One of the important points made in the 9/11 Commission Report is the problem caused by the current compartmentalization of intelligence information. This system made sense in the Cold War when the emphasis was on preventing a mole from accessing too much information. Trying to prevent terrorism has very different requirements for information sharing which is hindered by this type of security setup.
Another problem is the over-classification of information. Much of it stems from an attitude of superiority over those seeking to do us harm. If we do not tell them how to build a nuclear bomb, they will not be able to figure it out.
A less obvious reason for over-classifying information is the lack of incentive to release information. When a hard question is asked, it is a lot easier to say "I can't discuss that because it is classified" than to admit you do not know the answer. The same thing goes for covering up mistakes.
You can see this most clearly from the almost glacial speed at which information is downgraded in its classification. It is not uncommon for a piece of information that is classified to be commonly held knowledge in the world. Is that information downgraded? No, it becomes a running joke in the intelligence community.
Speaking of jokes, one of my favorite examples of the downgrade process can be found in a memo describing terrorist threats around the time of Christmas in 1974. This memo has been released twice in the last ten years. The second time it was released to the National Security Archive, and the memo can be found here. You will notice a large section of text is redacted on the last page under the heading Terrorist Threats and Plans: Worldwide. A reasonable question to ask is what sort of terrorist threat that occurred 30 years ago still needs to be classified today.
The answer to that question comes from another version of the same document released to the Gerald Ford Presidential Library two years earlier and can be found here. In that document we read that there was a threat to the prime minister of the North Pole by the Group of the Martyr Ebenezer Scrooge. Obviously, the second reviewer must have felt it necessary to protect the children from the devastating visual imagery of good ole Saint Nick and his reindeer being taken down by a surface-to-air missile. The CIA staffer two years earlier had no such qualms and released the information to the public.
If you are interested in reading more of this sort of stuff, head on over to the National Security Archive website.
Comments
I love this site!
Posted by: Shannon on Saturday, April 23, 2005
Let's get back to the Easter Bunny, though. He looks a little nervous. I'm interested in who exactly would be going after him. Any suggestions?
Posted by: Shannon on Sunday, April 24, 2005
Pastor Timothy Williams
Posted by: Jeremy Stein on Tuesday, April 26, 2005
So the Easter Bunny has his enemies, too, I see. This issue of whether Christians should celebrate "Easter" was recently raised in our church. The anti-Bunny argument followed basically the same points as the above pamphlet.
The first argument is not very persuasive to me. We do not live in a culture where people are worshipping the god (or was it goddess?) Easter. It is not as if we are heading down to the local Baal altar with our neighbors before heading off to church. My guess would be that most people do not even know the origins of these traditions. Also, this point tends to be presented in a way to shock and inflame people rather than calmly convince them with reason. That is why words like "pagan" and "fertility rites" are stressed.
The second point is the key one and extends to almost everything we do. Should we be watching the same movies, reading the same books, laughing at the same jokes, watching the same sporting events, and playing the same music as everyone else? In some cases the answer is obvious. In many others there will be disagreement.
The last point is a digression. Individually, we should be celebrating the resurrection of Jesus Christ every day, and corporately we celebrate it every Sunday. If we want to celebrate it yearly, that's nice, but I do not think we need to worry about what day to celebrate on or try to follow Jewish traditions. (For a look at an extreme opposite point of view, see this site.)
I think this issue does have to be addressed by both local church bodies and by individual families. Should churches hold Easter egg hunts and have sermons with Easter bunny illustrations? I think not. Should parents give their kids chocolate bunnies for Easter? Well, the chocolate is usually poor quality so I suppose not.
Posted by: CJ Costello on Wednesday, April 27, 2005
The first argument is also used to argue against going to church on Sunday (named after the sun god). I really like your point about the attempt to shock people.
The differences between those who follow God and those who do not begin in the heart --- so though we are in the world, we are not of it. That's as good a point as any from which to start in attempting to answer the second point. It doesn't much matter what you do or do not do if your heart is hard towards God.
Posted by: Shannon on Friday, April 29, 2005