YETMO

“Divulging Classified Information: One Gets Pulitzer, One Gets Pushed Out”

For the past two days, The Washington Post has reported that a senior intelligence officer working for the CIA was fired after she leaked classified information about alleged foreign prisons.

Today’s edition (Sunday, April 23, 2006) suggests that the firing may be motivated more by an angry administration than by the actual offense. Injecting some balance, the article also acknowledged virtual unanimity among existing and former Intelligence Community (IC) employees that such action was worthy of dismissal.

My last government position was with the Security Office of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA). Under my supervision was the so-called Classification Manager for the agency. He was responsible for ensuring that employees properly “classified” information and protected it accordingly, i.e., not sharing it with unauthorized personnel who did not also have a “need to know” it.

Information falls into several categories, e.g., Confidential, Secret, Top Secret. Each category represents a differing degree of importance (sensitivity) or severity (impact if released to unauthorized people, read: the enemy). In my limited experience, Top Secret material was designated as such if its release would cause “grave damage” to national security. That’s how it was defined, not by the number of people who could be killed, or the dollar amount of property damage, etc. Such clarity would be nice, but obviously impractical. Thus, “grave damage” was the only descriptor.

While such a definition lacks concreteness, its implication is very clear. It would hurt, and hurt badly, if Top Secret information fell into the wrong hands. That’s why it’s “Classified” as “Top Secret.” Employees are expected, through the guidance of folks like the classification manager I supervised, to make these assessments themselves, as they are the employees closest to those programs and data. Once information is classified one way or the other, it must be respected and handled according to approved distribution procedures. If someone believes information has been overclassified, i.e., release would not be as detrimental as its category suggests, a request to change it can be made, and in some cases happens. Key to this is acceptance of and respect for a certain process.

There’s no real value in learning the fired employee’s motive for leaking this information. Maybe she was doing what she thought was right. Maybe she was disgruntled. Maybe she was convinced that the information should not have been classified based on either some political or humanitarian assessment or her agency’s classification criteria. Regardless of the motive, the rules are clear. Release is not acceptable.

Cynics or opponents of any administration may question the concept of “national security.” Many would hold different views of what truly is damaging. Many believe that administrations and agencies blithely classify data so that they won’t have to worry about its disclosure. However, material is not supposed to be classified to avoid embarrassment or any other reason other than an honest and true assessment of national security. If the rules are followed, and some may consider that a big, if not impossible “if,” no classified information can be divulged to anyone other than an authorized office or recipient. That, of course, would not include the media.

But classified information is leaked all the times for all kinds of reasons. True, but not to the point. Even though the IC is trying its best to transform from a strict, legalistic “need to know” operation to a more cooperative and protective “need to share” environment, the sanctity of classified information can’t be compromised.

Those in the Community know this very well. In fact, I recall reading, reciting out loud a paragraph, and signing Standard Form 312 (don’t hold me to the precise number, but it was 300-something) that says in no uncertain terms that if I divulge classified information, even after leaving the government, which I have now that I am a retiree, I am subject to all kinds of nasty stuff, including imprisonment.

Agree with the procedures or not; agree that something is classified properly or not. However, the laws and rules are unequivocal. While a democracy functions best in the sunlight, sometimes, in a classified environment, that functioning is best left inside the affected agencies and offices to do the right thing. As important as blowing whistles may be, protecting our collective national hide is more important.

I may feel sympathy for loss of livelihood of one human being, but I can’t feel regret. It was the right thing to do. The fact that it doesn’t or hasn’t occurred in every case is beside the point. People must honor their pledges and commitment. They must honor their country’s security.

That’s my opinion. What’s yours?