[Cryptography] FOIA win produces years of CIA internal 'house organ' articles

[John Gilmore]

A FOIA lawsuit by CIA whistleblower Jeffrey Scudder has forced the CIA
to publish some declassified *Studies in Intelligence* articles from
the 1970s to 2000s".  Studies in Intelligence is CIA's "in-house
journal for the intelligence professional".

  http://www.foia.cia.gov/collection/declassified-articles-studies-intelligence-cias-house-intelligence-journal

These are poorly indexed so far, but almost 255 articles were
released, usually with minor redactions like the date of publication,
author's name, and a few sentences or paragraphs.

Here are a few interesting ones:

  "A Brave, New World"
  http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/DOC_0005593397.pdf

    Details pre-9/11 CIA/NSA suspicion and obstruction, and post-9/11
    CIA/NSA cooperation.  Most paragraphs are marked (S) for Secret,
    but appear without redactions, demonstrating a typical case of
    overclassification.

  "American Cryptology During the Korean War"
  http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/DOC_0000872751.pdf

    "Within years of the end of World War II, however, American
    cryptology was a hollow shell of its former self.  When the
    soldiers and sailors went home in 1945, so did the cryptologists."

  "A Cryptologist Encounters the Human Side of Intelligence"
  http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/DOC_0001407027.pdf

    ... "This is one of the few occupations in which criminality is
    not only legal, it is rewarded.  It must be difficult sometimes to
    keep one's moral compass pointed north.  ...  One CIA officer
    turned the golden rule on its ear when he wrote his own credo:
    'Admit nothing, deny everything, and make counter-charges.'
    ... Cryptology, by comparison, is as clean as a freshly laundered
    shirt... The intercept floor resembles a laboratory or a high tech
    'clean room' with lots of gizmos and people in clean military
    uniforms listening intently to radios.  ... In that SIGINT
    blockhouse...there is barely a recognition that what you are doing
    is part of foreign intelligence collection...  On occasions when I
    have questioned NSA audiences, most refuse to believe that they
    are engaged in spying."

And by the way...

The above CIA FOIA site, and The Washington Post story on the CIA's
release of this "trove", both carefully neglect to say that Jeffrey
Scudder's Freedom of Information lawsuit is why the CIA suddenly
released these articles.  For submitting this FOIA request, Scudder
was forced out of the CIA over minor transgressions, and had his home
burgled by the FBI, after an 18-year CIA career:

  https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140706/08101027793/cia-sent-fbi-agents-after-ended-career-19-year-employee-over-foia-request-historical-documents.shtml
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/09/18/new-trove-of-cia-articles-on-al-qaeda-the-cold-war-and-the-beiruit-bombing-among-many-subjects/

The Intercept has better coverage:

  https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/18/cia-secret-journal/

It's become fashionable at agencies to imply that they are being
"transparent" and "open" by neglecting to mention that the reason they
are publishing newly released documents is because a court ordered
them to do so because they lost a lawsuit that somebody else filed to
pry them loose.  For example, EFF FOIA lawsuits forced the release of
many of the memos and court decisions on wiretapping that the Director
of National Intelligence is taking credit for releasing on their own
website.  Scudder tried many times, as part of his official CIA job,
to get thousands of these old articles released to the public and the
National Archives by the CIA, as an honest transparency move about the
agency's history.  But he failed.  He had every right to file a FOIA
request for the articles, as a private citizen, to force them to
undergo the declassification review that the bureacracy had blocked.
He didn't even talk to the public or the press with the issue, like
most whistleblowers have done.  But the agency screwed him and tried
to have him prosecuted anyway!

Since the spook agencies lie, mislead, and destroy whole careers about
even these tiny, easy to check things like why documents became
public, who can believe them on the big important issues?  It's as if
they can't help lying, even when the truth would serve them better.
Their 'moral compasses' seem to be unmoored from both morality and
their own self-interest.

	John