The Washington Post reports on an internal Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) investigation looking into the CIA's Publications Review Board (PRB) using redactions to silence CIA critics and shield the CIA from embarrassment rather than to protect national security:
The CIA has begun an internal investigation into whether a process designed to screen books by former employees and protect national security secrets is being used in part to censor agency critics . . . The investigation coincides with the publication of a flurry of books from CIA veterans, and it is largely aimed at determining whether some redactions have been politically motivated.
I have a particular dog in this fight as I represent clients who are having their lives ruined because of
ex post facto "PRB regret."
See e.g., whistleblower
Peter Van Buren, whose book
We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People, was cleared in the State Department's PRB process, albeit by default. Despite the fact that Van Buren had his book cleared by PRB, the State Department retaliated, yanking his security clearance, confiscating his diplomatic passport, transferring him to a makeshift telework position, threatening him with criminal prosecution, and now finally trying to fire him.
But back to CIA's PRB process. WaPo also writes that CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou - the sixth whistleblower Obama has charged under Espionage Act for alleged mishandling of classified information - is also charged with trying to "trick" CIA's PRB.
Former CIA officer John Kiriakou was charged by the Justice Department in January with lying to the PRB and leaking classified information. Prosecutors alleged that e-mails between Kiriakou and his co-author show the agency veteran sought to trick the board by claiming he was fictionalizing portions of his book, a charge that Kiriakou has denied.
Even if the allegations in the indictment are true - doubtful considering the government's dismal record on Espionage Act cases (
See Thomas Drake) and Kiriakou has pleaded "not guilty" - the Justice Department has spent who knows how much taxpayer money charging Kiriakou with a felony for trying to trick PRB, but being unsuccessful. Moreover, WaPo leaves out the facts:
(1) that the charge (count 5 of the indictment) stems from an over 2 year-long series of negotiations between PRB and Kiriakou over his book (The Reluctant Spy: My Secret Life in the CIA's War on Terror), during which Kiriakou cooperated with PRB;
(2) that the allegation that Kiriakou lied to PRB by claiming parts of his book were fictionalized stems from an e-mail Kiriakou wrote to his coauthor, not to PRB. (The e-mail to Kiriakou's coauthor conveys obvious and understandable frustration with PRB's requirements to redact information that had been published in The New York Times. - See page 19, paragraph 11 of the indictment); and
(3) last but not least, that the information PRB wanted Kiriakou to redact WAS NOT PUBLISHED in Kiriakou's book, and that PRB CLEARED Kiriakou's book in its entirety.
WaPo commendably highlights that despite the fact that PRB's only function is supposed to be the protection of classified information, there is an obvious double standard between how PRB treats books favorable to CIA versus those critical of CIA:
U.S. officials familiar with the inquiry said that it reflects growing concern in the intelligence community that the review process is biased toward agency loyalists, particularly those from the executive ranks. . . . CIA critics said the disparities in the review process are particularly apparent in books that deal with controversial subjects, including the agency's use of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation measures in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
WaPo hits on the
perfect example: that torture apologist Jose Rodriquez was able to publish extensive details about the CIA's torture program - in order to defend it - while FBI whistleblower Ali Soufan's book (
The Black Banners: The Inside Story of 9/11 and the War Against al-Qaeda), which is critical of CIA's torture program, was heavily redacted at PRB's insistence:
Soufan said that his book had been cleared by the FBI, but that the CIA fought to impose changes that included the redaction of comments taken directly from transcripts of public hearings on Capitol Hill.
Soufan said he was surprised at how much Rodriguez was allowed to disclose.
“Absolutely there are things that he was able to talk about that were redacted from my book,” Soufan said. “I think it has more to do with trying to protect a narrative rather than protecting classified information.”
Rodriguez’s book includes detailed accounts of interrogations and other operations while taking veiled swipes at Soufan and others who question the use of harsh interrogation methods.
The fact that the CIA uses PRB to silence dissenters and cover embarrassment is indicative of a larger problem plaguing the bloated, broken classification system. Rather than used to protect national security, classification is used to hide government waste, fraud, abuse, mismanagement, illegality, or embarrassing information. The whistleblowers suffer the worst consequences, but all Americans are also victims because, if critics are silenced, Americans will never find out the next time the CIA tortures prisoners, or the State Department wastes a few million taxpayer dollars on failed reconstruction projects, or the NSA wastes a few billion on a failed program that invades Americans' privacy.
Side Note: to support John Kiriakou, go here or "like" the Defend John K Facebook page.