We don’t need secrecy in the trial of Cliven Bundy

There’s no doubt ranting racist rancher Cliven Bundy and some of his followers are dangerous.

Bundy called for a range war when authorities moved to enforce a lawful court order to seize his wayward cattle, and some of this followers pointed firearms at law enforcement officers during a standoff at his ranch near Bunkerville in 2014.

So it’s understandable the government would take seriously threats made on social media against the prosecutors assigned to the case against Bundy.

But just because Bundy and his followers have broken federal law (grazing cattle without permits), interfered with federal officers executing a lawful and duly issued court order (forcing the BLM to release seized cattle under threat of armed confrontation) and put the lives of law enforcement officers in jeopardy (by summoning self-styled militiamen to an already volatile situation) doesn’t mean the government is innocent.

From the start, federal employees made mistakes in dealing with the Bundy Bunch, mistakes that emboldened the armed insurrectionists. For example, the BLM oh-so-helpfully tried to set up a “First Amendment area” in the form of a corral for protesters — as if public lands weren’t by definition areas where free speech rights can be exercised. An after-action report identified tactical mistakes made during the actual roundup. And the question lingers as to why the government didn’t simply place liens on all Bundy’s cattle and seize the proceeds toward the satisfaction of his debt.

Those errors don’t exonerate Bundy, of course. But now, the government is making another mistake, seeking to keep secret investigative information gathered in the two years since the Bunkerville incident took place, and opposing efforts by the Review-Journal and other news organizations to intervene in the criminal case to argue for transparency.

Why? The government says a threat made against an unnamed prosecutor on Facebook demonstrates the need for secrecy. “Remember the name of [the prosecutor],” the alleged threat-maker wrote. “It will be a joy to see this treasonous Nazi hung or burn for treason … or to read about the lone wolf attack that put this rabid dog down for a dirt nap.”

Ah, but don’t the so-called yee-hawdists have a way with words, if not history, morality or a sense of judicial proportionality.

In support of the push for secrecy, the government points to two misfit street performers who visited Bunkerville for a short time and later went on to murder two Metro police officers who were eating lunch. (The perpetrators were later killed, one by his partner and the other by police.) But it was reported at the time that the cop killers had been expelled by the armed insurrectionists of Bunkerville because of their radical viewpoints.

We can’t dismiss the possibility of violence directed against federal officers. Whether it’s a BLM officer doing his job in the field (they’ve reported threats since Bunkerville) or a federal prosecutor doing his job in the Las Vegas courtroom (where a court security officer gave his life in 2010 fending off an armed attacker), violence is a very real possibility.

But we also can’t ignore the public’s right to watch the proceedings and see whether Bundy is getting what he most deserves: a fair trial, where the evidence is presented openly for all to see, including those who hate the government and consider its charges a pack of lies.

If we can successfully try global terrorists (and we can) in our 240-year-old justice system, we ought to be able to handle this case, in the open and without the unnecessary cloaking of evidence. Bundy has allegedly been breaking the law for more than 20 years; it’s time we got on with his due process.

Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist and co-host of “PoliticsNOW,” airing at 5:30 p.m. Sundays on 8NewsNow. Follow him on Twitter (@SteveSebelius) or reach him at 702-387-5276 or SSebelius@reviewjournal.com.