Should Political Leaders Be Completely Honest Or Withhold Information From The Public?

Many people, myself included look up to individuals in an authoritative role such as; senators, governors, and presidents. We view them as being honest and sincere. They have to be right? They do want to run the country after all. Often our thoughts are “they would never lie to us or hide things from us”, but unfortunately that’s not always the case. One of the biggest political scandals to hit the United States of America was the Watergate scandal involving our very own President Richard Nixon. This scandal caused a lot of American’s to lose trust and hope in the presidency. The scandal received its name from the Watergate apartment and office complex that was located in Washington D.C., where a burglary took place on June 17, 1972 and five men were arrested. It then came to surface that the men’s intentions were to sabotage the opposite political party, when president Nixon was notified of this he order the Central Intelligence Agency to call the FBI to stop with any further investigation, that national security was at stake. President Nixon knew that it would come back to the White House and didn’t want to risk anything, even though he was never involved with the

World War Two is one of history’s darkest times. Many countries were hiding information from other countries and even their own people, including America. America had many secrets during World War Two that were very recently made public.

thank you for your input, and yes you are totally right bout the secrecy of covert operations. Publically, only the failure known, behind closed doors and classified systems the success staying quietly. The nature of the intelligence community needs the secrecy to protect the success from adversaries.

Confidentiality is a right a person has in which to keep information about themselves private without anyone else being able to access it unless given permission or consent by an authorised person. A person's information should only be disclosed on a need to know basis i.e official bodies or next of kin unless specified otherwise. Information may also be disclosed if the information that is being held outweighs the risk to the person's health.

The right to privacy has not been explicitly stated, but it has been found in a number of amendments. The fourth amendment is a good example because it restricts agents from searching people without a warrant or reasonable evidence that they have committed a crime. Privacy is an important thing to people, even when the topic is completely appropriate. It is something people like about only telling things to certain people. No one is going to tell the whole country or the whole world something that they recently experienced. They would have no interest in anyone except a chosen few to tell something like that to. These chosen people would be those that are close to that person, especially if they are friends or family. For this reason, it would

We were able to keep our secrets in order to keep our freedom and win this war. Nothing slipped past, no important information got away. Anything and everything that opposing countries could’ve used against us was cut, quite literally, out of every

There are truths, lies, half truths, and bullshit - but more concerning still, there are situations where an unambiguous truth is found, and simply ignored or suppressed due to the work it would create if it were widely known. This sort of 'suppression through inaction' is nowhere more common than in the large institutions and bureaucracies tasked with carrying out the functions of the state. Do these political and military institutions have an ethical obligation to seek the truth, even without publicly publishing this information outside of their institution? Is it wrong when any organization, when granted the power to legally employ lethal force, chooses to suppress information within the institution that contradicts the opinions and sensibilities of the leadership?

When one runs for public office, the right to complete privacy is sacrificed to some degree. The public has a right to know how leaders conduct themselves in private, for that behavior is often reflected in their actions and policies. However, politicians in the public eye still have a right to privacy; their entire lives should not be under a microscope, but there is a compromise between holding a higher level leadership position and privacy. The debate over the public’s right to know more private information about those they elect has become very relevant in the 2016 presidential election, as the American public calls for personal information from both candidates. In the case of Trump’s tax returns, there have been repeated requests for him to release them, and yet he still refuses. This raises flags with voters because it communicates that he has something to hide, and the people feel they have a right to know how he will behave in office, especially in the light of his history of dubious behavior. Hillary Clinton and the email scandal bring up similar issues, where the public considers it vital information in order to judge the kind of leader she will be. Though this level of intrusion has no place in the lives of citizens, public leaders sacrifice the right to

In addition, We are requesting that the obtained information should keep it as confidential and the same should not be divulged, disclosed, makes uses or publishes to any person, company or any government offices (unless the law require).

Under Article II, the president does have the privilege of confidentiality regarding any information about the military, diplomatic problems as well as national security secrets. However, he does not have the privileges of confidentiality about information that are of public

In defense, America has worked to right the aforesaid wrongs in order build a better nation. This is the positive direction that we have historically gone in, but more can be done. Governmental dishonesty is a problem that has notably occurred in the last few decades. Watergate, the Iran-Contra Affair, "No new taxes" empty promises, Clinton’s Lewinski Affair, and some of the faulty evidence used to justify the 2003 Iraq War, should set off an alarm in the American people convincing them that something needs to be done in order to curb governmental dishonesty. But how can we require officials to be honest with the people when there is a right to free speech provided by the first amendment? We can establish a constitutional amendment requiring that all elected and appointed governmental officials, and those running for an elected office, are intellectually honest to the best of their ability in their arguments when addressing the

Why Do Political Leaders Ignore Intelligence Warnings? Political leaders ignore intelligence warnings based on several motives. These motives range from cognitive biases and mindsets that create unrealistic expectation of intelligence and non-acknowledgement of relevant intelligence, to plausible deniability, and the creation of opacity. Both plausible deniability and opacity are significant motivations, as it takes a conscious action to ignore intelligence warnings, while mindsets are an unconscious motivation. However, mindsets and cognitive biases play a more significant role in a political leader’s decision to ignore intelligence warnings.

Under executive privilege doctrine, the President has a qualified right to refuse to disclose confidential information relating to his performance of his duties. It is qualified to the extent that other compelling governmental interests may outweigh the President’s right to refuse to disclose information (e.g., the need for the President’s evidence in a criminal trial).

The ‘secret' designation referred to information in which its disclosure might endanger the national security, or cause serious injury to the interests of the nation or be of great advantage to a foreign nation. Similarly, ‘confidential' could be applied to material of such a nature that is disclosure, although not endangering the national security, might be harmful to the interests or prestige of the Nation. The term ‘restricted' is used in instances where information is for official use only and should be denied access to the general public.

Morals, beliefs, values, honesty, integrity is everything I look for in talking to people. It is nice to know that someone has the understanding to think in the manner that is intelligent and scholarly. Although, we do not get arrested for our thought. But if they are spoken out loud it is a different story. Depending on what it is you may get arrested, divorce, jobless, friendless and broke. It is highly important to utilize thinking in a way that is beneficial to all. I can only with the candidates for presidency will do the same