A few nights ago, I had the privilege of hearing Steven Aftergood, director of the FAS program on government secrecy, speak to us and explain the importance of reducing the extent of secrecy the government can extend within itself.

He brought various examples of instances where documents were withheld by the government and after their release it became obvious that the “secrets” they contained had long since expired and had no reason to remain classified. He mentioned that one of the oldest documents that until recently had remained “classified”, dated back to World War I era and its contents discussed the ingredients for lemon juice to be used as an invisible ink. He cited a few other old documents that had been under the “classified” status and had information that had either long since expired, or never should’ve been classified in the first place. In these examples, Aftergood clearly made the case for the government being a bit extreme in terms of determining what should remain classified, but failed here to provide valid reason for anyone to be mildly concerned with these practices unless, for instance they possessed a some curiosity to uncover obsolete war plans (because other wise why should anyone care that some antediluvian documents still remain classified?)
Aftergood also mentioned the numbers involved in protecting government secrecy that had starkly risen within the past five years (government officials, classified documents, spending etc.) This I don’t think calls for any great mystery solving or scrutiny; our nation is at war and must strengthen our defense and security industries in order to succeed.

Aftergood also referred to the document that contained the CIA’s briefing of the President a month prior to the 9/11, with “Bin Laden determined to strike in the US”, which remained classified up until 2005. He left it open to discussion whether publicizing the document could’ve actually prevented the attacks, but seemed to imply that it was classified for no good reason. I personally doubt the release of this document would have many any sort of difference. For one, it wouldn’t have gotten much coverage in the media even if it were released to the press. Prior to the attacks American’s had a very solid image of the US as a dominant and invincible superpower, and would’ve been very skeptical of the idea that some Islamic extremist is actually capable of carrying out attacks in American soil. Even today, after the attacks people have occurred, people still have a hard time believing that foreign radical Muslims actually succeeded in orchestrated these attacks (- evident in the numerous conspiracy theories circulating that claim that our own government arranged 9/11.) In addition, as a general practice the government doesn’t and shouldn’t release all details about imminent threats to our country and there are many valid reasons for this that we aren’t always aware of.

However, although have great faith in our government’s dedication to protect us and promote what’s beneficial for us, as far them having unlimited freedom in extending secrecy to whatever they wish in the intelligence agencies, I believe that can leave room for abuse and this is where our the system of the checks and balances needs to step in. Aftergood brought to light the potential for government to exploit the system by using the “classified” status to conceal documents that are controversial or could be politically damaging. One of the examples he cited was the prisoners of Abu Graib. Sadly the incident will be a scar in the US military history and the fact that the government officials attempted to conceal the story under pretenses of “sensitive” or “classified” only added to the notoriety of the scandal. Therefore, it is important that we have the right to request government information through the FIA law. “The Freedom of Information of Act” is helpful in terms of limiting government power because it obliges the officials to produce the requested document unless it is among the nine categories that are exempted.

However, some other examples Aftergood brought in, I did not see as sufficient reason to condemn or petition the government against their secrecy practices. Overall, he did not make a strong enough case for me to support his agenda, and at times I felt like he didn’t provide the full context or background of the information he presented. He definitely had an agenda and wanted to make an impression on our young valuable minds. However, I would like to give him credit for diplomatically addressing us, and responding to our questions in a candid friendly tolerant way.