Sec50

SECRECY & GOVERNMENT BULLETINIssue Number 50July 1995House Committee Attacks Declassification In a breathtaking assault on President Clinton's efforts to openup the secret history of the cold war era, the House IntelligenceCommittee has moved to restrict funding for the declassification ofdocuments that are more than 25 years old. The House version of the 1996 Intelligence Authorization Actwould prohibit each intelligence agency from spending more than $2.5million to declassify old intelligence documents. And the permittedspending is supposed to be used "to assess the scope and cost of thedeclassification program." (H. Rep. 104-138, pt.1). "The Committee believes that the potential costs associated withthe declassification programs required by executive order 12958 have notbeen fully evaluated," the House report stated. Belying its supposed concern about controlling costs, however,the Committee did not place any limits at all on classificationactivity, even though it is vastly more expensive than declassification,consuming perhaps $10 billion per year government-wide. Overall, theCommittee authorized 5% more spending for the National ForeignIntelligence Program than was appropriated last year, and 1.3% more intotal intelligence spending than the President requested. The Committee also directed that a specific line item fordeclassification be included in future budget submissions, renderingfuture declassification efforts vulnerable to further targeted cutbacks. The Committee attack on declassification was precipitated by amischievous suggestion from then-DCI James Woolsey that complying withthe President's declassification order could cost $500 million over 5years. This inflated figure assumed page by page review (not automaticdeclassification) at a rate 15 times longer per page than needed byreviewers at the National Archives, according to one official. In aJune 9 memorandum to the Moynihan Commission on Protecting and ReducingGovernment Secrecy, Steven Garfinkel of the Information SecurityOversight Office described the CIA estimate as "a preliminary,unofficial and non-scientific survey" resulting in an overestimate ofcosts. But the House Committee, which opposes public disclosure ofnearly anything concerning intelligence, seized upon the CIA estimate asa pretext to restrict declassification activity. Instead of serving asan instrument of public accountability, the Committee has now become anobstacle to it. One might easily conclude that openness andaccountability would be enhanced if it did not exist. The only good news here is that the Committee seems to havemisunderstood the terms of the President's executive order, whichrequires automatic declassification over a five year period "whether ornot the records have been reviewed." Congressional opponents ofopenness can reduce or eliminate funding for declassification review,but declassification remains the prerogative of the President. A copy of House Report 104-138, part 1, may be requested fromthe House Document Room at 202-225-3456.Air Force Classifies and Ex-Employee Dies In the latest of a series of dubious legal maneuvers, the AirForce has retroactively classified a widely-circulated manual describingsecurity procedures at the unacknowledged military facility near GroomLake, Nevada. The action came in the course of a precedent-setting lawsuitagainst the Air Force alleging environmental crimes at the site. Theongoing lawsuit was filed by Prof. Jonathan Turley of George WashingtonUniversity, in cooperation with the Project on Government Oversight, onbehalf of six anonymous plaintiffs, one of whom died last month ofillnesses he attributed to his employment at the Groom facility. Classification policy has figured prominently in the lawsuit,with the government warning of "exceptionally grave damage to nationalsecurity" if even the most trivial detail about the site- - such as itsofficial name-- were to be acknowledged. (See "Suddenly, Your Briefcaseis Classified," by Benjamin Wittes, Legal Times, 6/26/95, which alsoincludes a fine photo of the secret base credited to Agent X.) Instead of addressing the pattern of illnesses suffered by theplaintiffs, who are former employees at the site, and either settling ordisproving their claims, the government has opted to play legal gamesusing classification as a litigation tactic. Air Force Secretary Sheila Widnall said that disclosing the nameof the site or the fact that jet fuel or similar materials are onlocation "increases the risk to the lives of United States personnel anddecreases the probability of successful mission accomplishments." (LasVegas Review-Journal, 5/5/95). But the Air Force's laudable concern with hypothetical dangersto life apparently does not extend to the actual dangers alleged by theplaintiffs, two of whom have now died from what they claimed werework-related exposures to toxic materials. In the lawsuit, Professor Turley submitted a copy of the AirForce security manual from the facility as evidence that much of whatthe government claimed was classified was actually unclassified (albeitfor official use only) and in the public domain. After the governmentclassified the manual (and Turley's pleading) in response, the manualwas promptly posted on the Internet by Glenn Campbell of the Area 51Research Center. The manual itself, which contains considerable information aboutthe facility structure and security procedures, does not have greatpublic interest value. But its widespread dissemination is significantas a resounding vote of no confidence in government classificationpolicies.Secrecy Continued to Expand in 1994 The expansion of the government secrecy system continued in 1994but at a substantially slower rate than in past years, according to thelatest annual report of the Information Security Oversight Office(ISOO). The total number of classification "actions" dropped by 26% to4.7 million, the lowest ever reported by ISOO in its 15 annual reports.(Each "action" represents the classification of a unit of information,whether it is a single word or a thousand page report.) At the same time, ISOO says, "1994 was a banner year fordeclassification" with some 11.2 million pages declassified, an increaseof 70% from the previous year. (The November 1994 bulk declassificationof 44 million pages is not included in the total for fiscal year 1994which ended September 30.) Despite these significant changes, however, the secrecy systemcontinued to expand. This fact is obscured in the report, whichmeasures classification in "actions" and declassification in "pages."But ISOO Director Steven Garfinkel confirmed that classificationcontinued to outpace declassification. The exploding inventory of secret government documents wasbemoaned by the new Archivist of the United States, John W. Carlin, atan impressive appearance before the Commission on Protecting andReducing Government Secrecy on June 20. Mr. Carlin noted that the backlog of 25 year old documentsawaiting review at the National Archives had nearly quadrupled from 126million pages ten years ago to 450 million pages today. "Unless the new executive order [requiring automaticdeclassification of most 25 year old documents] is successful, thesituation will only get worse," Carlin said. "Not only do we have aserious problem today, it is accelerating." Mr. Carlin explained to the Commissioners that bulkdeclassification of old documents can be performed very inexpensively.He noted that when the President ordered the declassification of some 44million pages of World War II and other records last November, the costof implementing the order was a mere $386 per million pagesdeclassified. A copy of the 1994 ISOO Annual Report, which contains the textof several recent executive orders on classification and other usefuldata, may be requested from the Information Security Oversight Office,750 17th Street NW, Suite 530, Washington, DC 20006.President "Distressed" by Leaks As the credibility of the classification system continues toerode, President Clinton condemned the unauthorized disclosure ofclassified information and warned that leakers could be subject tocriminal prosecution. "I have been extremely distressed by several recent, deliberateand unauthorized disclosures of highly sensitive, national securityinformation. Such disclosures cannot and will not be treated asinnocent 'leaks' of Government information. They compromise seriousnational security secrets and put at risk lives and vital U.S.interests. Such disclosures also violate U.S. law, and will be referredto the Department of Justice for investigation, as appropriate, andprosecution," the President wrote in a May 2 memorandum to CabinetSecretaries. The memorandum was first reported in the Washington Times(6/5/95, p. A4) which also reported the existence of two intelligencecommunity components that track leaks. The Unauthorized DisclosureAnalysis Committee "has analysts who read newspapers looking forclassified information and try to determine its source.... The committeealso maintains a database of reporters' names and the number of leaksattributed to them," the Times said. A copy of the memorandum, which was obtained from an officialwho asked not to be identified, may be found at the FAS Website.Lukewarm Documents The following documents are available at the secrecy orintelligence reform homepages at the FAS Website."Security Policy Board Goals and Accomplishments," May 19, 1995, 12 pp.of viewgraphs. This briefing package presents a rosy self-portrait ofthe secretive interagency Security Policy Board, which has in factaccomplished one or two useful things. Some of the representations inthe document are questionable, however, such as the 1995 goal to "fosterand facilitate a national dialogue on information systems securityvulnerabilities that encompasses both classified and sensitive butunclassified systems." In reality, the Board has tended to suppress anysuch dialogue by rebuffing press inquiries and closing its meetings tomembers of the public (except for defense contractor lobbyists).Otherwise, the Board's primary contribution on this topic has been animpressive volume of unauthorized disclosures. The briefing also doesnot mention that the Board is in violation of the spirit and probablythe letter of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) which requiresopen meetings. The Board cannot claim the FACA exemption for groupsthat are established by the CIA, according to a Justice Departmentattorney, because it was established by Presidential directive."Classification Management Committee Charter," May 9, 1995 (draft).This new committee was established by the Security Policy Board "tocoordinate, formulate and evaluate the US government's classificationmanagement policy," etc. Having failed to usurp ISOO's responsibilityfor classification management under the new executive order, theSecurity Policy Board did the next best thing and appointed the ISOODirector to be chairman of its classification management committee,thereby subjecting ISOO to the Board's authority. Someone's beenreading Machiavelli."Guidance for Agency Development of Automatic Declassification Plans,"ISOO, June 8 (draft). This is a draft for comment describing agencyresponsibilities for implementing the automatic declassificationrequirements of the new executive order."Security and Safeguards Estimates," Security Policy Board, 21 April1995. This document outlines the many different categories of securityactivities and provides a framework for reporting secrecy and securityrelated costs. It is supposed to be used as a template in fiscal year1997 budget documents.Commission on the Roles and Capabilities of the United StatesIntelligence Community, "Scope of the Commission's Inquiry," 6 June1995, 27 pages. This is the "work plan" for the Commission that washeaded by the late Les Aspin. It consists of lots of broad, open-endedquestions with passing reference to the need for improved oversight,openness and accountability.Secrecy & Government Bulletin is written by Steven Aftergood andpublished by the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), a 50 year oldpublic interest organization of natural and social scientists concernedwith issues of science and society. The FAS Project on GovernmentSecrecy is supported by grants from the HKH Foundation and the CS Fund.Back issues are available by gopher to fas.psych.nwu.edu and at the FASWeb site at http://www.fas.org/pub/gen/fas/. This publication may befreely reproduced.