So, a whole bunch of people have pointed out to me that the IG investigation document I linked to in the Karpinski post was marked "Secret/No Foreign", implying that putting it up on whe Web is a Bad Thing.
As a reminder, I didn't put it on the web, I just found it on the NPR.org site using Google. Given that, I'm inclined to say that the barn door is open, and the horse has left. I'm interested in what other folks think I should do.
I have written NPR to ask if they are aware that their copy is classified, and I'm looking for someone to contact at the Army to mention it as well.
I'll keep people posted, and as I find out more. I may well pull the article if the approproate folks feel I should.
And if you of you know a name in the Army I can contact to discuss this, I'd love to get it - in an email, please.
Maybe NPR felt left out since the other big lefty media was getting all the props for screwing over US Security.
The Taguba report was leaked around may 2004. It's not clear why it was classified in the first place (at least the portions that were leaked). The paragraphs in the report that are "classified" do not fall under traditional criteria for classified information - sources and method of intelligence or operational information. The majority of classified paragraphs in the report are those that concern graphic depictions of the torture that took place. Make your own conclusions on that score.
In fact, Rummy was asked why the report was classified in the first place (http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2004/05/dod050404.html), and he responded that they'd have to ask the person who classified it. That's impossible because the document is incorrectly marked as a classified document. First of all, each page must have the overall classification of that particular page at the top and bottom. Furthermore, the first page must have the authority for its classification as well as when the document can be declassified. The "leaked" Taguba report has none of this, which indicates whoever wrote and classified it didn't know what they were doing and were probably acting on their own authority.
Just my .02 from working in the IC for many years.
Andy, where were you an hour ago before I sent the emails!! OK, I'm embarassed, but I'll get over it.
AL,
Someone in the chain leaked this report before it reached the right management levels to decide on classification/distribution.
I came across it and distributed to members of our command, only to be informed it was "classified." (We recovered and destroyed.)
As Andy points out, though, it isn't marked correctly, doesn't follow established standards, and as such, even military personnel didn't handle appropriately.
Difficult to expect those not used to handling classified material, and those responsible for leaking it certainly made it impossible to keep under wraps.
Dude,
It's CLASSIFIED !! I would not touch it with a 10-foot pole, wearing heavy gloves.
Get a copy of bc-wipe, use it to wipe the file from your server, triple-wipe the free space, and thank your favorite god that they (probably) won't enforce the law against little folks.
If I were an NPR exec, I'd be tense.
It's not classified. Just beacuse a document has "secret" stamped on it does not make it so. There may be parts in the document that could be classified using the proper rules and proceedures, but they weren't followed. This whole report has been in the public domain for two years.
Do a Google search - this document is all over the Internet and has been for two years. There is no law to enforce against anyone here.
I once, many years ago, saw a photograph of a New York Times article (on over classification in the Department of Defense) taped onto a blank piece of paper that was stamped top and bottom with Top Secret markings. I laughed out loud. That said, I don't recommend publishing classified material of any kind. This document, however, is apparently in the public domain and is probably? safe.