Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Government Secrecy & the Constitution
This Monday, Yeshiva University invited Steven Aftergood, a leading expert on government secrecy, to discuss his work with Prof. Pimpare’s Media and Politics class. Aftergood heads the FAS Project on Government Secrecy, a watchdog group whose mission is to check excessive secrecy in government affairs and generate public awareness of current secrecy issues. To those ends, Mr. Aftergood is also the chief editor of Secrecy News, an email newsletter, and a blog.
The lecture began with a description of security classification, the process by which the government shields sensitive information from public dissemination. He then went on to provide specific examples in American history of how and with what frequency classification has been applied. From the outset, Mr. Aftergood was eager to convey his own opinion on the subject: With exceptions, government officials should seek to create an environment of openness and transparency where the American public can hold their elected representatives fully accountable to their actions.
The first slide was a Daily Brief, declassified in 2004, delivered to the President a week before 9/11 entitled “Bin Ladin determined to Strike the United States.” Perhaps, Mr. Aftergood admitted, broadcasting this message on every major media outlet would have proved ineffective or even counterproductive. Yet that consideration cannot justify the Administration’s decision to hoard and dismiss the brief. Had the Administration shared the information with certain security officials with the intention of alerting the relevant airports, the Twin Towers may still be standing today.
Mr. Aftergood understood the incident as indicative of two disturbing trends in government secrecy, one endemic to the system and the other fostered by the Bush Administration. An attitude of laziness and risk-aversion contributes to a general tendency on the part of government bureaucrats to classify whatever appears to be somewhat sensitive, without giving serious thought to its significance. This bureaucratic ineptitude has been rewarded and vindicated by the Bush Administration’s preference for secrecy and trust over openness and accountability. Both trends, according to Mr. Aftergood, can precipitate a dangerous shift from democratic norms in an era where freedom and civil liberties are threatened on every continent.
Following the lecture, several students remarked over pizza wheels how Mr. Aftergood seemed to evade questions with open-ended responses. When asked how the government can responsibly release only some information without presenting a distorted picture of the issue, Mr. Aftergood ambiguously replied, “Withholding all information would create more problems then it would potentially solve.”
To my fellow students, I would counter that heady issues such as secrecy and accountability hinge on key Constitutional debates, debates that aren't amenable to definitive answers. What methods are available for a democratic government to protect its citizens? Must a citizen be appraised of every foreign policy decision before its implementation? These are questions that the Constitution itself leaves open, spurring scholars to constantly reevaluate American ideals in light of current situations.
This Monday, Yeshiva University invited Steven Aftergood, a leading expert on government secrecy, to discuss his work with Prof. Pimpare’s Media and Politics class. Aftergood heads the FAS Project on Government Secrecy, a watchdog group whose mission is to check excessive secrecy in government affairs and generate public awareness of current secrecy issues. To those ends, Mr. Aftergood is also the chief editor of Secrecy News, an email newsletter, and a blog.
The lecture began with a description of security classification, the process by which the government shields sensitive information from public dissemination. He then went on to provide specific examples in American history of how and with what frequency classification has been applied. From the outset, Mr. Aftergood was eager to convey his own opinion on the subject: With exceptions, government officials should seek to create an environment of openness and transparency where the American public can hold their elected representatives fully accountable to their actions.
The first slide was a Daily Brief, declassified in 2004, delivered to the President a week before 9/11 entitled “Bin Ladin determined to Strike the United States.” Perhaps, Mr. Aftergood admitted, broadcasting this message on every major media outlet would have proved ineffective or even counterproductive. Yet that consideration cannot justify the Administration’s decision to hoard and dismiss the brief. Had the Administration shared the information with certain security officials with the intention of alerting the relevant airports, the Twin Towers may still be standing today.
Mr. Aftergood understood the incident as indicative of two disturbing trends in government secrecy, one endemic to the system and the other fostered by the Bush Administration. An attitude of laziness and risk-aversion contributes to a general tendency on the part of government bureaucrats to classify whatever appears to be somewhat sensitive, without giving serious thought to its significance. This bureaucratic ineptitude has been rewarded and vindicated by the Bush Administration’s preference for secrecy and trust over openness and accountability. Both trends, according to Mr. Aftergood, can precipitate a dangerous shift from democratic norms in an era where freedom and civil liberties are threatened on every continent.
Following the lecture, several students remarked over pizza wheels how Mr. Aftergood seemed to evade questions with open-ended responses. When asked how the government can responsibly release only some information without presenting a distorted picture of the issue, Mr. Aftergood ambiguously replied, “Withholding all information would create more problems then it would potentially solve.”
To my fellow students, I would counter that heady issues such as secrecy and accountability hinge on key Constitutional debates, debates that aren't amenable to definitive answers. What methods are available for a democratic government to protect its citizens? Must a citizen be appraised of every foreign policy decision before its implementation? These are questions that the Constitution itself leaves open, spurring scholars to constantly reevaluate American ideals in light of current situations.
# posted by Jonathan Noble @ 2:43 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Sharply observed -- I especially appreciate the sophistication with which you differentiate long-term historical/institutionalized patterns with the shorter-term proclivities of a single Administration. This is the very essence of a sub-field in Political Science and History known as American Political Development.
Post a Comment
<< Home
