On Secrecy

One of the greatest threats to a free people is secret activity and combinations of people in positions of authority. On matters of national defense, it is unwise to share intelligence with our enemies. To prevent mass hysteria, it may not be prudent to release some information to the general public. Often, however, this prohibition of the dissemination of information is used as a tool to shield spurious dealings of those in power from the public.

Thanks to independent media (talk radio, web logs on the internet, personal correspondence, public protests, etc.) our first amendment protections, while diminished, are still intact. For now! Three separate and current new events support the need we have to hold our freedom to speak, think and communicate openly.

President Chavez of Venezuela recently banned the principal TV network there. Although he is the duly elected president, he does not take well to criticism. Despite protests and demonstrations, he will now be better able to exercise complete control over the people.

The drafters and sponsors of recent immigration legislation in our highest elected bodies have managed to obscure the intent of the bill‘s content to make it appear benign. Those who disagree are held in contempt, labeled with malicious accusations and accused of misunderstanding legislation which even the authors have not read or understand. The original bill ran to over 1200 pages and was never subjected to public hearings.

In Durham, North Carolina, a rogue (we hope) prosecutor obfuscated the facts of his investigation to secure false charges against three young men. Fortunately, the boys came from well situated families who were ableto secure capable counsel and come up with concealed evidence of theirinnocence. Because of sealed records and privileged grand jury testimony he was able to pursue his evil intent (to regain his position as district attorney at $100,000 a year.)

These are but three prominent examples of the result of the abridgement of first amendment rights. Our constitution cites these rights as granted by God Almighty and worthy of protection by our government. This same constitution, while intended to rigorously enforce these God given rights says nothing about the “separation of church and state.” Returning to secrecy, I submit to you words spoken by James Madison to the Virginia ratifying assembly on June 16, 1788: “I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

This, then, poses some questions. What could possibly be said at any gathering of elders in the Restoration that requires banning tape recorders? Why were my spouse and others told to “get out” of the Waldo gym prior to a meeting? Why are the leaders of the CRE and the JCRB so fearful of “sunshine” on their gatherings? I don’t know the answers to these questions. I guess it’s a secret.

Cecil Moon