How the CIA is deleting history
'Tis the week to pick on the Central Intelligence Agency.
And I actually don't want to pick on them. They've done a lot of bad stuff, and they've done a lot of good stuff, and the people who work there, by and large, are as good as you might think you are.
CIA historians? Usually, quite awesome. But the lawyers who try to protect the CIA's historical equities? Bad people. Bad, bad people.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Nate Jones, the senior FOIA researcher at the National Security Archive, has been trying to pry loose a declassified copy of the CIA's internal history of the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion. In particular, Jones wants to see a draft of the history before it was edited.
Jones has no problem with the agency's efforts to protect sources and potentially still-sensitive methods. What he wants is a less-varnished version of the CIA's own recounting of the events. And 50 years after the fact, there is no good argument the CIA can make that it must withhold such an account to protect national security or even the agency's public image. In fact, it doesn't have to make an argument at all. The document just isn't that sensitive given all the other stuff that has been released, including by the CIA itself. (The CIA's one claim to this end is that releasing drafts would "confuse the public." Heh.)
Instead, the agency, which cannot bring itself to actually trust the historical community, wants to establish a consistent legal precedent about something called "predecisional" documents. The Freedom of Information Act allows executive branch agencies to withhold information about the internal process and internal debates that led to particular formal statements or actions. Understandably, the ability of advisers to advise freely would be clouded if they knew that their private advice would automatically become public. While advocates of transparency might say, "yeah!", even the FOIA framers understood the role that private advice plays in promoting good policy. So it allows agencies to exempt from disclosure such "predecisional" material.
The CIA has taken this exemption to an extreme. The "predecisional" documents in question relate to an internal history. A history is not a policy decision. The effect this has is to make it very hard for FOIA researchers to know what documents to request and then what to draft an appeal about when the agency decides not to release it.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
The CIA has always claimed that its unique activities give it the right to stretch the spirit of FOIA to its breaking point. As Jones points out, the agency "creates entire classes of documents" that it believes should be automatically withheld, including so-called "operational files," which the CIA insists it cannot individually review because operational files by their nature include the sources and methods the CIA can legally withhold. If you request something that the CIA considers to be an "operational file," it will either exercise its right to say that the file may or may not even exist, or it will deny the request in full because the CIA considers the request to be automatically invalid.
When it comes to historical records, the CIA can easily claim that any produced history is a "draft," because it is always revising its histories.
That's not the way FOIA is supposed to work.
The agency has released a trove of interesting documents, with many of them portraying the CIA in a poor light.
Selective releases do not, however, build your transparency and openenss cred. The CIA does not do justice to history.
(DISCLOSURE: I am working on a book with Nate Jones about an unrelated subject.)
Marc Ambinder is TheWeek.com's editor-at-large. He is the author, with D.B. Grady, of The Command and Deep State: Inside the Government Secrecy Industry. Marc is also a contributing editor for The Atlantic and GQ. Formerly, he served as White House correspondent for National Journal, chief political consultant for CBS News, and politics editor at The Atlantic. Marc is a 2001 graduate of Harvard. He is married to Michael Park, a corporate strategy consultant, and lives in Los Angeles.
-
5 hilariously spirited cartoons about the spirit of Christmas
Cartoons Artists take on excuses, pardons, and more
By The Week US Published
-
Inside the house of Assad
The Explainer Bashar al-Assad and his father, Hafez, ruled Syria for more than half a century but how did one family achieve and maintain power?
By The Week UK Published
-
Sudoku medium: December 22, 2024
The Week's daily medium sudoku puzzle
By The Week Staff Published
-
In the future, will the English language be full of accented characters?
The Explainer They may look funny, but they're probably here to stay
By James Harbeck Published
-
10 signature foods with borrowed names
The Explainer Tempura, tajine, tzatziki, and other dishes whose names aren't from the cultures that made them famous
By James Harbeck Published
-
There's a perfect German word for America's perpetually enraged culture
The Explainer We've become addicted to conflict, and it's only getting worse
By Bonnie Kristian Last updated
-
The death of sacred speech
The Explainer Sacred words and moral terms are vanishing in the English-speaking world. Here’s why it matters.
By Jonathan Merritt Published
-
The delicate art of using linguistics to identify an anonymous author
The Explainer The words we choose — and how we use them — can be powerful clues
By James Harbeck Last updated
-
Dashes and hyphens: A comprehensive guide
The Explainer Everything you wanted to know about dashes but were afraid to ask
By James Harbeck Published
-
A brief history of Canadian-American relations
The Explainer President Trump has opened a rift with one of America's closest allies. But things have been worse.
By The Week Staff Published
-
The new rules of CaPiTaLiZaTiOn
The Explainer The rules for capitalizing letters are totally arbitrary. So I wrote new rules.
By James Harbeck Published