SIGN IN to access Harper’s Magazine
1. Sign in to Customer Care using your account number or postal address.
2. Select Email/Password Information.
3. Enter your new information and click on Save My Changes.
Subscribers can find additional help here. Not a subscriber? Subscribe today!
The Bush-Cheney Administration will be remembered for decades for its shamelessly political manipulation of security classifications. A number of general themes have emerged. One is that when documents are stamped “secret” (or better yet “top secret”) this is far more likely to mean “this would be politically embarrassing to us if it got out” than “this affects the nation’s security.” And “embarrassment” covers a sliding scale. Sometimes it would simply make the administration look stupid or inept. On other occasions, it would actually link people to their crimes—as when torture and other serious mistreatment of prisoners is concerned, or the warrantless surveillance practices which are so much in the news.
In both cases, the “secret” conduct involves felonies. But such things are “secret” only so long as political interests hold firm. As soon as it’s politically expedient to leak secrets, that happens–no questions asked and no investigations launched. Witness two examples of Administration-sourced disclosures of “secrets” just in the last week.
In an interview with Fox News, House G.O.P. leader John Boehner revealed that a FISA court judge had made a ruling against the Administration which blocked a surveillance program. He disclosed details of the ruling and of the program—both of which the Administration had, up to that point, insisted were highly classified and compartmentalized information, the disclosure of which would severely harm national security, as the Washington Post revealed today.
The Administration’s reaction? No problem. Boehner is supporting the Administration’s efforts to secure the amendment of FISA. And, hey, what the hell, it was on Fox News. Apparently, disclosure of classified information is only a problem when Democrats do it and it’s in opposition to the Administration’s various power grabs.
Or consider a second case. Last week, Alberto Gonzales perjured himself repeatedly in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. One of the most egregious of several perjuries had to do with his account of his visit to the hospital bedside of John Ashcroft to extract the ailing attorney general’s signature on a document. Gonzales’s account flatly contradicted that of the vastly more credible former Deputy Attorney General James Comey, and the next day, FBI Director Robert Mueller also contradicted Gonzales, producing what one source call a “new ice age” between the Attorney General and the FBI. In order to try to protect Gonzales from mounting calls for appointment of a special prosecutor or for impeachment hearings, an Administration source leaked to the New York Times and the Washington Post specific information about the changed nature of the surveillance program—which involves data mining—in order to help Gonzales make a case that his irreconcilable statement stemmed from a “different understanding” from Comey and Mueller, not from a conscious falsehood. Again, allegedly extremely sensitive material was passed to the media; it was done by the Bush White House; and it was done to bail out an attorney general in extremis.
All of this points to the role played by security classifications in the Bush-Cheney Administration: partisan politics, 24/7.
More from Scott Horton:
Six Questions — October 18, 2014, 8:00 pm
Nathaniel Raymond on CIA interrogation techniques.
I recently spent a semester teaching writing at an elite liberal-arts college. At strategic points around the campus, in shades of yellow and green, banners displayed the following pair of texts. The first was attributed to the college’s founder, which dates it to the 1920s. The second was extracted from the latest version of the institution’s mission statement:
The paramount obligation of a college is to develop in its students the ability to think clearly and independently, and the ability to live confidently, courageously, and hopefully.
Let us take a moment to compare these texts. The first thing to observe about the older one is that it is a sentence. It expresses an idea by placing concepts in relation to one another within the kind of structure that we call a syntax. It is, moreover, highly wrought: a parallel structure underscored by repetition, five adverbs balanced two against three.
Percentage of Britons who cannot name the city that provides the setting for the musical Chicago:
An Australian entrepreneur was selling oysters raised in tanks laced with Viagra.
A naked man believed to be under the influence of LSD rammed his pickup truck into two police cars.
Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!
“Shelby is waiting for something. He himself does not know what it is. When it comes he will either go back into the world from which he came, or sink out of sight in the morass of alcoholism or despair that has engulfed other vagrants.”