A few minutes into Secrecy, a documentary that examines the scope and effects of the government’s thirst to keep pieces of knowledge away from its citizens, the viewer is presented with a conundrum. First it is conjectured by one interviewee that it is possible that the events of September 11th could have been prevented, or at least some warning could have been given, except for the fact that many of the threat analysts were not given the information that they needed. Others in the government had this information, but because it was considered to be secret, the analysts did not have access to it.  A former CIA operative then tells us that in 1998 it was leaked to the press that intelligence was being gathered from Al Qaeda because of the ability of the government to monitor their satellite phones. Once the story was published, that source of information dried up, with the US losing the ability to track Bin Laden and his cronies. So how does one determine what should be a secret?

Secrecy explores the tension between the tenets of democracy — a government responsible and accountable to its citizens — and the need to be secretive in order to maintain national security. the way the culture of secrecy has developed since World War Two, however, has led to an executive branch that is unaccountable in the kind and amount of information that they classify. While some secrets may be necessary for national security purposes, the documentary also shows that secrets are power and one reason for keeping information secret is to preserve that power.

The filmmakers use an array of interviews to show this tension. Several interviewees are former CIA officers who defend the need for secrecy. One retired CIA officer, Mike Levin, is the spokesperson for the pro-secrets faction. His view is that there is only one reason that is considered when classifying information — whether or not releasing it could harm national security. But there are also an array of others in the film who offer a different perspective — most interestingly Melissa Boyle Mahle, who worked in clandestine operations in the Middle East for the CIA, and Tom Blanton, Director of the National Security Archive. While she doesn’t say it directly, it becomes apparent that Mahle was working on covert operations and she has concerns that while clandestine operations are critical to security, many are done now without oversight and not for intelligence purposes. She explains that torture should not be used, but not because of human rights reasons, but because it doesn’t work in terms of getting truthful information. Blanton emphasizes that secrecy is about power, that every time these secrets are revealed, the government is ceding power — something that they rue.

The film also focuses on two critical court cases. The first, United States vs. Reynolds, established the “state secrets privilege” via a Supreme Court decision in 1953. Patricia Reynolds had sued the government for not providing information about the crash of the military plane in which her researcher husband had died. The Court ruled that a case could be dismissed if the government told the court that release of information concerning a case would harm national security. This case was cited over six hundred times in cases over the following five decades. When, many years later, Reynolds learns that there was no national security reason why she could not have the information regarding the cause of the crash, it is understood that the government used the case to establish the principle rather than because real state secrets were at stake.

The lawyers in the other case, Hamdan vs Rumsfeld (2006), testify to the problems they had just getting normal client rights in order to defend Ahmed Hamdan, a former driver of Osama Bin Laden. The military lawyer, Charles Swift, becomes the conscience of the film as someone who obviously holds his oath to protect and defend the Constitution in high regard. he describes his first meeting with Hamdan in Guantanamo when he was told he couldn’t even tell his client his own name — and other requirements that Swift ignored. In the Hamdan case, decided 5-3, the Court decided that The Bush Administration’s tribunals, accomplished through executive order, violated the constitution and military law — bringing the first curbs to the “secrets privilege” since it had been enumerated.

The film also tells us that Bush, through classified orders and executive orders, routinely had the executive arm of government ignore laws passed by Congress. Classified information was used to increase clandestine, covert and controversial international activity with almost no oversight. As Charlie Swift explains, there are times when you need to be undemocratic when protecting democracy — but that should be done in the light.

Photo Above: Secrecy Directors Robb Moss and Peter Galison Just after the premiere of their film

While Secrecy doesn’t cover many aspects of classified information that I may have expected or hoped for, its focus on national security and the role of the executive branch in using secrets in this arena is both illuminating and frightening. As one person in the film observes, Just one person, one President, deciding what we should know and not know is inherently unamerican.

Sundance Note: Got into this screening after getting in my first Wait-List line of the Festival — good karma so far.

WHAT'S NEXT?

Subscribe via RSS or Email  ::     ::  Leave a comment

Bookmark to: