BC-FOI-PRINCIPLES-COMMENTARY:MCT — op-ed (880 words)
Let's live up to America's principles
FOCUS ON FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
(MCT)
Findings of the 9/11 Commission demonstrate that our government's long-standing secrecy-oriented national security system failed us leading up to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Here's a proposal to remedy that problem by returning to the principle of disclosure to the public of government information on which our democracy was founded.
This openness principle was enacted into law as the Freedom of Information Act, and is also reflected in many of our customary democratic practices such as judicial proceedings that are open to the public, and a free press closely covering the activities of government officials.
Unfortunately our policy of openness has been eroded by the secrecy system that has accompanied our large security apparatus put in place since the start of World War II. Presidents, lawmakers and judges have all been deferential to this secrecy system for fear of the asserted consequences of release of information.
Yet as is on full display in the 9/11 events, government secrecy did not protect us from an immediate threat and instead appears to have contributed to the failure of the security system. The White House fought hard to keep secret the President's Daily Briefings, particularly the one dated Aug. 6, 2001. The principle the White House pursued was one of total secrecy for these documents (created with your tax dollars).
As information emerged fitfully and incompletely in testimony before the 9/11 Commission we learned that the headline of one of the briefing items stated, ìBin Laden Determined to Strike In United States,î and that there was knowledge of ongoing preparations for hijackings of airplanes. Almost full release of the briefing subsequently added some detail to these disclosures.
Now to my near revolutionary point — perhaps we would have been safer if the essential information in the Aug. 6, 2001, briefing had been shared with all of us through the news media then.
Certainly the events of 9/11 would have come as less a surprise if we had known in essence what our government knew that Aug. 6. Rather than 9/11 being a bolt out of the blue, we would have had some understanding of what was happening.
But to carry this point further, it is entirely conceivable that by releasing the information to the public our state of vigilance might have been vastly increased. The evidence before the 9/11 Commission was that key personnel in the FAA and FBI were unaware that a threat existed in August-September 2001.
If the threat information had been reported in the news media, the word might have gone out to these government personnel in a way it apparently did not within the government channels. Perhaps with this state of general awareness government personnel might have ìconnected the dotsî and been listened to within the government.
Or maybe the passenger screeners at the airports would have perked up and become more cautious in their work. Perhaps passengers in airports and on airplanes might have become more vigilant. Could it be that our principles of openness and democracy are right — that an informed and aware public is our best protection and that an informed public from Aug. 6 onward might have led to a thwarting of the threats? Is it possible that excessive government secrecy is dangerous to the security of the American people? I do not pretend to know all the answers to these questions but I have a strong feeling they should be part of the discussion.
These ideas are so heretical to the secrecy system that one is reluctant to even share them for fear of the reaction, which shows how pervasive this secrecy system has become in a free nation. When I expressed similar ideas to the government's information security oversight officer at a meeting designed to be a forum for freedom of information advocates, he thought the ideas were intellectually interesting, but not part of the discussion occurring within the government. Within the government the concern was to share information with other government components, but not with the public.
But inspired by that old American spirit of freedom and innovation, I do challenge us to think about whether we really are more secure in a fossilized secrecy system. Or is it conceivable that we might be safer in a revitalized democratic based system in which the maximum possible amount of important information is shared on a timely basis with the citizens who pay to have it collected and analyzed?
Our leaders rightly talk eloquently of our commitment to freedom and democracy. But we may have lost the point along the way, which is that these principles work in practice, and they apply to our security arrangements as well as other governmental functions.
———
ABOUT THE WRITER
Daniel Alcorn is a freedom of information attorney in Washington. Readers may write to him at: 2952 Yarling Court, Falls Church, Va. 22042, or via e-mail at dalcorn@erols.com.
This essay is available to McClatchy-Tribune News Service
subscribers. McClatchy-Tribune did not subsidize the writing of this
column; the opinions are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent
the views of McClatchy-Tribune or its editors.
———
© 2004, Daniel Alcorn
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services