How to Achieve 90% Reduction -- Step 3: Intelligence Sources & Methods - or - "My Guess is as Good as Your's"

By far, the single greatest influence in imposing secrecy upon the national security decision making process is the influence of "intelligence sources and methods." It is a term without official definition. Yet, more than anything else, it dictates that decisions no less than those involving the unleashing of the brutality of war are done under the veil of official government secrecy.

The ambiguity of this term is not unintentional. The term itself has its origin in statute. Specifically, section 102A(i) of the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, assigns to the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) the responsibility to "protect intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure" (not further defined). Ironically, this provision in law was not originally intended to provide empowerment to the then Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) now DNI. Rather, that language reflected the concerns of the then solely military intelligence community and the distrust that military intelligence had with respect to the new "civilian interloper" into their previously closed world. Thus, the original intent of the wording was not the investing of authority in the DCI but rather the levying of a requirement based upon mistrust. Nonetheless, over the years, our nation has moved far from those limiting origins due to creative interpretations by CIA lawyers.

It is in that vein that the intelligence community has for decades resisted any effort to limit the type or amount of information encompassed within the concept of intelligence sources and methods. By deliberately keeping the term ambiguous, the intelligence community can argue it means whatever they say it means depending upon the circumstances. For example, in Berman v. CIA, a recent case before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the CIA argued that a purely analytical product such as the President's Daily Brief is an intelligence method. Fortunately, the 9th Circuit did not agree; however, the CIA has never repudiated this argument and I would anticipate that they will use it again, either in another Circuit or before the Supreme Court. As such, according to the CIA, the 4th graders in my wife's class employ an intelligence method whenever they analyze information and write a story about it.

In the recent solicitation of public input by the Public Interest Declassification Board with respect to recommended changes to the government's classification and declassification policies, the National Security Archive recommended that the term "intelligence method" be defined. Specifically, they recommended that:

“Intelligence method” means information that would disclose a process, unique mode of analysis, means of gathering data, or processing system or equipment used to produce intelligence that is lawful and authorized as part of an agency’s statutory mission, so long as:
- Disclosure of the method reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security, and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage;
- The method is not publicly known.

I highly endorse such a recommendation and believe it can contribute to a reduction in the amount of information that is classified; thus it can be a part of achieving the 90% goal. However, I recommend that such a definition be even more restrictive, by using the following language after "so long as:"

- Disclosure of the method reasonably would result in clear and demonstrable harm to the national security;
- The method, if not currently used, has been used within the past 25 years; and
- The method is not publicly known.

Furthermore, by limiting what is encompassed in the term intelligence methods, my wife's students can go back to perfecting their writing skills rather than engaging in intelligence methods in school. Besides, imagine how dull the movie Spy Kids would have been if it simply showed them producing analytical products.