Throughout history, protecting the national security has been an excuse used by corrupt governments to hide their crimes.

For instance, during the investigation in the Watergate scandal, President Nixon was asked to release the secret tapes on which all conversations and phone calls he had in the Oval Office were recorded. He refused, claiming the tapes were vital to national security. Now, thanks to hindsight, we know this was a desperate attempt from Nixon to hide the connection with the five men who broke into the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Watergate in June of 1972.

More than 30 years after the Watergate scandal, protecting the national security seems to still be a valid excuse for wrongdoing. For example, does protecting the national security give Hillary Clinton the right to ask U.S. diplomats to spy on United Nations leaders, obtain their DNA data, credit card numbers and frequent flier numbers?

It used to be that when regimes are exposed with wrongdoing, an investigation would follow. After all the scandalous information published on WikiLeaks last week, such as the Iraq war logs showing 66,000 Iraqi civilians who suffered violent deaths between 2004 and 2009, a comment from the administration about the revealed information would be expected. However, the only response that has been given is that the release of such information is a national security threat. It’s disturbing the government doesn’t care to discuss the released info.

This lack of comment on wrongdoing reminds me of autocratic regimes in Third World countries. For instance, when government officials in Egypt are exposed with human rights violation cases, the officials don’t care to comment. They have only one reply: This is an internal affair and the international community should not get involved.

Is the U.S. government turning into one of these autocratic regimes? While it’s normal for governments to keep secrets to protect national security, when the information is accessible to everyone and the documents have nothing to do with national security, the government should comment upon these now in the open issues.