In the days immediately following September 11, the U.S. government embarked on a disturbing path of secrecy. The atmosphere of terror induced public officials to abandon this country's culture of openness and opt for secrecy as a way of ensuring safety and security.

At first, we hoped that the move toward secrecy would be short lived. The actions would be viewed as temporary or "emergency" measures. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. Led by secrecy-loving officials in the executive branch, secrecy in the United States government is now the norm.

Over the past four years, the federal government has taken a variety of actions designed to restrict information from reaching the public, including:

• A directive to agency heads by former Attorney General John Ashcroft that changes the interpretation of the federal Freedom of Information Act to allow the agencies to deny access more often to public records if a claim of invasion of privacy or a claim of breach of national security can be alleged.

• Secret imprisonment of more than 1,100 non-American citizens on alleged claims of immigration violations or as material witnesses.

• Aggressive investigation of "leaks" of national security-related information that has resulted in subpoenas of reporters and citations of reporters for contempt of court in several federal courts throughout the country.

• Secret arrests and indictments of perhaps dozens of suspects in the War on Terror.

• New layers of security for government documents that make it virtually impossible to exercise oversight of government operations.

• New federal laws and regulations that override state open records laws.

In our first Homefront Confidential White Paper in March 2002, we argued that no one has demonstrated that an ignorant society is a safe society. Citizens are better able to protect themselves and take action when they know the dangers they face. That principle applies more than ever today. But in the four years since September 11, an astonishing amount of information has been taken away from the American people.

There has been modest progress in only one area. The Pentagon created an elaborate "embedding" system to place more than 700 journalists with U.S. military units during the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Despite early optimism from legal experts, appellate courts have been very reluctant to weigh in on actions taken by federal agencies. So far, the executive branch has had free reign in determining how much citizens will know about the War on Terror.

American citizens and lawmakers must speak up, or their ideal of a free and open society will be a thing of the past. American citizens hopefully are less frightened than they were in September 2001, and some are more determined to maintain civil rights and liberties. Some citizens -- but not enough -- have started to object to the secre imprisonment of witnesses and immigrants. They want details about just how much the USA PATRIOT Act affects their civil liberties. Americans are questioning whether they were lied to when the Bush administration justified war with Iraq with claims about weapons of mass destruction. And Congress has introduced legislation that would create a federal "shield law" to allow reporters to protect the identities of confidential sources in most situations.

We live in a nation built on the concept of balance. When the government, perhaps with the best of intentions, goes too far in its efforts to keep information from the public, it is up to the public and the media to push back. Through a vibrant, information-based election process and through an independent judiciary, we as a society will come to a balance that hopefully will protect our liberties for generations to come.

Homefront Confidential includes a threat assessment to the public's right to know based on the color-coded scheme used by the Department of Homeland Security. Just as the government assesses threats to the nation's security, this report assesses how government actions have affected the media's ability to provide information to the public.

We believe the public's right to know is severely threatened in the areas of changes to freedom of information laws and access to terrorism and immigration proceedings. This report describes in detail why the public should be concerned about the information it is not getting.

For daily updates on threats to the public's right to know, log on to our weblog at www.rcfp.org/behindthehomefront, funded by the Robert R. McCormick Tribune Foundation.

The Reporters Committee owes special thanks to the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation for funding the first and third editions of this project. Thanks also to our staff members who have contributed to this report since its first edition in 2001: Gregg Leslie, Rebecca Daugherty, Kimberley Keyes, Kirsten B. Mitchell, Grant Penrod, Ryan Lozar, James McLaughlin, Jeff Lemberg, Kirsten Murphy, Jennifer LaFleur, Sara Thacker, Wendy Tannenbaum, Gil Shochat, Ashley Gauthier, Monica Dias, Mimi Moon, Phillip Taylor, Amanda Groover, Thomas Sullivan, Jennifer Myers, Tejal Shah, Alba Villa, Corinna Zarek, Kristin Gunderson, Kevin Capp, Jane Elizabeth, Jim Getz, Kate Dunphy, April Thorn, Paula Canning, Katrina Hull, Emily Harwood, Lolita Guevarra, Victor Gaberman, Maria Gowen and Lois Lloyd.

Lucy A. Dalglish
Executive Director
September 11, 2005

Next section: A chronology of events