Seven Questions: The CIA Airs Its Dirty Laundry

Image: CIAThe good old days? The CIAs document dump is a treasure trove of fanciful and nefarious plots from a bygone era.

FOREIGN POLICY: Whats the significance of the so-called Family Jewels documents that were just released by the Central Intelligence Agency?

Steven Aftergood: Well, considering that I havent read through all of them, I think the most important lesson here is that everything becomes public in the end. And that is a message not just for historians, but more importantly for government officials today. Sooner or later, they will be held accountable for their achievements, their mistakes, and their crimes, if any. Many of the activities described in the Family Jewels are violations of law. Secrecy can conceal them for a period of time, but not forever.

FP: Do you mean thats a characteristic of the U.S. government, or of democracies in general?

SA: It ought to be a defining characteristic of democracy. And certainly it is much more of a characteristic of democracies than of closed societies, whether were talking about China, [North] Korea, or wherever it may be. Not to mention countries that have not-very-robust official records systems, in Africa or elsewhere. So yes, its part of how we have organized our society: There is an understanding that some things do need to be kept secret for a period of time, but that sooner or later, everything must be disclosed.

FP: Do you think theres any particular political motivation to the timing of their release this week?

SA: There is a political element both to classification and to declassification. And I have to imagine that CIA officials were alert to the political aspect of the disclosure. They didnt simply put it out there, or transfer it to the open collections at the National Archives. They issued a press release, and the director gave a speech.

FP: So when CIA Director Michael Hayden calls these documents a glimpse at a very different period, and a very different agency, do you think thats a fair assessment?

SA: Thats the message he wants to send. The release of these documents is also a way of trying to distance the CIA from its own past, and to say, Were not like this anymore. Others may question that assessment, particularly in light of the practice of extraordinary rendition, the controversial interrogation practices such as waterboarding, and the irregular domestic surveillance activities that were conducted outside the framework of law, namely the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

FP: Will people like Vice President Dick Cheney and officials at the CIA who are inclined to avoid public disclosure of official records and documents take anything away from this release?

SA: I dont know, but I think their attitudes toward declassification and public disclosure are already well defined and probably not susceptible to rethinking at this point. Director Hayden, by contrast, was already inclined to engage the public when he was director of [the National Security Agency]. He was well known for opening up what had been closed and making accessible what had not been accessible during his tenure there.

FP: Do you think that publics in general are more willing to accept governmental secrecy now than they were, say, 30 years ago?

SA: Theres been a kind of oscillation over time. In the immediate post-9/11 period, there was almost unlimited tolerance for official secrecyin the expectation that the government should be permitted to do what it needed to do to secure the country. As [the memory of] 9/11 has receded, people have begun to rethink that attitude, especially in view of how the Iraq war has unfolded. It turns out that secret government is not the same as efficient or competent government, and that theres a reason why we have checks and balances built into our system.

FP: Youve become an expert in persuading governments to take a more open stance on official documents and history. What other major collections of documents would you like to see uncovered?

SA: Im not a historian, and I dont necessarily have a Top 10 list of hot historical items I would like to see. I would like to see all of it declassified, and let people find interest where they may.

In terms of unfinished business for today, the most important action that needs to be taken is to declassify the intelligence budget total. That was a unanimous recommendation of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. It is pending in the Senate version of the 2008 Intelligence Authorization Act. But the Bush administration firmly opposes declassification. So that is where the battle lines are drawn today.

Every release like this sort of perturbs the environment, and makes it possible to rethink disclosure policies. If this release proves to be a positive experience, then it may serve as a helpful precedent. If it somehow turns out to be a letdown, or something goes awrywhich hasnt happened yetthen they may say that this is more trouble than its worth. So well have to see. I think its both positive and importantit sends the signal that sooner or later, everything is going to come out.

Steven Aftergood is director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists.

For other timely interviews with leading world figures and expert analysts, visit FP’s complete Seven Questions Archive.