Is the US morally bound to tell its citizens the truth?

[Itascapark]

Is the US government, specifically the Bush Administration, morally bound to tell its citizens the truth? I pose this question in response to the rumblings that continue to jiggle the Executive branch’s church pews, despite the American cable news channels’ refusal to treat stories of forgery and Saudi 9-11 connections and death in Iraq as anything other than the feckless moanings of the Left. Word is out. People in this country are waking up to the fact that not only has Bush and company lied for sake of Empire and Mideast oil, but its methods make the Nixon Administration (ah, those glory days!) look like a gaggle of college freshman who bust into the Political Science professor’s office to steal next week’s exam. More to the point, the recent sign-on of CIA bag man David Kay (ah, that marquee name; simple, straightforward, trustworthy?) now supposedly combing the desert sand for lured chemical documents (documents again? Ah, shucks!) raises two questions for my fellow DUer’s: 1. Will Bush Co. forge, because of political pressure, or just because they’re fun-loving guys, chemical weapons documents i.e. the Niger incident? 2. What does it say about the US that the majority still seems to think, despite some evidence to the contrary, that this is a perfectly acceptable method? An means to an end?

Is the government morally bound to tell its citizens the truth, regardless of the political outcome?

[Clete]

1. Morally bound? I thought they were legally bound to.n/t

[Feanorcurufinwe]

2. The citizens are morally bound to demand the truth

[arcane1]

3. yes, but only about sex

killing, stealing, pillaging, these are things that it's ok, even preferred, to be lied about


apparently..

:grr:

[LouKYDem]

4. "it's okay to lie!"

I am reminded of a recent editorial that I saw in my local newspaper, in which one disgruntled Republican wrote in to say that it was okay for the Bush administration to trick or lie to people in order to make it clear to them that the whole war effort in Iraq is needed due to the inability of the common people to be able to make a rational decision... the writer admitted that Bush lied, but said it was for the "greater good"... well now that we know some of the lies weren't true, was it REALLY for the greater good??

[xchrom]

5. while i instinctively dislike

framing anything in a ''morals'' construct -- your point is taken and yes they are.
a democracy implies an informed citizenry so that the citizenry can make reasoned choices at the election polls.
the fewer secrets, the more open to scrutiny, the better a democracy can operate.
this admin was given birth after a brazen rape, however. and they are acting like demented and malformed bonaparte clones. so they see themselves somehow excused from behaving appropriately.

[Itascapark]

6. Yes, I too

am prone to resist the moral argument, so taken-over in recent decades by the Right-wing, but in this case is there a CIVIC moral clause, not tied to any religious belief, that should always guide a Republic?

[Rabrrrrrr]

7. Absolutely.

While I do not discount that, occasionally, there must be those things that truly are to be kept secret for the sake of national security, these assholes have decided that anything more informative than Shrub's vacation schedule (and notice that we always know where HE is, but never have a f-ing clue where Cheney is, so tell me who's really running the country?) is a "national secret".

This administration is morally, utterly bankrupt.

Clinton lied to save face, and save face for a young woman.

This administration lies and obfuscates or, more generally, keeps information secret, in order to suit their own ends.

We are a democracy - the founding fathers felt that people deserved democracy, and also they knew that democracy would fail if the citizens were not informed and did not know what was up.

Absolutely, we have a moral right to demand the truth and to deserve the truth, and the government has a moral obligation to give us the truth.

[Itascapark]

9. Thanks...

a sort of CIVIC moral demand.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

8. Morrally, YES, Legally, NO!!!!!!!!

S.O.B's, Bushco that is.

[Jack Rabbit]

10. Absolutely

America is a democracy (don't give me any of this republic bullshit -- that's a rightwing excuse concocted by elitists who wanted the franchise limited to property-owning white males). A democracy depends on citizens having the proper information on which to make an informed dicision.

For democratic leaders to attempt ot manipulate public opinion by withholding information or deliberately providing false information is a serious breach of public trust.

[sweetheart]

12. that republic bullshit...

Clearly, democracy in america means that whomever has the money to buy the government is supposed to think about the people's best interests... that way they can still say it is "demos".

The whole country is crap. The constitution has been smoked as that old hemp had some THC still in it, and the administration needed a fix as their weed supply is on the low.

Perhaps when a new constitution is ratified, we can take your concern about participatory democracy in to account. ;-) As it stands, however, "republic" is a one word answer.

[DagmarK]

11. UH........I thought the govt WAS the citizens........

that's what "of, by and for the people" means.

So, if you are asking if we should tell ourselves the truth......I would say YES!