Sei sulla pagina 1di 6

Secrecy Vs. Accountability In Government Allan Sisson 2-1-2012 President John F.

Kennedy once said in an address to the American News Paper Association in 1961; The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in ensuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.1 I tend to think that secrecy can prevent accountability, and that keeping government secrets can be a form of corruption. On the other hand certain secrets are completely necessary like military planning and preparation. A military cannot divulge its

http://www.jfklibrary.org/ (incomplete address, see works cited)

secrets in battle if it expects to keep or gain an advantage. But these are simple secrets that have more to do with safety of soldiers than accountability of politicians. The politician does not plan the attack, whoever is in command at that time and place does. Therefore why would we not want all secrets exposed instead of harboring political secrets? Exposure rather than Counter Intelligence might prove more effective in the scheme of world politics. Wouldnt it offer shame to the offending party? What if the whole world knew exactly what transpired in the holocaust while it was happening? What about when a president uses secrecy to attempt to fake election results like Nixon did as exposed by the Watergate scandal? On the heels of the Watergate scandal, a case was opened in 1976 by congress called the SELECT COMMITTEE TO STUDY GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS WITH RESPECT TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES (UNITED STATES SENATE) which investigated something known as COINTELPRO or the FBI Counter Intelligence Program. The committees findings include the following (a) In its attempt to implement instructions to protect the security of the United States, the intelligence community engaged in some activities which violated statutory law and the constitutional rights of American citizens. (b) Legal issues were often overlooked by many of the intelligence officers who directed these operations. Some held a pragmatic view of intelligence activities that did not regularly attach sufficient significance to questions of legality. The question raised was usually not whether a particular program was legal or ethical, but whether it worked. (c) On some occasions when agency officials did assume, or were told, that a

program was illegal, they still permitted it to continue. They justified their conduct in some cases on the ground that the failure of "the enemy" to play by the rules granted them the right to do likewise, and in other cases on the ground that the "national security" permitted programs that would otherwise be illegal. (d) Internal recognition of the illegality or the questionable legality of many of these activities frequently led to a tightening of security rather than to their termination. Partly to avoid exposure and a public "flap," knowledge of these programs was tightly held within the agencies, special filing procedures were used, and "cover stories" were devised. (e) On occasion, intelligence agencies failed to disclose candidly their programs and practices to their own General Counsels, and to Attorneys General, Presidents, and Congress. (f) The internal inspection mechanisms of the CIA and the FBI did not keep -and, in the case of the FBI, were not designed to keep -- the activities of those agencies within legal bounds. Their primary concern was efficiency, not legality or propriety. (g) When senior administration officials with a duty to control domestic intelligence activities knew, or had a basis for suspecting, that questionable activities had occurred, they often responded with silence or approval. In certain cases, they were presented with a partial description of a program but did not ask for details, thereby abdicating their responsibility. In other cases, they were fully aware of the nature of the practice and implicitly or explicitly approved it.2

Final Report of the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations

It seems to me that there is major lack of oversight when the secret harboring party even has the ability to make the choice not to disclose anything that would make them look bad. By ability, I definitely do not mean the legal capability, I mean the opportunity to make the illegal choice. Much like Wikileaks, the information that exposed COINTELPRO was obtained illegally. It was however admissible and the parties it exposed were investigated. This sadly is not the case with Wikileaks. Wikileaks had no tactical drawback (it did not endanger military personnel) but it did paint a true picture of our leaders as war criminals. Yet they seem to have legal immunity wheres the accountability in that? After a seven day hearing, during which the prosecution presented evidence that Manning leaked cables and documents, there was no evidence that leaked information imperiled national security or that Manning intended to aid the enemy with his actions. On the contrary, in an online chat attributed to Manning, he wrote, If you had free reign over classified networks... and you saw incredible things, awful things... things that belonged in the public domain, and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington DC... what would you do? He went on to say, God knows what happens now. Hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms... I want people to see the truth... because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public. The U.S. government considers Manning one of America's most dangerous traitors. Months ago, Obama spoke of Manning as if he had been proved guilty, saying, "he broke the law." But Manning has not been tried, and is presumed

innocent in the eyes of the law. If Manning had committed war crimes instead of exposing them, he would be a free man today. If he had murdered civilians and skinned them alive, he would not be facing the death penalty. The U.S. government considers Manning one of America's most dangerous traitors. Months ago, Obama spoke of Manning as if he had been proved guilty, saying, "he broke the law." But Manning has not been tried, and is presumed innocent in the eyes of the law. If Manning had committed war crimes instead of exposing them, he would be a free man today. If he had murdered civilians and skinned them alive, he would not be facing the death penalty.3 I would not have quoted so much if it did not say what I only wish I could have synthesized so concisely. My point is, those who control the military should not be harboring secrets, as free information seems to outweigh the danger the information possesses. But on the other hand not necessarily the military itself, as a safety concern, secrecy is not necessary after the fact/act. It is the exposure of governments that leads to truth and by proxy the possibility for justice, without such truth accountability cannot be held. Knowledge can be called truth when it is real facts. If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will beThe People cannot be safe without information. When the press is free, and every man is able to read, all is safe. Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government. Whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights. Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press,

Huffington Post Article

and that cannot be limited without being lost. The liberty of speaking and writing guards our other liberties. Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.4 - Thomas Jefferson http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Ready-Reference/JFK-Speeches/ThePresident-and-the-Press-Address-before-the-American-Newspaper-PublishersAssociation.aspx accessed on January 31st 2012 (a transcription and audio recording of JFK s Speech to the ANPA 1961) http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIca.htm accessed on January 31st 2012 (a web transcription of the official committee report) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marjorie-cohn/bradley-manning-herotraitor_b_1168462.html accessed on January 31st 2012 (An Journalistic Opinion/Report about Bradley Manning/Wikileaks) http://permanentlyindignant.wordpress.com/quotes/ accessed on January 31st 2012 (where I found a nice Thomas Jefferson quote, I hope it is legitimate, it does have the same wording as Wikipedia had in the same quote a google search did not yield a more credible quote source )

Thomas Jefferson Quote; http://permanentlyindignant.wordpress.com/quotes/

Potrebbero piacerti anche