Something to Hide

Like the Pentagon papers, the underground nuclear explosion at Amchitka Island raised a question about secrecy in Government. Even before Richard Nixon decided to proceed with the test, citizen opponents went to court, demanding that scientific papers relating to the decision be made public. The Administration refused, claiming that they were internal documents protected by the doctrine of executive privilege. Finally, a U.S. District Court judge ordered some of the papers released; they revealed, among other things, that the President's chief environmental adviser had warned against the test.

In another case, Ralph Nader has filed suit demanding that the President release White House documents concerning a Department of Transportation decision to delay the date when auto manufacturers must equip their cars with safety air bags. Again, the Administration has claimed executive privilege.

The doctrine of executive privilege has historically been a bitter issue. Many Presidents--including George Washington, Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower--have argued that a Chief Executive must accord his advisers the full freedom to offer their candid counsel without being forced to tell Congress or the nation's newspapers what it was. Yet the doctrine has sometimes been invoked to conceal bumbling, or political pressures, to suppress valid arguments against the decisions a President finally makes, or to hide outright corruption within an Administration.

Obviously, there are many cases in which an Administration must proceed in secrecy. But the presumption should always be in favor of open government. Whenever a President invokes executive privilege, he should be prepared to defend against the inevitable suspicion that he has something to hide as well as guard.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.