[S]ecurity professionals have a reputation for erring in the direction of overclassification. Not only may information be classified when its revelation would pose no serious security threat, but there have allegedly been instances where agencies classified information for impermissible reasons such as to cover up crimes or avoid embarrassing the agency. Early in his first term President Obama issued Executive Order 13526 designed to tilt the balance toward greater disclosure by emphasizing the need for an unequivocal and strong security or foreign policy nexus before information is classified (“If there is significant doubt about the need to classify information, it shall not be classified.” Sec, 1.1 (4)(b) ) If, however, my experience within one agency was typical, some at the operational level may not have fully bought-in to the President’s slant.[My emphasis]
Of course a Presidential Executive Order is more than a "slant." It is a binding law for those bound by it. The Intelligence Community is bound by Presidential Executive Orders.
In a diary yesterday, I detailed an AP story heavily sourced by IC sources that described the so called "classified information" the IC discovered in 2 Clinton received e-mails:
The two emails on Hillary Rodham Clinton's private server that an auditor deemed "top secret" include a discussion of a news article detailing a U.S. drone operation and a separate conversation that could point back to highly classified material in an improper manner or merely reflect information collected independently, U.S. officials who have reviewed the correspondence told The Associated Press.
Discussion of a news article could be deemed "Top Secret" says the IC. But what does EO 13526 say?
Top Secret" shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.
How could discussion of a news article "reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe?" (My emphasis.) Is it because the discussion "could point back to highly classified material in an improper manner?" But we know that is speculative at best, for the AP reported that "nothing in the emails Clinton received makes clear reference to communications intercepts, confidential intelligence methods or any other form of sensitive sourcing."
So under what conceivable theory could this e-mail be "Top Secret?" The AP story tells the IC story - "The copy makes reference to classified information, and a Clinton adviser follows up by dancing around a top secret in a way that could possibly be inferred as confirmation, they said. Several officials, however, described this claim as tenuous."
By definition, the IC claim is speculative. "Could possibly be inferred?" Really? That's what the IC is hanging its hat on? This simply is not consistent with the principles enunciated in EO 13526.
And to be clear, State thinks the IC is not following the spirit of EO 13526:
NEA decided, consistent with the Attorney General's 2009 FOIA guidance, to redact certain limited information under exemption 5 which reflected deliberations among policy officials
IC insists on total withholding on classification grounds. State clearly believes that's not consistent with EO 13526. It's clear IC is not following the President''s direction on this point.
Now I doubt anyone actually cares about that either, but at least it's a substantive issue. As opposed to the political witch hunt that is EGhazi.
