Follow-up: "Senator Secrecy"

In a follow-up to my previous post on the topic, it seems the Society for Professional Journalists has found (at least) one Senator who held up that open government bill.

Who is the man who wouldn't stand up right away and say he was against the public being let in on what their government was doing? It's Senator John Kyl (R-AZ). According to an AP story published in The Guardian:

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., says the Justice Department is concerned that it could force them to reveal sensitive information.

In a statement Thursday, Kyl said the agency's ``uncharacteristically strong'' opposition is reason enough to think twice about the legislation, and he will block a vote until both sides can work out the differences.

In my opinion, if a Federal agency is having "uncharacteristically strong" opposition to telling people what it's doing, it's probably doing something it shouldn't be. Or doing things it should be doing in the wrong way.

I believe there are, indeed, things that don't need to enter the public sphere right away. Bits of information related to current serious security issues or military movements. Things that, if they come out would pose a clear and present danger to men and women in the field.

Even those things, though, need to eventually enter the public record. If for no other reason than so historians will be able to look back and see more clearly why things happened the way they did. Information like that can be invaluable when it comes to avoiding the reiteration of past mistakes.

There is, without a doubt, a fine line that needs to be walked between secrecy and openness. I think I can safely say that the current administration has more than crossed that line into unacceptable territory many, many times. Every time, they could have been stopped by a more vigilant public, a more active legislature or a more aggressive press corps.

Isn't it well past time that we all realized that and did something about it?