You've got to sympathize with the Bush administration. Sometimes you're running the government but, inconveniently, it's not the government of Burma and so you need to be accountable to voters, other branches of government, public opinion, etc. Under the circumstances, it helps if you can keep all your conduct secret. But that's hard to do purely through abuse of the classification process. So to speed things along, why not invent a new form of secret information? Good idea! Let's call it "Controlled Unclassified Information." More good ideas! The public has a right not to know.
« Hana-bi | Main | Byrd Endorses Obama »
Controlled Unclassified Information
19 May 2008 12:41 pm
Comments (13)
No, but they've pretty much created a broad, sweeping category of "Protected by Executive Privilege" that trumps every other category in existence.
The media should have been tipped off that "Controlled Unclassified Information" wasn't real when it was scrawled in crayon.
I think the stated intent, unify a number of different desiginations of SBU (sensitive but unclassified) across the government is a good thing.
I am sure the adminstration will abuse this by not stating criteria for this classification, and classifying anythign they want to, but it is not fair to say they are inventing a new form of classification.
It's a little easier than doing what they really want:
Article 1, Sect. 1:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in...* see 2008 Revised Article 2, Sect. 1, Clause 1*
Article 2, Sect.1, Clause 1:
ALL the Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows...
Article 3, Sect. 1:
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in . *** see 2008 Revised Article 2, Sect. 1, Clause 1***
nathaniel, as I pointed out when I broke this story at Daily Kos earlier this month, the main problem is that the memo does state the criteria for classifying material as CUI - and those criteria are so vague as to permit the classification of virtually anything "pertinent" to any agency's "mission".
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/11/1452/19451/239/513364
"the memo rather strikingly creates open-ended grounds for classifying information as "Controlled". Here is its definition of the term CUI (all emphases are mine):
>>Controlled Unclassified Information" is a categorical designation that refers to unclassified information that does not meet the standards for National Security Classification under Executive Order 12958, as amended, but is (i) pertinent to the national interests of the United States or to the important interests of entities outside the Federal Government, and (ii) under law or policy requires protection from unauthorized disclosure, special handling safeguards, or prescribed limits on exchange or dissemination. Henceforth, the designation CUI replaces "Sensitive But Unclassified" (SBU).
"Pertinent" is about as vague as a limitation can get. In any case, Bush declares here that the CUI designation is to be used when his policies "require protection from unauthorized disclosure". It's a big rubber stamp for anything the President wants to keep from anybody, including the public. I can think of any number of obnoxious "policies" that this administration would have reason to believe required protection from disclosure...
The same open-endedness is apparent in the memo's description of when to designate something "Controlled":
>>(25) Information shall be designated as CUI and carry an authorized CUI marking if:
a. a statute requires or authorizes such a designation; or
b. the head of the originating department or agency, through regulations, directives, or other specific guidance to the agency, determines that the information is CUI. Such determination should be based on mission requirements, business prudence, legal privilege, the protection of personal or commercial rights, safety, or security. Such department or agency directives, regulations, or guidance shall be provided to the Executive Agent [i.e. the National Archives] for review.
Again, "mission requirements", "safety" and "security" are sufficiently vague as to invite all manner of abuses in classifying information.
nathaniel, as I pointed out when I broke this story at Daily Kos earlier this month, the main problem is that the memo does state the criteria for classifying material as CUI - and those criteria are so vague as to permit the classification of virtually anything "pertinent" to any agency's "mission".
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/11/1452/19451/239/513364
"the memo rather strikingly creates open-ended grounds for classifying information as "Controlled". Here is its definition of the term CUI (all emphases are mine):
>>Controlled Unclassified Information" is a categorical designation that refers to unclassified information that does not meet the standards for National Security Classification under Executive Order 12958, as amended, but is (i) pertinent to the national interests of the United States or to the important interests of entities outside the Federal Government, and (ii) under law or policy requires protection from unauthorized disclosure, special handling safeguards, or prescribed limits on exchange or dissemination. Henceforth, the designation CUI replaces "Sensitive But Unclassified" (SBU).
"Pertinent" is about as vague as a limitation can get. In any case, Bush declares here that the CUI designation is to be used when his policies "require protection from unauthorized disclosure". It's a big rubber stamp for anything the President wants to keep from anybody, including the public. I can think of any number of obnoxious "policies" that this administration would have reason to believe required protection from disclosure...
The same open-endedness is apparent in the memo's description of when to designate something "Controlled":
>>(25) Information shall be designated as CUI and carry an authorized CUI marking if:
a. a statute requires or authorizes such a designation; or
b. the head of the originating department or agency, through regulations, directives, or other specific guidance to the agency, determines that the information is CUI. Such determination should be based on mission requirements, business prudence, legal privilege, the protection of personal or commercial rights, safety, or security. Such department or agency directives, regulations, or guidance shall be provided to the Executive Agent [i.e. the National Archives] for review.
Again, "mission requirements", "safety" and "security" are sufficiently vague as to invite all manner of abuses in classifying information.
nathaniel, as I pointed out when I broke this story at Daily Kos earlier this month, the main problem is that the memo does state the criteria for classifying material as CUI - and those criteria are so vague as to permit the classification of virtually anything "pertinent" to any agency's "mission".
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/11/1452/19451/239/513364
"the memo rather strikingly creates open-ended grounds for classifying information as "Controlled". Here is its definition of the term CUI (all emphases are mine):
>>Controlled Unclassified Information" is a categorical designation that refers to unclassified information that does not meet the standards for National Security Classification under Executive Order 12958, as amended, but is (i) pertinent to the national interests of the United States or to the important interests of entities outside the Federal Government, and (ii) under law or policy requires protection from unauthorized disclosure, special handling safeguards, or prescribed limits on exchange or dissemination. Henceforth, the designation CUI replaces "Sensitive But Unclassified" (SBU).
"Pertinent" is about as vague as a limitation can get. In any case, Bush declares here that the CUI designation is to be used when his policies "require protection from unauthorized disclosure". It's a big rubber stamp for anything the President wants to keep from anybody, including the public. I can think of any number of obnoxious "policies" that this administration would have reason to believe required protection from disclosure...
The same open-endedness is apparent in the memo's description of when to designate something "Controlled":
>>(25) Information shall be designated as CUI and carry an authorized CUI marking if:
a. a statute requires or authorizes such a designation; or
b. the head of the originating department or agency, through regulations, directives, or other specific guidance to the agency, determines that the information is CUI. Such determination should be based on mission requirements, business prudence, legal privilege, the protection of personal or commercial rights, safety, or security. Such department or agency directives, regulations, or guidance shall be provided to the Executive Agent [i.e. the National Archives] for review.
Again, "mission requirements", "safety" and "security" are sufficiently vague as to invite all manner of abuses in classifying information.
nathaniel, as I pointed out when I broke this story at Daily Kos earlier this month, the main problem is that the memo does state the criteria for classifying material as CUI - and those criteria are so vague as to permit the classification of virtually anything "pertinent" to any agency's "mission".
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/11/1452/19451/239/513364
"the memo rather strikingly creates open-ended grounds for classifying information as "Controlled". Here is its definition of the term CUI (all emphases are mine):
>>Controlled Unclassified Information" is a categorical designation that refers to unclassified information that does not meet the standards for National Security Classification under Executive Order 12958, as amended, but is (i) pertinent to the national interests of the United States or to the important interests of entities outside the Federal Government, and (ii) under law or policy requires protection from unauthorized disclosure, special handling safeguards, or prescribed limits on exchange or dissemination. Henceforth, the designation CUI replaces "Sensitive But Unclassified" (SBU).
"Pertinent" is about as vague as a limitation can get. In any case, Bush declares here that the CUI designation is to be used when his policies "require protection from unauthorized disclosure". It's a big rubber stamp for anything the President wants to keep from anybody, including the public. I can think of any number of obnoxious "policies" that this administration would have reason to believe required protection from disclosure...
The same open-endedness is apparent in the memo's description of when to designate something "Controlled":
>>(25) Information shall be designated as CUI and carry an authorized CUI marking if:
a. a statute requires or authorizes such a designation; or
b. the head of the originating department or agency, through regulations, directives, or other specific guidance to the agency, determines that the information is CUI. Such determination should be based on mission requirements, business prudence, legal privilege, the protection of personal or commercial rights, safety, or security. Such department or agency directives, regulations, or guidance shall be provided to the Executive Agent [i.e. the National Archives] for review.
Again, "mission requirements", "safety" and "security" are sufficiently vague as to invite all manner of abuses in classifying information.
It all boils down to protecting certain unclassified information from public release. This has a firm statutory basis in the Freedom of Information Act and its 9 exemptions -- a close reading of which, I believe, would encompass the different types of sensitive information under the plethora of markings that now riddle the executive branch. Wish the President had taken this approach to dealing with the problem.
A few months ago, the Obama campaign used to talk about security critical infrastructure inside the U.S. such as chemical plants. The information that a chemical plant (or university, railroad, port facility) would have to submitted to the federal governmetn in support of many of its licenses you have to be considered Controlled Unclassified Information.
In the Obama administration this sort of information will exist and will be regulated exactly the same way.
It looks like the kossacks are working overtime to nitpick something.
This really isn't anything new. Before "Sensitive But Unclassified" (a Clinton Admin product) there was "Limited Official Use." There's always been a category of stuff that is not classified -- because it can't seriously damage national security, which is the marker -- but which could reveal info that could do other kinds of damage, including embarrassing foreign governments.
You know, Orwellian as the term sounds, I could see CUI being an innocent, even sensible reorganization of the hundreds of different ways of categorizing sensitive but unclassified documents throughout the government.
But this is the Bush administration.
They've earned our distrust a hundred times over.
Comments closed June 02, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
1) Have they created a category titled "Protected by the First Amendment"??
2) So that a cleared employee could --you know -- talk to his Members of Congress about wrongdoing in the Executive Branch that is hurting national security?
I didn't think so.
Posted by Don Williams | May 19, 2008 12:55 PM