The unsaid word in my last article on transparency in government was, of course, "wikileaks." Which is, to be sure, a different kind of transparency than the state-issued version.
I read an excellent post, "Leaking for Democracy," by Mike Gravel, a former U.S. senator for Alaska from 1969-81, an early contender for the 2008 presidency and a long-time supporter of transparency in government. He was also, notably, responsible for leaking the Pentagon Papers, which brought to light some of the atrocities of our government in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam during the Nixon administration.
Gravel writes:
"The purpose of the 'secret' classification was to deny knowledge to the American people for fear they would react adversely to the covert and illegal activities of the Nixon Administration's prosecution of the war."
"more than fifty percent of what is held secret does not merit that classification. The system is used primarily for personal aggrandizement or to avoid accountability for errors in judgment by people responsible for government policies."
He goes on to say, "What the [Wikileaks] reports do demonstrate is how our military leaders manipulated the data to create a positive view of our military operations in Afghanistan."
These are some highlights of Gravel's article, which I highly recommend. Reflecting on such information from our country's past can offer some clarification on what we may be dealing with now.
That has been our impression. I have always known that there is a lot that the government keeps from us, but finding out the extent of atrocities in South America in the 80s from friends who had been there permanently disabled any trust I ever had that the secret societies of government could be trusted. We SHOULD know what they are doing, unless it will get people killed if we know. Period. Anything else is censorship and that leads to fascism (like the Bush Years >.<)!
ReplyDelete