This much secrecy fails to protect Americans By MYRIAM MARQUEZ, Orlando Sentinel

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft changed the meaning of the Freedom of Information Act from a presumption of disclosure to a rationale for secrecy. In October 2001, he advised federal agencies not to release documents to the press or the public so long as they had any possible legal rationale to keep them hidden from public view. That memo was in the works even before the terrorist attack, which should give all Americans pause.

The memo was overkill. …

Accidents are more likely than terrorist attacks on [chemical] plants. Now people are more vulnerable, not less, because they haven’t a clue what risks they face. Until it’s too late. …

Emergency response teams know what’s in a rail car by a sign that’s posted on the side of the tank car detailing the deadly chemicals it might carry. Now federal agencies are considering removing those placards from all trains as a way to “protect” the public from terrorists with devious plans.

Rail workers, firefighters and other emergency workers aren’t too happy with the proposal. Even chemical companies prefer to keep the signs in public view. …

The problem with secrecy for security’s sake is that it doesn’t protect us. It simply spares the government any accountability to the public.

If citizens can’t know what train routes carry potentially poisonous materials, which nuclear plants are vulnerable or what underground pipelines are carrying through our towns, then we have no clue if our government is indeed keeping us safer from terrorists. The real threat is using secrecy to hide public-policy decisions that are supposed to keep us safe.

It’s a delicate balancing act, and right now the scales have tipped way too far, at our peril.