Rumsfeld: ‘We’re In The Business To Err On The Side Of Classification’
Rumsfeld: ‘We’re In The Business To Err On The Side Of Classification’
Yesterday was Freedom of Information Day, celebrating the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a law passed 40 years ago that gives ordinary citizens the power scrutinize government documents. Among the most vocal supporters of the FOIA bill in 1966? Freshman congressman Donald Rumsfeld of Illinois, an original co-sponsor of the legislation. Rumsfeld’s call for the new FOIA bill, 1966:
Disclosure of government information is particularly important today because government is becoming involved in more and more of aspects of every citizen’s personal and business life, and so access to government information about how government is exercising its trust becomes increasingly important.
Forty years later, Rumsfeld seems to have forgotten his calls for open government:
Now, is there a tendency to overclassify in government? You bet! It’s a human instinct when you’re involved with sensitive materials to err on the side of — well, you know this; we’re in the business — to err on the side of classification.
Today, Rumsfeld’s Department of Defense has one of the worst records responding to FOIA requests. Just this week, the Pentagon refused a request by the Associated Press to release information about the identities of Guantanamo detainees.
Somewhere along the line, Rumsfeld became what he fought against in 1966: a government official with “a vested interest in the machinery of their agencies and bureaus” who resent “any attempt to oversee their activities, either by the public, the Congress or appointed department heads.”
– Mike Darner
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Sorry to hear he came from Illinois. Somebody push that rock back into it’s place before another one crawls out.
March 17th, 2006 at 3:48 pmwe know what you are thinking, and you’ll get a little visit from the’thought’ police. Everything is now claslsified. even your thoughts.
March 17th, 2006 at 3:54 pmI am not too suprised at the ideological inconsistency. Fits in well with the rest of this administration.
March 17th, 2006 at 3:54 pmHe reminds me of the Vincent d’onofrio bugsuit from Men in Black; a hollow parody of the man he once was.
March 17th, 2006 at 3:55 pmIt’s the money and power effect.
Bushco wants to control all the information (power) so it can have & get more money (power also).
Dolts, King dumbya, he ain’t wearin’ any clothes and damn is chimpy butt ugly.
March 17th, 2006 at 3:57 pmHilarious. This is right up there with that picture of him & Saddam. Ok, maybe not that high.
March 17th, 2006 at 3:58 pm#4 – Rummy’s brand new Edgar suit?
March 17th, 2006 at 4:04 pmRummy’s a dummy
March 17th, 2006 at 4:04 pmScotty’s a liar
KKKarl is a fascist
Dick is a killer
Oh, & then we have an
Ivy League cheerleader
with a cocaine soaked brain.
How did we get in this mess?
All Of The Above
I’m really glad that folks can download from the public record the things that BushCo has done openly, because they are a window to their private treasons. The American People should be very concerned that our Unitary Executive seems bent on embracing his inner Pinochet.
I, for one want my Country and my 21st Century back.
There must be 50 Ways To Dump The Dubya.
Let the Goper’s Lament!
March 17th, 2006 at 4:23 pm#5 nailed it. That’s the first thing I thought too.
March 17th, 2006 at 4:28 pmIt is typical Repubilcan behaviour. They want to tell everyone ele what to do and how to live, but don’t want anyone doing it to them. They want to expose everyone’s betrayal of family values and decency but cry about it being a “family/private matter” when it happens to them.
And most of all, they want to know what everyone else is doing but want absolute privacy for themselves. It all ties back into power and Republicans abuse it consistently and without remorse.
March 17th, 2006 at 4:35 pmWell, we know they are in the business of erring.
March 17th, 2006 at 4:40 pmThanks Subway Serenade. I needed that.
March 17th, 2006 at 4:41 pmTP’s selected statement without explanation:
“Now, is there a tendency to overclassify in government? You bet! It’s a human instinct when you’re involved with sensitive materials to air on the side of—well, you know this; we’re in the business — to air [sic] on the side of classification.”
Here we have another classic TP falsehood. Misleading using ignorance.
Rumsfelds most reasonable explanation. When dealing with national security during a time of conflict there’s every reason to ere on the side of caution.
“Now, the problem is we’re living in a fast-moving world. Do I think that there are certain security things that should not be put out because they put people’s lives at risk? You bet I do! And does it break my heart when some information is leaked that puts American military people’s lives at risk, and they get killed because of it? You bet it bothers the dickens out of me! And I think there are things that need not to be publicized and should not be publicized, and that’s been true of every administration in my adult lifetime for darn good reason.”
Do liberals believe we should ere on the side of protecting Americans?
And that leftist report linked here is a phony. For example they claim:
NOTE: As this report was in press, Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans. In the
days that followed, New Orleans Times-Picayune hurricane reporter Mark Schleifstein
began asking the EPA for data on reports of spills of hazardous substances.
The agency would not produce them, even though on its website it said agency
personnel were “compiling a comprehensive database of potential pollution
sources†and using aircraft to “assess spills and chemical releases.â€
Well, this report was published on Sept 12, 2005. The database wasn’t available. It takes along time to create such a database. Now that’s it done that huge database is readily available along with tons of other Katrina data on State, City, NOAA, USGS, Corps websites. That SEJ report is a sham.
March 17th, 2006 at 4:41 pm“There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.”
March 17th, 2006 at 4:47 pmRumsfeld also understated the fact that FOIA requests have become a profit center for the government. Numerous requests have remained unfilled because the requester was unable to pay the per page copying charge required by the government. Toner is expensive.
A quick guide to fees for FOIA requests is at:
March 17th, 2006 at 4:52 pmhttp://www.usaid.gov/about/foia/handbook.html
#14 – “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
March 17th, 2006 at 4:52 pm-Benjamin Franklin
Gothic Serpent – So I guess you would be in favor of forcing the WH into testrifying under oath about who leaked Valerie Plames name to the press????? After all, you just stated that “liberals” don’t error on the side of protecting Americans. Yet you don’t say anything about the fact that ANYONE connected with Valierie Plame, a NOC, has damaged 10’s or 100’s of poeples cover and put them in danger.
This is OK for the Republicans, but if someone wants to get information because of a Lying Administration then we are against protecting America!
Get a clue. That’s all youve got???? So if anyone questions or expects answers to what the government is doing, then they are un-American or working with the terrorists?
I have news for you!!!!! Something you may not know!!!!! Terrorists have been around for thousands of years, so this is really not a revolutionary issue. If the Republicans were serious about protecting America, then they would have voted to provide more funding for this. However, almost all of the Republicans voted down funding for the ports. Yeah, the republicans really care about protecting America!
March 17th, 2006 at 4:55 pmWe need more Ben Franklins and less Benedict Arnolds in this administration. They have no clue what our country is intended to be.
March 17th, 2006 at 4:56 pmGothic Serpent – So I guess you would be in favor of forcing the WH into testrifying under oath about who leaked Valerie Plames name to the press????? After all, you just stated that “liberals” don’t error on the side of protecting Americans. Yet you don’t say anything about the fact that ANYONE connected with Valierie Plame, a NOC, has damaged 10’s or 100’s of poeples cover and put them in danger.
This is OK for the Republicans, but if someone wants to get information because of a Lying Administration then we are against protecting America!
Get a clue. That’s all youve got???? So if anyone questions or expects answers to what the government is doing, then they are un-American or working with the terrorists?
I have news for you!!!!! Something you may not know!!!!! Terrorists have been around for thousands of years, so this is really not a revolutionary issue. If the Republicans were serious about protecting America, then they would have voted to provide more funding for this. However, almost all of the Republicans voted down funding for the ports. Yeah, the republicans really care about protecting America!
Do you see the hypocrocy here?
March 17th, 2006 at 4:57 pmGood point, show US the money.
March 17th, 2006 at 4:57 pmSo I guess you would be in favor of forcing the WH into testrifying under oath about who leaked Valerie Plames name to the press????? Keep on beating the straw man while avoiding the question.
After all, you just stated that “liberals†don’t error on the side of protecting Americans.
No I didn’t, I asked the question. Do liberals believe we should err on the side of protecting Americans? (like when it comes to classifying information about detainees, per TP’s example)
Yet you don’t say anything about the fact that ANYONE connected with Valierie Plame, a NOC, has damaged 10’s or 100’s of poeples cover and put them in danger. Do you not understand the context of this post? I’m willing to argue this but you still haven’t answered my question.
This is OK for the Republicans, but if someone wants to get information because of a Lying Administration then we are against protecting America!
More false logic, still doesn’t answer the question.
Maybe it will be a little easier to answer it if I asked this way:
Do liberals believe we should err on the side of protecting Americans but only when it concerns an issue that they can use for political advantage?
No need to reply, I think I know the answer.
March 17th, 2006 at 5:09 pmHow can you tell when a Republican’s dead?
The answer is up to you. Come see the contest that I’m hosting, especially if you’re an active blogger.
March 17th, 2006 at 5:12 pm22)
I will take that challenge by letting my hero Ben Franklin answer…
Unlike the rights cave man logic you do not have to choose or err on the side of…
“Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither”
March 17th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
March 17th, 2006 at 5:22 pmAll you Bush bashers out there, check out “The Bushwhackersâ€!!! If you want a good political laugh at “Dubya’s†expense—listen to this new song, “He Swapped the Bottle for the Bible.†–Came across it on http://www.bushwhackerssite.com . They’ve got more—one’s called “Buckshot Dick,†(equally hilarious). If anyone out there has more info on this group let me know, supposedly the guy who writes for them has shared the stage with some well-known bands!
“Keep on beating the straw man while avoiding the question.”
Which is the same thing you did, o’ Gothic Serpent!
If you can come here and ask uncomfortable questions, be prepared to answer a few yourself. What is you position on Plame? It is not a “strawman’ any more than yours is.
March 17th, 2006 at 5:23 pmDo liberals believe we should err on the side of protecting Americans? (like when it comes to classifying information about detainees, per TP’s example)
Of course, that’s why the Democrats tried to get 1.2 Billion dollars to provide more security in our ports but the Republicans voted against it.
Do liberals believe we should err on the side of protecting Americans but only when it concerns an issue that they can use for political advantage?
You are insane! What has the Republicans done???? No port security, voted down an opportunity to provide more security. Was trying to push through a deal that allowed a Qeustionable country to operate our ports. Failed to do anything regarding all of the warnings prior to 9/11. Forced the military to stand down on 9/11. Lied about why we invaded Iraq!
Then all the time since 9/11, the Republicans keep yelling “terrorists, 9/11, fear fear fear” and all of this is for political gain!
Who’s the hypocrite?
March 17th, 2006 at 5:29 pmYou gotta check out this song I just heard. It’s called “He Swapped the Bottle for the Bible.†It nails W. right between the eyes. It’s by the Bushwhackers and they’ve got more songs I’ve heard–One’s called “Buckshot Dick.†If anyone can get me more info on their stuff post it or email me. I found it at http://www.bushwhackerssite.com. The guy who writes the tunes has played with a lot of big names…funny stuff.
March 17th, 2006 at 5:29 pmThe quote actually is:
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Misquoting and omitting qualifiers is another falsehood using ignorance. You’ve answered my question, too #24.
March 17th, 2006 at 5:29 pmI listened to that Bush Whackers song the other day AT:. It is crazy good hoot… hes soooo right
March 17th, 2006 at 5:34 pmI WANT MORE !! Contact me…
whoever you “bushwhackers” R? YOU SO ROCK!!! That stuff is hilarious, my daughter is getting married, and im wondering if you could play!… Please contact me …. will pay you well, although you should do it for free.. just for the message your sending…
March 17th, 2006 at 5:42 pmtbear4jerr@yahoo.com THANX….Tbear
#22 – Gothic Serpent wrote: “Maybe it will be a little easier to answer it if I asked this way:
Do liberals believe we should err on the side of protecting Americans but only when it concerns an issue that they can use for political advantage?
No need to reply, I think I know the answer.”
that’s funny, I was going to say it’s the Republicans that only care about national Security when they’re the ones driving the cart. Any input from Democrats on this issue results in the standard response: Hey! Shut up! We’ve painted you as “anti-National Security’ so we won’t accept ANY help from you at all! Even if we screw things up, it’s our dog & pony show, and we’ll do it OUR way!
Why are you such a cheerleader for the failed policies of our current administration? Could it be that you’ve signed up for the above listed rational, and any information to the contrary is automatically excluded from your perception?
No need to reply, I think I know the answer.
March 17th, 2006 at 5:42 pmAs for Plame
Joe Wilson told Don Imus in a radio interview that he and his wife were not in danger or feel their was a threat to their lives or anybody else’s due to her name appearing in the news. Look it up on WFAN, somewhere between July-Sept 2003. I don’t think anyone would have cared if it wasn’t for Joe, the Kerry Campaign and the Democratic spin machine hyping it up. I figure one day we will get the facts…like during trial or when the investigation is over. When it’s available I’d rather get the information more directly than through the media.
And I’ve read to much conflicting evidence on her status. No one claims to know for sure. I do know she was exposed to the Russian’s in the early 90’s. And her and Joe have been published in Who’s Who since then. Hard to believe she was still covert.
March 17th, 2006 at 5:49 pm“Could it be that you’ve signed up for the above listed rational, and any information to the contrary is automatically excluded from your perception?”
I was responding to the TP’s post. It’s misleading and ignorant logic. You find that acceptable information? I don’t.
March 17th, 2006 at 5:55 pm#29 – I’ll give you the quote correction, Gothic Serpent. Thanks.
Here’s the definition of essential:
March 17th, 2006 at 6:05 pmes·sen·tial (adj.)
1. Constituting or being part of the essence of something; inherent.
2. Basic or indispensable; necessary: essential ingredients.
That’s because he is a ’sellout’, just like the rest of you politicians (dem or republican) =/
March 17th, 2006 at 6:08 pmGothic Serpent – when are you going to volunteer for the front lines in Iraq? If you are so concerned about security and love Bush&Co, then support his WAR by fighting in it. Or are you a Yellow Elephant?
March 17th, 2006 at 6:09 pmA yellow-bellied gothic serpent? Is that on the endangered species list? No? Shucks.
March 17th, 2006 at 6:27 pmI did not like Rumsfeld when he was in Illinois – no particular reason – just a “gut” feeling. Yet, even then, he was more reasonable than he is today. Today, I think we are looking at a man who reached his “Peter Principle” quite some time ago and in his present capacity, he is so incompetent, so deaf, so unreachable that he is dangerous to American lives, American democracy, not to mention the effects of his handiwork on the world.
March 17th, 2006 at 7:36 pmDisclosure means we might be held accountable, and we can’t have any of that.
March 17th, 2006 at 10:21 pmRumsfeld: ‘We’re In The Business To Err….Don I was with you right up to that point, I really was, I mean we are totally in agreement right there and you all seem so good at it….
March 17th, 2006 at 11:01 pmAs a Military Intelligence analyst I really don’t see where the releasing of the info requested on the GITMO detainees would hurt or hinder interrogations. Considering the amount of time most of these individuals have been in custody it is doubtful that their compatriots are unaware that these individuals are in the hands of the US. I would point everyone toward a recent article in the New Yorker Magazine for an excellent interview with Albert Mora the former General Counsel of the United States Navy. The piece is called “The Memo” and it appears in the Feb.27, 2006 issue of The New Yorker. I know it’s a little dated, but I’m sitting here in Iraq and I don’t have regular access to such things as magazines and books. Perhaps some of the “right” minded individuals would like to come here and relieve this stop-lossed lefty. The thing that really pisses me off about everything is that if the Republicans had a little more heart and not so much elephant shit, I wouldn’t be spending a second tour in this place. I fought the war, it’s time for someone else to fight.
Well, excellent article. I enjoyed reading it TP.
March 18th, 2006 at 1:27 amTransactional Data and FISA
(the fix it,, but please don’t fix or talk about the stuff NOT Covered under FISA PLEASE!!)
[please Don't fix my Personal Peepr Pogramm DHS Puhlitikal PoLeese -Duhbya]
A phone number can be used to identify a person, said Dempsey of the Center for Democracy and Technology, who for nine years was assistant counsel to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights. Does that mean that a phone number is “content” under the law?
FISA, enacted in 1978, didn’t envision today’s technology, when anyone with an Internet connection can use a phone number to find someone’s name, address, and even an aerial photograph of his house, Dempsey said.
“I just cannot read [FISA] and figure out what it means in the context of analysis of [transactional] data,” he added. “Presumably somebody in the administration thinks they understand it…. Whether that’s providing any clear guidance” to the people working on the NSA program, “that’s not clear.”
March 18th, 2006 at 4:35 amIf one observes Rumsfeld’s behavior and statements closely, it is becoming apparent that he is in the early stages of dementia and he is trying hard to cover it. Pay attention – remember how Ronald Reagon behaved and compare the two.
March 18th, 2006 at 9:22 am#44 cats
March 18th, 2006 at 10:47 amFor years, my f-in-law fooled us into thinking he was still in charge of his faculties because he was so healthy and was very, very good at hiding the fact he was slipping. We finally had to face what was before us, and took charge; everyone is happier and less worried now.
Rumsfeld is like my f-in-law was several years ago; I see it in his behavior as well as his words. Someone needs to face what is before them, and take charge. He is a danger to us all.
Saddam admits to inaccurate WMD report, can’t admit to U.N. because of Iran WMD attack…
ISGQ-2003-M0004666 page 13 After admitting to gassing the Iranians, Saddam says that Iraq can’t meet the UN requirement to account for all chemical weapons because they used some and lied about it, therefor, they couldn’t account for the missing weap…
March 18th, 2006 at 11:25 amThis! Uranium-235/plutonium-239 …This is what we must avoid. Let empiracle dreams wither it is this that tyranny will spawn!
March 18th, 2006 at 1:25 pmTo “err” or to “air” that is the demented Rumsfeldian question…
March 18th, 2006 at 3:56 pmRayRedneckCracker,
Thanks for proving that saddam didn’t have the WMDs bush claimed they had. That wasn’t your intention – but that’s what you did.
But being a retarded republican, it’s obvious to everyone but you that you’ll never get it. What a LOSER!
March 18th, 2006 at 9:24 pm#33- So, is it your position that the CIA is LYING about what Valerie Plame’s status was when she was “outed” by BushCo ? You said “no one claims to know for sure.” The CIA didn’t know ? Really ? Did she just wander aimlessly, occasionally sitting at a desk, maybe typing a letter, or playing “solitaire” on the computer ? For 20 YEARS ?!? And members of her own family had no idea that she worked for the CIA ? If she was just a glorified secretary, why all the secrecy ? Because of some eccentricities of hers ? Come on now… I get that you don’t care about her, but why the further exposure of her “front” company ? Wasn’t that over the top ? She was finished, rendered useless, and her “contacts” now faced who knows what dangers, but to then go on and totally destroy two decades of work, and endanger many lives, WHY? WHY? WHY? How are we safer by those actions ? Please, enlighten me. Because it makes no sense to me, at all. If this represents “erring” on the side of classifying, spare us, please. THAT kind of “help”, we do not need.
March 19th, 2006 at 1:46 am