TheRealMafoo said:
Sqrl said:
@TheRealMafoo,
Thousands of people with high level clearances? Yes. Thousands of people with high level clearance and direct knowledge of the majority of our nation's TS/S information? Most definitely not. It's called compartmentalization and is an essential element to protecting sensitive information both in the effort to limit its potential for exposure (particularly in regards to a breadth of information) as well as to restrict the scope of any necessary investigation into a leak.
I would agree we could do better than our current set of elected officials where it concerns character but that really just makes my point that much more important. But beyond that the issue is that these people do not actually need to know the detailed information about what is going on in order to do their job. That's not to say that high ranking committee members can't have specific information on cases relevant to their committee's current work, but that only in those situations should that detailed info be shared and under no circumstances should the detailed info be shared to the entire congress. Keep in mind that most of these operations have non-TS/S info that all of congress is made aware of but that specific operational, structural, and sensitive policy information is what is classified TS/S.
I would say your view of everyone in washington being genuine in their concern for the nation is fairly naive but there is really no way to tell for sure. And the fact that there is no way to tell for sure means that we must err on the side of caution when dealing with TS/S information. More to the point these people are among the largest security risks to TS/S info because they have the exact wrong personality type for a clearance, even with the best of intentions they are high risk.
@outlawauron,
That's the thing, it's not like congress is completely in the dark, there are members from the appropriate comittees (both parties) who are briefed and know what is going on in order to guide policy (where possible), provide oversight, and to provide guidance to members of their party without having to spread detailed information throughout the entireity of congress.
Having the required clearance is not by itself sufficient reason to be given access and the argument that they "need to know" doesn't apply here as there has to be a specific need for a piece of information in order for it to be shared. Need to know doesn't apply generally...thats exactly how it doesn't apply actually. The current state of information sharing is the proper extent of the need to know policy balanced against the need for oversight.
|
Give me an example of something that could be classified TS/S, that Congress does not need to know.
|
I'm not saying that nobody in congress should be allowed to know and that is not how it is currently handled either. It is that not everyone in congress needs to have specific detailed knowledge of every aspect of our nations TS/S affairs. I can easily think of examples but thats not the point because your question assumes I'm contending something that I'm not.
Or to put it another way we agree that congress needs to be briefed, but we disagree on how many of them need to be briefed and to what level of detail. Advocating full briefings to every member is just as insane as advocating no briefings...actually its probably more so. Information can later be divulged but you can never un-tell or un-leak a piece of information. Once it's out it's out for good.
