Officials weigh security, right to know

and Steve Kanigher

Thursday, April 27, 2006 | 7:12 a.m.

Nevada counterterrorism officials are in a quandary. How much information should they share with the public about the vulnerability of Las Vegas to a terrorist attack?

A new, confidential study identifies the top threats facing the city and the rest of the state. The study names locations, public buildings and tourist sites that are likely to be terrorist targets.

Just how many of those details officials should release is at the heart of a debate facing Gov. Kenny Guinn and other authorities.

Members of the Nevada Homeland Security Commission reviewed the federally funded study for 2 1/2 hours behind closed doors Wednesday and opted to consult with Guinn before making anything public.

"We don't want to provide a road map to the bad guys that might harm us," Commission Chairman Dale Carrison said before the closed session.

First Amendment advocates say the public has a right to know about likely targets for safety reasons, noting that in Washington, everyone knows that the White House, Pentagon and the Capitol are likely targets.

"There can be an argument that the public has an interest in knowing the danger levels," said Barry Smith, executive director of the Nevada Press Association. "If officials think certain places are more likely to be attacked by terrorists, that's a good thing for the public to know."

Smith said disclosure would also help the public keep an eye on government. "When you look at spending for homeland security, the taxpayers should be able to find out how the money is being spent," he said.

But Homeland Security commissioners and terrorism experts outside the state share Carrison's concerns about releasing information that might give the terrorists the upper hand.

"It makes no sense to do a threat assessment that identifies our weaknesses and vulnerabilities and then make them public so the bad guys have this information," Sheriff Bill Young said after the meeting. "This is a very delicate balance between the public's right to know and protecting our homeland.

"You've got to have some faith in the governor and the members of this board. We have just as much to lose as anybody else."

Larry Johnson, a former top CIA agent who is now a Washington-based security consultant, said he doesn't see a problem with publicly pointing out weaknesses in a community's overall emergency management system.

But Johnson added: "There are some things that need to be done behind the scenes without the public knowing about it. You don't want to scare the hell out of the public unnecessarily."

That, he said, is relevant in the debate over what information to release in this case.

"You don't want to reveal the secrets of the police and the casinos in terms of what they may be doing to protect and prevent an attack," he said.

Guinn signed an executive order in September declaring confidential "all papers, documents, memorandums, recordings, transcripts and reports" created in the terrorism study.

To protect against acts of terrorism, Guinn can decide not to disclose information that reveals the vulnerability of police and fire stations, drawings or maps that disclose locations used for storing or transmitting water, electricity or natural gas and details of specific emergency response plans.

Procedures followed by response agencies in the event of an act of terrorism also can be declared confidential, as well as information related to the radio frequencies used by emergency response agencies.

The Nevada Legislature addressed the competing concerns of public access to information and the need for secrecy when it debated the bill that formed the Homeland Security Commission in 2003.

Legislators adopted a law that allows public access to certain "restricted documents," which are defined as any blueprint or plan of a school, place of worship, airport, gaming establishment, government building or any other building or facility likely to be targeted for a terrorist attack.

But unlawful disclosures of confidential information are punishable as a gross misdemeanor and under certain circumstances a felony, which carries a prison term of up to five years.

Before leaving their closed-door meeting Wednesday, Homeland Security commissioners were warned that those penalties apply to the unauthorized release of information in the terrorism study, sources said.

"We're erring on the side of caution," said Larry Casey, the commission's executive director.

"We want to make sure that if we put something out, we don't give the terrorists something they can use against us."