Should elected officials be allowed to seal their records/ papers
Debate Rounds (5)
People who are in public office or running for elected or appointed office shouldn't be allowed to seal their records from the public. The records and papers of people who are asking for the citizens to place their trust in them shouldn't be afraid of what their records and papers might reveal and instead should be proud of what they've written or done in the past and want people to know about these things. The citizens should be able to review their records which would shine a light on who these people really are and whether they're who they claim to be, therein lies the rub, perhaps these people who are asking for the people's trust, don't deserve it and the politicians know it..
May the best Hominid win! (Unless you are a double-leg amputee, in which case my condolences).
Politicians not being permitted to have their records and papers sealed would shine a light on them. As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once said," Sunlight is the best disinfectant..." While it may be presently legal for politicians to seal their records and papers from public view it isn't to the benefit of the country nor its citizens to permit public officials to seal their records and papers for twenty or thirty years from public scrutiny .What do politicians have to hide, wouldn't the country be better ran if the citizens knew.
An elected official (eg Polititian) has the job to look after and represent the interests of their people.
This is not always compatable with full accountability, as for national security reasons some sensitive dcuments may have to be 'sealed' to avert catastrophe and to allow the nation to acheive its foreign policy interests more effectvely.
Therefore an elected official might be dong a better job if they do 'seal' some of the records from their time in office, for 20 or 30 years as you stated (foreign policy issues can last a very long time). This is why defence organisations such as the CIA in the USA generally have files that remain private (concerning 'elected officials').
" It is easy to appear to have good character when others are around, but it is what you do when no one is there that really defines your character...."
Ronald Reagan once said,"Trust, but verify...."
The citizens are entitled to know and should know about a person who is asking for the voters to trust them. and when that person has their records and papers sealed a red flag goes up indcating that that person isn't exactely who they're claiming to be. Wouldn't it be a easy matter ,for instance if when a robber or a embezzler was caught, all anyone would have to do is ask them,did you do it, and they would immediately give you a reply that you could be assured was the truth.
No one woud accept these people's word as to their guilt. But when it comes to politicians we not only accept that they are who they present themseves to be we permit them to seal up evidence that would actually reveal the truth about them. When one thinks about the general run of politicians they are not shy about letting the world know of their accomplishments and publicly tout them but strangly, they wish to hide some aspects of their past by having their papers and records sealed from the public.
Now some politicians have used other methods of dealing with records and papers that might reveal to the public what they had done and who they were, for instance, Sandy" Berger was the Assistant to the President Bill Clinton, for National Security Affairs from 1997 to 2001 who later absconded with records from the National Archieves and destroyed them.
There are other methods of hiding information about a public figure and its used quite often, to the politicians benefit, that method ,"sanitization," .....The traditional technique of redacting confidential material from a paper document..." But who makes the decisions on what printed material should be subject to "Sanitization, redacted, from the printed records material, is it done by a committee from both political parties or is it done by those with the most to lose if certain information was available to the public.
If printed records, the material that is subject to ""Sanitization," by the political party who's records are being "blacked out, thus denying public scrutiny, isn't this the same as removing evidence about a robber or embezzler and just taking their word whether they were guilty or not.
I don't deny anything you have posted, but repeat my previous statements that for the greater good of the citizens the polititians represent, some records may need to be sealed (for national security). I don't deny that in general records should be open to the public, but it can be in the public interest to have them remain sealed.
You have failed to refute my previous argument and I have provided a counter-example to yours. To win this debate you need to demolish it.
Lookingatissues forfeited this round.
yellown forfeited this round.
Lookingatissues forfeited this round.
Apologies for forfeiting previous round.
I have countered pro's arguments and they have failed to counter mine.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by simonstuffles 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided an instance where it would not be beneficial, negating Pro's BoP. Pro then just reiterated his previous points. Con had less forfeits. Pro's grammar was lacking, and his spelling was inconsistent. No sources were used.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.