Slashdot Mirror


US Declassifications Delayed. Infrastructure Classification to follow?

kiwimate writes "This article discusses an executive order issued yesterday which delays the release of millions of historical documents until the end of 2006. Apparently, the relevant agencies need more time to study the affected papers, even though it only affects papers more than 25 years old. Evidently a quarter of a century is not a sufficiently lengthy review period. For a slightly different version of the same story, see here." For further news on the classification of "critical infrastructure" see Declan's story. In related news.. Phybersyko writes "Declan McCallagh at cnet.com(website) reports (story)that "President George W. Bush has signed an executive order that explicitly gives the government the power to classify information about critical infrastructures such as the Internet." Do we chalk this up to the cost of "freedom" or are we repeating the same mistakes the Catholics made in the Middle Ages (keep em' ignorant and our rule is secured)...."

20 of 221 comments (clear)

  1. Move Over Fox News by Ken@WearableTech · · Score: 3, Informative

    /. with "Fair and Balanced" reporting. Read the The Guardian for the Right and The New Zealand Herald for the Left. Read it at C|Net if you don't care.
    Don't worry if you forget a secret Echelon knows it already.

    1. Re:Move Over Fox News by mccalli · · Score: 3, Informative
      Read the The Guardian [guardian.co.uk] for the Right...

      The Guardian is regarded as the most left-wing of the mainstream UK press.

      Cheers,
      Ian

  2. Reagan administration vs. Iraq? by Malc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is this to bury information about the actions of the current administration's people that they carried out when they worked for the Reagan administration?

  3. Eliminate Bush's WMD by terraformer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's Weapons of Mass Distraction...
    The war is providing great cover for domestic changes like this. Another example

    --
    Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
  4. This is very good by El+Cubano · · Score: 3, Interesting

    At least in intelligence, the point of classification is to protect the source. For example, if the enemy knows that by using system X, we are able to gain insight into their operations, they will cease to use system X.

    While some things (like out military tactics and battle plans) are not really relevant 25 years after the fact, these documents should still be examined to make sure that they will not divulge a still valid source of valuable intelligence information.

    It has happened in the past. Either through publication in the media or release of documents under FOIA, where later we went ... OOPS!

    1. Re:This is very good by Zalgon+26+McGee · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, god forbid that government be open and transparent to its citizens. After all, in a democracy, who's really supposed to be in charge - the People???

      --

      ---

      Book(n): Utensil used to pass time while waiting for the TV repairman

    2. Re:This is very good by vandan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Democracy?
      George Bush is not an elected leader.
      He is appointed by the courts.
      Democracy?

      Even ignoring this 'incident', you think voting for one monkey over another every 3-4 years gives you any say in what actually goes on? I think not. Especially when the election campaigns cost millions of dollars. Your fine democracy is nothing but a corporation-run dictatorship, masquerading as a democracy.

      Unfortunately, us Australians are chasing hard on your tails (or whatever it is that Johnny Howard finds attractive in Baby Bush).

    3. Re:This is very good by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2, Insightful

      George Bush is not an elected leader. He is appointed by the courts.

      President Bush was elected according to the rules as set out by our Constitution. There were no irregularities in the 2000 election. It was an unusual election, but not a unique one; basically the same thing happened in both 1876 and 1888.

      Democracy?

      No: republic. Big difference.

      Even ignoring this 'incident', you think voting for one monkey over another every 3-4 years gives you any say in what actually goes on?

      Yes and no. Representative government removes the power of self-determination from the people themselves and places it in a body of elected leaders, but holds those leaders directly accountable to the people who elected them.

      The main problem with representative government is, to put it bluntly, people like yourself. People who don't understand how the system works, and who therefore see themselves as disenfranchised, are less likely to vote and vote wisely. We haven't figured out how to solve this problem yet. Ideally, most people would be active participants in the political process, while a slim minority would choose to abstain. In reality, it is just the other way around: most people don't vote, and many of those who do don't vote wisely, and yet these same people feel entitled, almost compelled, to claim that their government is not representative of them.

      Ironic, isn't it?

      Your fine democracy is nothing but a corporation-run dictatorship, masquerading as a democracy.

      I'm glad you've lived a life of such liberty and luxury that you are unable to distinguish between a republic and a dictatorship. If you'd ever lived under a true dictatorship, you'd know it when you saw it.

      --

      I write in my journal
  5. 25 years... by Tin+Weasil · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Having worked in the Government (military), I can assure you the 25-years is NOT enough time for the government to determine the effects of releasing information. This is because the deadline probably crept up on the affected agencies and they hadn't made any proactive measures to insure the document's declassification.

    Now that the deadline has actually approached, they have their pants down and don't know what to do.

    1. Re:25 years... by KITT_KATT!* · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I believe this but I don't think it's good enough. Giving an extension will only encourage the problem. Unless you give, say, a 12-month extension only.

  6. biased (and uninformed) commentary... by badasscat · · Score: 3, Informative

    Do people really think government agencies are sitting there for 25 years trying to figure out what documents to declassify? When a document is released, that someone gets assigned to it specifically to determine the precise point at which it can be declassified? Of course not - it'd be a complete and utter waste of resources. These reviews are done periodically and cover reams and reams of documents that can't simply be glanced at and passed through - they must be studied down to the individual words used. No doubt it takes quite a while.

    But I guess, since we're dealing with Bush, there must be some nefarious governmental conspiracy behind it, right? It can't possibly be that it just takes a while to do the work properly, can it? "No more documents for oil!"

    1. Re:biased (and uninformed) commentary... by robbo · · Score: 2, Informative

      George H Bush (George Sr) was director of the CIA from 1975-1976. He was also close to the Nixon administration before that, and US Liason to China under Ford. I doubt *that* has anything to do with Bush Jr's executive order.. ;-)

      --
      So long, and thanks for all the Phish
    2. Re:biased (and uninformed) commentary... by ZeroConcept · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, maybe they want to make sure that no controversial infomation reaches the public.

      An Example: Operation Northwoods

  7. CNET article a bit misleading by extrarice · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The linked CNET article has a bit of a misleading title.
    The title and by-line states: "Bush order covers Internet secrets" and "President Bush has signed an executive order that explicitly gives the government the power to classify information about critical infrastructures such as the Internet."

    But the last paragraph states:
    "Steven Aftergood, an analyst at the Federation of American Scientists who tracks government secrecy, says the change in definitions "creates an opening that could be exploited in the future, but in practice the previous policy would have permitted much of the same thing."

    Meaning that the previous act (signed into law by President Clinton in '95) would have allowed the same thing as President Bush's re-do of the act.

    Unfortunately, most people won't read the entire article to see what the real information is.

    --
    "Jesus saves, but everyone else in a 10 foot radius takes full damage from the fireball."
  8. PR reasons, NOT national security by freejung · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Considering that the data in question is 25 years old and that we are at a critical juncture in the current administration's PR strategy, it seems clear that this blatant stalling tactic was undertaken for reasons of PR rather than national security.

    In the past, the declassification of historical documents about American security activities has been damaging to the public perceptions of security agencies (mostly because it reveals them for the unscrupulous bastards they are, or at least were), and this is a time when the US government can hardly afford to risk further losses in public opinion.

    They don't want you to know about this stuff because they are afraid you won't like it. It's that simple.

    1. Re:PR reasons, NOT national security by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When the time limit was set at 25 years, people knew that the information released could be embarrasing to the government, but they didn't think it would matter anymor. After 25 years, they assumed that nobody at the top levels of government then would still have a visible role. Any really dumb stuff (like trying to kill Castro with an exploding cigar) could be blamed on people who were dead or at least retired.

      Then Dubya got "elected". We expected him to dig up members of his father's and Reagan's cabinets, but Gerald Ford's? Most of the members of the current administration have been active in the government for over 30 years. And as another poster mentions, the records from the CIA while the Elder Bush ran it are just turning 25.

      -B

  9. I am not surprised. by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This administration has been really secretive with documents that should be released to the public. Remember couple of years ago Bush jr passed some executive orders preventing some of the papers of his fathers administration from being released.

    Even looking at the way the present administration holds press briefings it is obvious that they want to completely limit and control information flow.

    And yes 25 years is long enough. Remember if you go 25 years back you get smack in the middle of Reagan's time. Reagan is in the process of being turned into a living saint by the republicans, and it would be really inconvenient to provide some details about all the nasty things that happened during his presidency. Not to mention that some of these nasty things happened in Iraq, and would be really embarassing given the current reasoning for the war effort.

    On top of everything, most of the powerful people of the bush administartion (such as Cheney, Powel and Rumsfield for example) were important people in the reagan administration. This decision shows that they are not quite eager to be judged for their actions back then. That is completely understandable. Powel, for example was implicated in transfering shitloads of anti air missiles to a certain "axis of evil" country.

    So it is not surprising at all. But if we are to function as a democracy, these papers should be revealed. Politicians should be accountable for their actions, they should not be able to delay the release of truth indefinately. And who knows the papers may make the Reagan administration look good. Maybe there was a good reason for iran contra, and all the killing in south america. Dont know what that would be but it is possible, I suppose.

  10. Not Just Bush... by benjamindees · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Clinton did it too, twice, and the few people that realized it bitched and moaned like patriotic Americans should.

    This has nothing to do with petty politics. It has to do with a federal government run-amok and lying to everyone to cover up that fact.

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  11. They have good reason not to by failedlogic · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It only makes sense that all the information intended for declassification does not contain a hint of what might be vital information to US secruity. For instance stuff that happened during the Cold War - tapping cables in the ocean, encounters with Russian subs and so on. Some information has been declassified about the Cuban missile crisis largely found here: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/ . I sure this is not all the information on the CMC and some might still be "sensitive". It took the British at leat 25 years before they admitted they had cracked the Enigma machines presumably because the Germany military and embassies were using them after WW2 thinking they were impervious. The British wouldn't want the Germans to know what confidential information they new of thier military operations and political commniques. I just hope a lot of this information is declassified in the next 20 or 30 years. There are some great stories to be told and it would definately be of great historical importance.

  12. Well, you know... by RyanFenton · · Score: 2, Interesting


    "Of the people, for the people, by the people" is great and all... but some of those people just might be terrorists! Therefore, it must be a reasonable idea to remove the people's abilty to review the actions of their government, in this best of all possible worlds.

    Ryan Fenton