It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.



page: 1

log in


posted on May, 12 2012 @ 01:31 AM
CIA Officials Defy Obama Directive on FOIA which states that "the Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears."

Washington, DC, May 10, 2012 – More than year after the National Security Archive sued the CIA to declassify the full "Official History of the Bay of Pigs Operation," a U.S. District Court judge today sided with the Agency's efforts to keep the last volume of the report secret in perpetuity. In her ruling, Judge Gladys Kessler accepted the CIA's legal arguments that, because Volume V was a "draft" and never officially approved for inclusion in the Agency's official history, it was exempt from declassification under the "deliberative process privilege" despite having been written over 30 years ago.

The National Security Archive called the decision "a regrettable blow to the right-to-know" and vowed to press the Obama administration to force the CIA to adhere to the President's Executive Order 13526 that "no information shall remain classified indefinitely."

The volume, titled "CIA's Internal Investigations of the Bay of Pigs Operations," was written by CIA historian Jack Pfeiffer in 1981. It forcefully critiqued the scathing investigative report written in the immediate aftermath of the paramilitary attack – by the CIA's own Inspector General, Lyman Kirkpatrick – which held CIA planners fully responsible for the worst debacle in the Agency's covert history. In court papers, CIA officials described Pfeiffer's critique as "a polemic of recriminations against CIA officers who later criticized the operation."

"When it comes to protecting its own, the CIA appears to have a double-standard on history," said Peter Kornbluh who directs the National Security Archive's Cuba Documentation Project which brought the FOIA lawsuit. Kornbluh noted that the CIA had no problem declassifying Volume IV of the official history–also a draft– in which Pfeiffer attacked both President Kennedy for his role in setting restrictions on the overt elements of what was supposed to be a covert, and "plausibly deniable," operation, as well as Attorney General Robert Kennedy for his role in the Presidential commission, led by Gen. Maxwell Taylor, that investigated the failed invasion.

"Apparently, the CIA sees no problem in the American public reading a 'polemic of recriminations' against the White House," according to Kornbluh. "But the CIA claims 'historical accuracy' as a reason to withhold documents critical of its own officials."

In her ruling, Judge Kessler stated that "disclosure of a draft history would risk public release of inaccurate historical information." She also cited the arguments of CIA Chief Historian David Robarge that "disclosure of Volume V would have a chilling effect on CIA's current historians who would henceforth be inhibited from trying out innovative, unorthodox or unpopular interpretations in a draft manuscript."

But the Archive characterized the CIA's effort to cast itself as guardian of accurate and honest history as an exercise in cynicism. "The idea that the CIA can advance the cause of accurate historical analysis by hiding history from the peer review of the public is preposterous," Kornbluh stated. He noted that it was the Agency's selective declassification of the Pfeiffer volumes that fostered inaccurate historical information. "The real chilling effect of the CIA's selective cover up is on the public's ability to access and analyze the complete historical record on the Bay of Pigs."

The Archive's lawsuit did yield the release of Volumes I, II, and IV. Volume III was previously released under the Kennedy Assassination Records Act in 1998. Those four volumes can be read here.

posted on May, 12 2012 @ 02:41 AM
What can be so bad they don't want us to know about that?

How can it be worse then what we already know?
We know the CIA set up cuban exiles with the funds and training in the hopes of doing exactly what fidel and che did. And we also know Kennedy knew and approved. And don't forget about the multiple assassination attempts.

What they hell else did they do they don't want us to know about :S

posted on May, 12 2012 @ 02:51 AM
After all these years the CIA is still embarrassed by the Bay Of Pigs.Why cover this up still? Perhaps it would reveal more then they want.Fighting the National Security Archive over this kinda odd to me.The Agency claims that if released it will make their historians reluctant to try new methods of research.

posted on May, 13 2012 @ 12:01 AM
reply to post by mike dangerously

Excuse me for being petty, but I would have appreciated a link to the work you posted. Do you have it available?

posted on May, 13 2012 @ 12:29 AM
It seems a strange order for Obama to give while he goes about similar false flag operations.

posted on May, 13 2012 @ 12:29 AM
It seems a strange order for Obama to give while he goes about similar false flag operations.

posted on May, 13 2012 @ 02:34 AM
the crims all aways get away they run things

posted on May, 13 2012 @ 02:45 AM
reply to post by charles1952
Sure here ya go:Bay Of Pigs Cover Up Hope it proves useful.

posted on May, 13 2012 @ 03:17 AM
John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

posted on May, 13 2012 @ 08:17 PM
reply to post by mike dangerously

Dear mike dangerously,

Thanks, very helpful. I went to the link and looked at the decision. It appears that this was litigated in 1989, and this judge was simply saying the first judge got it right.

This is not the first time the CIA has denied a FOIA request for Volume V. In 1989, Judge John H. Pratt considered a request by Dr. Pfeiffer, who had by then retired, for access to Volume V. Pfeiffer v. CIA, 721 F. Supp. 337, 338 (D.D.C. 1989).

Judge Pratt found that Volume V was a predecisional draft, stating: We are unpersuaded that the Internal Investigation Report that plaintiff seeks to have disclosed is a “final” agency history, nor are we convinced that plaintiff had authority to unclassify the material. The subjective views of a staff member that the decision-making process is complete and “final” when he submits his recommendation to a superior is of no consequence. Id. at 340. Therefore, Judge Pratt held that Volume V was properly withheld under Exemption 5. Id. at 341.
This Court finds no reason to depart from Judge Pratt’s sound conclusion.
Looks like we're not going to see it.

With respect,

posted on May, 13 2012 @ 08:56 PM
When you understand all the questions they change the answers.
Freedom of Information Act (United States) - Wikipedia, the ... - Similarto Freedom of Information Act (United States) - Wikipedia, the ...

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is a federal freedom of information law that allows for the full or partial disclosure of previously unreleased information ...

Background - Scope - History - Notable cases

1995-99 expansion

Star and FLAG + an atta boy
Between 1995 and 1999, President Clinton issued executive directives (and amendments to the directives) that allowed the release of previously classified national security documents more than 25 years old and of historical interest, as part of the FOIA.[14] This release of information allowed many previously publicly unknown details about the Cold War and other historical events to be discussed openly.[12]

edit on 5/13/2012 by longjohnbritches because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics


log in