Steve Skutnik’s column in Monday’s Daily does have a point, but I think he misses the big picture. While the government certainly isn’t as open as it could be much of the time, I think an exception must be granted in this case.

There seems to be a feeling that the government has no proof, or very thin proof, that bin Laden was behind the attacks and that he’s being made an example of because of his high profile in the West.

However, it is very likely that the government could have good intelligence assets, human or technological, and does not want to share them with the public at large for fear that these assets would be compromised.

The last time the CIA and the State Department started broadcasting what they thought were bin Laden’s attempted attack plans, which was in 1999, bin Laden stopped using his satellite phone.

Many experts have blamed this for being a primary reason why the Sept. 11 attacks were a surprise to the intelligence community.

In effect, by broadcasting our warnings publicly, it would be similar to the United States and Britain publicly stating that their convoys were no longer in danger during World War II because they had broken the Enigma codes.

In fact, several times convoys were allowed to sail into harm’s way during the Battle of the Atlantic for fear that the Germans would catch on that the Allies had broken their codes. While letting some of bin Laden’s attacks go off as planned is not an acceptable course of action in this day and age, the various government agencies involved in hunting bin Laden have likely learned their lesson about how wide to disseminate their information.

Maybe if, or when, bin Laden is captured, or these potential sources are no longer valid, we will be shown the full extent of the evidence. Until then, we are at war, and the public has to deal with not always being told the truth.

Ryan Wadle

Senior

History and Political Science