from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2006, Issue No. 55
May 8, 2006
Secrecy News Blog: http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/
Support Secrecy News: http://www.fas.org/static/contrib_sec.jsp
- CIVIL LIBERTIES AS AN ANTIDOTE TO VIOLENT EXTREMISM
- RETHINKING INTELLIGENCE ANALYSIS
- SELECTED CRS REPORTS
CIVIL LIBERTIES AS AN ANTIDOTE TO VIOLENT EXTREMISM
It is often asserted or assumed that American traditions of open government and civil liberties place the United States at a disadvantage in confronting terrorism. But the opposite may be closer to the truth."In an open society like ours... it is impossible to protect against every threat," said President Bush in an August 24, 2005 speech. "That's a fact we have to deal with. In a free society it is impossible to protect against every possible threat," implying that it might be possible in a closed or unfree society. Similarly, according to February 15 testimony (pdf) by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, "terrorists and criminals... would exploit our open society to do us harm." And "precious little can be done to prevent [terrorist attacks on soft targets] in a society like ours that rightly values personal liberty so highly," wrote Clark Kent Ervin, former Homeland Security Inspector General, in a Washington Post opinion piece on May 7. But a distinctly different perspective was offered by John C. Gannon, former CIA Deputy Director for Intelligence, in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week. Among the reasons that there has not been another terrorist attack on U.S. soil since September 11, he proposed, are precisely the openness and freedom that some others view with anxiety. "I believe that the hard-won Constitutional freedoms enjoyed by Americans, along with our unparalleled commitment to civil liberties embedded in law, work against the development of domestic terrorist networks that could be exploited by foreigners," testified Gannon, who is now a Vice President at BAE Systems Information Technology.
Secrecy News asked Dr. Gannon to elaborate on this point."Americans have unparalleled Constitutional and legal protections to express grievances and to openly criticize government at all levels," he replied in a May 6 email message. "This doesn't mean that terrorists wouldn't try to operate here. It means that the terrorists or other extremists would find less fertile ground to build networks in the US because local support would be harder to come by and because local opposition would be more certain." "In this sense, our liberties are a powerful antidote to violent extremism." "This is not an academic point for me. It is an observation from a career of watching the domestic consequences of repressive regimes elsewhere in the world--including US-friendly Islamic governments such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt," Gannon wrote. The question of whether openness and civil liberties tend to enhance national security or to undermine it is not a theoretical one. Much depends on which one of the two perspectives prevails. If openness and the rule of law are sources of vulnerability, or viewed as such, then they will be quickly surrendered in the name of security. Torture may be redefined to permit non-lethal abuses, habeas corpus may be suspended, statutes regulating domestic surveillance may be disregarded. Conversely, if civil liberties and the rule of law are a source of strength, it follows that they should be bolstered and scrupulously upheld even in the conduct of vital security operations. Secrecy News asked Dr. Gannon whether his views on civil liberties could be reconciled with intelligence programs such as warrantless domestic surveillance. "The NSA warrantless surveillance program--the details of which are mired in secrecy--should not be seen as a tradeoff between security and civil liberties. But, for this to be true, the program must be bound by law and subject to both judicial review and competent Congressional oversight--the latter now in short supply," he explained. "I believe our democracy has the instruments to advance security and protect civil liberties at the same time," he said.
RETHINKING INTELLIGENCE ANALYSIS
A paper by Jeffrey R. Cooper on "Curing Analytical Pathologies" (pdf) that was withheld from the CIA web site but posted on the Federation of American Scientists web site last week has now been downloaded tens of thousands of times, suggesting that there is widespread interest in a critical assessment of intelligence analysis.One of the analytical techniques cited favorably by Cooper (at pp. 48-49) is called "Analysis of Competing Hypotheses" (ACH). More information about this structured, methodologically rigorous approach to intelligence analysis was presented in a January 2000 paper (pdf) by Air Force MSgt Robert D. Folker, Jr. that was published by the Joint Military Intelligence College. The author compared it with less formal approaches and found that it offered significant advantages. "At the heart of this controversy is the question of whether intelligence analysis should be accepted as an art (depending largely on subjective, intuitive judgment) or a science (depending largely on structured, systematic analytic methods)." "Resolving this question is necessary to provide direction and determine an efficient and effective approach to improve analysis," wrote MSgt. Folker. "If qualitative intelligence analysis is an art, then efforts to improve it should focus on measuring the accuracy of one's intuition, selecting those analysts with the best track record, and educating them to become experts in a given field." "If, on the other hand, qualitative intelligence analysis is a science, then analysts should be trained to select the appropriate method for a given problem from a variety of scientific methodologies and exploit it to guide them through the analytical process," he wrote. Based on empirical tests, the author found reasons to conclude that there is indeed a "scientific" dimension to intelligence analysis that has been neglected, and that intelligence analysis would benefit from more structured approaches. See "Intelligence Analysis in Theater Joint Intelligence Centers: An Experiment in Applying Structured Methods" by MSgt Robert D. Folker, Jr. (USAF), Joint Military Intelligence College, January 2000:
SELECTED CRS REPORTS
Some recent reports of the Congressional Research Service obtained by Secrecy News that are not otherwise readily available in the public domain include the following."Federal Habeas Corpus: A Brief Legal Overview," April 26, 2006:
"Federal Habeas Corpus: An Abridged Sketch," April 28, 2006:
"High Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse (HEMP) and High Power Microwave (HPM) Devices: Threat Assessments," updated April 14, 2006:
"Direct Assaults Against Presidents, Presidents-Elect, and Candidates," updated April 5, 2006:
Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the Federation of American Scientists.
The Secrecy News blog is at:
To SUBSCRIBE to Secrecy News, send an email message to email@example.com with "subscribe" (without quotes) in the body of the message.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email message to firstname.lastname@example.org.
OR email your request to email@example.com
Secrecy News is archived at:
SUPPORT Secrecy News with a donation here: