9/11 and Recreancy

The upcoming thirteenth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks brings with it new commentary on the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States’ (9/11 Commission) recommendations as well as a call to declassify and further investigate claims of alleged Saudi involvement in the attacks initially made in the 2002 House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reports. This investigation is often simply referred to as the Joint Inquiry.

To this end, my 2013 article Freudenburg beyond borders: Recreancy, atrophy of vigilance, bureaucratic slippage, and the tragedy of 9/11* deconstructs these two official accounts by way of Bill Freudenburg’s recreancy, or institutional failure, as it applies to the 9/11 disaster.

_________________

* First appeared in Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, 21, pp.201- 223 (Gedenkschrift in honor of William R. Freudenburg, a life in social research, Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, 21).

Blue Paper & CREST

Those of you familiar with the CIA’s 25 Year Program Archive CREST understand the database on the Agency’s Web site does not contain the complete full text (.pdf) of declassified records. There are two CREST systems I discovered; the abbreviated version on the CIA’s Web site and a full version on dedicated pcs at NARA in College Park, Maryland. It’s useful to note that some of the CREST docs that are not full text in the abbreviated version can be obtained in several ways: through the library subscription databases Declassified Documents Reference System (DDRS) and Digital National Security Archive, through federal agency (FOIA) reading rooms, and if unable to fund travel to NARA in College Park, through a FOIA request to the CIA’s Information and Privacy Coordinator.

On its Web site, the CIA describes CREST as

The automatic declassification provisions of Executive Order 13256 (formerly EO 12958, as amended) require the declassification of nonexempt historically valuable records 25 years or older. The EO was originally issued in April 1995 and via amendment established 31 December 2006 as the first major deadline for automatic declassification under the “25-year program”. By that date, agencies were to have completed the review of all hardcopy documents determined to contain exclusively their equities. For CIA, the 2006 deadline covered the span of relevant documents originally dating from the establishment of the CIA after WWII through 1981. (“CREST: 25-Year Program Archive,” para 1)

Earlier this year, I traveled to the NARA mothership to search the CREST system and retrieve documents for the several projects I’m currently working on. At NARA, I was informed by staff that CREST documents could not be downloaded or emailed; in order to save and keep documents, printing only was allowed on blue paper. (I’m not sure if this is a NARA or CIA requirement). The NARA staff directed me to a wall of reams. I was told to take as much paper as I needed – when I objected, I was told the CIA supplied the paper. After printing through one and a half reams of paper, I decided printing docs I needed was unsustainable. Moreover, how would I transport loads of paper back to my office? Pay baggage fees? Send through media mail? I found none of these scenarios sustainable or cost effective, especially from a larger environmental and natural resource considerations.

So I began to question the CIA’s policy of having two different CREST systems with separate modes of access: Why has the CIA created two different research systems, one abbreviated on the Web, and another with expanded access as standalone pcs only accessible in person at NARA?  Why are CREST materials subject to FOIA, another bureaucratic level set for the public to gain access to CIA historical materials that have been declassified?

I also thought about the hearings on the Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996 or E-FOIA Amendments (Pub. L. No. 104-231, 110 Stat. 3048, 5 U.S.C. § 552, Supp. II 1996), especially Rep. Randy Tate’s comments. Wasn’t e-FOIA characterized as a means to get FOIA docs – and I’m folding in CREST docs here –  to the people?

H.R. 3802 puts FOIA information online on agency websites, ensuring that citizens in every home—in every town—and in every city—across the Nation will be able to access Government information from the comfort of their own homes. My neighbors will be able to turn on their computers—click onto the internet—and download information made accessible by the Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996. Our Government should be userfriendly by making an effort to deliver information to Americans. (142 Cong. Rec. H10450, September 17, 1996)

In the end, and although I would still need to scan documents, I decided not to print documents on blue paper and instead “batch” FOIA requests by subject/research project in order to obtain the CREST docs I needed. None of the requests I filed exceeded 100 pages.

In February, I received one full request satisfied by the CIA. However, three other requests for CREST documents submitted in February were folded into one request by the CIA. In March, the CIA informed me that my CREST requests – now one FOIA – was subject to a charge of $21.50. The CIA cited CFR Title 32, Chapter XIX Section 1900.13j that a requestor “may not file a series of multiple requests which are merely subdivisions of the information actually sought for the purposes of avoiding or reducing applicable fees.” An unfair accusation that any busy researcher would object to – I was being efficient and organized wasn’t I? I filed an appeal to the Information and Privacy Coordinator, and in May 2014, my appeal was denied.

So here it is: CREST is a two tiered research system. That is, if a researcher can afford to visit NARA in College Park to search the full version of CREST, they are saddled with blue paper and trying to figure out how to deliver their many documents back to homes and offices where they will need to scan materials in order to search for terms, people, and events in especially lengthy documents. Even though a researcher may print out as many documents on blue paper as they like at NARA, if they use the abbreviated version of CREST through the CIA’s Web site, and request records by way of the CIA’s policy of using FOIA to distribute CREST documents, fees are assessed over 100 pages (and researchers run the risk of having their requests folded into one request). And researchers would still need to scan the docs if they wanted to optimize their research time.

These policies are puzzling and it is imperative the CIA explain to the research community why this two-tiered system exists. The Agency, while they’re at it, might devise a cost effective – and fully accessible – “complete” CREST database. And put it on the Web.

Citing is Important

Isn’t it customary to cite your sources? Any undergrad is acutely aware of the perils of not doing so.

Take this recent editorial on leaks (emphasis added):

There are “whistleblower leaks.” These come from individuals who believe that a politician, staffer, lobbyist, or a corporation has committed and then hid an illegal act, and violated the public trust.

The second kind of leak comes from individuals who have a self-interest in alerting the media to what may be scandals. These leaks could come from political candidates, elected and appointed officials, and those in corporate business who want to eliminate a competitor, but don’t want to have their hands dirtied by the revelation. Most of these leaks fall into the sub-category, Gossip. Far too often, the media take the allegations, do minimal investigation, publish their findings, but never ask the critical question–“Why are you telling me this?”

A third kind of leak is the “trial balloon.” A government official or corporate executive wants to find out what the public thinks of an idea or plan, but doesn’t want anyone to know who is behind it. Often, the media will report something to the effect, “Rumors abound in Washington that  . . .” If opinion leaders and the public like the idea–and politicians spent millions of dollars to have polls tell them what to think–then the proposal is implemented. If there’s a negative reaction to the trial balloon, the plan is locked into obscurity, and the source is exonerated from all negative feedback.

A fourth leak, a variant of the trial balloon, is the veiled news source.

The first three descriptions of leaks, or typologies, are suggestive of Stephen Hess’ The Government/Press Connection: Press Officers and Their Offices (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1984, pp.77-79). I mentioned Hess in several editions of the Lexicon (entry on leaks) and in my commentary on the Coolidge Report and wikileaks. Hess outlines leaks as follows – kinda similar to the unattributed descriptions in the editorial, no?

Ego Leak: Giving information primarily to satisfy a sense of self.

Goodwill Leak: Information offered to “accumulate credit” as a play for a future favor.

Policy Leak: A straightforward pitch for or against a proposal using some document or insider information as the lure to get more attention than might be otherwise justified. The leak of the Pentagon Papers falls into this category.

Animus Leak: Used to settle grudges; information is released in order to cause embarrassment to another person.

Trial-Balloon Leak: Revealing a proposal that is under consideration in order to assess its assets and liabilities. Usually proponents have too much invested in a proposal to wan to leave it to the vagaries of the press and public opinion. More likely, those who send up a trial balloon want to see it shot down, and because it is easier to generate opposition to almost anything than to build support, this is the most likely effect.

Whistleblower Leak: Usually used by career personnel; going to the press may be the last resort of frustrated civil servants who feel they cannot resolve their dispute through administrative channels. Hess is careful to point out that Whistleblowing is not synonymous with leaking.

The “veiled news source,” or “cloaked” leak, appears early in the work of Seymour Hersh (1967) and Hugh M. Culbertson, whose research was supported by the American Newspaper Publishers Association. See

Culbertson, Hugh M. 1980. Leaks–A dilemma for editors as well as officials. Journalism Quarterly, 57(3): 402-535.

Culbertson, Hugh M. 1978. Veiled attribution–An element of style? Journalism Quarterly, 55(3):456-465.

Culbertson, Hugh M. and Somerick, Nancy. 1977. Variables affect how persons view unnamed news sources. Journalism Quarterly, 54(1):58-69.

Neither Hess or Hersh is mentioned in the editorial. While it can be argued that editorials aren’t scholarly (peer-reviewed) papers, it is expected we acknowledge the work of others we use. This is the public responsibility of scholars.

 

Fifty Years of Inquiry: The John F. Kennedy Assassination

On the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy’s assassination, it is critical to turn to public documents, many of which contributed to the evolution of “conspiracy theories” regarding the actors and motives behind the President’s murder. Investigations, official and citizen-driven alike, have produced an enormous amount of conflicting and contrary information. However, citizen inquiries pale in comparison conspiracy-wise, especially when one considers the conclusions of the official version of the assassination (Warren Commission) and Congress’ own inquiry (House Select Committee on Assassinations). As one NPR commentator recently commented, “inconsistencies haunt the official record” of President Kennedy’s assassination.

Beginning with the FBI report, below is a timeline that reflects official and public investigations of the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

________________________________

1963 ~ Federal Bureau of Investigation (December 9, 1963). Investigation of Assassination of John F. Kennedy November 22, 1963.

Conclusion: Oswald, the lone shooter of President Kennedy, Gov. Connally, and Patrolman Tippit.

1964 ~ Report of the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy (Warren Commission):

Conclusion: Oswald, the lone shooter and the magic, traveling bullet / No conspiracy.

1965 ~ Lord Devlin, Death of a president: The established facts, Atlantic Monthly (March. pp. 112–118):

Conclusions:
So it seems to me to be quite unreasonable to suggest that the Commission, when it embarked upon the second part of its task, should have looked for a conspiracy to which Oswald was not a party. There are three factors on the surface of events which at the beginning must have made it look more likely than not that Oswald had accomplices:

The first superficial factor is the doubt whether a crime of this magnitude and difficulty can be successfully committed by a man who is acting entirely alone.

The second factor is the killing of Oswald by Ruby, which by a curious coincidence gives rise to an improbability of the same sort. To British eyes at first—though the view has been changed by the Commission’s descriptions of activities at the Dallas police headquarters—to kill a man while in the custody of the police at their headquarters would be a far more difficult task than to kill a statesmen in a public parade.

The third factor is Oswald’s Communist background.

1966 ~ Mark Lane’s (1966, 1967) Rush to Judgment (video of the text at youtube) / Conclusions: Disputes “preconceived” theories made by the Warren Commission and FBI of Oswald’s involvement in the assassination and direction of the shots (e.g., picket fence) & Garrison Investigation  / Conclusion:  Clay Shaw is one of the conspirators in the JFK assassination.

1968 ~ Panel Review of Photographs, X-Ray Films, Documents and Other Evidence Pertaining to the Fatal Wounding of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1962 (Ramsey Clark Panel)

Conclusion: Fatal shot  from behind the President.

1975-1976 ~ House Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights (also referred to as the Edwards Committee; Reprinted in FBI oversight: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary, 95th Congress, first session, Y 4.J 89/1:94-2/):

Conclusion: Investigates the “Hosty note” that Lee Harvey Oswald left at the FBI Dallas field office for Special Agent James Hosty on November 6, 1963. The Committee reported that after the assassination, Agent Hosty allegedly destroyed Oswald’s note on the instructions of his superior, Special Agent in Charge J. Gordon Shanklin. The FBI kept the note secret for 12 years (see pt. 2., “Circumstances surrounding destruction of the Lee Harvey Oswald note”).

1976 ~ Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities or Church Committee, Final Report of the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, Together with Additional, Supplemental, and Separate Views (6 volumes). Book V. is The Investigation of the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: Performance of the Intelligence Agencies (sometimes referred to as the Hart-Schweiker Subcommittee Report after Gary Hart (D-CO) and Richard Schweiker (R-PA), members of the Church Committee):

Conclusions:
The Committee emphasizes that this Report’s discussion of investigative deficiencies and the failure of American intelligence agencies to inform the Warren Commission of certain information does not lead to the conclusion that there was a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy. (p.2)

At the outset of its investigation, the Select Committee had evidence that the Warren Commission was not given information about CIA attempts to assassinate foreign leaders. As the Select Committee later discovered, the Warren Commission was also unaware of the full extent of the agencies’ involvement in operations directed against Cuba. (p. 9)

Before the Warren Commission issued its report on the assassination of President Kennedy on September 24, 1964, both the CIA and the FBI had assured the Commission that they would never close the case. When appearing before the Warren Commission, CIA Deputy Director for Plans Richard Helms stated (emphasis added):

Q. . . . after the Commission completed its report you would keep the matter open if there was anything new that developed in the future that could be properly presented to the authorities?

A. Yes. I would assume the case will never be closed. FBI Director Hoover made a similar statement before the Warren Commission:… so far as the FBI is concerned, the case will be continued in an open classification for all time (p.77).

1978-1979 ~ House Select Committee on Assassinations. Investigation of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy: Hearings before the Select Committee on Assassinations of the U.S. House of Representatives:

 Conclusions: HSCA determined “on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The Committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy.”

1991 ~ Oliver Stone’s film JFK released.

1992 ~ President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, P.L. 102-526 passed.

1998 ~ Assassinations Records Review Board (AARB). Final Report. Per the JFK Act (President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992), the AARB did not investigate the assassination but focused on “release assassination records so that the public could draw its own conclusions” (p.xxi)  The Act allows for delay in release of assassination records beyond the year 2017 if “the President certifies” that (1) “continued postponement is made necessary by an identifiable harm to the military, defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or conduct of foreign relations” and (2) “the identifiable harm is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in disclosure” (Assassination Records Review Board 1998, p. 8):

Conclusions: See letters from the Assassination Archives and Research Center (AARC) to the National Archives and Records Administration urging declassification of remaining JFK records (mostly CIA) for the 50th anniversary of the assassination (1) AARC Press Release of Jun 12, 2012; (2) AARC’s letter to NARA of Jan 20, 2012; and (3) NARA’s Response to AARC of Jun 12, 2012.

AARB staff member Douglas Horne has unique insight into the Board and its search for records. Appendices to his multivolume Inside the AARB are provided by the Mary Ferrell Foundation.

To date, the number of assassination records that have been destroyed and/or are missing, never preserved, is unknown.