I am not making direct comparisons here between Bush2’s problems with secrecy (on numerous topics, and in general) and the coincidence of the PBS documentary on Watergate airing tonight, Wednesday, July 30, 2003, but it is very much a d�j� vu experience to read this, forwarded to me by an alert FWer.  So in the public interest, I’m giving this wider broadcast.  - KWC

 

CLASSIFICATION POLICY AND THE MISSING 28 PAGES

The dispute over the Bush Administration's refusal to declassify a 28 page section of the congressional joint inquiry report on the September 11 terrorist attacks has elevated classification policy to front page news.

 

Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) directly challenged the legitimacy of the continued classification.  "This obsession with excessive secrecy is deeply troubling," he said July 24:

     http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/s072403.html

 

Some may devalue such comments because Sen. Graham is a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, and a critic of President Bush.  But the same cannot be said of Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), who is a Republican supporter of the President and a "hawk" on protecting classified information.  Yet it was Shelby who said on NBC Meet the Press and elsewhere that "My judgment is 95 percent of that information could be declassified, become uncensored so the American people would know."

 

"Judgment" may be the key word here.  What the dispute over the missing 28 pages illustrates with exceptional clarity is that classification is a subjective process.  Different individuals with comparable expertise and commitment to national security will sometimes assess the sensitivity of particular information in different, even opposing ways.  Because it is subjective, the classification process is susceptible to bias, poor judgment or error.

 

While this is obvious enough, it is also hard to admit.  Asked about Sen. Shelby's contrasting view on July 29, President Bush simply ignored the question.  Grilled at a White House press

briefing, spokesman Scott McClellan could only repeat the Administration position over and over.  See:      http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2003/07/wh072903b.html

 

If the classification process is susceptible to error, then what is needed, and what is lacking, is an effective error correction mechanism.

 

Ironically, the congressional joint inquiry into 9/11 specifically called for "amendments to the Executive Orders, policies and procedures that govern the national security classification of intelligence information, in an effort to expand access to relevant information..." (recommendation 15).

 

But the joint inquiry assigned this crucial task to the President!  Since it is unrealistic to ask a President, especially this President, to limit his own authority to classify, this recommendation is a futile gesture.

 

Sen. Bob Graham said he would ask the Senate Intelligence Committee exercise its own authority to disclose portions of the 28 classified pages, pursuant to a Senate procedure that has never before been utilized.  This would precipitate an extraordinary (and thrilling) confrontation between the executive and legislative branches over classification policy.

 

See that procedure in Section 8(a) of the Rules of the Select Committee on Intelligence here:     http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/s022503.html#8

 

The classified 28 pages are understood to refer to Saudi Arabia and the possible role of Saudi officials in aiding the 9/11 hijackers.

 

"We cannot name this country," said comedian Bill Maher, "but it is, we can assume, a veritable *Mecca* of terrorist activity."

 

"We have nothing to hide," said Saudi foreign minister Prince Saud al-Faisal after meeting with President Bush.  "And we do not seek nor do we need to be shielded.  We believe that releasing the missing 28 pages will allow us to respond to any allegations in a clear and credible manner; and remove any doubts about the Kingdom's true role in the war against terrorism and its commitment to fight it." 

See:  http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2003/07/sa072903.html

Reply via email to