Is it to protect us or is it to hide what's really going on in D.C.?
Op/Ed - USATODAY.com
Post-9/11 secrecy produces some undesirable results
Mon Mar 14,10:04 AM ET
Op/Ed - USATODAY.com
In Fall River, Mass., last year, the mayor wanted to find out more about a plan to store liquid natural gas in his city. The substance, if released, can cause a catastrophic explosion, and he wanted to be sure that safeguards were adequate to protect the public.
A 1966 federal law is supposed guarantee access to that information. But so far, he and other residents have received nothing but documents blacked out to the point of uselessness. The citizens of Fall River, it seems, will just have to take their chances.
Welcome to the world of post-9/11 secrecy, where bureaucrats are turning the notion of open government on its head. Federal, state and local officials are clamping down on information that would have been accessible just four years ago.
Some information that previously was open no doubt needs to be classified now. Terrorism alters perspectives. But the terrorist threat also has provided cover for bureaucrats who instinctively opt for secrecy and public officials who would prefer to keep the public in the dark to avoid accountability.
The numbers alone should persuade even the most ardent defender of secret government that something is amiss.
In 2004, the government created 16 million new secrets, 75% more than in the year ending in September 2001. Sixteen million! And each new "classification decision" can involve many documents.
That level of secrecy itself poses a security threat. Thomas Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, which works to open records, said the system is so busy classifying that it can no longer "tell the real threat from the decoys."
Consider this silliness:
In 1999, the government declassified most of a 1975 U.S. spy agency biography of then-Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet (news - web sites). Last year, in answer to a related request, bureaucrats re-released the same document. But this time, they blacked out portions they had declassified five years earlier.
One of the secrets? Pinochet "drinks scotch and pisco sours." Shhh! Don't tell.
It would be easy to laugh, if so much of what's hidden weren't so serious.
Last year, the Senate intelligence committee released scathing findings on the nation's faulty prewar Iraq intelligence. Initially, the CIA (news - web sites) wanted to keep half the report secret.
After senators balked, the agency backed off, a little. Lines, paragraphs and entire pages still were hidden when the report came out.
This sort of behavior is nothing new. Even before 9/11, classification decisions were running at an absurd rate of 8 million a year, some from agencies that have nothing to do with national security. But the cause of open government appeared to be gaining ground. In the Clinton administration, the Justice Department's message was, essentially, when in doubt, release it.
After 9/11, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites) articulated a new standard: Look at every reason to withhold information. The Justice Department would defend rejections of requests for information whenever possible. The White House backed him up.
Public access has been shrinking ever since, through classification and by undercutting the Freedom of Information Act, the critical 1966 legislation that began opening government records to public view.
In 2003, the public made more than 3.2 million requests under the act. But some agencies are getting stingier with their responses, according to an analysis by the Associated Press. The FBI, for example, gave people asking for records a full response just 1% of the time in 2004.
Since 9/11, state and local governments have joined the secrecy stampede. Pennsylvania, for instance, turned down a request to reveal how it is spending millions in federal homeland security dollars - giving state officials a free hand to dole out money to the politically favored in secrecy. Some U.S. senators are so concerned about increasing secrecy that on Tuesday they'll hold hearings on ways to give new life to open government. That may help, but purveyors of secrecy need to strike a more reasonable balance.
They say national-security needs outweigh the public's right to know. End of story. It doesn't look that simple to people in Fall River. Or to taxpayers in Pennsylvania.
Even much closer to the war on terrorism, the case for secrecy has limits.
The 9/11 Commission unearthed a torrent of secrets showing how ill-prepared the nation was to deter a terrorist attack. Families of 9/11 victims then lobbied for reform of the nation's intelligence system, forcing changes that Washington had fought for decades.
Knowledge empowers. An informed public is one of national security's greatest strengths.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment