I don’t usually agree with the Republicans – and I’m no conspiracy theorist – but I have to admit that the Republican response to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s handling of the Sept. 11 Benghazi attacks has a hint of legitimacy to it.

I certainly do not think there is some massive government cover-up surrounding the deaths of four United States citizens in Libya four months ago.

However, the Republicans are on to something here, and I believe it is something that everyone can agree with at the Emory community and throughout the nation in general.

For those who may be unfamiliar with the event, it went something like this: on Sept. 11, 2012, a group of armed militants stormed the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Prior to the attacks, the climate in Benghazi was unfavorable for the Americans there – several attacks at other locations throughout Libya had predated the Sept. 11 attacks.

Furthermore, after the attacks took place, nobody was quite sure why the consulate was targeted. Initial reports pointed to an independent American-made video that portrayed Islam unfavorably, but these reports proved untrue.

Given the heavily-armed nature of the belligerents, it was clear that this incident was more than a spontaneous uprising in a volatile area.

Rather, the attack was clearly coordinated and specifically targeted Americans in Benghazi.

At its base, the Republican argument is that we still do not know everything about the attacks, and this lack of information is problematic.

My accord with the Republicans on this issue does not extend far beyond this basis, but we can still work from there.

To preface, the importance of discretion in certain national security matters is undeniable; we cannot and may never know everything the federal government does. There is a reason some files are classified, for better or for worse.

However, the government should not exercise its ability to withhold information from the people of the United States – private citizens and public servants alike – just because it can.

The Republicans probed Hillary Clinton at her congressional testimony last week for this very reason.

They focused on her management of the Benghazi attacks and the subsequent explanation for such attacks.

They asked questions such as: Why did they take place? Was the public misled? If so, why was this the case?

Secretary Clinton vehemently defended her conduct, citing that four people had been killed and it was her job to bring the killers to justice.

Why they were killed was a secondary concern that could be dealt with after the fact.

However, this represents some ignorance on the part of Secretary Clinton. In the courtroom, for instance, a prosecuting attorney’s job is not only to prove that someone committed a crime, but that he or she had some legitimate motive for committing said crime. In fact, motive is incredibly important when bringing someone to justice, to paraphrase Clinton’s own remarks. Motive is quite literally a difference of degree – a difference between, say, first-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter.

So, Hillary Clinton’s assertion that the public had no interest in knowing the reasons behind the killing is flawed.

In fact, discovering why four Americans were killed in a country with which we are not at war should be paramount to preventing it from happening again in the future.

Why this was not a priority for the State Department is something that should be a concern for the public.

More broadly speaking, the government ought to be held accountable for its lack of transparency in this matter.

Not only does it make the Obama administration look like it does indeed have something to hide, but it also creates an even wider gap between the government and the governed.

To be sure, Emory students have recently had some experience with administrative opaqueness and apparent arbitrariness, though certainly not in response to an event as significant as that experienced in September in Libya.

The basic principle is still the same, though: some higher power seems to be making executive decisions without consent from below, and when questioned about the processes behind these decisions the response is vague and unsatisfying.

As a community – and indeed as a nation – we ought to encourage our governing bodies to take our views into consideration.

This is only possible if we have sufficient information by which to form a coherent opinion.

As such, the United States government should do its best not to hide things from its citizens.

We cannot and ought not to know every detail, granted, but when it comes to a significant event such as the Benghazi attacks, the American people have a right to know what happened and why it happened.

This is the crux of the Republicans’ argument. I believe, for once, that it is an argument everybody can support.

William Hupp is a College sophomore from Little Rock, Ark. 

Emory Wheel
+ posts

The Emory Wheel was founded in 1919 and is currently the only independent, student-run newspaper of Emory University. The Wheel publishes weekly on Wednesdays during the academic year, except during University holidays and scheduled publication intermissions.

The Wheel is financially and editorially independent from the University. All of its content is generated by the Wheel’s more than 100 student staff members and contributing writers, and its printing costs are covered by profits from self-generated advertising sales.