(S/NF) Last week, I assessed with strong confidence that the disclosure of two sentences from a Defense Intelligence Agency analysis on North Korea was the result of two errors, one committed by the supervisor of the analytical team, and another committed by the member of Congress who disclosed the sentence, Doug Lamborn.
(U) You'll recall that in a public hearing, Rep. Lamborn asked the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, whether he agreed with a conclusion that had just been brought to his attention.
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.
DIA assesses with moderate confidence the North currently has nuclear weapons capable of delivery by ballistic missiles. However, the reliability will be low.
(U) The CJCS declined to discuss the issue, unsure of why Lamborn appeared to be disclosing something that ought to have been classified but apparently was not.
(U) Lamborn and his staff insisted that they had the right to read into the record unclassified portions of classified documents, even though the executive branch has a specific and categorical prohibition against doing so.
(S/NF) Today, the Director of National Intelligence and the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency said that the line Lamborn read into the public record was supposed to have been marked classified. It was "mislabeled as unclassified," DNI James Clapper said.
(U) Lamborn's spokesperson insisted that he had "triple-checked" with the DIA that the language was properly unclassified.
(S) I had surmised that the DIA simply overlooked the (U) next to the phrase in question, which referred specifically to a current intelligence assessment of a critical military capability of an adversary, something that by statute and common sense is properly kept classified at least for the duration of a crisis.
-
What to know before turning to AI for financial advicethe explainer It can help you crunch the numbers — but it might also pocket your data
-
Book reviews: 'The Headache: The Science of a Most Confounding Affliction—and a Search for Relief' and 'Tonight in Jungleland: The Making of Born to Run'Feature The search for a headache cure and revisiting Springsteen's 'Born to Run' album on its 50th anniversary
-
Keith McNally' 6 favorite books that have ambitious charactersFeature The London-born restaurateur recommends works by Leo Tolstoy, John le Carré, and more
-
Why Puerto Rico is starvingThe Explainer Thanks to poor policy design, congressional dithering, and a hostile White House, hundreds of thousands of the most vulnerable Puerto Ricans are about to go hungry
-
Why on Earth does the Olympics still refer to hundreds of athletes as 'ladies'?The Explainer Stop it. Just stop.
-
How to ride out the apocalypse in a big cityThe Explainer So you live in a city and don't want to die a fiery death ...
-
Puerto Rico, lost in limboThe Explainer Puerto Ricans are Americans, but have a vague legal status that will impair the island's recovery
-
American barbarismThe Explainer What the Las Vegas massacre reveals about the veneer of our civilization
-
Welfare's customer service problemThe Explainer Its intentionally mean bureaucracy is crushing poor Americans
-
Nothing about 'blood and soil' is AmericanThe Explainer Here's what the vile neo-Nazi slogan really means
-
Don't let cell phones ruin America's national parksThe Explainer As John Muir wrote, "Only by going alone in silence ... can one truly get into the heart of the wilderness"
