Information is the best shield against terror

By Paul McMasters

Ignorance is not bliss, at least not when it comes to terrorism, sabotage or catastrophic accident.

Yet federal and state homeland security laws have greatly constricted access to and dissemination of “sensitive” information about possible terrorist targets or activity, as well as government and corporate actions to harden vulnerabilities against attack.

These laws create huge exemptions to freedom-of-information laws, define “sensitive” and “critical infrastructure” information in such vague terms that just about anything can be kept secret, and criminalize the release of such information by anyone troubled about government policies or inaction.

The result is that ordinary Americans are denied massive amounts of information directly related to their health and safety, as well as information needed to generate public pressure for government and corporate action and accountability.

Every American lives in the foreboding presence of at least one menace to the community. Dangerous materials at a nuclear or chemical plant. Toxic cargoes hurtling down a nearby highway or railroad. Explosives at a military facility.

All awaiting the hand of fate or the wrath of the terrorist.

Yet the public is denied important information about what government officials and private leaders are doing to identify the vulnerabilities, to address the problems, to move schools and hospitals from danger zones, to give first responders the resources they need should the worst happen, and to engage the whole community in coming up with better – and more supported – solutions.

Instead, citizens are told that the less they know about such things, the better.

Most of us buy into that rationale without thinking too deeply about it. Not only do we not want the government granting access to such information, we don’t want nosy journalists digging out such information, either.

“ We do not want to hand a road map to the terrorists,” we tell ourselves somberly.

But are we really safer in the dark? Are we protected simply by not acknowledging the threats? Is it wise to put all of our trust in someone else to take care of these threats?

Do terrorists really need a roadmap to lethally exploit our vulnerabilities? They certainly didn’t need one to turn a lack of information and four jetliners into deadly missiles and forever sear into the national psyche one of the bloodiest attacks ever against Americans in their own homeland.

Accidents don’t need a roadmap, either.

September 11, 2001 occasioned a legitimate and necessary re-examination of government information policies. Even the press became more thoughtful – more fearful, in some cases – about what should be published or broadcast. But some of the restrictions on information put into place in the wake of 9-11 went far beyond what was necessary or prudent.

A good argument can be made, in fact, that some of those new policies have made us less secure, not more.

There are too many unanswered questions surrounding us today that are not better left alone.

What exactly are our vulnerabilities to terrorism and where are they?

What are our leaders doing about them?

Are we making enough resources available to harden the targets in our midst against attack?

Is everyone involved in seeking solutions that should be?

If our leaders won’t answer those questions fully, and the press won’t or can’t, ordinary citizens must demand those answers for themselves.

They can start by making it clear to friends, families and officials that ignorance isn’t bliss. In this context, at least, it is a prelude to disaster.

Paul McMasters is the First Amendment Ombudsman at the First Amendment Center.

Back to top | Return to fsne.org