Comments on: Violations of Law May Be Classified, Court Rules http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/10/violations.html Secrecy News from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:51:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: smintheus http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/10/violations.html/comment-page-1#comment-2173 smintheus Tue, 04 Nov 2008 04:44:31 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/?p=2060#comment-2173 Steve, I think Judge Lamberth is right on this. It's natural for governments to use secrecy to conceal illegal acts. A prohibition like this may or may not be especially successful in preventing improper classification, but it does give leverage for prying free improperly classified docs. Steve, I think Judge Lamberth is right on this.

It’s natural for governments to use secrecy to conceal illegal acts. A prohibition like this may or may not be especially successful in preventing improper classification, but it does give leverage for prying free improperly classified docs.

]]> By: Steven Aftergood http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/10/violations.html/comment-page-1#comment-2154 Steven Aftergood Sun, 02 Nov 2008 12:31:14 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/?p=2060#comment-2154 Jerry, my common sense reading of the order's limitation on classification of violations of law is different than your common sense reading. My reading is that the provision is a public assurance that classification will not be used as a shield to conceal violations of law, embarrassment, or inefficiency. I provided an instance involving the Taguba report which appeared to correspond to this rationale. Your reading is that without this provision in the executive order, some classifier might think that violations of law, embarrassment or inefficiency are sufficient grounds for classification. That seems improbable to me. Why would anyone think that information not otherwise subject to classification could be classified to conceal violations of law? Jerry, my common sense reading of the order’s limitation on classification of violations of law is different than your common sense reading.

My reading is that the provision is a public assurance that classification will not be used as a shield to conceal violations of law, embarrassment, or inefficiency. I provided an instance involving the Taguba report which appeared to correspond to this rationale.

Your reading is that without this provision in the executive order, some classifier might think that violations of law, embarrassment or inefficiency are sufficient grounds for classification. That seems improbable to me. Why would anyone think that information not otherwise subject to classification could be classified to conceal violations of law?

]]> By: Jerry http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2008/10/violations.html/comment-page-1#comment-2153 Jerry Sun, 02 Nov 2008 12:28:24 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/?p=2060#comment-2153 Steve, this is a stretch. A common-sense reading of the Executive Order provision would be that concealing violations of law is not grounds for classification of a document that would not otherwise warrant classification. I can’t see that it says that any properly classified document must be declassified merely because it reveals violation of the law. This isn’t a question of the state of mind of the classifier – it is simply a statement that if a document cannot properly be classified on other grounds, the fact that its classification might conceal violation is not sufficient to classify it. One could imagine a statement of government policy to the effect that all violations of law must be divulged, which could lead to some kind of expedited declassification or sanitization process so that the violation (or the fact of the violation, if not details about it) are disclosed without revealing other appropriately classified information. But that is a statement of good government policy, not a statement about classification policy. Steve, this is a stretch. A common-sense reading of the Executive Order provision would be that concealing violations of law is not grounds for classification of a document that would not otherwise warrant classification. I can’t see that it says that any properly classified document must be declassified merely because it reveals violation of the law. This isn’t a question of the state of mind of the classifier – it is simply a statement that if a document cannot properly be classified on other grounds, the fact that its classification might conceal violation is not sufficient to classify it.

One could imagine a statement of government policy to the effect that all violations of law must be divulged, which could lead to some kind of expedited declassification or sanitization process so that the violation (or the fact of the violation, if not details about it) are disclosed without revealing other appropriately classified information. But that is a statement of good government policy, not a statement about classification policy.

]]>