THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING TRANSPARENT
        - Government Secrecy and Human Security
   			    by Michael Ricciardi (June 2002)

Most of us who try to stay informed already know the situation: increased domestic intelligence gathering (phone and email monitoring), roving wire-taps, restrictions on Freedom of Information Act document requests, "sneak and peek" searches of citizens' homes, 'Threat Level' traveler profiling, the sealing of the presidential records, the White House redacting of the Senate's Intelligence report on 9/11, secret detentions and military tribunals [with secret prosecutorial evidence allowed*], globally-extended covert military operations, clandestine assassination plots, shadow government…etc. Such tactics are among the expressed strategies and standing policies espoused by our government in its "new kind of war"--the war on terrorism.

In short, our government's solution to the terrorism issue/threat is secrecy--both in terms of increased spying and access to information. It is the belief of this author that the prevailing administrative policy of secrecy will inevitably fail to thwart that form of guerilla warfare known as "terrorism". Why this should be so is the primary focus/premise of this essay.

All terrorist plots depend on secret communications between the agents of any given plot. Additionally, such agents must remain hidden from view, until at least the moment of the plot's execution. So-called "sleeper cells" are the most unnerving manifestation of the terrorists' culture of secrecy. And of course, for true terror to be effected, the terrorist act--be it bomb, highjacking, or bio/chemical attack--must occur suddenly, overwhelmingly, by surprise. The perceived 'randomness' of its timing, the nature of its horror, and the inability of the public to adequately protect itself, is all enabled through effective secrecy of organization and action. This seems clear.

But let us take a closer look at the other side of the terrorist coin: the policies and activities of a nation state that fosters a 'culture of secrecy'--the vast network of agencies known under the rubric of the intelligence community. It should not shock any decently informed individual that our intelligence agencies carry out all manner of actions, raids, plans, and policies in secret--perennially justified in the name of "national security".  Of course, such plans do not always conclude successfully, or without attracting public attention. The Bay of Pigs, The Chilean Coup of '73, The Iran/Contra Scandal, and of course, that 'Frankenstein's monster' called the mujahadeen--these are just a few examples of government sponsored actions/plans which either failed, or later went awry, but which were only brought to light while they were happening, or most often, after they came to pass. How many more will we never know about? What terrorist plans and/or anti-American hostilities are brewing even now as an unintentional result of such "covert operations"?

Regarding the Iran/Contra episode, what is most important to note for this essay is that over one third of the Nicaraguan contras were former members of the right-wing, Samosa government’s notorious "death squads", a "paramilitary" brigade (recall that the Samosas had been ‘deposed’ by the Sandinista political movement in the late 1970’s). The contras killed at least 10, 000 Nicaraguan civilians-- with estimates as high as 30, 000--in the eight year period following the democratic election of Daniel Ortega in 1981. Many of these former death squad members were trained by employees ["counter-terrorism experts"] of the International School of the Americas--now called the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation--a wonderful sounding institution whose primary function was/is the training of domestic and foreign soldiers, mercenaries, and para-military types in the tactics and techniques of guerilla warfare, courtesy of (ormer) U.S. military and intelligence personnel. This training in surveillance, weapons usage, bomb making, sabotage, 'psy-ops', and torture--and their use upon civilian populations--effectively rendered them indistinguishable from terrorists.

Would it shock Americans to know that elements within their government actively supported this training that ultimately resulted in the horrific deaths of thousands more civilians than were killed on September the eleventh? Where has moral outrage gone too? 

Looking closer at this intelligence community, I note that there are some 26 separate intelligence agencies--many currently being gathered up under the umbrella of the Homeland Security Department. Oh, and I must also note the numerous adjunct groups, boards, and councils--such as the Defense Policy Board--whose activities/policies [and members] are highly protected from press or public scrutiny. This aforementioned group was recently brought under the light [briefly] due to the resignation of Richard Pearle [an adviser to the defense department and paid consultant for a defense contractor] from his post as board chairman due to conflict of interest charges.

Conflicts of interests are perhaps the primary corrupting influence of any would-be, democratic society/government. And whenever a government institutes secrecy in the name of 'national security', it is almost invariably engaged in some form of unethical/illegal conduct. For, the very act of a governing body, which possesses a priori authority, imposing secrecy through this authority for said national security reasons, is de facto a conflict of interest. This is the fundamental reason that our governments remain pervaded with corrupting influences. A given power structure seeks always to shield itself from those that would limit/check its power in the name of informing and empowering others. This is especially true when that power structure has access to trillions of dollars and virtually unlimited resources.

To return to the domestic scene, in a recent NY Times editorial, the writer declared a need to know "everything" about how such terrorists operate, in order that we civilians can protect ourselves. I agree with this in theory, but in practice, such transparency will not occur under the present political climate. For, to do so--to be so open—also would be to simultaneously expose the covert activities and other secrets of our government--and potentially all governments that assert secrecy as a priority over an adequately informed society. 

Secrecy is the best and obvious modus operandi for collusion. If  'patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel' then secrecy is the first refuge of the corrupt.

In the weeks immediately following 9/11, mainstream newspapers were filled with speculative counter-strategies for doing battle against these 'evil-doers'. One such article quoted an administrative source stating that fighting terrorism would require that our intelligence personnel deal with "unsavory foreign agents". Oh?, I pondered, does that mean terrorists? This is not mere speculation. Reports of Usama Bin Laden meeting with the CIA station chief in Dubai--just two months before 9/11--have been widely corroborated. But to the point: to expose the internal workings--the day to day dealings of so-called terrorists--would be to also reveal some intelligence tactics, including the frequent "collaborations" between government agents and terrorist leaders. According to widespread European reports, the U.S.  Central Intelligence Agency has been dealing with Usama Bin Laden since 1987--since the glory days of the CIA/Pakistani /Saudi supported mujahadeen's successful guerilla war against the Soviet invaders in Afghanistan. 

A culture of secrecy is perpetuated most strongly by those who have a fundamental contempt for democracy. The primary concern of this 'secretive class' when it "assumes the reigns" of government is to exploit federal resources to advance its own power and insure its preservation. To these, 'The People' is not a collective whose informed awareness must be encouraged and listened to--it is something to distract if possible, divide when practical. It is something to be controlled, and fear is a useful means of controlling it. 

We hear the word "fascism" quite often these days. Fascist-like political movements require a climate of perpetual fear in order to justify their being and insure the effecting of their agendas. And so, secrecy is doubly effective: as a cover for other motives, and as the primary means of keeping the fear alive. 

Secrecy amongst secret agencies is also a major problem, and clearly presents a genuine threat to the safety and security of civilians, as we have learned from recent "classified" FBI documents leaked to the public. In the opinion of many thinkers, the tragedy of 9/11 was not a failure of intelligence gathering, but rather, a failure of intelligence analysis and sharing. Could the sharing of this information have stopped the attacks? This is difficult to say, but a culture of intelligence sharing would have increased the possibility of uncovering the plot [This assertion has been validated in the recent U.S. Senate report on the 9/11 attacks/intelligence failures]. But more intelligence--generated by domestic spying on citizens--will only increase the 'intelligence analysis load'. The new 'Homeland Security' Department--an attempt to centrally overcome this secrecy problem by the lovers of secrecy--could conceivably increase our vulnerability. Recent news articles have reported the government's own admission of massive amounts of non-translated documents and audiotapes due to a lack of fluent Arabic translators.

And what of governmental oversight in the case of the Homeland Security Department? What/whom do we blame when the government fails to stop the next successful terrorist act? One thing is pretty certain--accountability will not be assumed by this present government. It will find someone else to blame. The cunning of a 'war without end' is that it requires an 'enemy without end'. And if the new enemies--the jihadists--dry up [though not likely, since they are needed], we can always be turned against ourselves.

The messy and complex reality of politics and conflict in our world insures that conditions are seldom as neat as "us versus them", or some other simplistic scenario-- good guys on one side, bad guys on the other.  But it is in fact this very complexity--this inter-relatedness of "good guys/bad guys"--that a corporate-backed, war-faring government wishes to hide. Politically motivated opinion-molders and dialogue-quashers loathe the slightest whiff of ambiguity and/or complexity in their rhetoric. For how else can it perpetuate the myth of "we are good, they are evil" "--the myth of the 'just' or 'holy' war-- and get the people to follow along? 

Reality is complex. Transparency reveals complexity. Complexity is the antithesis of all pro-war, us-versus-them propaganda--propaganda that is vitally necessary to crystallize unquestioning majority support for whatever war [and its secret agenda] is in the offering.

Truth is the first casualty of war, after all, and so better to offer a simple-minded lie than a complex reality.

The criticism of government secrecy goes beyond the issue of terrorism by foreign agents/operatives. Historically, the tacit support of secrecy by Congress and the Supreme Court has led to innumerable crimes ['terrorist acts'] committed against citizens of this country. During the second term of President Clinton, certain documents were released through Freedom of Information Act requests that revealed the government's conducting of radiation experiments on unknowing, or under-informed, civilians. Allegations and accusations about these suspected experiments were denied for fifty-two years. Does anyone doubt that this--both the experiments and its denial--was facilitated fundamentally through a deeply entrenched, bureaucratic culture of secrecy? 

Please note that my primary concern here is with citizens' awareness of the government's doings, not their immigrant neighbors' doings. The present government would rather have us turn against our neighbors, than against those who dictate our foreign policy--this would disrupt 'business as usual'. The current administration would prefer we evolve into a 'nation of spies', forever distrustful of out neighbors [with those scary foreign accents] such that we would condone racial profiling, unlawful detentions, and egregious violations of individual privacy. 

If we are to preserve individual liberty--as the greater good--then we must constrain such violations of our neighbors' rights to privacy, free assembly, and due process. I recognize how challenging and difficult the task may be, given the prevailing atmosphere of fear [which seems to be abating--until the next attack]. True transparency in government would dramatically lessen privacy and civil rights violations and terrorists acts against our interests--provided that public, independent oversight of foreign policy is firmly in place. Citizens would then know at whom to direct politically their anger/criticism, rather than resorting [by default] to the often misplaced fear of immigrants and our foreign neighbors.

The 'right to know' means the right to know what [and on behalf of whom] our government is doing behind our backs that may cause harm to us. An effective policy of 'transparency' is an active collaboration between government and society, but one that can not be directed by government. 

What is curiously relevant in all of this is the dual, and seemingly opposing, drives of the Federal government. It demands total secrecy concerning its doings, yet seeks total awareness of its citizens [see: the Total Information Awareness System**]. To my view, this is a complete inversion of what should be. We citizens should insist upon our rights to privacy, while we demand total transparency from the government. Perhaps this is the fundamental distinction between Fascism and Democracy. There is no double standard here. The right to privacy by citizens is not the same as the need for secrecy by governments who act in their name. Ordinary citizens have little power in comparison to governments. Democracy insists on accountability of those who would represent the citizenry through the power structure of government. 

Back to 'ground zero'…

What September eleventh, and its aftermath, demonstrated to me, is that the government cannot be relied on to protect its citizenry--neither its physical life nor its civil rights. I recall that the only effective defense against the 9/11 terrorists' plans was made by the brave passengers on Flight 93--who, through consensus, decided to launch a counter-attack on the hijackers. In this age of information, having the right information is the most powerful tool for protecting our country's citizens. If citizens are to protect themselves, in the long-term, they need to know exactly what their tax-subsidized government agencies are doing behind their backs to foster terrorism and anti-American hostilities. For, even as we are forced to accept the existence of powers acting beyond our control [though ultimately financed by us], how can we be confident that such powers are acting with our best interests at heart? The answer is--we can't without transparency in government. It is not extreme [anymore] to argue that the price we pay for failing to demand openness from government is the very real threat to our lives, the possibility of not returning home to our families from work.

My central argument is this: a governmental strategy/policy of secrecy can never end the very real threat of terrorism--a tactic effected only through secrecy. Such a covert--and yet always imminent--threat will only increase as the culture and bureaucracy of secrecy increases. For some, this assertion is obvious--yet how easily we all play along with the sham! 

For, secrecy both enables collusion and requires it. This collusion I speak of now is the collusion between government and the citizens that it governs. We forget the old adage that 'liberty demands constant vigilance'.  We want someone else to do our thinking for us; someone else to defend us and protect our interests--interests that we foolishly have allowed ourselves to believe are identical with the interests of state. And the state complies.  

Perhaps this also sounds a bit naïve--to demand transparency even from the CIA--but do you really feel secure in readying for this "war without end"? If you truly advocate and strive to create a just and ethical government policy--both domestic and foreign--can you in good conscience leave these up to a governing body that demands secrecy at every turn?

In the struggle for a just and ethical world, "the Truth is out there". But as long as we justify and insist upon governmental secrecy, we will keep banging into the Great Lie: national security. It is a "great" lie because it is so darned effective as a justification for secrecy.  At what point do we start challenging this presumption--that secret actions must be taken to "protect and secure" our nation? The events of September the eleventh are undeniable proof that this presumption is false. This is one truth that is actually in here [I point to my head] and, deep down, you know it too.

M. Anthony Ricciardi   

Updates, 2005:

*As of October 2004, the US Supreme Court and three Federal Judges have ruled separate clauses of the Patriot Act to be unconstitutional, including the detention of terror suspects without charges, due process, legal counsel, and habeas corpus--the right to challenge one's accusers.

**The TIA program, the brainchild of Admiral Poindexter of Iran/Contra scandal fame, has been mostly axed by congress--with one major loophole: information gathering on foreign students and immigrants.

Word count: 2737

http://www.chaosmosis.net/Essays.html