Too much government secrecy is also a threat

So what’s the problem with government keeping secrets?

In an era of terrorist threats and so-called “permanent war,” shouldn’t those in “a position to know” have wide authority to make certain that in some cases the rest of us don’t?

The impact of 9/11 still ripples through the issue of what we can, or should, know about how our government is operating, according to a recent report on government secrecy by OpenTheGovernment.org, a coalition of 67 groups focused on freedom of information.

The group’s 2007 report showed that last year the federal government made 231,995 decisions to classify documents, and invoked a “state secrets” power 39 times to withhold information from courts and Congress – with the latter action occurring more than six times more often in a single year than for the entire Cold War.

OpenTheGovernment’s report says that in 2000, 45 percent of contract expenditures were awarded through open competition; by 2006, that figure fell to 34 percent. Unspecified intelligence contracts ‘ where the purpose and details are classified ‘ made up 18 percent of Pentagon contracting, or $31.5 billion, more than double the level from 12 years ago.

The collapse of an interstate highway bridge in Minneapolis prompted a spate of press and citizen requests for details about inspections, safety reports and recommendations. Granted, the information often was technical and open to misunderstanding and misinterpretation. But common sense ‘??and democracy ‘??would seem to argue for more disclosure, not less.

Since the disaster, nationwide, many journalists and others have reported on the safety, inspection processes, funding for repairs and ratings of heavily used bridges in their areas. Though it’s legitimate to ask, “Where were news reports of such evaluations before the Minneapolis tragedy?”, there is no question of their value now.

Yes, terrorists may know a little bit better where to find weak links in the national transportation chain. But you and I can also better judge whether to trust a particular bridge the next time we set out in the car.

As citizens we have a duty as well as a right to employ the First Amendment’s provisions for peaceable assembly to discuss our government’s performance, and then perhaps petition the government ‘ two of the least-cited but equally important freedoms among the amendment’s five.

But we can’t know when it’s time to carry out that constitutional role if we don’t know what our national leaders or local bridge inspectors are doing.

Gene Policinski is vice president and executive director of the First Amendment Center, 1101 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va., 22209. E-mail: [email protected]