FRANK MIELE
In its continuing effort to get the word secrecy stricken from the American lexicon, the New York Times earlier this month reported on several so-called classified documents related to the governments tactical decisions about how to fight the war on terror.
This is not the first time The New York Times has reported on top secret government documents, programs, or war plans. The papers argument, of course, is that the government works for we the people and therefore we the people should know everything the government is doing.
The problem is that whatever we the people know, they our enemies also know. Information is fungible; once it is in circulation it cannot be contained in a discrete safe form. It can instead be applied by anyone for anything at any time. And like magnesium, it burns brightest (and most dangerously) when it is in the open air.
This principle has been understood since the dawn of time, and thus secrecy has been an important component of all human dealings, whether in government or elsewhere. People have acquiesced to the need for secrecy because of their understanding that sometimes knowledge is deadly. Loose lips sink ships was literally true during World War II, but it remains metaphorically true today in all regards. When the New York Times leaks the U.S. governments plans to counter insurgencies in Afghanistan or Iraq, it is putting in danger our troops, our policies and those governments.
Of course, the Times wants you to think that it is protecting you from the government by releasing these secret legal opinions issued by the Justice Department on the matter of what is and isnt appropriate for interrogation techniques used on terror suspects.
The fact of the matter is it is not protecting you from anything. Rather, it is providing comfort to our enemies both by girding them with information and by fomenting public discord over policies that may not be tasteful but are nonetheless vital. It is also misleading you into thinking you are somehow at risk because of these policies. You are not.
The government is not going to waterboard you; it is not going to head slap you; or pretend to drown you. Even if you are insanely sympathetic to people who want to blow up our tall buildings and sacred national monuments, the government is going to have no interest in you whatsoever until you cross the line and begin to plot to do harm yourself or try to contact those who will.
But the government does have an interest in such people a legitimate interest and we should all have an interest in helping the government to accomplish its goals of finding and thwarting people who want to do us harm.
We do all have such an interest, but the New York Times wants to convince us we have a greater interest in hamstringing our government to protect the rights of terrorists. To the New York Times, secrecy is the enemy, not terrorism.
But in fact, secrecy is not in and of itself a problem. Oftentimes, it is justified, wise and valuable. It is a tool, which like any tool can be used or abused. But just as some people want to ban all guns, some people want to ban all secrets, at least in government.
I suppose its human nature to want to know the things we are not meant to know. Even at the very beginning of the human story, in the book of Genesis, we are told how very easy it was for Satan to persuade Eve, and then for Eve to persuade Adam, that God didnt know what he was doing when he declared the fruit of the one tree to be secret.
I suppose, in a way, Satan was the first proponent of open government. God, of course, as the divine commander, had the need and authority to declare certain information to be classified. He encoded that information in the form of, let us say, an apple, and told Adam and Eve that for their own good, for the good of everybody, it was best if they did not know what was in there.
At first, they were perfectly happy not knowing what was in that apple a small, tiny finite fruit because, after all, they had everything else in the world. Literally everything. They had a quality life, a good life, and did not even question whether it was appropriate for God, the divine ruler, to tell them it was best for their own good not to eat the apple.
But Satan, in the form of a serpent, was more subtle than any beast of the field. In fact, he thought he was smarter than everyone else, and had used reason and logic to conclude that Gods government was oppressive and dictatorial. Satan was obsessed with the idea that God had the power to decide for other beings what was in their best interest, and determined to give power to people to decide for themselves what they wanted to do, how they wanted to live, and what they wanted to eat.
So he told Eve about the forbidden fruit: God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
And that was essentially the truth. Adam and Eves eyes WERE opened. They DID know good and evil. They WERE better informed than before, but the question is, Were they better off?
The New York Times thinks it can determine for all of us what will make us better off, but the New York Times was not elected by anyone. At least the government which determines officially what is and is not secret has been put in place by us. It works for us. The New York Times works for the board of directors of the New York Times.
If the New York Times is going to do away with secrecy, we suggest they begin at home. Lets get a full public disclosure of all salaries at the Times, as well as a complete record of all contributions made by or on behalf of the employees of the Times. It would certainly be interesting to know whether any reporters covering particular beats have a conflict of interest, wouldnt it? In addition, it would be useful for the New York Times to publish a full and accurate transcript of all editorial board meetings as well as meetings to determine what is and isnt in the nations best interest. That might shed a little light on whether the paper really does have a liberal bias, dont you think? After all, the argument used for open government also applies to the New York Times, doesnt it? The newspaper declares itself a representative of we the people, and thus should owe a full accounting to we the people as well.
Except of course they value their privacy, which is just another name for secrecy.
And whats good for the New York Times should be good for the rest of us, too.
Frank Miele is managing editor of the Daily Inter Lake. E-mail responses may be sent to edit@dailyinterlake.com
mooseberryinn
It seems they are doing all possible to impede American efforts, and when/if we fail, then they will trumpet their "prophecy". Anything it seems to sell their paper. Not far removed from the Check-out line tabloids.
mtboat
T he New York Times, as well as The Washington Post are well known to be a tool of the Council on Foreign Relations. I watched a video of Dick Cheney stating," Thanks to the Washington Post and New York Times, for keeping our secret for all these years, so we could accomplish so much." Also Mr. Cheney stated," I'm glad to be able to address the council, in fact I was the director for a time,...something I didn't mention back in Wyoming when I was running for office"....Big smile..heh-heh. Now in light of that I must say bull on the idea that secrecy is good. It's like this. God is not a god of secrecy. God is a god of truth. Anything done under secrecy or hiding is the opposite of that. Every thing that' s being done by the CFR is wrong and un american by design. And these so called "news "papers have helped sell out there country. I wouldn't dare to compare any wisdom of God with the lying and deception(secrecy)that goes on in MOST news organizations. I wonder if I can find the find the truth in the Daily Interlake ? Does Hagadone have link
Kalispell Native
With all due respect, in regard to the column's final three paragraph's, it's interesting to know why the Inter Lake won't divulge the information so we could see whether there's an agenda at the hometown paper. Frank, your stated logic would seem to suggest that the Inter Lake values its secrecy more than openness? Should not your newspaper be willing to do what you are calling upon the Times to do? Seems more like a case of do what I say, not what I do. How about some leadership by example?
mtboat
to the CFR? Every other major news outlet including, the AP. and UPI. as well as tv radio, magazine and internet is tied to the CFR in some way. Often it's the head of the company or a higher up. Here is a look at who they are. http://stopthenorthamericanunion.com/CFRMEMBERS.html
Tillie
Here's a novel idea from Frank Miele, Flathead Valley Philosopher in Residence: Trust the government, no matter what they do. It'll be OK, they are only looking out for your best interests every time. Nobody needs to check up on them, say, by using actual gov't employees who leak secret information in order to reveal that the gov't is actually breaking the law. That our gov't illegally tortures prisoners by waterboarding and head-slapping endangers our troops! And he even fit the Bible in there! The gov't is God, divine and benevolent ruler! And Satan is the NYTimes because it reports information that people who care about the Constitution want to make public! An allegorical column worthy of Ida Hunnewell's Journalistic Amateur Seal of Approval. Don't ask questions, just lap it up. Great advice Frank.
Woody
Frank you continue to blame the messenger. The New York Times has never "released" a classified document. They have published many, all of which were "released" by someone in the government and once these documents were "released" they were already in the hands of the enemy. Since the leaked documents were in the possession of the Executive branch, someone with a security clearance in that branch "released" the documents. With the administrations recent history of "leaking" the existence of an intercepted video of Osama (that might have been traced back to his location) I think you are looking in the wrong place for your enemies.
Woody
So Frank In the interest of total honesty. Have you ever in your life applied for work at the New York Times? If you did apply, what was the end result of your application? If you were hired, how did the association come to an end? Your bitterness toward them seems to have some underlying motivation.
TruthHunter
Here's a long, poignantly ironic piece titled, "The Good Germans Among Us"
Kalispell Native
Thank you, Editor. I understand your point, thanks to your posted clarification. I still disagree srongly with just about every assertion in your column. To me, the 1st Amendment means the book of Genesis and God are not quotable authorities in the formation of Constitutional law. Our ancestors fled nations where governments used the Devil analogy precisely the way you use it in your column. I'm a Christian, but I don't blindly trust any president or congress. It sort of blew me away to see a newspaper editor advocating for secrecy in government when: (1.) you don't know what appears in the documents the NY Times is seeking; (2.) therefore, you are simply siding with the government in favor of secrecy without any supportive evidence, and; (3.) would this be your position if Hillary were president (I might actually bolt for Canada if she gets elected, but you get my point)?????
mooseberryinn
Nah, you can't "bolt for Canada", won't have any money for gas after the tax increases.