Is the Government Justified in Withholding Information that Impacts its Citizens Directly? - Essay Sample

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requires that any person is entitled to information and documents, which the government controls. One of the primary goals of the government is to serve its people. In serving its people, the government can sometimes decide to keep secrets from its citizens in the name of protecting them. However, there has been an ongoing debate on whether the government is justified in withholding information from its citizens. Some people argue that the government is justified to secrecy. In their view, citizens should not have access to genuine national security information. Others contend that the government should be open with its citizens as long as the information they decide to put forward does not jeopardize national security. Some believe that the government should be open to its citizens because information is the key to democracy. Their belief is that the government has to be transparent in all its facets. In the American government, it is apparent that the right to know versus the need for secrecy has been a primary conflict of interest. The government is not justified in withholding information that directly impacts its citizens because secrets create division within a nation.

Since the government works for the people, it should not withhold information because citizens need to know what is going on in the country. Regarding the debate on national security and the war on terrorism, the government can have the right to temporary secrecy as long as it does not exceed two years, because of the election of House of Representatives. That way, voters can make informed decisions that democracy demands. Openness should be a primary requirement of the state. Citizens need to make the government accountable. In essence, the government should have good cause when revealing its information. One particular revelation occurred when Snowden released information that the NSA has been spying on both its citizens and foreigners as well in 2013 and 2014. In a report by Greenwald, MacAskill, and Poitras (p.1), Snowden, a former CIA operative, realized that the government hides a lot of secrets from its citizens through surveillance operations. In an interview with Snowden, the authors affirm that he believed that the government was wrong in spying on its citizens. Truth be told, such secrecy impacts citizens directly and brings about the issue of the right to privacy. People need to know the governments behavior, policies, and the qualifications of the electoral officials.

The government should not keep secrets because it goes against democracy. As Hennigan and Meoli, p.1 assert, in his 2016 public address, Obama affirmed that according to his belief, transparency provides a potential for unfettered power and an opportunity for public debate. The authors explain that the former president wanted the Donald Trump administration to emulate transparency with its citizens. When the government discloses crucial information from its citizens, it appears like they are running a dictatorship regime. Schwarz (p.1) avers that in as much as there is a necessity in the control of information, the government has fallen prey to secrecy, which is hazardous and incompatible with democracy. In his writing, the author questions the amount of secrecy that good governance requires. He provides examples of secret government information such as the FBIs plan to make Martin Luther King Jr. to commit suicide, CIAs plan to have Fidel Castro killed, and NASAs plan to have all telegrams leaving the US tracked. Justly, times have changed and most countries are developing while others have developed. America should learn its lessons from history to advocate for transparency, pluralism, and transparency of representation. Schudson (p.1) affirms that the US has a long history of all wise political acts to those who lived in the 18th Century. As the author explains, that evaluation of history requires a modification. Fundamentally, the government should emulate progressive change to pursue all facets in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The government should desist from keeping secrets because the behavior will not help them in any way. Instead, it will build toil on their conscience. In the narrowest of circumstances, the government can keep secrets on the issue of war, when soldiers are about to venture in one. Details like personal details should be kept away from the public. Though, from a personal perspective, their mission and place where they will go should be revealed. The reason is that in the location where they will be going, villains there should know that there are trained and armed soldiers who are on their way to protect the interests of their nation. According to Jaffer (p.1), the government should disclose some types of information to the public. First, he articulates that in the governments targeted killing program, information such as the way it selects its targets and its impact on humans should be revealed. Second, the author explains that the administration should disclose what it has done over time and who exactly they are trying to kill. Third, he affirms that the government should disclose the countries where its targeted killings were carried out. Besides that, the author feels that the government should disclose the actual number of casualties during its mission and provide detailed statistics. Furthermore, military wives should be informed of the location of their husbands know where their husbands during deployment. In his recent address, former president Barrack Obama assured that his administration will be more transparent on counter-terrorism issues (Hennigan and Meoli, p.1). Apparently, that was a great step he took to ensure that there is an open-ended nature of conflict against terrorism. On the real sense, the secrecy creates the fear of uncertainty. Being transparent is fair because some military information affects citizens directly.

One situation, which was clearly unjustifiable, was the Flint water crisis of 2016. Kennedy (2016) articulates that lead seepage resulted in a major contamination of water. The contamination of water caused a health crisis in the county. Furthermore, the author articulates that when the city switched off its major supply in 2014, the problem of contamination began. More so, he adds that after many complaints from the residents, city and state officials kept quiet and were in denial that a serious problem persisted in the location. Usually, there is a matter of principle, and there is no public oversight in such as situation. The government should not grant itself power that it is not entitled to. Impurities in the water posed a health crisis to vulnerable people such as children and pregnant women. On a broader perspective, the government failed to inform its citizens about the severity of the situation. Even so, concerns about the contamination were not revealed to the public in a timely manner. As it appears, over the course of two years, the government was quiet yet its citizens were suffering due to the lack of clean water. In essence, situations like that pose as a public health to citizens. Whenever there is any circumstance that affects citizens directly, the government should be open about it to ensure that there are no regrets in the future.

In summary, the government is not justified in withholding information that directly impacts its citizens because secrets divide a nation. From a personal perspective, secrecy covers up wrongdoing from the governments side. When the government keeps secrets, that behavior only shows that they have an agenda that is different from serving its citizens. Citizens need to know what the government is doing so they can be prepared as well as manage to maintain self-determination and privacy. When events happen in a country without peoples knowledge, citizens begin to create their theories about what could be happening. To avoid these circumstances, the government should be forthcoming when it comes to giving its citizens news. In some circumstances, citizens might not comprehend the intensity of the information being withheld. However, if the government makes an attempt of telling its citizens what is going on, then the latter will not have to come up with theories about particular circumstances. Largely, keeping secrets make citizens lose trust in the government, especially when the truth comes to light after some weeks, months, and years. The government should not consider certain information harmless because, in one way or another, its citizens are the people who suffer most eventually. Overall, many benefits exist when the government discloses any type of information to its citizens.

Works cited

Greenwald, Glenn., MacAskill, Ewen., and Poitras, Laura. Edward Snowden: the whistleblower

behind the NSA surveillance revelations. The Guardian. 2013. Accessible at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance

Hennigan and Meoli, Michael. Obama makes a push for transparency before handing over

executive power to Trump. Los Angeles Times. 2016. Accessible at http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-obama-executive-power-20161206-story.html

Jaffer, Jameel. What the Government Should Disclose About Its Targeted Killing Program.

ACLU. Accessible at https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/what-government-should-disclose-about-its-targeted-killing-program

Kennedy, Merrit. Lead-Laced Water In Flint: A Step-By-Step Look At The Makings Of A

Crisis. The two way breaking news from the NPR. 2016. Accessible at https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/04/20/465545378/lead-laced-water-in-flint-a-step-by-step-look-at-the-makings-of-a-crisis

Schudson, Michael. The right to know vs the need for secrecy: the US experience. The

Conversation. 2015. Accessible at https://theconversation.com/the-right-to-know-vs-the-need-for-secrecy-the-us-experience-40948

Schwartz, Fredrick. Democracy in the Dark: The Seduction of Government Secrecy. 2015.

Brennan Center for Justice. Accessible at https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/democracy-dark-seduction-government-secrecy