Only a few people, like the President and the DNI, are in a position to make those determinations, and they're in a somewhat similar double-bind insofar as selective declassification may later turn out to be a mistake. If you talk to a lot of conservatives, you soon find that when the administration increases transparency or answers a FOIA request with meaningful information, there are plenty of hawks ready to criticize the administration for compromising security, putting American lives at risk, and so on.

Barring that, I would just keep my mouth shut if I were in an unprivileged position like that. If I don't have permission to declassify it, what business is it of mine to say that the public does not have the full picture? I can't imagine even saying that much isn't frowned upon. No, I imagine any official statement to the effect of "you don't know everything" is only authorized very carefully.

There is no real "partial explanation" option here. There are only full explanations, and unverifiable PR spin. Nothing in between. Unverifiable PR spin is the only option? Tough shit, I am not satisfied.

Are you saying that you don't believe that governments (at any level) should engage in any kind of intelligence-gathering or espionage, ever? Or that there is ever any role for secrecy? If so, I regard that as a valid position, but also a naive one.

Actually on second thought, that is short-sighted. I would leak everything that I could, then I would throw myself under a bus.

If you are asking me what I think spooks, who are not me, should do in this situation, then I think I have answered that. They should either expect the criticism they will receive for their worthless PR spin responses, or they should respond in a way that would not cause such a reaction. I don't care if they think the later is not an option, or even if it actually is not an option. That is their problem, not mine.

Shitty position for a spook to be in? They don't have any other options? So fucking what. They made their bed. Criticism of what they said should not be tempered just because you think it is the only think they could say.

I'm pointing out a practical limitation on what they can say arising of how such agencies function, you're talking about how they should feel about it on a personal level. I have no interest in how they feel about it as individuals.

If I require something of them that they cannot provide, I do not stop requiring it of them. If they cannot satisfy me, I will remain unsatisfied. I will not change my standards to accommodate them.

I've answered your question now three times. Are you going to pretend not to hear me again?

I think in this case that there are strong arguments for changing the law, but it seems utterly pointless to blame people for following it when that is what they are sworn to do.

Full transparency in government, consequences be damned.

Quit and get a decent job?

>* Saying you wouldn't take that job is beside the point; they literally don't have the option of explaining themselves fully.*

That's kind of begging the question. It's like asking "what would you do if you were a drug dealer?".

>The number of people who are empowered to declassify information is very small in comparison to the number of people who are empowered or mandated to classify it.

Err, that's a PROBLEM, not a situation they are OK to have to work with, or people have to put up with.

Ok, I instantly resign and go become a monk or something, hoping I have enough time left in my life to make up for all the negative karma and evil I've built up.