Redefine 'classified,' tighten security

By The Gazette Editorial Board

---

The latest WikiLeaks scandal has, at the least, raised many questions and caused embarrassment to our nation.

Much of the information in the thousands of U.S. diplomatic cables leaked is relatively harmless. Some of it the public has a right to know. And some probably needed to be better protected to protect Americans' safety.

One conclusion we have: This leak and previous WikiLeaks incidents demand a critical review and revision of the federal government's process of classifying and protecting records.

It's the nature of government to trend toward secrecy. And certainly, “top secret” material that is likely to jeopardize our national security must be protected effectively.

But there are mounds of records that date back many decades or contain relatively innocuous information - like troop movements in previous wars long settled. Why are those things still graded as “classified” or “confidential”?

Even on many serious matters involving volatile, threatening nations like North Korea and Iran, Americans have the right to know, for example, whether those countries have long-range missiles or other hostile capabilities.

As defined in the Classified Information Procedures Act, passed by Congress in 1980, classified information is any information or material that the U.S. government determines must not be disclosed for reasons of national security. Executive orders take precedence in what's classified, followed by statutes approved by Congress and other regulations.

After the 2001 terrorist attacks, the 9/11 Commission sharply criticized our intelligence agencies for failing to share critical information that might have revealed the plot and stopped it before it happened. The Pentagon created a classified computer network (SIPRNet) linking the Defense and State Departments, allowing exchanges of information and messages below the “top secret” level. But some analysts and critics say the system's openness proved to be its vulnerability. A low-ranking Army intelligence soldier, PFC Bradley Manning, was arrested in June in connection with a previous leak and may be connected to other WikiLeaks disclosures.

Now some fear that our 16 intelligence agencies, who sometimes still have a tough time cooperating and trusting each other, may want to become more secretive again.

That's not in our country's best interest.

Deciding what information should be withheld from Americans, and for how long, should be based on a clear, legal foundation, and identifying what is vital to protecting our country from its enemies. Embarrassment is not an acceptable standard.

Then our civilian and military intelligence agencies must do a better job of securing what really needs to be secure. And, if there's a breach anyway, swiftly prosecute perpetrators.