CIA: Drones Document Count Would Damage National Security

[Jango]

The CIA admitted late Friday it has a number of documents about drones, but told a federal court that disclosing even the number of documents it possessed would damage national security.

The disclosure came around 11:00 p.m., hours after President Barack Obama held a press conference promising more transparency around national security issues.

Government lawyers contended in the filing that providing additional information about the CIA's drones documents, as requested in American Civil Liberties Union v. Central Intelligence Agency, one of several drone-related lawsuits the ACLU has filed against the federal government, would imperil the homeland.

"In light of recent official disclosures about targeted lethal operations, and in accordance with the opinion of the D.C. Circuit, the CIA has now acknowledged that it has a general intelligence interest in this topic and possesses records responsive to the ACLU request," the government wrote. "However, the CIA has determined that it cannot provide additional information about its responsive records without revealing classified material or statutorily-protected information related to intelligence activities, sources and methods and/or Agency functions."

CIA: Drones Document Count Would Damage National Security

Another source: CIA refuses to release drone documents - Salon.com

As Salon noted in March,a D.C. federal appeals court sided with the ACLU in ruling that the CIA could no longer refuse to respond to FOIA requests about its drone programs on secrecy grounds, as the existence of the “targeted” killing program had already been publicly discussed by officials.

Despite this ruling, and a full three years since the ACLU originally filed a FOIA request for basic information on the CIA’s drone program, the agency continues to push back on making information public.

Why even have FOIA when governmental agencies like the C.I.A. can just refuse to hand over the documents (information) even when compelled by a judge. It is beyond ridiculous that the government can stonewall the ACLU (and therefore us) like this. Worse yet, people tolerate it and don't get upset. Funny enough, people actually believe President Obama when he said his administration would be transparent.

 

[Rogue Valley]

In regard to the US drone programs on foreign soil, government lawyers usually invoke the state secrets privilege, specifically the State Secrets Protection Act of 2008.

 

[greyhat]

Why have top secret information if some schmuck can just sue you for it just because they don't agree with you? :roll:

 

[Jango]

Another source: CIA Refuses to Acknowledge Drone Targeted Killings | Threat Level | Wired.com

 

[Deuce]

I'm not sure how anybody got the idea that operational details of intelligence and military services were going to be just released willy nilly. Those documents are going to contain more than just "yes, we target people and kill them." Maybe we should just send Al-Qaeda the drone patrol routes and the frequencies they communicate on.

 

[greyhat]

I'm not sure how anybody got the idea that operational details of intelligence and military services were going to be just released willy nilly. Those documents are going to contain more than just "yes, we target people and kill them." Maybe we should just send Al-Qaeda the drone patrol routes and the frequencies they communicate on.

Don't be surprised if some people here agree with you; to some there shouldn't be state secrets ..

 

[Jango]

Judge rejects bid to FOIA National Security Council - POLITICO.com

A judge not allowing transparency and ushering in stonewalling.

 

[Thoreau72]

Our government is beneficent, and its only goal is to protect us. I feel so safe when the government keeps secrets and keeps me in the dark.

 

[Grendel]

"If you knew how many crimes we were committing, you'd run us out of office, so we're classifying all the evidence."

 

[CalGun]

Univ. of Hawaii report on demicide suggests govts have killed 262 million people since 1900. Guess our most transparent admin doesn't want to admit its share?

 

[Morrigi]

I wouldn't be surprised.

 

[dirtpoorchris]

This is scary. By these standards Obama can order a secret drone strike on Joe Smoe and then keep it hidden because if the populace found out about it they would revolt. Said revolt would "harm national security" and this gives them blanket permit to just keep doing wrong.

 

[ecofarm]

This is scary. By these standards Obama can order a secret drone strike on Joe Smoe and then keep it hidden because if the populace found out about it they would revolt. Said revolt would "harm national security" and this gives them blanket permit to just keep doing wrong.

Yeah, no one would notice a drone strike.

:roll:

 

[dirtpoorchris]

Yeah, no one would notice a drone strike.

:roll:

They probably wouldnt if they waited for the right time. I bet they even have special payloads to make a body fully disapear without a trace.

 

[ecofarm]

They probably wouldnt if they waited for the right time. I bet they even have special payloads to make a body fully disapear without a trace.

Today in Iowa, a man spontaneously combusted resulting in the explosion of the building he was in.

hahaha

 

[OldWorldOrder]

I wonder why people think items of national security should be published for all the world to see. How does someone even arrive at such a conclusion? It seems so many have made it their default status. So weird.

 

[Thoreau72]

I wonder why people think items of national security should be published for all the world to see. How does someone even arrive at such a conclusion? It seems so many have made it their default status. So weird.

Just a guess, but maybe because some amongst us are paying attention? Some amongst us are familiar with the WaPo story from June 22, 2003 explaining "what really happened" in the 345US1 case known as U.S. v. Reynolds.

That was where the government, way back in the early 1950's lied to everybody, including the USSC, first invoked "national security" in court proceedings, and it was perjury. Maybe that's why people are so mistrusting.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Just a guess, but maybe because some amongst us are paying attention?

Uhhh..you're not, though.

Some amongst us are familiar with the WaPo story from June 22, 2003 explaining "what really happened" in the 345US1 case known as U.S. v. Reynolds.

Shhhh.

That was where the government, way back in the early 1950's lied to everybody, including the USSC, first invoked "national security" in court proceedings, and it was perjury. Maybe that's why people are so mistrusting.

Or they're just retarded?

 

[APACHERAT]

>" President Barack Obama held a press conference promising more transparency..."< :lamo :monkey :2rofll: