Comments on: A Glimpse of Army Special Operations Forces http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/11/a_glimpse_of_army_special_oper.html Secrecy News from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy Thu, 24 May 2012 10:04:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Steven Aftergood http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/11/a_glimpse_of_army_special_oper.html/comment-page-1#comment-657 Steven Aftergood Thu, 09 Nov 2006 13:25:49 +0000 http://fasweb.beacontec.com/blog/secrecy/2006/11/a_glimpse_of_army_special_operations_forces.html#comment-657 Michael, Thanks for the interesting comment. Like you, I have to take responsibility for what I publish. In this case, a source advised that although unclassified the document did contain operationally sensitive data. I couldn't be certain that was untrue. I didn't return the document or destroy my copy, I just uploaded it selectively. This seemed like the optimum solution under the circumstances. Michael,

Thanks for the interesting comment.

Like you, I have to take responsibility for what I publish. In this case, a source advised that although unclassified the document did contain operationally sensitive data. I couldn’t be certain that was untrue. I didn’t return the document or destroy my copy, I just uploaded it selectively. This seemed like the optimum solution under the circumstances.

]]> By: Michael Smith http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/11/a_glimpse_of_army_special_oper.html/comment-page-1#comment-656 Michael Smith Thu, 09 Nov 2006 07:42:58 +0000 http://fasweb.beacontec.com/blog/secrecy/2006/11/a_glimpse_of_army_special_operations_forces.html#comment-656 Surprised to see you making the decisions as to what should and should not be in the public domain Steve. Isn't that against the ethos of Secrecy News to get what is not classified out into the open? If there were real problems surely they would have classified it? Perhaps they should have done. As for the SecDef authorising covert missions by Special Operations forces, this seems to have been a result of the President's November 2004 consolidated War Powers report to Congress in which he authorised unspecified "short notice deployments of special operations and and other forces for sensitive operations in various locations around the world" adding that it was "not possible to know at this time" what they might be or how long they might last. This generalised presidential authorisation was apparently taken by Rumsfeld as giving him the red light to authorise any Special Operations missions he saw fit. I suspect that this fairly loose interpretation of the rules will change under Gates given his background. Surprised to see you making the decisions as to what should and should not be in the public domain Steve. Isn’t that against the ethos of Secrecy News to get what is not classified out into the open? If there were real problems surely they would have classified it? Perhaps they should have done.

As for the SecDef authorising covert missions by Special Operations forces, this seems to have been a result of the President’s November 2004 consolidated War Powers report to Congress in which he authorised unspecified “short notice deployments of special operations and and other forces for sensitive operations in various locations around the world” adding that it was “not possible to know at this time” what they might be or how long they might last. This generalised presidential authorisation was apparently taken by Rumsfeld as giving him the red light to authorise any Special Operations missions he saw fit. I suspect that this fairly loose interpretation of the rules will change under Gates given his background.

]]>