Comments on: FAS As a “Front Company” http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2009/03/front_company.html Secrecy News from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy Wed, 15 Feb 2012 05:45:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Adriano http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2009/03/front_company.html/comment-page-1#comment-3330 Adriano Mon, 13 Apr 2009 08:38:49 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/?p=2374#comment-3330 Robert, I think I understand your worries, and I respect them, but: As far as I know, Mr. Aftergood has been publishing officially DECLASSIFIED documents concerning not only the U.S. Marine Corps, but many other American state institutions. If the institution - the Marine Corps or any other - has analyzed and decided to declassify a document, the public understands that the document (or, at least, the portion which has been released) was considered not able to harm or threaten the security of the country and/or its officials/officers/soldiers/agents. Of couse, information not important to one may be crucial to others, and a single piece of information may not cause any harm but, combined with other pieces already declassified in the past or from other sources…the set of those pieces together may sometimes produce very “destructive” material. BUT THIS RESPONSIBILITY IS NOT MR. AFTERGOOD’S, nor the public’s…it is part of the responsibilities and major concerns of the analysts in charge of declassifying or not the official papers. They are paid to do that. If the Marines are worried about (possibly) compromising information regarding them published at Secrecy News, they should complain to their personnel responsible for declassifying their papers, not to Mr. Aftergood and other people who, like him, struggle to bring to the light (and to the citizens/voters) many “wrongdoings” carried out in secrecy by the governing officials, civil servants and/or the armed forces. Secrecy may be necessary to the building of a realistic and effective security system of a nation, but secrecy can bring many “temptations” with it and too much secrecy can destroy any democracy anywhere… Robert,

I think I understand your worries, and I respect them, but:

As far as I know, Mr. Aftergood has been publishing officially DECLASSIFIED documents concerning not only the U.S. Marine Corps, but many other American state institutions. If the institution – the Marine Corps or any other – has analyzed and decided to declassify a document, the public understands that the document (or, at least, the portion which has been released) was considered not able to harm or threaten the security of the country and/or its officials/officers/soldiers/agents. Of couse, information not important to one may be crucial to others, and a single piece of information may not cause any harm but, combined with other pieces already declassified in the past or from other sources…the set of those pieces together may sometimes produce very “destructive” material. BUT THIS RESPONSIBILITY IS NOT MR. AFTERGOOD’S, nor the public’s…it is part of the responsibilities and major concerns of the analysts in charge of declassifying or not the official papers. They are paid to do that.

If the Marines are worried about (possibly) compromising information regarding them published at Secrecy News, they should complain to their personnel responsible for declassifying their papers, not to Mr. Aftergood and other people who, like him, struggle to bring to the light (and to the citizens/voters) many “wrongdoings” carried out in secrecy by the governing officials, civil servants and/or the armed forces. Secrecy may be necessary to the building of a realistic and effective security system of a nation, but secrecy can bring many “temptations” with it and too much secrecy can destroy any democracy anywhere…

]]> By: Glen Ropella http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2009/03/front_company.html/comment-page-1#comment-2937 Glen Ropella Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:13:08 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/?p=2374#comment-2937 Robert: Perhaps the Marines are right to be cautious and to set their classification procedures in dialectic opposition to the principles of FAS. But to assert that the FAS is a "front company"? That's hyperbolic enough for the author's boss to worry about his or her competence. Robert: Perhaps the Marines are right to be cautious and to set their classification procedures in dialectic opposition to the principles of FAS. But to assert that the FAS is a “front company”? That’s hyperbolic enough for the author’s boss to worry about his or her competence.

]]> By: Robert http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2009/03/front_company.html/comment-page-1#comment-2934 Robert Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:17:53 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/?p=2374#comment-2934 I read your article regarding the Marine Corp briefing paper and it exposes the healthy tug of war between transparency and secrecy. The Marines are expressing a frustration with the publication of information that may be detrimental to our and their security. It is naive to think that people who are intent on causing us harm don’t read FAS newsletters and get useful information. No one can make a determination of what constitutes useful information unless they have all the information - i.e the information that is classified and not available. I’m sure you are cautious and I’ll bet there are things that you have not published. In reality the decisions concerning what to publish are made in the dark. When one takes into account the possible ramifications if you make the wrong decision the Marine Corps' statement becomes understandable. If transparency is considered more important than the potential for a security problem then I think the Marines are right. I read your article regarding the Marine Corp briefing paper and it exposes the healthy tug of war between transparency and secrecy.

The Marines are expressing a frustration with the publication of information that may be detrimental to our and their security.

It is naive to think that people who are intent on causing us harm don’t read FAS newsletters and get useful information. No one can make a determination of what constitutes useful information unless they have all the information – i.e the information that is classified and not available. I’m sure you are cautious and I’ll bet there are things that you have not published. In reality the decisions concerning what to publish are made in the dark.

When one takes into account the possible ramifications if you make the wrong decision the Marine Corps’ statement becomes understandable. If transparency is considered more important than the potential for a security problem then I think the Marines are right.

]]>