But it can’t always be better to tell the public the actual state of affairs or else, there is no possible scenario where we do need the ability to deceive and conceal stuff from the “populace” w/o sin like through the use of omission or mental reservations. However one can easily imagine such scenarios that could occur or did occur. For instance, in the case of public riot or panic, it may be necessary to omit facts or mislead with truth in order to keep public calm. Or in the case of foreign diplomacy, it may be necessary to omit certain details of foreign policy to protect oversees interests/commerce and etc.
Additionally, telling people the truth is not just telling them the actual states of affairs but also telling them with sincerity. So if you told people something that you thought was true, and was objectively true (though misleading), then indeed you would be telling the truth
Your position lacks examples. During the Second World War, the British government told their people that explosions caused by the impact of V-2 rockets were actually explosions caused by gas main explosions. However, eyewitnesses soon realized that shortly after the explosion “there was a sound like a great body moving through the air.” The V-2 was supersonic.
Yes, secret information must be kept from the public and our enemies, but, under certain circumstances, some information needs to be made known. Especially if the general public is in imminent danger.
“thought was true”? What does that mean? As a student of the intelligence community, here is how it goes. A piece of intel comes in and job number one is to investigate and verify the accuracy of the report. Depending on the threat it represents, this could involve satellites, men on the ground, remotely operated drones and other means.
“objectively true” is something different. You have verified the threat exists and your military planners are working on solutions while certain diplomats are brought into the loop. No, you do not need to tell the public much, especially how you got the information, but you need to be convincing.
That is why President John F. Kennedy publicly allowed TV reporters to show enlargements of photos taken by a spy plane (I do not recall if the type was identified at the time) of medium-range nuclear missile emplacements on Cuba which triggered the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. It was not until many years later that more details came out, but the President went on TV at the time and in plain language, let the Russians know that an attack, including an attack launched from Eastern Europe against our Allies, would be considered an attack on the United States and that an appropriate response would occur.
Domestic riot control is a subject that has been extensively studied and a multitude of scenarios and responses already exist. The CIA is one good source of scenario information. So, why do riots occur? Around the world, they occur because starving people are trying to overthrow their government or get at food supplies, because if they can’t get the food, they will die anyway. Sometimes, anti-government protests are instigated by outside parties telling people something false. Or, in the US, riots occur because a bunch of drunk and/or stoned students flip over a few private cars or start them on fire and damage storefronts because their favorite team lost a football game.
I can’t think of a single real world example that applies to what you are saying.
Peace,
Ed
