On What We Need To Know
TomPaine.Com published an informative article today about the secrecy of this administration, more specifically in regards to making information hard to get or not accessible to public viewing. In the article Need to Know, written by Stephen Pizzo, a financial jounalist, Pizzo explains that it is not odd that the Bush Administration is unwilling to hand over documents regarding 9/11. Why? Because, as he puts it, "The Bush administration arrived in office nervous about open government. Almost immediately they adopted a 'none of your business' attitude towards public discourse."
He continues (and I'm going to print most of the article because it was a great reminder of the events during the early years of Bush & Cheney):
That stance became clear when Vice President Dick Cheney refused-and continues to refuse-demands he release the minutes from the Energy Task Force he chaired. Even though the task force shaped the administration's national energy policy, the White House said the meetings and who from the energy companies who attended them are-none of our business.
Then came President George W. Bush's November 2001 executive order allowing his administration and/or former Presidents to keep earlier executive branch documents withheld from the public. Among others, the order would shield documents from President Bush's father's terms in office-documents that might be awkward for several current White House officials who served under Reagan and Bush 41, specifically; Secretary of State Colin Powell, Vice President Dick Cheney and White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card.
There was some public resistance to both actions. But, most of that resistance melted away in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. A scared and rattled nation was told that information was potentially dangerous and had to be restricted. After 9/11 the list of potentially dangerous knowledge expanded to previously unclassified information, prompting Gary Bass, executive director of OMB Watch, to warn that United States, "is moving from a society based on the right to know to one based on the need to know." Americans have not seen such a concerted clamp down on government information since World War II. The question is, how much of this new secrecy is a legitimate response to terrorism and how much of it is self-serving?
Even before 9/11 Attorney General John Ashcroft had expressed a desire to limit the scope of the historic 1966 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) used by journalists and public interest groups to get hold of public documents. The terrorist attacks provided the perfect context in which large swaths of formerly public information could be shielded from view. Ashcroft moved swiftly, issuing new limitations on the FOIA dubbed "Exemption 2." Under the new exemption federal officials could deny FOIA requests "whether there is any public interest in disclosure..." or not.
****
Then there is the great Web content purge. Over the past two years thousands of documents and Web pages that had been available online have quietly disappeared. Some of the content removed clearly posed a danger, such as the location of nuclear waste storage sites and the movement of toxic substances. But, a lot of the information no longer available had legitimate public uses. Among the government sites gutted of data were online systems designed to warn communities about risks or accidents at hazardous materials spills or releases in or near their area.
I like, of course, how Pizzo closes his article:
[Is this done in the name of] National security? Maybe. Another possibility is that the release of certain documents and information could prove embarrassing, incriminating and politically sensitive-or may lead to some degree of (gasp) personal accountability.
It goes without question that 9/11 heralded a new kind of war against a new kind of enemy. And, in an open society some information available might serve our enemies' purposes. A judicious review of the kind of information readily available is not unreasonable. But, this administration has caste its nets widely and at least some of what they have hauled out of public view could reflect badly on them.
Having the power to keep secrets means never having to say you're sorry. It also means never having to admit you were wrong-or lied.
10:41:04 PM  | |
|
|
