Comments on: 2008 DNI Briefing: Questions for the Record http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2009/06/dni_qfr.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: Allen Thomson http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2009/06/dni_qfr.html/comment-page-1#comment-3886 Allen Thomson Sat, 20 Jun 2009 13:37:39 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/?p=2628#comment-3886 Nemo, I think you're on to something. Nemo, I think you’re on to something.

]]> By: Nemo http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2009/06/dni_qfr.html/comment-page-1#comment-3873 Nemo Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:33:25 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/?p=2628#comment-3873 The Intelligence Community (IC) has and uses "Words of Estimative Probability" (WEPs) in their products (though not as often as they perhaps had ought to); maybe it's time for a different set of "Words of Estimative Probability for National Damage" (WEPND). "Grave National Damage: Having a 4% chance, +/- 3%, of producing measurable effects observable by objective third parties using unclassified means." The Intelligence Community (IC) has and uses “Words of Estimative Probability” (WEPs) in their products (though not as often as they perhaps had ought to); maybe it’s time for a different set of “Words of Estimative Probability for National Damage” (WEPND).

“Grave National Damage: Having a 4% chance, +/- 3%, of producing measurable effects observable by objective third parties using unclassified means.”

]]> By: Allen Thomson http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2009/06/dni_qfr.html/comment-page-1#comment-3863 Allen Thomson Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:20:58 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/?p=2628#comment-3863 > Additional classified information, previously submitted to the SSCI during the years of this matter, remains valid as to the grave national damage caused by this individual [Pollard]. I have no sympathy for Pollard, but -- as in many previous cases when "grave damage" has been asserted by intelligence officials -- I have to wonder what they're talking about. "Grave national damage" sounds pretty grave, and one would think that the signs of that might be perceptible. > Additional classified information, previously submitted to the SSCI during the years of this matter, remains valid as to the grave national damage caused by this individual [Pollard].

I have no sympathy for Pollard, but — as in many previous cases when “grave damage” has been asserted by intelligence officials — I have to wonder what they’re talking about. “Grave national damage” sounds pretty grave, and one would think that the signs of that might be perceptible.

]]>