before the
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
HISTORICAL RECORDS DECLASSIFICATION ADVISORY PANEL
National Archives & Records Administration
AS YOU KNOW, IN ISSUING EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958 IN 1995, THE PRESIDENT MADE PROFOUND CHANGES IN THE DECLASSIFICATION PROGRAM THROUGHOUT GOVERNMENT. AS PRESIDENT CLINTON NOTED WHEN HE PROMULGATED THIS ORDER: "PROTECTING INFORMATION CRITICAL TO OUR NATION'S SECURITY REMAINS A PRIORITY. IN RECENT YEARS, HOWEVER, DRAMATIC CHANGES HAVE ALTERED, ALTHOUGH NOT ELIMINATED, THE NATIONAL SECURITY THREATS WE CONFRONT. THESE CHANGES PROVIDE A GREATER OPPORTUNITY TO EMPHASIZE OUR COMMITMENT TO OPEN GOVERNMENT."
ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT, 180-DEGREE TURNS THE ORDER MADE WAS TO REVERSE THE RESOURCE BURDEN FOR OVER 25 YEAR-OLD INFORMATION. UNLIKE THE PRIOR SYSTEMS, IN WHICH AGENCIES HAD TO EXPEND RESOURCES IN ORDER TO DECLASSIFY OLDER INFORMATION, UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958, AGENCIES MUST EXPEND THE RESOURCES NECESSARY TO DEMONSTRATE HOW OLDER, HISTORICAL INFORMATION FALLS WITHIN ONE OF THE NARROW EXCEPTIONS TO AUTOMATIC DECLASSIFICATION. THE ULTIMATE GOAL WAS TO MANDATE THE MAXIMUM RESPONSIBLE DISCLOSURE Of OLDER CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.
AMONG THE OTHER CHANGES ESTABLISHED BY THE E.O. WAS THE CREATION OF THE ISCAP. BEFORE ISCAP, THERE HAD BEEN NO INTERAGENCY BODY TO HEAR APPEALS OF CLASSIFICATION DECISIONS SINCE 1978. UNDER THE PREDECESSOR EXECUTIVE ORDER (12356), APPEALS OF AGENCY CLASSIFICATION DECISIONS REGARDING PRESIDENTIAL MATERIALS WERE TAKEN TO THE INFORMATION SECURITY OVERSIGHT OFFICE, OR ISOO. PRESIDENT CLINTON'S ORDER, AUGMENTED BY THE PUBLISHED BYLAWS OF THE ISCAP, COPIES OF WHICH I HAVE AVAILABLE, PROVIDES THE LEGAL AND JURISDICTIONAL FOUNDATION FOR THE ISCAP'S OPERATION.
IN LATE 1995, THE PRESIDENT HONORED ME BY APPOINTING ME TO BE THE ISCAP'S FIRST CHAIRPERSON. WHILE SERVING AS CHAIR, I ALSO SERVE AS THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE'S VOTING MEMBER ON THE ISCAP. TODAY THE OTHER FIVE VOTING MEMBERS ARE DOUG PERRITT, APPOINTED BY THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE; FRANK MACHAK, APPOINTED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE; BILL LEARY, APPOINTED BY THE ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS; TISH LONG, APPOINTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE; AND MIKE KURTZ, APPOINTED BY THE ARCHIVIST OF THE UNITED STATES.
EACH OF THE ISCAP'S MEMBERS HAS AN ALTERNATE APPOINTED BY THE AGENCY HEAD TO SUBSTITUTE FOR AN ABSENT MEMBER. ALSO, EACH MEMBER HAS A LIAISON TO THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY AND STAFF-- A ROLE THAT CYNTHIA KLOSS HAS ABLY PERFORMED FOR DOD. STEVE GARFINKEL, AS DIRECTOR OF THE INFORMATION SECURITY OVERSIGHT OFFICE, SERVES AS ISCAP'S EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, AND MEMBERS OF THE ISOO STAFF SERVE AS ISCAP STAFF MEMBERS AS WELL. THE STAFF AND LIAISONS DO THE PREPARATORY WORK, AND MEET AS A GROUP AT LEAST ONCE BEFORE EACH MEETING OF THE ISCAP MEMBERS. ISCAP COULD NOT FUNCTION WITHOUT ISOO'S EXTRAORDINARY ASSISTANCE AND DEDICATION. IN PARTICULAR, STEVE GARFINKEL HAS BEEN INDISPENSABLE -- I THANK HIM FOR ALL HE HAS DONE FOR ISCAP AND FOR HIS SUSTAINED COMMITMENT TO REFORM OF GOVERNMENT CLASSIFICATION POLICY.
AS SET OUT IN E.O. 12958, THE ISCAP HAS THREE PRIMARY FUNCTIONS: FIRST, TO HEAR APPEALS FROM AN AGENCY HEAD'S DECISION NOT TO DECLASSIFY INFORMATION IN RESPONSE TO A MANDATORY REVIEW REQUEST BY A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC; SECOND, TO HEAR APPEALS UNDER THE ORDER'S CLASSIFICATION CHALLENGES PROVISION FROM AN AGENCY HEAD'S DENIAL OF A CHALLENGE TO CLASSIFICATION; AND THIRD, TO REVIEW AND APPROVE OR DENY AN AGENCY HEAD'S EXEMPTIONS FROM THE ORDER'S REQUIREMENT FOR AUTOMATIC DECLASSIFICATION OF PERMANENTLY VALUABLE INFORMATION WHEN IT BECOMES 25 YEARS OLD. AS AUTOMATIC DECLASSIFICATION IS NOT TRIGGERED UNTIL APRIL 2000, AND AGENCY HEADS ARE TO SUBMIT PROPOSED EXEMPTI ONS WITHIN THE PRECEDING SIX MONTHS, THE ISCAP HAS NOT YET FACED THE CHALLENGE OF THIS LAST RESPONSIBILITY.
TO DATE THE ISCAP'S WORK HAS FOCUSED EXCLUSIVELY ON MANDATORY REVIEW APPEALS. WE ONLY RECENTLY RECEIVED OUR FIRST APPEAL ON A CHALLENGE TO CLASSIFICATION, AND THE ISOO STAFF IS NOW PREPARING IT FOR PRESENTATION TO THE MEMBERSHIP. UNDER OUR BYLAWS, AT LEAST FIVE OF THE SIX VOTING MEMBERS MUST BE PRESENT FOR A VOTE TO TAKE PLACE; AND THE VOTES OF A MAJORITY OF THOSE PRESENT ARE NECESSARY IN ORDER TO OVERTURN AN AGENCY HEAD'S DECISION. WITH SIX VOTING MEMBERS, WE HAVE HAD SEVERAL 3 TO 3 VOTES, IN WHICH CASE THE AGENCY HEAD'S CLASSIFICATION DECISION IS UPHELD.
AN AGENCY HEAD HAS 60 DAYS TO SEEK A REVIEW OF AN ISCAP DECISION BY THE PRESIDENT. TO DATE, DESPITE MANY DECISIONS TO OVERTURN AGENCY HEADS, NO MEMBER HAS SOUGHT PRESIDENTIAL REVIEW OF AN ISCAP DECISION. BECAUSE IT EXISTS SOLELY TO ADVISE AND ASSIST THE PRESIDENT, THE RECORDS ISCAP GENERATES ARE PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS, SUBJECT TO THE PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS ACT, RATHER THAN FEDERAL RECORDS, SUBJECT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT.
THE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT HAS AGREED THAT THE ISCAP MAY ISSUE PERIODIC COMMUNIQUES ABOUT ITS ACTIVITIES. WE ISSUED OUR FIRST COMMUNIQUE IN JUNE 1997, AND WE'RE PUTTING THE FINISHING TOUCHES ON OUR SECOND FOR ISSUANCE SHORTLY. IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN IT, WE HAVE COPIES OF THE FIRST COMMUNIQUE AVAILABLE TODAY. AS SOON AS IT IS COMPLETED, WE WILL ALSO BE HAPPY TO PROVIDE YOU WITH COPIES OF OUR SECOND COMMUNIQUE THROUGH YOUR DOD COORDINATORS. ALSO WITH THE WHITE HOUSE'S APPROVAL, THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PROVIDES COPIES UPON REQUEST OF THE ISCAP'S DECISION DATABASE, EITHER IN A PRINT-OUT OR ON A DISKETTE. THE FIELDS DISPLAYED IN THE DATABASE INCLUDE THE NAME OF THE REQUESTER; THE CLASSIFICATION LEVEL; THE DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY WHOSE DOCUMENT IS INVOLVED; ANY OTHER AGENCIES WITH EQUITIES; THE TITLE, SUBJECT, AND DATE OF EACH DOCUMENT; KEYWORDS TO FACILITATE DATABASE SEARCHES; THE APPLICABLE CLASSIFICATION STANDARD; A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DOCUMENT; ISCAP'S CLASSIFICATION DECISION; AND THE BASIS FOR ISCAP'S DECISION. FINALLY, IN ITS ANNUAL REPORTS TO THE PRESIDENT, THE ISOO INCLUDES A SECTION ON THE ISCAP'S ACTIVITIES.
THE ISCAP MET FOR THE FIRST TIME IN MAY 1996. I AM CERTAIN YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE NEW LEGAL STANDARDS UNDER 12958 SO I WON'T REPEAT THEM NOW. I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE WITH YOU TODAY A SENSE OF THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THE FIRST 22 MONTHS OF OUR ENTERPRISE HAS PROCEEDED. THE CHALLENGE TO ISCAP HAS BEEN QUITE DAUNTING: TO APPLY VERY DIFFERENT LEGAL STANDARDS IN A VERY DIFFERENT, A VERY DYNAMIC, AND A VERY UNCERTAIN GEOPOLITICAL ENVIRONMENT. IT BECAME QUITE CLEAR IN OUR FIRST MEETINGS THAT THE ICONS OF COLD WAR ERA-CLASSIFICATION POLICY COULD NO LONGER BE INCANTED TO JUSTIFY CONTINUING CLASSIFICATION.
IT ALSO BECAME CLEAR EARLY ON THAT, UNDER STANDARDS SUCH AS "SERIOUSLY AND DEMONSTRABLY IMPAIRING RELATIONS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT" OR "SERIOUSLY AND DEMONSTRABLY UNDERMINING ON-GOING DIPLOMATIC ACTIVITIES," AN AGENCY COMING TO THE TABLE WITH OVER 25 YEAR-OLD INFORMATION WOULD BEAR A HEAVY BURDEN. THE PROPONENT OF CLASSIFICATION WOULD BE SUBJECT TO SEARCHING SCRUTINY, EVEN SKEPTICISM.
TO DATE, WE HAVE HELD 12 MEETINGS, WHICH I ORDINARILY SCHEDULE ON A MONTHLY BASIS. THIS IS AN AMBITIOUS SCHEDULE. ISCAP MEMBERS FREQUENTLY MUST COORDINATE THEIR PROPOSED POSITIONS WITH A NUMBER OF HIGH LEVEL AGENCY OFFICIALS, OR CONSULT ON OCCASION WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT.
HOW HAS THE ISCAP PERFORMED UP TO NOW? I AM PLEASED TO REPORT THAT, IN MY VIEW AT LEAST, THE ISCAP HAS MADE SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS IN FAITHFULLY APPLYING THE NEW STANDARDS OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER. WE HAVE TAKEN FINAL VOTES ON APPEALS FOR DECLASSIFICATION OF MORE THAN 70 DOCUMENTS ON A WIDE VARIETY OF SUBJECTS. OF THESE, WE HAVE VOTED TO DECLASSIFY MORE THAN 70 PERCENT OF THEM IN THEIR ENTIRETY, WHILE DECLASSIFYING SIGNIFICANT SEGMENTS OF MOST OF THE REMAINDER. THIS IS SIGNIFICANT IN MY VIEW BECAUSE, IN EACH INSTANCE, WE ARE VOTING TO OVERTURN AN AGENCY'S DECISION REACHED AT ITS HIGHEST LEVEL OF APPEAL. PERHAPS MORE SIGNIFICANT, I AM CONFIDENT THAT HAD JUST ABOUT ALL OF THESE APPEALS BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE THE FEDERAL COURTS UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, THE APPELLANT WOULD NOT HAVE PREVAILED, AND THE INFORMATION WOULD HAVE REMAINED CLASSIFIED UNLESS THE AGENCY ITSELF DECIDED TO DECLASSIFY IT.
AT THE SAME TIME, HOWEVER, THE ISCAP HAS ACTED RESPONSIBLY TO PROTECT OUR NATIONAL SECURITY EQUITIES. WHAT THIS MEANS TO ME-- AFTER DECIDING TO DECLASSIFY OVER 70% OF THE DOCUMENTS IN QUESTION, OFTEN AFTER EXTENSIVE DEBATE -- IS THAT THE AGENCIES THEMSELVES CAN AND SHOULD DECLASSIFY SIGNIFICANTLY MORE OF THE INFORMATION THAT COMES BEFORE THEM FOR DECISION. SINCE MANY OF THE ISCAP'S INITIAL APPEALS INVOLVED AGENCY DECISIONS MADE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF E.O. 12958, I ANTICIPATE THAT THE AGENCIES WILL BE DECLASSIFYING A MUCH HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF INFORMATION THAT COMES BEFORE THEM NOW AND IN THE FUTURE. SINCE, UNDER 12958, IF THE AGENCIES ARE TO BE GUIDED BY ISCAP'S DECISIONS, THESE DECISIONS SHOULD LEAD THE WAY TOWARD MAXIMUM RESPONSIBLE DISCLOSURE THROUGHOUT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
ALMOST ALL OF THE DECISIONS THAT THE ISCAP HAS MADE SO FAR HAVE INVOLVED APPEALS FROM DECISIONS MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, THE CIA, AND THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, IN THAT ORDER OF PREVALENCE. I WILL BRIEFLY MENTION SOME OF THE SUBJECTS THAT TOUCHED UPON DOD EQUITIES. ONE OF THOSE APPEALS CAME FROM A DECISION TO DENY DECLASSIFICATION MADE INITIALLY BY THE DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. DIA HAD DENIED A MANDATORY REVIEW REQUEST BROUGHT NOT BY A RESEARCHER, BUT BY AN EXECUTIVE BRANCH ENTITY, THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES' FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT LIBRARY. THE LIBRARY ASKED DOD TO DECLASSIFY INFORMATION NOW IN ITS COLLECTION THAT WAS MAINTAINED IN THE WHITE HOUSE MAP ROOM DURING WORLD WAR II. DURING THE WAR, THE WHITE HOUSE MAP ROOM SERVED THE FUNCTION OF AN INTELLIGENCE HEADQUARTERS. SPECIFICALLY THE LIBRARY WANTED US TO DECLASSIFY THE NAMES OF EAST EUROPEANS WHO HAD PROVIDED THE ALLIES WITH INFORMATION ABOUT THE OCCUPYING AXIS ARMIES. THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THESE INDIVIDUALS HAD LONG AGO BEEN DECLASSIFIED, BUT THEIR IDENTITIES HAD REMAINED SECRET. THE ROOSEVELT LIBRARY BELIEVED THAT THE UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES CONCERNING THEIR ROLES AS INFORMANTS MILITATED AGAINST THE CUSTOMARY PRACTICE OF PROTECTING THE IDENTITIES OF INTELLIGENCE SOURCES INDEFINITELY. THE GOVERNMENTS AGAINST WHOSE INTERESTS THESE INDIVIDUALS ACTED NO LONGER EXIST, AND ARE UNIVERSALLY REVILED. THE COUNTER-ARGUMENTS SEEKING CONTINUED CLASSIFICATfON ARE FAMILIAR ONES: FIRST, REVEALING THE NAME OF AN INTELLIGENCE SOURCE, EVEN AFTER MORE THAN 50 YEARS, COULD ARGUABLY ENDANGER THE SOURCE AND, EVEN IF HE OR SHE IS DEAD, ENDANGER MEMBERS OF THE SOURCE'S FAMILY. SECOND, IF A GOVERNMENT DEMONSTRATES THAT IT WILL REVEAL THE IDENTITY OF AN INTELLIGENCE SOURCE, NO MATTER HOW OLD, POTENTIAL NEW SOURCES OF INFORMATION MAY BE FRIGHTENED OFF. AFTER AN EXTENSIVE DEBATE, THE MEMBERS OF THE ISCAP VOTED 3-3 ON A MOTION TO DECLASSIFY THE NAMES. BECAUSE THERE WAS NO MAJORITY, THE DOD'S DECISION TO KEEP THESE NAMES CLASSIFIED PREVAILED.
THE OTHER ISCAP APPEALS INVOLVING DOD EQUITIES HAVE COVERED A VARIETY OF SUBJECTS: THE DEPLOYMENT AND POSSIBLE USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN EUROPE DURING THE EISENHOWER, KENNEDY AND JOHNSON ADMINISTRATIONS: THE TARGETING OF THOSE WEAPONS AGAINST THE NATIONS OF THE WARSAW PACT COMMAND AND CONTROL OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES; AND THE RELATIVE AUTHORITIES OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINTS CHIEFS OF STAFF VIS-A-VIS THE SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER IN EUROPE. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A SMA LL PORTION OR TWO, THE ISCAP VOTED TO DECLASSIFY THIS INFORMATION. TWO FACTORS SIGNIFICANTLY INFLUENCED THESE DECISIONS: (1) CHANGED STRATEGIC AND GEOPOLITICAL CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH HAD RENDERED MUCH OF THIS INFORMATION INNOCUOUS OR OBSOLETE; AND (2) THE PRIOR DECLASSIFICATION OF SIMILAR OR IDENTICAL INFORMATION, WHICH MADE IT EVEN HARDER FOR THE PROPONENTS OF CLASSIFICATION TO MAKE THE REQUIRED SHOWING OF HARM FROM DISCLOSURE.
ANOTHER ISCAP DECISION DECLASSIFIED A DOD TECHNICAL MANUAL THAT EXPLAINED AND DEPICTED THE SPECIFICATIONS AND CAPABILITIES OF FOREIGN MILITARY AIRCRAFT AND MISSILES IN 1947. IN THIS CASE, WE DETERMINED THAT THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA FOR CLASSIFICATION -- THAT THE INFORMATION "WOULD IMPAIR THE APPLICATION OF STATE OF THE ART TECHNOLOGY WITHIN A U.S. WEAPON SYSTEM" [SECT. 3.4(B)(4)] OR "SERIOUSLY AND DEMONSTRABLY IMPAIR RELATIONS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT" [SECT. 3.4(B)(6)]-- SIMPLY WERE NOT MET.
IN THE ISCAP'S DELIBERATIONS, SEVERAL DIFFICULT ISSUES RECUR. FIRST AMONG THESE ARE SEVERAL INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY PRINCIPLES OR ICONS THAT ENGENDER A GREAT DEAL OF DEBATE AND DISAGREEMENT AMONG THE MEMBERS. THESE INCLUDE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE ISSUE OF THE DURATION OF SENSITIVITY OF AN INTELLIGENCE METHOD, ESPECIALLY A COVERT METHOD. ANOTHER EXAMPLE PERTAINS TO WHETHER WE SHOULD REVEAL THE MERE EXISTENCE OF COOPERATIVE EFFORTS WITH THE INTELLIGENCE SERVICES OF ALLIED NATIONS. THERE IS CONSIDERABLE DISAGREEMENT ON THE IMPACT TODAY OF REVEALING SUCH COOPERATION MANY YEARS AGO.
ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE IS BASIC AGREEMENT AMONG THE ISCAP MEMBERS THAT, IN MOST CIRCUMSTANCES, THE IDENTITIES OF INTELLIGENCE SOURCES MERIT CONTINUED CLASSIFICATION -- PARTICULARLY IF THE SOURCE IS STILL IN USE. (THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE WORLD WAR II SOURCES IN THE APPEAL I DESCRIBED EARLIER ARE EXCEPTIONAL AMONG THE CASES WE'VE SEEN.)
THE FEASIBILITY OF REDACTING A DOCUMENT TO PROTECT THE IDENTITY OF THE SOURCE, WHILE DISCLOSING HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION, IS AN ISSUE THAT WE NECESSARILY ADDRESS ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS. THE ISCAP MEMBERS HAVE OCCASIONALLY DIVIDED ON THE ISSUE WHETHER A REDACTION APPROACH WOULD SUFFICIENTLY PROTECT THE SOURCE IN A GIVEN DOCUMENT. ON THE WHOLE, HOWEVER -- WHETHER THE INFORMATION AT ISSUE INVOLVES THE IDENTITY OF A SOURCE, THE USE OF AN INTELLIGENCE METHOD, OR THE MILITARY TARGETING OF A SPECIFIC LOCATION -- ISCAP HAS DECLASSIFIED AS MUCH OF EACH DOCUMENT AS WE BELIEVED WE RESPONSIBLY COULD. WE HAVE MOVED PAST THE PREVIOUSLY-EMPLOYED METHODOLOGY OF CONTINUING CLASSIFICATION OF ENTIRE PAGES OR PARAGRAPHS, IF ONLY A FEW PHRASES RETAIN CURRENT SENSITIVITY.
ANOTHER AREA WHERE ISCAP IS MAKING GREAT PROGRESS IS THE DECLASSIFICATION OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INFORMATION. UNLIKE PREVIOUS EXECUTIVE ORDERS ON CLASSIFICATION, E.O. 12958 CLEARLY PLACES THE DECISION ON THE DECLASSIFICATION OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INFORMATION IN THE HANDS OF THE CUSTODIAL UNITED STATES AGENCY. WHILE WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE WISHES OF THE FOREIGN GOVERNMENT IN REACHING OUR DECISIONS, WE HAVE NOT KEPT INFORMATION CLASSIFIED SIMPLY BECAUSE OF ITS FOREIGN ORIGIN. MANY OF THE ISCAP'S DECISIONS HAVE DECLASSIFIED FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INFORMATION THAT WOULD HAVE ROUTINELY REMAINED CLASSIFIED IN THE PAST.
THERE IS ONE RECURRING PROBLEM AREA THAT IS BEYOND THE ISCAP'S AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION. I BRING IT TO YOUR ATTENTION BECAUSE ONE OF THE AGENCIES INVOLVED IS THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. THE PROBLEM PERTAINS TO OLDER INFORMATION DESIGNATED AS FORMERLY RESTRICTED DATA, OR FRD, UNDER THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT. AS YOU ARE AWARE, THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT CREATED TWO CLASSIFICATION GROUPS, RESTRICTED DATA AND FORMERLY RESTRICTED DATA. BECAUSE THIS CLASSIFICATION ARISES FROM STATUTE RATHER THAN FROM THE CURRENT OR PRIOR EXECUTIVE ORDERS ON NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION, RD AND FRD ARE OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF THE ISCAP. THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, IN RESPONSE TO OUR REFERRALS, HAS DETERMINED THAT APPROXIMATELY TEN DOCUMENTS APPEALED TO ISCAP ARE PARTIALLY OR WHOLLY FRD.
THIS REFERRAL PROCESS, FROM THE ISCAP'S POINT OF VIEW, HAS YIELDED UNSATISFACTORY RESULTS. INFORMATION THAT IS SIMILAR OR IDENTICAL TO MUCH OF WHAT WE HAVE SEEN DESIGNATED AS FRD HAS BEEN IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN FOR MANY YEARS, OFTEN AS A RESULT OF A PRIOR DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DECLASSIFICATION REVIEW. MOREOVER, THERE APPEARS TO BE NO SYSTEM IN PLACE TO GET THIS INFORMATION DECLASSIFIED, EVEN THOUGH THE DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED -- ENERGY, DEFENSE, AND STATE -- ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT IS INNOCUOUS. PERHAPS AN INQUIRY BY YOUR PANEL COULD HELP UNRAVEL THIS KNOT.
WHEN I CONSIDER WHAT THE NEXT FEW YEARS MAY HOLD FOR ISCAP, I FEAR THAT TO A CONSIDERABLE EXTENT WE MAY BECOME VICTIMS OF OUR OWN SUCCESSES -- AND THE CASELOAD THAT THESE SUCCESSES MAY ENGENDER. UNFORTUNATELY, ISOO IS A VERY SMALL ORGANIZATION THAT FACES EVER-INCREASING DEMANDS ON ITS RESOURCES FROM THE DRAMATIC CHANGES IN THE CLASSIFICATION AND DECLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS NOW UNDERWAY. THE AGENCIES' STAFFS THAT ARE DEVOTED TO DECLASSIFICATION ARE ALSO EXTREMELY LIMITED, AND NECESSARILY ONLY A TINY FRACTION OF THESE STAFFS CAN BE DEVOTED TO ISCAP WORK.
UNTIL NOW, THE ISCAP HAS BEEN ABLE TO KEEP UP WITH ITS CASELOAD BECAUSE MOST REQUESTERS CONTINUE TO GO THE ROUTE OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT. UNDER OUR BYLAWS, THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ALSO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CONSULT WITH APPELLANTS IN AN EFFORT TO NARROW THE SCOPE OF VOLUMINOUS APPEALS. HOWEVER, IF AND WHEN MORE REQUESTERS AND RESEARCHERS DECIDE THAT MANDATORY REVIEW IS MORE LIKELY TO LEAD TO GREATER DECLASSIFICATION THAN FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUESTS, THE ONUS ON THE ISCAP'S STAFFING STRUCTURE MAY VERY WELL PROVE TOO MUCH TO BEAR.
ULTIMATELY, HISTORY WILL JUDGE WHETHER E.O. 12958 ESTABLISHED CLASSIFICATION STANDARDS APPROPRIATE FOR THE FIRST POST-COLD WAR PERIOD, WHETHER IT HAS WORKED AS INTENDED, AND WHETHER ISCAP PROVES FAITHFUL TO ITS MISSION. I HOPE YOU WILL BE PART OF THIS CONTINUING DIALOGUE. THUS FAR, I BELIEVE THAT THE FOLLOWING BENCHMARKS OF OUR WORK ARE NOTABLE:
DECLASSIFICATION OF SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, WHICH ALMOST CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE REMAINED CLASSIFIED UNDER PREVIOUS ORDERS.
CONTINUED CLASSIFICATION OF INFORMATION THAT WOULD BE INTELLIGENCE-SOURCE REVEALING OR COULD JEOPARDIZE ONGOING DIPLOMATIC ACTIVITIES.
A DEMONSTRATED WILLINGNESS TO EXAMINE AFRESH THE JUSTIFICATION FOR CONTINUED CLASSIFICATION OF EACH CATEGORY OF INFORMATION THAT COMES BEFORE US -- EVEN FOR INFORMATION THAT PREVIOUSLY, FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, WAS CLASSIFIED IN PERPETUITY.
PRAGMATISM HAS REPLACED REFLEXIVE USE OF CLASSIFICATION CATEGORIES. SKEPTICISM HAS REPLACED DEFERENCE.