To: activists@seurat.Eng.Sun.COM, dave Subject: The CIA's "Openness" Is Laughable The following article was in the "San Jose Mercury News," May 12, 1992: The CIA's ``Openness'' Is Laughable By David Corn "Openness"--that's a term that Robert Gates, director of the Central Intelligence Agency has embraced. When his nomination came before a skeptical Senate Intelligence Committee last year, he promised to promote Peristroika in Langley. After being confirmed, he convened a Task Force on Openness, which recommended how the CIA could be more forthcoming. (Only under outside pressure did the CIA make public the task force's report, which proposed among other things, that the agency release material about its successes, admit when it is wrong, and "preserve the mystique".) Gates has called for greater declassification of decades-old documents and more background briefings for the press. From a distance, his reforms may seem sincere. For several years however, I have been working on a book about the CIA. Like many researchers, I turned toward the Freedom of Information Act for assistance and found that when it comes to the CIA, it is almost worthless. The act allows scholars, reporters, and just plain folks to petition various executive branch agencies for documents. There are numerous exceptions to what the government has to release, and amendments to the act in 1984 made it easier for the CIA to withhold some records. Still, the FOIA could be of some small and important value to those seeking to understand what the CIA does, were it not for the way the agency handles FOIA requests--a process that belies the "new" CIA of Gates. Agency responses to FOIA requests are routinely discouraging, marked by long delays and puzzling answers. Here's one example: I asked for material on the Hmong, an indigenous tribe in Indochina, which the CIA armed and directed in the 1960's and 1970's as part of the so-called "secret war" in Laos. This was one of the biggest agency paramilitary operations in history; its existence is not a secret. The CIA said that it had searched and found not one piece of paper relevant to the request. Operational material detailing the ins and outs of the agency's programs is automatically exempt. But I hoped to find intelligence reports that covered the tribes and its leaders. Surely if the agency supported the Hmong for so long it must have at some time looked at its ally. But there was, the agency said, absolutely nothing. It is hard to argue with the CIA. Who know's what's in the files? But such responses are hard to accept at face value in light of other Langley decisions. In 1987, the private and non-profit National Security Archive requested under FOIA an index of all the documents that the CIA had previously released. After initial denials, the agency sent the archive 12 volumes of about 450 pages each that listed the documents in completely random order. Documents released as part of a single request were scattered through the books. This is certainly not how the FOIA office maintains its records, and one can reasonably surmise that it had to program its computer to devise such a random and mean-spirited dump. When I requested the index information in electronic form--so it could be arranged coherently--the agency told me to get lost. The National Security Archive is still fighting the CIA to obtain the index in computer form. The only way to use the index is to plow through the volumes. I went through one book and found several documents that looked intriguing. (Almost all the good stuff was released prior to 1981, the year Ronald Reagan assumed office.) I filed a request with the agency for these papers and received the material in three weeks-- Olympic speed by FOIA standards. I then went through the rest of the set and filed subsequent requests. When the CIA realized what I was doing it seems, it put in what some researchers believe is the forget-you category. After six months, only one of my other requests has been fulfilled--and that only occurred after the intervention of a lawyer. The FOIA calls for agencies to respond to requests within 10 days. But that standard has become a farce. Usually it means that the agency acknowledges the receipt of the request within 10 days. Then the request goes to the end of the line, and is some instances years will pass before you hear back. Such delays dilute the power of the FOIA. Few book authors or journalists have the luxury of waiting so long. =========== David Corn is Washington Editor of "The Nation" magazine and is working on a book about the CIA. He wrote this article for "The Washington Post." -- daveus rattus yer friendly neighborhood ratman KOYAANISQATSI ko.yan.nis.qatsi (from the Hopi Language) n. 1. crazy life. 2. life in turmoil. 3. life out of balance. 4. life disintegrating. 5. a state of life that calls for another way of living. ** End of Article ** Don * Origin: HomeBody BBS (407)322-3592 Sanford, FL (1:363/81)