State Department Secrecy: What a Bunch of Crap!

/in , /by

Since the issue of State Department secrecy — breached by the WikiLeaks cable dump — has been a topic of discussion, I thought it worthwhile to point to this National Security Archive post describing a particular FOIA appeal.

Eleven years ago, in those halcyon pre-9/11 days, Frank Pallone sponsored a resolution declaring Pakistan a state sponsor of terror reading, in part,

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Pakistan should be designated as a state sponsor of terrorism.

Whereas reliable reports from Western media sources have cited Pakistan as a base and training ground for terrorist groups, and the Pakistani Government’s demonstrated reluctance to halt the use of its soil for terrorist organizations;

Whereas media reports have implicated Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) directly in terrorist activities, as well as the international drug trade;

[snip]

Whereas Pakistan is one of three countries to recognize the Taliban in Afghanistan;

Whereas the Taliban, which has been declared a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. Department of State, has provided refuge and assistance to Osama Bin Laden;

Whereas the U.S. Department of State has declared Osama Bin Laden and associates as a foreign terrorist organization;

Whereas Pakistan has hindered U.S. and international efforts to apprehend Osama Bin Laden;

Whereas Pakistan was placed on the U.S. Department of State’s `watch list’ of suspected state sponsors of international terrorism in 1993;

When NSA first got the document in response to a FOIA, there was a square marking on the upper right corner redacted under the deliberative exception. The NSA appealed and won and — voila! It turns out some State Department flunky who reviewed the proposed legislation 11 years ago had declared, “What a bunch of crap!”

I can see why our government wouldn’t want us to know that, when presented with a resolution condemning Pakistan for actions that made it easier for Osama bin Laden and a bunch of other terrorists we have since gone to war against to operate, some bureaucrat responded by declaring “what a bunch of crap!” How terrible it would be after all, if the citizens paying that bureaucrat’s salary got to see what bad judgment he or she had!

But can the State Department understand how, faced with an effort to hide the State Department’s own bad judgment, we citizens might not trust its judgment on secrecy, much less policy?

image_print
  2. DWBartoo says:

    Is there any actual evidence to suggest that the State Department really gives a fig whether the citizens of this country trust its judgment about anything, including secrecy OR policy?

    Especially if it can keep such judgment secret?

    Say with a time-lag of eleven years … at the minimum?

    And, even more especially, “looking forward”?

    DW

  3. DWBartoo says:

    OT … BTW I am looking forward (seriously, those words still have some semblance of reasonable usefulness … I hope) to whatever bmaz may share with us.

    DW

    • DWBartoo says:

      Ah, a stout MadDog after me own heart.

      Comin’ up, then.

      Be ye orange or green?

      Na that it matters a wee …

      DW

        • DWBartoo says:

          Ah ha! A dogma of a different colouration.

          Jus’ so long as ye dinna doggo out with brittle Anglishmen in the midday sun … MD, else ye’ll be a wee hot doggeral, however spirited.

          ;~DW

  5. lareineblanche says:

    LOL

    Chalmers Johnson, recently deceased, said in one of his last interviews how he explained to his wife that the reason much of the CIA documents (he was an analyst) were classified was because the level of many of the reports was simply embarrassing. I’d like to find that video again…

  7. MaryCh says:

    I’ll give you totally off topic (I realize BMAZ likely has better things to think about right now but…) Oregon 19, Auburn 22 Arrgh! (or as the Oregonian webpage put it, Aw, Burn

  8. lysias says:

    I know that, when I worked in the Pentagon in 1993-4, people there were very annoyed by the Pressler Amendment, which, after it was passed in 1985, banned most economic and military assistance to Pakistan unless the President certified on an annual basis that[8] “Pakistan does not possess a nuclear explosive device and that the proposed United States assistance program will reduce significantly the risk that Pakistan will possess a nuclear explosive device.” Which may explain why the U.S. government turned such a blind eye to Pakistan’s development of nuclear weapons.

  9. Mary says:

    OT, but I believe Burge has his sentencing hearing today
    He’s eligible for 20ish years. The sentencing recommendation is 15ish months. His lawyers as asking for probation bc he served in Korea.
    http://www.kwqc.com/Global/story.asp?S=13821133

    Whatever.

    He tortured; had multiple torture cohorts; set up the equivalent of black sites; caused many men – around 20 or so are still in prison- suffer not only through torture but through a loss of freedom for decades; highlighted a justice system that deliberately sat out the statute of limitations to block consequences for the torturers while simultaneously keeping their torture victims in prison (and the brother of the Cook County atty who turned a blind eye to Burge’s torture is now Obama’s Chief of Staff); cost the State and County huge amounts that can’t go to education or reform or bolstering legitimate law enforcement; cost the justice system it’s credibility – yeah, probation sounds about right.

    OTOH, there are consequences to the fact that a corrupted justice system sat out the sol for torture. It means the actual torture isn’t on the table. Just as the Department of Justice has deliberately and deliberatively chosen to sit out sols for its own torturers and will never face any real consequences for that decision – the Cook County attys office that waited out the sol for Burge & Co to protect its own torturers has inflicted huge damage and will never have any consequence.

    Except, like all the WH torture allies, the consequence of living in the world they created.

    So its one more day for the gods of irony to put in their column. The DOJ is showing up to pursue sentencing for Burge while it is still actively engaged in covering up and protecting its own torture involvement and torturer “clients.” It’s hard to know what to hope for – easier to hope that the 20 or so still imprisoned get some kind of full and fair review. Given the resistance of the Bush and Obama WHs, through their wholly owned DOJs and pro-executive power judicial appointments, to full and fair review for torture victims, it’s hard to have more faith in the state system than the federal model.

  10. lysias says:

    If Matt Damon’s CIA character in The Good Shepherd is based, as I believe he is, on James Jesus Angleton, then he had a Mexican mother. (In fact, Angleton’s middle name reflects his half-Mexican ancestry.) Angleton spent most of his youth in Italy and England.

    So, why would he think he was one of the people to whom the United States belonged, whereas the Mafia big shot he was talking to was just visiting? Just because he was a Yalie?

    • lysias says:

      Well, that may just be Robert De Niro’s Italian-American resentment of WASP arrogance and complacency speaking. De Niro not only directed the movie, but also played a key role in finding financing for the movie, as well as having the script substantially rewritten so as to fit his ideas.

      If memory serves, De Niro himself, acting a lightly fictionalized version of Wild Bill Donovan, comments at one point in the movie how unusual it is for a Catholic like himself to have such a high position in America.

      By the way, I wonder what religion Angleton was. His Mexican mother was Catholic. He lived a lot of his youth in Italy. Various sites on the Web say he was a Knight of Malta.