Documentary "Secrecy": A Critical Anaylsis

           “Information is power. Some information is so potent is can be dangerous” -Steven Aftergood Government Secrecy project, Federation of American Scientists.

Secrecy is a documentary which exposes the issue of government concealment and the ensuing arguments of national security. It debates whether secrecy should be allowed in the United States, and if so, to what extent should its powers be limited.

                To begin, there seems to be an underlying debate on what constitutes as “secrecy” and how it differs from “privacy.” In the documentary, this term of “secrecy” is sometimes used ambiguously by  agencies and critics which leads to debates on how much power a certain entity (in this case, the government of the United States) may have. Secrecy seems to be agreed upon as the concealment of highly sensitive information which if revealed can result in harm for the United States. This would differ from the definition of privacy, which is “the freedom from unauthorized intrusion” (Merriam-Webster dictionary). I would add to that definition that privacy is usually applied to the individual and is used to protect the personal life of that individual, whereas secrecy has more to do with protecting of information and entities.

                Secrecy has come to the forefront of debate recently because of the “State Secret Privilege” which is the ability of the United States to throw out certain court cases based solely upon the fact that the case deals with “sensitive information” and “would compromise national security.” This privilege was the result of a court case in 1953, United States v. Reynolds, in which the widows of the civilian casualties of the crash were denied the accident reports because the supposed revealing of the information would “seriously [hamper] national security” by the  Federal Court (this later was proven to be false). The controversial ruling led to continued debates for years on whether the ability of the government to deny information and/or throw out court cases was constitutional.

In his book, Rhetoric and Popular Culture, Barry Brummett observes that “cultures entail consciousness, or ideologies” (26). He uses one of the definitions of ideology from Raymond Williams that ideology can be defined as “a system of beliefs characteristic of a particular class or group” (26).

One such ideology that is predominant in the United States is that of a nation established and devoted to the rule of law. This is one ideology that has made the United States emerge as a world leader. The opposition to the rule of law is power without checks and balances. Secrecy, when unchallenged, can lead to unchecked power and unlawful behavior.

There has been a lot of scrutiny of the U.S. Patriot Act and the covered-up reports of torture among detainees suspected of terrorism. The resulting court cases were denied under the cover of secrecy and “national security.” Charles Swift (Lt. Cmdr, U.S. Navy JAG) argues that our laws and rules of engagement – especially those regarding morality of conduct, are more to protect us than they are to protect others. He argues that a “great nation’s character is what makes it great—ours is a society devoted to the rule of law…fear is the enemy of character. Courage is the ability to follow your principles even when you are scared to death.”

                What has allowed certain people and agencies to act in appalling ways is the lack of check and balances that secrecy inherently forgoes. Within the transparent system of government in which we have, the three branches, Executive, Legislative and Judicial, are all given powers to prevent the other from overstepping its assigned powers. What has allowed unlawfulness is the lack of checks and balances under the cloak of secrecy.

                The media claims that they can help provide this balance and check within the government. They claim that by seeking out and reporting these “secrets” they can help to alert and educate the citizenry of the United States of the procedures, mechanisms and results of government agencies. Thomas Blanton of George Washington University is convinced that networks of information actually empower. By providing certain (formerly secret) information to the public, they can help these agencies “connect the dots.” The ability of a single organization to decide who is in on the “need to know” basis is overly presumptuous and dangerous.

                Blanton concurs that “there are some secrets that would make the world a lot more dangerous, and we should and would want those protected (e.g. nuclear and biochemical warheads).” But he argues that secrecy is not making us safer. Less secrecy would make us safer.

                While there are plenty of examples in which revealed information was beneficial for the United States and its citizenry, they are also times when it can become a liability. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) argues that they have the responsibility to protect sensitive information in the name of national security. They view secrecy as a survival mechanism in which if compromised, can and has resulted in deaths among their agents and U.S. citizens. They view the media as an entity out to expose secrets as if it were a “game.” They try to reduce the amount of secrecy and at what cost? Sensitive information, once leaked, can be hugely detrimental in the fight against terrorism. Take for example when the press leaked information that the CIA had the ability to listen in on satellite phones that Osama Bin Laden had been using. Almost immediately that lucrative source dried up completely all due to a “pointless and needless press disclosure.” Was it in the best interest of the American citizen to expose this information?

                The debate continues and there have been recent court rulings that have limited the amount of power that the executive branch can have under the “State Secret Privilege.” While secrecy is important for the safety of the nation and her interests, does that entitle amnesty under the law? And who is going to be that check and balance?