Now, it's Trump's turn to wrestle with classified information
| Washington
In politics, complaints about security clearance and classified information can cut both ways.
Famously, attendees at the Republican National Convention chanted 鈥渓ock her up鈥� after Hillary Clinton was criticized for using her personal email address rather than a government account during her tenure as secretary of State.
But this week, attention turned to Donald Trump鈥檚 incoming administration. His pick to lead the National Security Agency, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, had admitted that he shared Central intelligence Agency operations against Taliban networks with Pakistan, whose government has been accused of aiding the network.
As with Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Flynn was investigated and cleared of wrongdoing, The Washington Post reported this week.
The allegations and counter allegations drive home one point: It all makes for powerful, if disquieting, political theater.
鈥淥ne thing we鈥檝e learned over and over is that classification can be used as a club to beat up on one鈥檚 political opponents: 鈥楬ow dare you release this information? How could you be so careless?鈥� Et cetera. Et cetera,鈥� says Steven Aftergood, who directs the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists.
Yet as questions continue about whom in the Trump administration should get security clearance 鈥� from Mr. Trump鈥檚 children to to 鈥� the deeper question is: How much does it matter?
On one hand, it matters enormously.
鈥淔or someone in the national security field, it鈥檚 analogous to bar admission for a lawyer or a medical license for a doctor 鈥� it allows you to practice in the field, and if you don鈥檛 have it you literally can鈥檛 show up for work,鈥� says Dakota Rudesill, associate professor of law at Ohio State University.聽
Blurry lines
But in the relish to throw around accusations about clearance, the fact that many of the lines are blurry gets glossed over.
Take classification itself. The official government explanation of secrecy levels is that if adversaries got their hands on a 鈥渃onfidential鈥� document, it could be reasonably expected to cause 鈥渄amage鈥� to US interests. Secret documents in the wrong hands could cause 鈥渟erious damage,鈥� and top secret documents could cause 鈥渆xceptionally grave damage.鈥�
But 鈥渨hat鈥檚 exceptionally grave?鈥� asks Professor Rudesill. It鈥檚 a process that鈥檚 part educated guess, part law, and part high art, with a lot of subjectivity and judgment calls in between.
Some cases are clear, like the name of an intelligence source. 鈥淣obody鈥檚 going to say that doesn鈥檛 need to be classified,鈥� Aftergood says. 鈥淥n the other extreme, you have cases of people trying to classify the front page of a daily newspaper. There鈥檚 a wide middle ground where there are going to be differences of opinion.鈥澛�
Similarly, the matter of judging when someone should be punished can vary. Flynn admitted 鈥渢hat he improperly shared classified information, but in service to the mission,鈥� Rudesill says. Clinton, too, said she made a 鈥済ood-faith error.鈥�
鈥淢ost of these controversies may reveal something about the [people] involved 鈥� their personalities, their priorities, their attitudes 鈥� but a lot of the huffing and puffing about national security has been unwarranted,鈥� Aftergood adds.聽
Too much secrecy?聽
In the end, most analysts agree that far too many documents are classified.
The Obama administration attempted to address this in the 2010 Over-classification Act and in an effort to cut the number of people whose job it is to designate new classified information 鈥� so-called 鈥渃lassification authorities.鈥� Their ranks dropped to an all-time reported low of 2,199 in 2015.
Along the same lines, the number of people holding clearances for access to classified information has dropped from 5.1 million in 2013 to 4.25 million in 2015.
鈥淚t was a reaction to a feeling that the classification system had spun out of control, and that it needed to be reined in. And with fewer people with clearances, you鈥檙e going to spend fewer resources on background investigations and [security] clearance renewals,鈥� Aftergood says.聽
It鈥檚 important to remember, he says, that 鈥渨e鈥檙e not trying to run our government so as to protect classified information. The goal is to use all of our available resources to advance the national interest. Sometimes that means secrecy, and sometimes that means disclosure.鈥澛�
