuel independence and obviate the need for anyone to sell arms to Saudis.
When arguing against the fundamental ability of people to rule themselves, here the ability to eventually make good decisions based on the available data, it's a good idea to consider the alternatives.
For this specific case, a loud and public debate over our country's disastrous relationship with the Saudi royal family is long overdue. Embarrassment, and unseemly noise are a pretty low price to pay to do the right thing and save more lives in, for instance, Yemen.
Our elected officials and government employees don't suddenly gain insight they did not have as common citizens. They just have access to more information.
"...incredibly easy way score those imaginary points and followers which are the hottest commodity since sliced bread." This made me laugh - sadly true
Yet these imaginary points are a source of influential power.
That can lead to money, but doesn't have to. Wielding power is its own ability.
Look no further than HN. Power is granted by how many "imaginary points" you have. Downvote, flag, vouch, and I'm sure more - there's power wrapped up in imaginary points.
And I'm sure someone would also argue that money is also imaginary points, that everyone accepts as 'monetary power's. Of course, this is orthogonal to 'karma', 'likes', or other names of the same thing.
You’re argument amounts to “American citizens can’t be trusted to govern themselves”
I’m sorry but speak for yourself, not me. This is a democracy. Don’t tell me I can’t know about things because I want to score imaginary internet points.
Democracy and secrecy are incompatible. No man is above the law, and laws are not secret.
“The masses can’t be trusted” is nothing but the talk of a despot.
