Behind the Censorship of Operation Dark Heart

The blog of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) is a great little place to visit once in a while. They frequently have some great analysis of current events and nuclear issues, as well as other issues concerning national security and classification issues. So I guess it's no surprise the blog is called Secrecy News.

In this installment, they provide an analysis of the classification criteria of Operation Dark Heart, the recent book which the Pentagon paid the publisher for 10,000 copies of, and then watched them destroy.

By censoring Anthony Shaffer’s new book “Operation Dark Heart” even though uncensored review copies are already available in the public domain, the Department of Defense has produced a genuinely unique product: a revealing snapshot of the way that the Obama Administration classifies national security information in 2010.

With both versions before them (excerpts), readers can see for themselves exactly what the Pentagon classifiers wanted to withhold, and can judge for themselves whether the secrecy they tried to impose can be justified on valid national security grounds. In the majority of instances, the results of such an inspection seem disappointing, if not very surprising, and they tend to confirm the most skeptical view of the operation of the classification system.

And that skeptical view would seem to me to be the excessive use of classification, and withholding of information- on a massive scale- from the public. Perhaps it is befitting then that:

Inspectors General to Help Oversee Classification

The House and Senate this week approved legislation that will require the Inspector General of each executive branch agency that classifies information to evaluate the agency’s classification program and to assess its implementation of classification policies and procedures. The new measure should help to bolster the oversight of the national security classification system, which is currently the sole responsibility of the Information Security Oversight Office.

The provision was included in the “Reducing Over-classification Act” (HR 553), which was originally introduced by Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) and amended by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and which generally seeks to promote improved information sharing.

Now I find it curious that it took an Independent (Lieberman) at all to introduce this legislation, when part of the CHANGE that Obama talked about was to be the most transparent administration in US history.

Epic FAIL on that, Mr. Kenya, err, I mean Mr. President.

Even so, this article offers a worthwhile, rare glimpse into the things classification agents are looking for when performing their duties.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


What I find most enlightening is that we will be able to see clearly what the military/administration considers to be information that impacts national security. Perhaps this will allow us to better determine what their definition of National Security is.

There was a time when I was privy to operations manuals of a secretive nature. The items I like to read most about weren't the actual secrets themselves, but the listings of what was secret and what was not. Things like you can say X and you can say Y but you can't say XY. I can not really go into it further, but the reason I even bring it up was that it gave insight into why things are kept secret and in what manner they are kept secret.

It's these criteria on how to define what is secret and what is not that can be more informative than knowing the actual secrets themselves.

I do look forward to knowing more about the uncensored versions of this book, but will we learn more from the the specific information in these uncensored copies, or will we learn more from the ideas/concepts that the redacted copies are trying to hide.

I don't know if what I said makes total sense...but I hope I got my idea across.

Originally posted by BomSquad
Perhaps this will allow us to better determine what their definition of National Security is.

Well, we do know for example that any evidence linking Israel to 9/11 is classified. National Security.

And, of course, there is always Sibel Edmonds gagged under a federal order. National Security.

And apparently, they won't release any of Obama's records because "it might embarrass him"
:shk: You can betcha he made sure THAT was National Security- since that was one of the very first things he did as President.

But technically, at least from this Executive Order (Clinton 1995):

(a) "National security" means the national defense or foreign relations of the United States.

www.fas.org...

There was a time when I was privy to operations manuals of a secretive nature. The items I like to read most about weren't the actual secrets themselves, but the listings of what was secret and what was not. Things like you can say X and you can say Y but you can't say XY. I can not really go into it further, but the reason I even bring it up was that it gave insight into why things are kept secret and in what manner they are kept secret.

That same EO defines what is to be classified:

Sec. 1.5. Classification Categories.

Information may not be considered for classification unless it concerns:

(a) military plans, weapons systems, or operations;

(b) foreign government information;

(c) intelligence activities (including special activities), intelligence sources or methods, or cryptology;

(d) foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources;

(e) scientific, technological, or economic matters relating to the national security;

(f) United States Government programs for safeguarding nuclear materials or facilities; or

(g) vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations, projects or plans relating to the national security.

It's these criteria on how to define what is secret and what is not that can be more informative than knowing the actual secrets themselves.

Well ok, thanks, but I think I'd rather know the secrets themselves...

Like why Obama did that...among other things....LOTS of other things...