When secret documents enter the public domain – often purposely decades later – they change how we see history. Indeed, we finally have confirmation that Franklin D. Roosevelt could have bombed Auschwitz’s railroad tracks, that John F. Kennedy almost sent us to nuclear war, that Richard M. Nixon was not foreign to anti-Semitic expressions and more.

But what happens when such documents are released amidst the decision making process to which they give light? Take the two very different cases of late involving WikiLeaks and the National Archives.

In the first, revelations of Arab nervousness regarding Iran’s clear drive for nuclear weapons confirms what we have always claimed: At stake is far more than Israel’s well-being. However, publishing such cables deeply complicates the U.S. State Department’s challenge to build a diplomatic coalition to force Iran into opening nuclear sites for inspection. The release of these documents demanded a more discriminating review. However, the goal of releasing them seemed simply to be to mess up how democracies work.

It is, of course, impossible to get the documents of truly nefarious governments into the public eye. WikiLeaks China, Sudan, North Korea, Syria or Iran? Right.

I am all for more openness. I am not for stupidity. The line is admittedly a thin one – which is why a combined group with citizen input needs to better oversee what should be in the public domain and at what interval that should take place. I trust neither overzealous advocates nor political operatives working to protect their reputation.

Meanwhile, the National Archives just released a report detailing post-World War II U.S. cooperation with former Nazi officials in the hopes of gaining intelligence information. As American Jewish Committee head David Harris wrote, “To have absolute proof 65 years later about what the U.S. did in assisting notorious Nazi leaders like Klaus Barbie, Rudolf Mildner and others is sickening and painful.”

Judaism’s ancient inferences on modern matters such as government openness are informative. They teach a reliance on experts, but one that cannot be done blindly. Indeed, a Jewish court must have three judges, meaning there are multiple voices. And the ancient high court – the Sanhedrin – had 72 members, forcing robust conversation. In modern parlance, this calls for trusted oversight. That need not be done under full public scrutiny, although erring to that side is needed. And those involved must be unbiased observers, ombudsmen if you will, charged with protecting the public interest.

There are no simple rules in such matters. But when asked to help advocates of genocide or advocates of nuclear war, the appropriate response seems clear.

ADDENDUM: In a depressingly ironic twist, accusations are now swirling that one of WikiLeaks key investigators is a Holocaust denier. See: http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/14/the-assange-employees . One can debate the efficacy of WikiLeaks all s/he wants, but to me employing neo-Nazis is beyond the pale of any civilized action.