1115.org

Safety doesn’t lie in numbers, safety lies in keeping ugly secrets secret. Loose lips sink ships, and so does the Freedom of Information Act.

(1)

So now it’s a formal legal argument: such-and-such information (about past government misdeeds) must be kept secret forever, because to allow this information to become public would benefit al-Qaeda’s recruitment efforts.

The Obama administration objected yesterday to the release of certain Bush-era documents that detail the videotaped interrogations of CIA detainees at secret prisons, arguing to a federal judge that doing so would endanger national security and benefit al-Qaeda’s recruitment efforts.

Note that this charming argument comes to us not from the Bush administration but from the Obama administration, which continues to be determined to out-Bush Bush.

Moreover, here’s what CIA Director Leon E. Panetta is going around saying in sworn affidavits:

The forced disclosure of such material to the American Civil Liberties Union “could be expected to result in exceptionally grave damage to the national security by informing our enemies of what we knew about them, and when, and in some instances, how we obtained the intelligence we possessed,” Panetta argued.

I don’t think Panetta has thought this through.

We still want to catch bin Laden, right? Well, release the “Bush-era documents that detail the videotaped interrogations of CIA detainees at secret prisons”. Everyone at al-Qaeda should get a huge laugh out of some of the lies we were fed by the high-value detainees who were key linchpins of al-Qaeda, lies that we swallowed wholesale. They may even get a few laughs out of who we regarded as key linchpins of al-Qaeda. The belly-laughs should be loud enough wherever bin Laden is hiding to register on the Richter scale. So all we would need is a few sensitive instruments in the right places, and Barack Obama might actually be able to get Dick Cheney (and little Lizzie) to shut up forever on the subject of national security and al-Qaeda and enhanced interrogation techniques and the war on terror.

(2)

In an affidavit, CIA Director Leon E. Panetta defended the classification of records describing the contents of the 92 videotapes, their destruction by the CIA in 2005 and what he called “sensitive operational information” about the interrogations.
[...]
A federal prosecutor continues to investigate the destruction of the videotapes.
[...]
In two exhibits given to the court along with Panetta’s affidavit, the CIA said the material that must be withheld includes … a five-page account by a CIA lawyer detailing the agency’s policy and legal guidance about the destruction of the videotapes; an e-mail to CIA managers summarizing the opinions of others about the tapes; a six-page account by an agency employee of a discussion with an agency lawyer about the tapes; and a series of e-mails discussing what the CIA should say publicly about the destruction.

If this treasure trove of material about the possibly illegal destruction of the videotapes were made public, it would endanger national security and benefit al-Qaeda’s recruitment efforts? And Leon Panetta has actually sworn to that under oath?

Maybe the judge can give Panetta a little more rope and allow him to thoroughly hang himself?

(3)

Although the CIA frequently redacts sometimes extensive portions of the documents it releases, Panetta said he had “determined that no meaningful segregable information can be released from the operational documents at issue.” Some, he said, were covered by attorney-client privilege, and nearly all contain personal information about CIA employees and others that would, if disclosed, “constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

This serves to explain the Bush-era CIA memo which decreed that every document pertaining to possibly illegal acts should contain in sentences 1, 4, 7, 10, etc. within each paragraph a reference to the size of the author’s and/or recipients dick, in sentences 2, 5, 8, 11, etc. intimate details of the last occasion when either instrument was used in marital or extra-marital acts, and in sentences 3, 6, 9, 12, etc. gratuitous speculation about sex acts that randomly selected office staff may or may not have committed (including with each other).

(4)

Panetta also said he wanted to emphasize that his request was “in no way driven by a desire to prevent embarrassment for the U.S. government or the CIA, or to suppress evidence of any unlawful conduct.” He said his only purpose was to prevent harm to U.S. national security and to protect intelligence sources and methods.

Likewise, chief, I want to emphasize that this post is in no way driven by a desire to mock or cast aspersions on you. My only purpose is to applaud your vast and enormous and entirely selfless dedication to the truth. And national security. And foiling the recruitment efforts of al-Qaeda.