>>>>The alternative is not to turn them loose, it's to not keep the whole thing a secret. One of the great foundations of democracy is transparency. One has to assume that it's a secret for a reason. There must be something they don't want the public to know about. That's a no-no in a truly democratic society.
>>>
>>>What we don't know is not necessarily bad, and there are things that all governments do not want you to know.
>>
>>Sorry, but the fact that governments do not want us to know things in a democracy where they supposedly work for us is, in itself, bad. The problem is that politicians generally tend to forget who they work for once they get into power.
>>
>
>Yes but we live with it. Most countries have or make an attempt at intelligence agencies, which are all about secrecy.
>
>>Remember the part about 'Government of the people, by the people and for the people'? I certainly don't recall any part that says "Government of the cabal, by the cabal and for the cabal".
>
>That's an entirely different issue, one where I don't necessarily disagree. Terrorists and terror suspects though, I think we want those detained.

A suspect is only a suspect, not a terrorist. When the government starts treating suspects as already convicted terrorists, then we no longer have democracy. How is any of this different from the goings on in Russia during the cold war that the U.S. was railing so hard against .

If they do it it's evil totalitarianism. If we do it, it's a requirement of democracy? Sorry, not in this lifetime. Wrong is wrong.