CIA experimented on humans in black sites : Report | As the United States struggles with the fallout of the recently disclosed CIA torture report, a new analysis reveals that human experimentation was a “core feature” of the spy agency’s torture program.

I will repeat, there are no academics who could possibly argue and do argue that states should not have ANY secrets.

There are, for instance, Noam Chomsky. He is an anarcho-syndicalist. He doesn't believe in a state because state's are inherently oppressive and their secrets likewise oppressive. He is not alone, though his kind are in the minority. So I will repeat, there are, in fact, academics, well-known and respected like Chomsky, who argue just that.

Also, I've conceded there necessarily are secrets in states. Please re-read my statements carefully, I'm not denying that, so your position that my position is naive is unfounded, as are your insults to my intelligence, i.e. "dumbass", "naive", etc. Also, it should be noted that there is quite a difference between blueprints for a plane being kept secret and blueprints for torture. The one is illegal, and it's being kept secret for "strategic purposes" is a sham and is really only kept secret because any citizen with a conscience would decry it and speak against such acts, but of course power keeps those things secret for the purposes of power, not strategy (at least not the strategy that has the interests of its citizens at heart).

Also, don't assume my history of what I've read or not read. You assume that simply by reading their accounts one will "see the light", so to speak, and be of your persuasion towards state secrecy. That's naive. I know Chomsky has read those accounts, and in fact is more well-read than you and I combined, yet he somehow differs from you in opinion. Surely, you must take this esteemed academic to be a naive simpleton fool, like me! Face it, you think your position(s) is/are the light and anyone who disagrees with them is naive, whereas I believe my positions are the truth and anyone who disagrees with them isn't naive, but rather considered merely as someone who disagrees. Guess what, people disagree about this shit. Your hyperbole and assumptions about so many things betray the very condemnations you hold of me about yourself, consider that.

You've got a lot of reading suggestions for me, so I'll just say, instead of reading all the things that support the establishment opinions you are so bent upon, read some things that disagree with it, such as Chomsky, for beginners. I've read both sides, I can say that much.

/r/worldnews Thread Link -