Homeland Security Watch

Comment by William R. Cumming

April 20, 2006 @ 3:00 am

The 9/11 Commission’s final report identified the necessity of development of a “Need to Share” doctrine as soon as possible instead of the “Need to Know” doctrine that brought us in part the events of September 11th. Executive Order 10450 written so that President Eisenhower would not have to personnally strip Dr. Robert Oppenhiemer’s security clearance (leaving that to Lewis Strauss-Chairman of the AEC)continues to allow abuses in granting and withdrawing security clearances. But at least that system has some written guidance, even though ineffective as for example on sexual orientation and drug use. But the “Need to know” doctrine which is not statutory and allows mid-level bureaucrats to misuse and mislead other agencies and even parts of their own agency is a recipe for disaster. Part of Director of FEMA James Lee Witt success in making the agency more operational and effective in working with the states was elimination of 60% of the positions requiring security clearances thus indirectly abolishing “Need to Know” abuses which are often conducted without the knowledge of the chain of command since usually undocumented and therefore unreviewable. Personnel security and document security in DHS is run in a haphazard sloppy and unprofessional manner leading to even more reports like this GAO report. A simple system of review establishing no arrest or conviction record and a reasonable credit record should be enough to grant at least a temporary secret level clearance. The use of compartmented classification, however, is abusive and unnecessary. And the granting of program access to those who do have a “Need to Know” outside the agency needs deep and thoughtful review. A starting point would be to have all those with classified access read deceased Senator Daniel Patrick Monyihan’s book entitled “Secrecy”. A lasting gift to the nation. Without reforms another 9/11 has to occur.

Comment by DaveyM

April 20, 2006 @ 8:44 am

When you say:

“To be sure, DHS should make all reasonable efforts to protect commercially sensitive information (just as it should make reasonable efforts to protect individual privacy). But do these commercial concerns trump the vital need to share critical information with state and local homeland officials? That’s a difficult argument to make.”

I think you may be missing a key part of the point. If commercially sensitive information isn’t protected from public view, the private sector will be much less likely to share homeland security relevant information with the government,leading to a reduction of critical infrastructure security and a general mistrust of critical infrastructure public-private partnerships. In my experience the business community is generally public spirited and will submit sensitive information if it has a reasonalbe chance to increase homeland security generally. However, unless that information is both protected AND put to good use, the perceived costs of information sharing will outweigh both puplic and private benefits and no rational actor (which businesses tend to be) would conclude that information sharing is wise.