The 2012 SO tag clean-up thread is a trainwreck. Don't take inspiration from it. There is a way to get a tag into the list, but no way to take a tag out, and no review as to what gets in. A lot of good tags have made it into the list.
I come to mostly the same conclusion as Rory Alsop: all the tags you cite make sense, except
- historical, which I think should just be removed from the two questions that have it;
- requirements, which is a bit vague: a lot of questions here are about security requirements in a way or another.
The others are good, meaningful tags. I don't see how you find some of them to be meta-tags.
- obscurity is ambiguous on SI, but here it clearly refers to security through obscurity (and not, say, to computer vision).
- trust wasn't even proposed for removal on SO, only for disambiguation and merging into security. On a site devoted to security, the tag is unambiguous and we want to be more precise. And I was opposed to removing trust from SO too.
- security-theater is a well-defined concept in security. Look it up if you don't know it. It was coined by Bruce Schneier and has now been used even by the TSA.
- capabilities is a long-established technical concept in security. I don't see why you're picking on it.
- exposure is also a common security concept. Again, I don't see what's meta about it.
I've suggested tag wikis for a few of these tags.