WP: GAO Finds Pentagon Erratic In Wielding Secrecy Stamp

[DeepModem Mom]

GAO Finds Pentagon Erratic In Wielding Secrecy Stamp
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 14, 2006; Page A19

The Government Accountability Office has criticized the Defense Department for sloppy management of its security classification system, including the marking as "Confidential or Secret" material that Pentagon officials acknowledged was unclassified information.

The GAO said in a report June 30 that one of the major questions raised by its study was "whether all of the information marked as classified met established criteria for classification." The GAO also found "inconsistent treatment of similar information within the same document."

The GAO reviewed only a "nonprobability sample" of 111 classified Defense Department documents from the Office of the Secretary of Defense. To understand how minute the sample is, the GAO reported that in the five fiscal years between 2000 and 2004, the Pentagon was responsible for 66.8 million new classified records. That is about 13.4 million a year.

The GAO report, which was sent to Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), chairman of the subcommittee on national security of the Government Reform Committee, and disclosed on the Secrecy News Web site of Steven Aftergood, concluded that "a lack of oversight and inconsistent implementation of DOD's information security program are increasing the risk of misclassification."

The report was issued at a time when the Bush administration is criticizing newspapers for publishing classified information, and when two nongovernment civilians, who were lobbyists for a pro-Israeli organization, are being prosecuted under the 85-year-old Espionage Act for receiving and retransmitting material they got from a Pentagon official involving national defense secrets....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/13/AR2006071301518.html

[Whoa_Nelly]

1. If interested, you can subscribe to the email newsletter re: Secrecy News

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html

And here's the link re: Steven Aftergood (what a great last name!)

http://www.fas.org/sgp/aftergood.html

[DeepModem Mom]

3. Thanks, Nelly! nt

[gratuitous]

2. "Erratic," what a nice, benign-sounding word

I wonder if the Post thought to say "erratic" all by itself, or if the word was supplied from the RNC? "Erratic" makes it sound like a misfiring, lovable old car, or a clunky but serviceable lawnmower. Kind of like "eccentric."

And of course, there should not be the merest whiff that any of this "erratic" classification of government output is in the service of politics. I mean, who would place political considerations above our holy and sacred national security? No, classifying documents is just "erratic," even when the government publicly releases a report, then later classifies it because it turns out to be politically embarrassing to the ruling party.

[EST]

4. It is illegal to classify material for protection against

embarrassment or for political purposes. I would sure like to see someone with "standing" initiate some legal action against these mobsters. It might open the floodgates for foia requests.

[gratuitous]

5. Sure it's illegal

But when has that stopped the corrupt Bush administration? Torture is illegal. Extraordinary rendition is illegal. The Guantanamo gulag is illegal. The ongoing occupation of Iraq is illegal. But Congress and the courts seem singularly incurious about holding the administration responsible for its illegalities.