[THS] Sibel Edmonds: Secret Reports, Secret Budgets, Secret Operations,

[Peter Webster]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24183.htm

Secret Reports, Secret Budgets, Secret Operations, Secret Courts ...

A Secret Government!

By Sibel Edmonds

The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions
of their rulers may be concealed from them. — Patrick Henry

December 15, 2009 "Boiling Frogs" --  As stated by Patrick Henry with conviction and
passion, a democratic government will not last if its operations and policies are not
visible to its public. The foundation of our democratic republic is supposed to be
based on an open and accountable government. Transparency is what enables
accountability.

For several decades post 1945, under the guise of the Cold War, with the creation of
the Central Intelligence Agency and an aggressive foreign policy based on overt and
covert intervention abroad, the seeds of excessive secrecy were planted, aggressively
nurtured, and taken to heights not imaginable in our founding fathers’ vision of
transparent and accountable government. Although the Watergate Scandal brought
a short-lived wave of awakening, and to a certain degree defiance, by getting
Americans to question the extent of and the real need for governmental secrecy, the
subsequent political movements were eventually halted with no real action ever
taken, thanks to a Congress unwilling to truly exercise its oversight authority over the
intelligence community.

With the September 11 Terrorist Attacks the establishment had all it needed to take
government secrecy to new heights where neither the Constitution nor the separation
of powers would matter or be applicable. These new heights could never be reached
in a functioning and live democracy, nor could they be sustained and flourish without
a home marked by all the characteristics of a police state. Those new heights were
indeed reached, and they surely have been not only sustained, but actually
increased; notch by notch. Waving the national security flag nonstop, reminding us
on a daily basis of some vague boogiemen terrorists who may be hiding under our
beds, drilling the words terror-terrorists-terrorism every hour, did the magic; thanks
to the US Media.

Let’s examine some of these new heights of secrecy we’ve reached and appear to
have accepted:

The Cost

For the fiscal year 2005, based on an official report released by the National Archives,
the total security classification cost estimates for Government was $7.7 billion. This
figure represents costs provided by 41 executive branch agencies, including the
Department of Defense. But it does not include the cost estimates of the CIA, which
is classified by the agency. Here is the breakdown:

    Personnel Security = $1.15 Billion
    Physical Security = $1 Billion
    Information Security = $4 Billion

    Information Technology = $3.6 Billion
    Classification Management = $310 Million
    Declassification = $57 Million

    Professional Education and Training = $219 Million
    Security Management and Planning = $1.2 Billion
    Unique = $6.6 Million

    Total= $7.7 Billion

Based on the consensus among the knowledgeable this was truly a new height for
government secrecy spun out of control. But wait, this new record height was short-
lived! It climbed much higher very quickly. Here is the major new height for 2007
secrecy as reported by the US Information Security Oversight Office:

    The U.S. Information Security

    Oversight Office recorded an all-time-high record in the cost of implementing the
national security classification system.

    The annual report, released Thursday, representing the classification and
declassification activity throughout the executive branch, said the cost of national
security classifications totaled $9.91 billion in 2007. The total cost was a 4.6 percent
increase over 2006 and became the highest total recorded in ISOO’s history.

That’s right. In two years the cost of our government’s classification and its secrecy
increased from $7.7 Billion to $9.91 Billion. And, as with the 2005 cost this too does
not include the CIA and other classified operations and entities we don’t know about.
Just keep in mind all those rendition, detention and torture operations we’ve been
engaged in around the globe.

The Trend

The following is a snap shot of a few items in the Secrecy Report Card for 2008
issued by Open the Government:

    18% of DOD FY 2008 Acquisition Budget, equaling to more than $31 Billion, is
classified.

    Our Secret FISA Court issued 2,371 secret orders in 2007.

    Over 25% of our Federal Government’s Contracts, equaling to $114 billion, were
granted with no competition whatsoever.

    Over 64% of the 7,067 meetings of Federal Advisory Committees on scientific
technical areas were completely closed to the public.

What does this tell us? Secret Budgets, Secret Courts & Secret Orders, Secret
Meetings, no-competition & no-oversight contracts paid by taxpayers’ dollars


Secret Budgets, Secret Expenditures

What does it mean when we keep hearing secret budget for this agency, secret
budget for that acquisition, secret budget for this and that operation? Take this
example:

    The Defense Department will spend $35.8 billion on secret technologies in 2010,
according to a new report from the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Strategic and
Budgetary Assessments.

    “Restrictions placed on access to classified programs have meant that DoD and
Congress typically exercise less oversight over classified programs than unclassified
ones,” the report notes. That can result in big losses, when programs go awry.

    Take the hush-hush Future Imagery Architecture program, meant to “develop the
next generation of spy satellites for the National Reconnaissance Office.” “The
electro-optical satellite component of the program was canceled in 2005 due to
significant cost overruns and technical issues,” CSBA recalls, “resulting in what was
reported as a $4 billion loss for the government.”

We’ve seen many examples like this; CIA, NSA, DOD, FBI
Here is another ludicrous
example:

    Growing by leaps and bounds, the Pentagon’s secretive Information Operations
budget keeps tripping over some basic information — like how much it costs.

    Just months ago, the Defense Department said it needed $988 million to help win
hearts and minds in the new fiscal year beginning Oct. 1. When the House cut this
by half in July, top-level officials landed on Capitol Hill, pleading their case but also
making a startling admission: Their budget needs for 2010 are actually $626.2 million
— more than one-third less than first estimated.

I know for some reason when it comes to our government expenditures the zeros
attached to these dollar amounts don’t register with many. In this case we are talking
about nearly $1 billion, and here is the dollar amount with zeros – $1,000,000,000.
This is not an amount printed specifically and specially for our government to dispose
of as it pleases, as it wishes, with secrecy, thus with immunity and no oversight.
These dollars are your money, my money; our tax dollars. Think of these zeros spent
with no accountability when you are thinking of your kids’ college funds, your medical
bills, your ever-shrinking retirement funds
Then, tell me whether it sits okay with
you to see our government spend your hard-earned dollars in secrecy, without your
consent, and not to your benefit.

So what does the branch entrusted with oversight and accountability do when it
comes to these secret budgets & expenditures? Nothing, really; after all it is shielded
by secrecy and classification, and as long as they have a share of this pie, who gives
a damn about the public interest?! A good example of this surfaced (unfortunately it
quickly disappeared from the media radar) during the Representative Randy
Cunningham Scandal. If you don’t remember the details you are not alone; Jennifer
Aniston’s story and Brittany’s personal saga didn’t leave much room for major
corruption scandals like this. You can read a snapshot of the case here, which
describes the congressional corruption side of the story. The following excerpts from
the same article have to do with the secrecy aspect of this issue, in 2005, when the
Pentagon secret budget was around $22 billion:

    The Pentagon’s classified budget for buying goods and services has increased by
nearly 48% since 9/11 — from $18.2 billion in fiscal 2002 to $26.9 billion this year —
according to figures compiled by the non-partisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Assessments.

    The budget has long been a repository for spending that members of Congress
want to shield.

    “We had a classified annex to our bill, and we would hide all sorts of things in
there,” says Jim Currie, who worked as a Democratic staff member at the Senate
Intelligence Committee until 1991 and now teaches at the National Defense
University. “In theory, any member of Congress could find out about it, but in reality
no one ever came in and checked. 
 It’s a beautiful way to hide something.”

    Harold Relyea, who studies government secrecy at the Congressional Research
Service, says even if lawmakers had the time to study classified programs, most are
not inclined to question the pet projects of their colleagues. And within the defense
industry, “there is a coziness that sometimes builds up. You are familiar with the
company and their people, it’s easy to go back to them” for more work. “It’s a new
phase of what we used to call the military-industrial complex.”

    Neither Congress nor the executive branch regularly produces reports on oversight
of classified spending. None has been made during the buildup after the 2001
terrorist attacks. Without such investigations, it’s impossible to know whether, or to
what extent, the classified “black budget” is being abused.

The details of these secret aka black budgets are revealed to only a very few select
Congressional committee members, and sometimes not even to them. Billions of
dollars go to defense companies like the infamous Blackwater (Xe), billions into illegal
and immoral operations involving extraordinary renditions, torture and assassinations,
billions get lost in secret planes destined to some secret countries for some secret
objective, billions are lost due to mismanagement and bad accounting practices
This
is our money, and this is supposed to be our government, but the former doesn’t
matter while the latter no longer holds true. That part is no longer a secret.

Secret Courts, Secret Hearings

This is a topic I can write about and talk about in detail. Those of you familiar with
my case and the invocation of the draconian State Secrets Privilege know this
already. Those of you who are not, here are a few excerpts from only one of many
unconstitutional secrecy practices I had to endure for almost six years:

    A federal court in Washington yesterday took the rare step of closing an entire oral
argument to the public in the case of a former FBI translator who says she was fired
for complaining about security breaches. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit announced that today’s 30-minute argument in the case of Sibel Edmonds, a
Middle Eastern language specialist fired in 2002, will be conducted behind closed
doors. The court gave no reason for its decision.

    The Washington Post and 12 other media organizations also filed an emergency
motion urging the court to open the arguments. The Justice Department declined to
comment. It has urged dismissal of Edmonds’s case and contends that the litigation
could lead to disclosure of classified information. But the court decided to close
today’s hearing without a request from the government.

CourtThis was one of many similar actions by our government to cover up criminal
acts and illegal operations using their regularly-employed secrecy card. This was not
a case related to some terrorist, or, intelligence gathering method, or, anything that
in any way would warrant protection of information. All they (the Federal
Government) had to do: tell the courts, the judges, that they deemed everything
about me and my case classified. That’s it. Period. No supporting documents, no
witnesses, no explanation. They could just say so, and get what they wanted from
the other branch which theoretically exists for the purpose of checks and balances;
the purpose and the separation that was once upon a time but it isn’t any longer.

This same secrecy card, invocation of state secrets privilege, classification, has been
used to shield the government, prevent oversight, and prohibit even the chance of
government accountability in case after case: NSA’s illegal domestic wiretapping,
torture, government whistleblowers, Inspector General investigations and findings


Let’s go back to our Secret Court with Secret Orders: Our Secret FISA Court issued
2,371 secret orders in 2007. If you are wondering how the Feds get their federal
judges to go along with their unjustified, unwarranted, and in some cases
unconstitutional secrecy requests, this may answer it for you to a certain extent:
Secrecy Compliance by Judges with a Secret Past. What do I mean by that? Okay,
here is a real example, with a real case:

The case involves Judge Reggie Walton who was promoted to the FISA-Secret Court
towards the end of the Bush Administration. He is a judge with a really questionable
background, who was handpicked by Bush Senior to work in the Drug Czar’s office (I
guess you have a pretty good idea of the real qualifications needed for heading that
office!). However, you and I, the American Public, are not allowed to know this
judge’s deep dark history, despite his record of many questionable rulings. Judge
Reggie Walton’s real past and his real finances are secret:

    What do two of the biggest national-security news stories of the century — the
Valerie Plame leak scandal and the legal case of FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds —
have in common? They both are being presided over by the same federal judge in
the District of Colombia, Reggie Walton, a Bush appointee to the federal court and a
man who appears to have a few well-kept secrets of his own.

    All federal judges are required under ethics rules to file what is known as “financial
disclosure reports.” The disclosure statement filed by Walton, which was obtained
through the dogged efforts of a conservative watchdog group called Judicial Watch,
is curious in what it does not reveal. Remember, this judge is arguably handling two
of the most sensitive and potentially far-reaching challenges to the free press and the
public’s right to know of our times.

    So Judge Walton seems to be in a critical role in serving as the point man in the
federal judicial system for two explosive cases — the Edmonds civil case and Libby’s
criminal case — both of which have vast implications for the White House and for the
country in general. So shouldn’t we know who’s buttering Walton’s bread in terms of
financial backing? Why have ethics rules mandating such disclosures, if the
information is not disclosed in cases, such as these, where the stakes are so high?

    Well, it seems, at least according to the only document that Judicial Watch could
shake loose in its public-records quest, that Walton doesn’t think so. His financial
disclosure statement, the one released for public inspection through Judicial Watch,
is completely redacted, every line of it. Take a look here for yourself.

    Now, ask yourself, why would that be, and what might lurk in the shadows of
Judge Walton’s fiscal closet? If there nothing to hide, then there is nothing to lose by
shedding some light on the retractions, is there?

This appears to be one way for the federal government to overcome the burden of
the Constitution and separation of powers: Hand select and appoint federal judges
with secret pasts and secret financials, and in fact promote them to the secret courts
where these thousands of secret orders take place every year.

Secret Investigations, Secret Reports, Secret Documents

So what happens when once in a blue moon you get a little bit of congressional
pressure and or media coverage, thus forcing the government to investigate itself?
That’s right, the body called the Office of Inspector General, OIG, is just that. It is
used when the government is pressured to provide somewhat of an explanation,
answer, on cases and scandals that have garnered some level of public
attention/scrutiny. One of the offices of the government, with employees who are
answerable to the government and paid by the government, is given the task to
investigate that same government.

You would think with that much leverage and control the government would not give
a hoot about the resulting report card prepared and issued by its own humble
servants. You would be wrong. Even then, the government, without having to justify
or prove anything, can declare the findings, the report, secret and classified. Let’s
get this straight: The purpose, in the first place, for having an IG investigation and
report, is to inform the people and their congressional representatives. Yet, that same
government can then declare the report, or any portion of that report, secret and
classified.

Actually, seeing an IG report that has been redacted by government bosses will put
this in perspective. After three years of foot-dragging, due to a certain degree of
public pressure and initial congressional requests, the Justice Department’s Inspector
General finally issued a report on my case. Here is what the original report looks like:
here.  Who decides what gets to be redacted? Of course – the mighty government.
What are the reasons, what is the justification? No one knows; they are all secret.
Why are these reasons secret? You have no right to know, because the reasons
themselves are secret to start with. You think I’m joking? I kid you not. After the
above redacted report I fought for another two years in courts to find the answers to
these same questions. We ended up with one answer; one word: Secret.

The recent developments on the release of torture pictures is another good example:

    Specifically, the coalition’s letter requests that President Obama direct the
Department of Defense to comply with court orders mandating disclosure of photos
documenting detainee abuse, rather than exercise an authority recently granted by
Congress to keep them secret. It also “explain[s] why transparency and robust
accountability are a strategic national security imperative, and
expose[s] the self-
interest of voices counseling against accountability.”

How about a desperate Congress begging the right to information they are entitled to
get in the first place?

    Anticipating that the debate over reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act will soon
come to the Senate floor, Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and
Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) on Tuesday asked Attorney General Eric Holder to declassify
key information about how the law’s “business records provision” has been used.
They last sent a classified letter in June asking for the same thing, but claim they’ve
received no response.

    Section 215 of the Patriot Act, known as the “business records provision,” relaxed
the previous standard the government had to meet to obtain personal information
from banks, hospitals, libraries, retail stores and other institutions. Previously, the
government had to show that it had evidence that the person whose records it
sought was a terrorist or spy. With passage of the Patriot Act, that standard was
lowered to permit the government to collect any records it considered “relevant to an
investigation.”

    Wyden, Feingold and Durbin have been arguing that the relevance standard is far
too broad and violates the privacy rights of ordinary law-abiding Americans. But they
also claim that the government is withholding key information from Congress that
would allow lawmakers to make an informed judgment about the issue. Although it’s
not clear exactly what information they’re talking about, since even a description of
the information is classified, it would seem to be information about how the
government has used the business records provision, and what evidence it has
obtained by its use.

Doesn’t this sound pathetic? We the people, through our representatives, the
supposed-to-be masters of our nation, begging the supposed-to-be civil servants for
information on how and based on what guidelines our government operates?

As for any indication of changes for the good in this area of excessive secrecy with
impunity, there seems to be none. In fact, our new President of changes is intending
to take it even further, to ludicrous levels. Here is one recent outrageous and
Kafkaesque move by the Obama administration (Pay special attention to the sadly
funny title!):
Federal workshop on openness closed to the public

    The Obama administration is conducting a workshop on government openness for
federal employees behind closed doors Monday, a private training session for
freedom-of-information officials to learn about a new U.S. office that settle disputes
between the bureaucracy and the public.

    The decision to preclude the public and the media from attending Monday’s
openness workshop left advocates scratching their heads, given President Barack
Obama’s campaign promise to make his administration the most transparent ever.

    “If they’re getting marching orders, why shouldn’t the public be there?” said Jeff
Stachewicz, founder of Washington-based FOIA Group Inc., which files hundreds of
requests every month across the government on behalf of companies, law firms and
news organizations.

I can go on and fill page after page with facts, cases, and examples of our
government’s current and worsening state when it comes to transparency, thus to its
degree of accountability to we the people. However, I think you get the picture and
the picture is crystal clear. Therefore I expect many of you feel the outrage building
up, and the desire to bring about real changes bubbling inside you. Because if these
points don’t sound outrageous and if they don’t make the state of our liberties look
dire and pathetic, then we are all in deep trouble. If we accept secret budgets, if we
say ‘okay’ to secret courts, if we shrug off secret hearings and reports, if we
unquestioningly pay for secret operations, if we assume indifference to a government
operating and hidden in pure secrecy
then we deserve to be a nation of liberty-less
servants serving the masters in a secret government, and live in denial of having
become inhabitants of a true police state.