As we all now know, the Bush administration has been secretly monitoring the financial transactions of 1000's upon 1000's of private citizens since the 9/11 attacks. The administration has cited the war on terror as the justification for these intrusions.
I'm sure many have and will write about the legal, ethical, financial and foreign relations implications of Bush's spying. For now, I'm gonna leave all that to them. I wantto focus on the reaction top Bush officials have had to the disclosure of the program and the dangerous pattern that is being refldcted in those reactions.
"Dana Perino, deputy White House press secretary, said: "We know the terrorists pay attention to our strategy to fight them, and now have another piece of the puzzle of how we are fighting them. The president is concerned that once again The New York Times has chosen to expose a classified program that is working to protect our citizens." Source NYTimes 6/23/06. "What I find most disturbing about these stories is the fact that some of the news media take it upon themselves to disclose vital national security programs, thereby making it more difficult for us to prevent future attacks against the American people," VP Cheney said. Source- NY Times 6/24/06.
The maxim that a state's security is enhanced by secrecy becomes a truism during time of war. For example, the Native American language based code we used in WW2 could not become public knowledge lest the Axis gain the ability to understand US messages. However, the security through secrecy maxim falls short when taken outside the conventional war context. The war against terrorism is not a war in the traditional sense. The war on terror is a nebulous, open ended, entity. It is more a statement of policy than anything. If we were to accept that safety through secrecy position that the Bush administation espouses, we would in effect be accepting governmental secrecy as a norm.
In a democracy, wide spread governmental secrecy such as the Bush administration would institute is not the norm. In order for a democracy to function, the citizenry must be informed. It is only then can our leaders be held accountable when the state is not being run as it should. Secrecy in the long run, does not enhance the security of a democracy; secrecy erodes a democracy
Bush and Cheney's repeated assaults on the press is also disconcerting. The press, as the main vehicle through which the populous become inormed f the government's actions, serves as a watchdog. We all know this. The Founding Father's thought so highly of the press that they guaranteed its freedom in the 1st Amendment. Yet whenever the press seeks to report on the executive branch's actions, some Bush croney acuses the press of jeopardizing the people. No, no, no. A free press unhindered by a secretive adminsitration is what this country needs.
If our government's actions are cloaked in secrecy, how do we know that our rights and liberties are being protected? The Administration's response is, trust us; we wll tell you when and if your rights are violated. 'Paternalistic' as a word does not go far enough. We cannot allow Bush to tell us when he has overstepped his bounds. In our so called democracy, we the people must tell him when he's overstepped his bounds.
In my mind, this financing suveillance scheme is the last straw. We as citizens have a duty to ensure that our leaders are dragged, kicking and screaming if need be, out of the shadows os secrecy into the daylight transparent government. Because it is onyl through such transparency that democracy can flourish.