WASHINGTON - Previously public intelligence documents, some more than 50 years old, have been sealed under a secret agreement between the National Archives and three federal agencies, according to records obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
The 2002 agreement, obtained by The Associated Press and released by archivists this week, shows the agency agreed to keep quiet about U.S. intelligence's role in the deal that shut off access to thousands of previously unclassified CIA and Pentagon documents.
The agreement, which the AP requested three years ago, shows archivists were concerned about reclassifying previously available documents but still agreed to keep mum about the arrangement.
The deal said the archives "will not acknowledge the role of (intelligence agencies) in the review of these documents or the withholding of any documents determined to need continued protection from unauthorized disclosure."
The agreement added that the archives "will not disclose the true reason for the presence of (intelligence) personnel at the archives, to include disclosure to persons within NARA who do not have a validated need-to-know."
So some CIA and Pentagon intelligence documents that were originally published, some documents more than 50 years old, have been reclassified by the government, while the National Archives has been told to remain quiet on this action? And the reason for reclassifying these documents will not be disclosed to the public, since that reason is considered secret at a need-to-know? This is outrageous. Why is the government reclassifying these documents?
Now consider this:
Intelligence officials began reviewing documents for reclassification in 1999, The New York Times reported earlier this year. Fearing a potential public outcry, officials with the archives and another unnamed intelligence agency kept the deal quiet.
"It is in the interest of both (unnamed agency) and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to avoid the attention and researcher complaints that may arise from removing material that has already been available publicly from the open shelves for extended periods of time," the agreement said.
The agreement named two of the agencies involved in the reclassification program — the Air Force and the CIA — but removed the name of a third, arguing it would compromise national security, reveal internal government deliberations and violate statutes against disclosure of specific information.
Archives officials said the agency has no power to redact documents, and that names were removed by the Air Force, which negotiated the deal. In congressional testimony last month, Matthew Aid, a historian working at the private National Security Archive who discovered the resealing effort, said the third agency was the Defense Intelligence Agency.
These documents are used by historians, journalists, and political scientists to understand the relationships, and different roles that the U.S. government was involved in the events of the recent history. Without this information, historians are unable to objectively analyze these events. Of course, that is perhaps what the U.S. government may want to have done--to rewrite history according to their own views. Consider this:
The number of documents that have been removed from public view has soared since President Bush took office in 2001 and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks occurred. The reclassified documents, which include 55,000 pages within 10,000 documents, deal with subjects ranging from information about 1948 anti-American riots in Colombia to a 1962 telegram containing a translation of a Belgrade news article about China's nuclear capabilities.
The problem here is that the more the government tries to keep its secrets from its own people, the greater the erosion of trust and credibility between the government and its people will take place. In order for a democracy to function, the government must remain transparent for its people. The moment the government starts claiming more and more of its actions and reasons as secretive, we cease living in a democracy and descend into the depths of a totalitarian dictatorship.
No comments:
Post a Comment