(5 of 6)
What can be done about the spread of secrecy in Government? For a start, Congress could investigate—as the Symington subcommittee recommends—the present use of the Espionage Act, various presidential directives and the "executive privilege," all invoked at times to justify unnecessary secrecy classification practices. Congress could beef up its pathetically weak investigatory and budget analysis staffs and strengthen the General Accounting Office—its agency for the policing of disbursement and use of appropriated funds. It could also cut back substantially on discretionary funds granted to the President for use abroad as he sees fit.
Colossal Mistake. It is unlikely, though, that legislation in and of itself would afford much of a cure to the ills of creeping secrecy. Considerably more important is a different approach by Government in all its branches and at all levels. The State Department could, and should, be far less bending to the secrecy pleas of allied and client governments in such matters as disclosing long-secret U.S. special bonuses and other payments for Thai, Korean and Philippine forces sent to Viet Nam.
The Defense Department should be ordered to stop penalizing employees who disclose facts of cost overruns and mismanagement to congressional committees in such matters as the F-111 and C-5A aircraft contracts. The White House could and should be more forthright in its disclosures of military operations and diplomatic agreements, such as those in Laos. The news media, moreover, could better serve the public interest by being less considerate of the sensibilities of Government officials who try to manage the news. Reporters might well remember President John Kennedy's comment to New York Times Editor Turner Catledge, whose paper had practiced a dutiful self-censorship in not reporting the imminence of the Bay of Pigs invasion: "If you had printed more about the operation," Kennedy said ruefully, "you would have saved us from a colossal mistake."