"Intelligence"
We should have seen this coming. From a New York Times story titled C.I.A. Classifies Much of a Report on Its Failings:
The Central Intelligence Agency has ruled that large portions of a report by the Senate Intelligence Committee that is highly critical of the agency includes material too sensitive to be released to the public, Congressional and intelligence officials said Tuesday. . . .By law, the C.I.A. and ultimately the White House have the authority to decide what information is classified, giving them significant power over how much of the Senate report can be made public.
An intelligence official said Tuesday that the C.I.A. had "worked closely" with the committee to declassify as much of the report as possible. But much of the report was too specific for declassification, including information that identified intelligence sources and described operational methods, the official said.
Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the committee, said Tuesday that he believed the C.I.A. had "overclassified much of the report to the extent that it will prevent the American public from knowing the truth about how the intelligence community performed leading up to the war."
I understand the need for secrecy &c. but that approach has failed in the recent past. Catastrophically.
on
| § 5
§ 5 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
J,
J,
But I know you don't think that public disclosure of what, precisely, CIA operatives don't do well is a great idea.
DO you have a middle ground in mind? Or some kind of impartial third party; one who can look at the same material and tell America, "You know, there is alot of stuff here that doesn't need to be shared. But we're going to work in addressing the bits that can be improved."
Ah-HA! That's assuming that
Ah-HA! That's assuming that CIA ops do anything well
*ending snark sequence*
I don't know what a third-party approach would be, is the problem. I know that saying this next thing is going to elicit guffaws, but can't we trust the Senate Intel committee, who are bipartisan and all, to know what they oughta be leaving out? I have trouble believing that 35% of a report they intended for public consumption was actually beyond the pale of what the public can know.
I know, I know.
I know, I know.
This is another situation where there are alot of very sound reasons not to make this report public.
Not only for the obvious reasons of opsec, but because the list of private citizens who have a clue about what the intelligence apparatus does is fairly short. What good would it really do to air, in public, what the Agency does right or wrong when so many people can't even fucking spell?
I think what's really at issue is trust. Can the citizenry trust that whoever is responsible for knowing these things and fixing them will do so without prejudice?
I think you're right about
I think you're right about that.
My answer is, no. Not at all, recently.
Yes, we can trust the Senate
Yes, we can trust the Senate Intel committee to know what to leave out. They're pros.
Call me completely nuts, but I have a sneaking suspicion the CIA and White House are less concerned with secrecy than with not looking bad. I know, I know, I'm crazy for going out on a limb like this and yet I have bad thoughts like these anyway.