from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2010, Issue No. 14
February 16, 2010
Secrecy News Blog: http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/
- PUBLIC INPUT ON OPEN GOVERNMENT SOLICITED
- MILITARY INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONAL BULLETIN
- NO U.S. CITIZENS ON CIA HIT LISTS
PUBLIC INPUT ON OPEN GOVERNMENT SOLICITED
The Obama Administration's open government initiative might possibly inspire a transformation in the character of government operations along with an expansion of citizen engagement in policy development. But in order to succeed, it needs some thoughtful, creative input from members of the public.
All Cabinet level agencies (and a few others) have now prepared Open Government Webpages to document their progress in improving transparency and to solicit public suggestions for how to proceed, including recommendations for development of the Open Government Plans that will define each agency's transparency program.
What this means is that "openness" is becoming incorporated into the bureaucratic machinery of government. While executive branch agencies remain constrained by security restrictions, resource limits and other considerations, these rule-driven organizations are being given some new rules to follow.
But the actual contours of the new thrust towards openness -- its scope, its content, its urgency -- depend significantly on the quality of feedback and support that the initiative receives from the interested public.
Agencies need specific, achievable, actionable suggestions for how to meet their new openness obligations. Each agency's openness webpage invites readers to "share your ideas" on how to proceed. There has never been a better time for concerned citizens to help shape the government transparency agenda. (Actually, there has never been a "government transparency agenda" before.)
And there is a premium on good ideas. Proposals that are unintelligible, impractical, irrelevant, or inane are effectively endorsements of the status quo because they cannot be implemented.
What kind of ideas would be useful and appropriate? Those who already interact with each particular agency will be in the best position to say what that agency could and should provide to help advance the Administration's declared goals of transparency, participation and collaboration.
But one general approach to the issue is to consider the diverse categories of government information that have been removed from public access over the past decade, and to use those as a metaphorical trail of bread crumbs leading back to a more transparent posture. Restoring access to that missing information could help agencies to reorient their policies and to chart a new direction forward. And it is clearly within the realm of possibility, since it has already been done.
So, for example, these are some suggestions that we have submitted for agency consideration:
Restore public access to the Los Alamos Technical Report Library. Until 2002, thousands of unclassified technical reports from Los Alamos National Laboratory dating back half a century and longer were publicly available on the Lab web site. And then they weren't. They constitute an invaluable archive of technological development, historical information, and current scientific research. A sizable fraction of the sequestered reports have been republished on the Federation of American Scientists website. But the entire collection, with updated content since 2002, should be restored to the public domain.
Restore public access to orbital element data. For many years, NASA provided direct public access to so-called Two-Line Element sets that characterize the orbits of the many objects in Earth orbit that are tracked by Air Force surveillance, including active and defunct U.S. and foreign spacecraft, as well as significant debris. In 2004, open public access was terminated. That step should be reversed.
Publish the Defense Department telephone directory. For decades, the Pentagon telephone directory served as a public guide to the complex structure of the Department of Defense, and provided a way to establish direct contact with individual offices and officials. It was always for sale at the Government Printing Office Bookstore to anyone who cared to buy it. But in 2001, the DoD telephone directory was designated "for official use only." In the interests of "openness, participation, and collaboration," public access to the DoD directory should be restored. (Other agencies with national security and foreign policy missions including the Department of Energy and the Department of State already make their personnel directories available online.)
There must be countless other possibilities for moving towards a more open, responsive and accountable government. Some will be of broad interest, while others may serve a specialized constituency. Some will be easily achievable, others may require new investments or new modes of operation. But all of a sudden, "openness" is on the government-wide agenda in a way that it has never been before. The opportunities are there to be seized.
MILITARY INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONAL BULLETIN
Among the untold official resources that have been removed from public access in recent years is the Army's Military Intelligence Professional Bulletin, a quarterly journal on Army intelligence policy and practice.
We have made a commitment to restoring access to the Bulletin, including current and past issues. The latest issue, dated April-June 2009, has just been released to us under the Freedom of Information Act. It is entitled "Operations in OEF: Afghanistan."
Possibly annoyed by our repeated FOIA requests for the Bulletin over a period of years, an Army official at Fort Huachuca informed us this week that "the Bulletin will soon be published on public web pages again."
NO U.S. CITIZENS ON CIA HIT LISTS
It is useful to be reminded from time to time that not every allegation or published report concerning Central Intelligence Agency operations is necessarily true.
A front-page story in the Washington Post on January 27 included the remarkable statement that "Both the CIA and the JSOC [Joint Special Operations Command of the Department of Defense] maintain lists of individuals... whom they seek to kill or capture. The JSOC list includes three Americans, including [Islamist cleric Anwar al-] Aulaqi, whose name was added late last year. As of several months ago, the CIA list included three U.S. citizens, and an intelligence official said that Aulaqi's name has now been added."
But at least the part about the CIA list turns out to be unfounded.
"The article referred incorrectly to the presence of U.S. citizens on a CIA list of people the agency seeks to kill or capture," the Washington Post said in a correction published in the February 12 edition. "After The Post's report was published, a source said that a statement the source made about the CIA list was misunderstood. Additional reporting produced no independent confirmation of the original report, and a CIA spokesman said that The Post's account of the list was incorrect. The military's Joint Special Operations Command maintains a target list that includes several Americans. In recent weeks, U.S. officials have said that the government is prepared to kill U.S. citizens who are believed to be involved in terrorist activities that threaten Americans."
The correction has been appended to the online version of the article.
On February 3, Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair testified to his view that U.S. government agencies may use lethal force against U.S. citizens who are involved in terrorist activities. "We don't target people for free speech," he said. "We target them for taking action that threatens Americans."
"I'm actually a little bit surprised you went this far in open session," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) at the hearing of the House Intelligence Committee.
"The reason I went this far in open session," replied DNI Blair, "is I just don't want other Americans who are watching to think that we are careless about endangering -- in fact, we're not careless about endangering lives at all, but we especially are not careless about endangering American lives as we try to carry out the policies to protect most of the country. And I think we ought to go into details in closed session."
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, go to:
To UNSUBSCRIBE, go to:
OR email your request to email@example.com
Secrecy News is archived at:SUPPORT the FAS Project on Government Secrecy with a donation here: