Obviously, a functional government cannot disclose all of its information to anyone requesting it at any given time. This should not need much explanation, and anyone who disagrees and thinks that 100% transparency is a viable solution could clearly benefit from a generous dose of reality. On the other hand, anyone who believes that the government should be able to withhold any information, for an unlimited amount of time, for any reason it deems necessary, is one step closer to tyranny. The question that presents itself now is where should the line be drawn? What information is necessary to produce a more informed voting population, and what information is necessary to hold close to the chest for issues of national security? I don't have a concise definition or example for either of these, but I am able to illustrate specific problems when I see them.
In 2009 the Obama administration issued Executive Order 13526, which allowed reclassification of documents AFTER a FOIA request was made. Prior to this order, any request for documentation that was not classified was required to be fulfilled. Now, the government has the ability to deny any FOIA request by simply reclassifying the material requested if it is not convenient for them to release it. For an administration that campaigned on transparency, this does not seem appropriate. Are we to believe that by a simple request that the actual material has somehow increased in sensitivity? If the information was vital to national security, then it should have been properly classified from the beginning. The government has generally erred on the side of over-classification from the start, and I am not able to see why it could become imperative to the security of our nation to reclassify documents after a request is made. To me, this seems to be more of a mechanism put in place to erect road blocks in front of journalists or citizens when they appear to head down a trail that the government does not approve. In other words, freedom of information for as long as you ask irrelevant questions. I disagree with this approach, as I am able to envision much more harm than help; especially from an administration that promised more transparency than ever before.
Great post, Toby. I do also think how interesting it is that information that was once classified is declassified decades after it was useful and is now no longer a threat to anyone in government at the moment. The government seems to be claiming it is transparent by releasing outdated documents while withholding those that are most important because they are most relevant. With the habit of reclassification and the adage of "this is important to national security" the government can make any information inaccessible, even the beer brewing you mention. The solution to such reluctance to give up information seems to be in individuals like Edward Snowden who was actually doing his NSA mandated job of reporting wrongdoing and those responsible for it. Is deception of the population not more of a danger to national security than its enlightenment? An informed citizenry is a powerful citizenry, one which can direct government; the only time government would not want direction is when it is doing something it knows is wrong, something we should all be thinking anytime we hear the words "reclassified" and "increased security importance".
ReplyDeletePlamen, I agree with you on most of your points, it is still infuriating when the government reclassifies documents on a whim or withholds them years after it makes a difference. I do, however, have to differ in my opinion of withholding information from the people being more dangerous than their enlightenment. As a general rule, knowledge is power (as I believe you make reference to on your Blog). I am a firm believer that there are many things that ARE vital to national security, and the general population cannot be informed about them without compromising necessary missions/objectives. I will concede, as I am sure you were pointing out, that the government often does exceed what many would consider "vital for national security" in order to cover up their own actions or blunders. I suppose the question we should really be addressing is how can we effectively implement a system that prevents government cover ups, keeps them accountable, and still maintains an acceptable level of national security. As soon as we figure that out, we should be filthy rich and sip fruity drinks by our lagoon styled pool.
DeleteI find this post and topic to be very interesting. Also, great choice for the picture. As Plamen pointed out, by allowing the government to "reclassify" information they are able to withhold any document from the American public. I understand withholding information that is current and relevant such as information regarding Iran's nuclear program, but I do not agree with their ability to "reclassify" historical information that is no longer relevant. This article, http://www.independent.org/issues/article.asp?id=445 , discusses exactly what you are talking about, but it focuses on information from WWII and Pearl Harbor. Author, Robert Stinnett, requested documents to be released about pre-Pearl Harbor attack. After a long process, they were released and the information he found was different than what the U.S. has been telling the American people about the day of the attack. Stinnett published a book about his findings and it became so controversial that the government reclassified the documents. It's an interesting article to read, but it emphasizes the point that you are making.
ReplyDeleteAaron, yes that hits the nail on the head. I understand classifying documents, and I understand protecting national security. What I fail to understand is why they would declassify something, only to recant later when something such as a FOIA request is filed. To me, this behavior is unacceptable, and they probably cause more harm than help.
Delete