Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Rights and Liberties

Government Documents Are Declassified in Name Only

By Jon Wiener, LA Times. Posted January 6, 2007.


Starting in the new year, the government declassified 270 million pages of FBI files -- but if you tried to access them, you'd have been told that none of them are available, and won't be, maybe for years.
Advertisement

On December 31 at midnight, hundreds of millions of pages of secret government documents were automatically declassified -- the result of President Bush's Executive Order on Declassification, which covers all national security documents 25 years old or older.

They included 270 million pages of FBI files, according to the New York Times, covering, among other topics, the civil rights movement, 1960s anti-war protests and organized crime up to 1981. In all of American history, there has never been anything like this avalanche of information.

But if you called the National Archives on Wednesday, as I did (it was closed Tuesday for the national day of mourning for President Ford), you would have been told that none of these newly declassified documents are available -- and won't be, maybe for years.

Automatic declassification is a wonderful idea. "Our democratic principles require that the American people be informed of the activities of their Government" -- that's what President Clinton wrote when he ordered 25-year automatic declassification in 1995. The target date for compliance was extended several times, but then, in 2003, Bush surprised his critics by setting a firm deadline. Over the years, some documents were released in anticipation of the deadline.

But the obstacles to actually seeing the vast majority of these documents anytime soon are huge. Declassification, it turns out, is not the same as release. Some documents will remain classified, and others will be declassified but still withheld. Bush's executive order specifies nine grounds for exemptions, and dozens of other existing laws restrict the release of certain kinds of information.

Many restrictions are reasonable: The Privacy Act, for instance, prohibits release to a third party of any government information on a living person -- so I can't get your FBI file, and you can't get mine. The Atomic Energy Act protects information on how to build nuclear weapons.

Some of the exemptions, however, are more troublesome and can easily provide excuses to agencies that want to keep secrets. One, for instance, covers information that might "reveal the identity of a confidential human source."

Obviously, people who have been promised confidentiality should not have their names released. But the FBI has extended that principle (which is also part of the Freedom of Information Act) to cover not just the names of sources but also the information they provided. The bureau argued that release of the information might lead a knowledgeable person to figure out the source's identity. On this basis, all information provided by all confidential sources could be withheld.

Also exempt: information that might reveal the FBI's "sources and methods." In the past, the FBI has claimed this exemption for information obtained through wiretaps -- because a wiretap is a "source and method" -- even though it's not exactly a secret that the FBI uses wiretaps. But if you withhold all the information provided by informants and wiretaps, not much is left except for newspaper clippings.

Then there's the exemption for information provided by a foreign government. This is the one that tripped me up in my 23-year battle to get John Lennon's FBI files. The last 10 documents were released last month -- but rather than revealing sensitive foreign intelligence that would compromise an allied government, they contained only innocuous information about Lennon's antiwar activities in London in 1971 that had always been publicly known.

Thus the policy known as "automatic declassification" does not in fact mean that 25-year-old national security information will be automatically declassified. It means that the material must be, in the words of the Justice Department, "reviewed for declassification, exemption, and/or referral to other government agencies."

The last phrase, "referral to other government agencies" sounds benign but in fact provides a huge loophole. The Justice Department, for example, reported that in 2006 it reviewed 57 million pages, of which 11 million -- 20% -- were declassified, while 46 million pages, or 80%, were referred to other agencies.

Virtually all important documents involve multiple agencies. If you wanted to look, say, at Reagan-era memos about U.S. support for Saddam Hussein, those meetings probably involved the CIA, the National Security Council and the Defense and State departments. If even one of those agencies wanted to withhold a document, it would be withheld. (There is a deadline for the processing of the material that has been referred to other agencies -- three more years.)

And there is one more huge obstacle. Documents that are deemed releasable are to be sent to the National Archives, which is then supposed to make them available to the public. But the National Archives already has a backlog of 400 million pages. Oh, and its budget for next year has been cut.

Congress needs to appropriate additional funds for the National Archives if the 25-year automatic-declassification policy is to have any meaning. This may not be on the agenda for the Democrats' first 100 hours -- but it ought to be in their first 100 days. Rep. Henry Waxman of Los Angeles and Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut chair the responsible House and Senate committees. They should take the lead because the American people should be informed about the activities of their government.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: fbi, classified document

Jon Wiener, a professor of history at UC Irvine, is a contributing editor for the Nation and author of "Gimme Some Truth: The John Lennon FBI Files."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
ass
Posted by: rsaxto on Jan 6, 2007 12:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Declassified, my ass. Declassified, my bullshit. Declassified, my nose. Declassified, for our govenment is bonkers, blinkers and blathers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Clever
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Jan 6, 2007 4:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's kind of like Guantanamo, where they made up the term "enemy combatant", so it could mean whatever they want it to mean at their convenience.

In the case of "declassified", they take an old familiar term and give it new meaning, i.e. whatever they want it to mean at their convenience.

The good news is that it at least shows that the Republicans believe in some forms of recycling.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Clever Posted by: kryptx
What time is it?
Posted by: mizipi on Jan 6, 2007 5:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Has Atlas shrugged at the brave new world in 1984?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Borderline fascism?
Posted by: Sojourner on Jan 6, 2007 9:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The accusations that the US is becoming and has become a fascist state keep appearing. With the Demos in power in the Capitol, we are about to find out.

I do not hold out a lot of hope for change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am not so sure...
Posted by: RevRick on Jan 6, 2007 10:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I would certainly support a larger declassification of documents and closing the loopholes the author has mentioned, I don't think that saying this declassification is in name only is accurate.

The fact is I doubt that John Bolton, would have ok’ed the intimidation of witnesses against William Rehnquist’s nomination to the Supreme Court if he knew the fact would be declassified after Rehnquist’s death while Bolton was still active in government.

While it could have been better this is inarguable a step in the right direction to instilling some transparency into the actions of the people we have hired to run this country for us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've got a secret
Posted by: willymack on Jan 6, 2007 12:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know who REALLY killed the Kennedys, and Martin Luther King, who's REALLY behind 9/11 and the negligence regarding Katrina, why we REALLY went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and will soon pound Iran into rubble. Wanna know? Up yours! Sincerely, the Powers That Be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THEY'RE MAKING US ALL CRAZY
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jan 6, 2007 3:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So they spend half the time classifying and hiding stuff and the other half passing new laws to spy and open mail and tap phones. Could this possible be the same stuff? They keep collecting date and then they lose it. How do they keep track of what is lost and what is classified? What's the difference? It's beginning to sound as though we don't have anything to worry about. Well, the cost of this 3 ring circus is something to worry about. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DECLASSIFIED IN NEWSPEAK MEANS UNAVAILABLE
Posted by: Ullern on Jan 7, 2007 2:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.
Good article - to the point. Depressingly unsurprising, but don't let that bring you down! Depression is no reason for inactivity, only for alternate activity. Declassified in Newspeak means unavailable, it seems, but insistence on connecting words to their meaning is still available. That's the responsibility of everyone using words: to insist that war does not mean peace, and that declassified to not secret means available.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Declassified Documents
Posted by: fanny666 on Jan 8, 2007 9:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How many bother to read the documents which are already out?

National Security Archive

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]