Terrorism and Official Secrecy (2)

Continuing from Part 1 with the quotation from Rampton and Stauber:

Of course, we can only speculate as to whether greater disclosure might have helped prevent the attack. However, committee staff director Eleanor Hill pointed out that "prior to September 11th, the U.S. intelligence and law enforcement communities were fighting a war against terrorism largely without the benefit of what some would call their most potent weapon in that efort: an alert and committed American public. One need look no further for proof of the latter point than the heroics of the passengers on Flight 93 or the quick action of the flight attendant who identified shoe bomber Richard Reid." [Hill's statement is available here.]

Democracy and the free sharing of information, in other words, may offer our best protection against future terrorist threats. Paradoxically, this is precisely what we may surrender if we allow fear to rule our lives.

Which brings me back to the question I discussed in an earlier post: why wasn't the national terrorism alert status wasn't raised after the ricin attack on the Senate?

And why was the attempted attack on the White House kept secret until this latest attack?