Steven Aftergood Quotations

Some categories of classified information are protected by statute and not only by executive order. Intelligence sources and methods are protected by the National Security Act and cannot be declassified even by the say-so of the president.

No one is suggesting the NSA is monitoring Hillary Clinton.

Secrecy seems to be the default here. It appears the judge wants to discourage media coverage.

Secrecy has become a growth industry. It makes it harder for ordinary citizens ... to ask questions ... and to hold officials accountable.

If the FBI can persuade a court that there is probable cause that there are stolen records in that collection, then they should go to court. They cannot bully or attempt to intimidate the family or the university into surrendering private records.

It is ironic, ... We sued the C.I.A. four times for this kind of information and lost. You can't get it through legal channels.

I think there is enormous understanding and tolerance for an argument from necessity, and there's willingness to retroactively forgive what might strictly speaking be violations of the law.

I think there will be problems and cases where employees are tripped up by the tests, ... But the bureau as a whole will adapt.

I think it's driven by the individual agencies, which have bureaucratic sensitivities to protect. But it was clearly encouraged by the administration's overall embrace of secrecy.

We have an interest on public access to government information and in government control of such access. Don't shut down these guys whether they are communicating with their families or they are reaching out to the larger public.

As a practical matter, it has proven difficult to either reform or abolish the CIA, ... The logical alternative may be to simply create an entirely new agency.

As a society we seem to be losing our ability to rationally debate complicated policy decisions. Secrecy aggravates the problem by excluding people from the debate, or by narrowing their frames of reference. Nothing less than the future of American democracy is at stake.

A lot of what we think we know of our recent history may be mistaken, ... It is a disgrace that it should be so in a democracy, but it is.

This illustrates the principle that unchecked authority goes astray. In this case, it's a relatively trivial infraction. But to me the point is that we need more aggressive and penetrating oversight than we have.

FOIA is one of the most vital tools we have left, and it's urgent that it be protected. It's under stress in this climate, but it's not broken.

FOIA is one of the most vital tools we have left and it's urgent that it be protected. It's under stress in this climate, but it's not broken.

This administration has embraced secrecy as a right.

If you don't have the possibility of asking questions and presenting answers that officials may find unwelcome, then you short circuit the deliberative process, end up magnifying the power of the executive and undermining the system of checks and balances. Needless to say the press is not immune from criticism. But the possibility of independent reporting on government needs to be preserved or all of us are potentially in jeopardy.

It's perfectly understandable the press office would be frustrated by leaks. But they are the ones with the documents, they are the ones who need to exercise discipline. You can't ask the press not to report what they learn.

If you think about all of the infrastructure needed to support that number of people, you start to get a sense of just how vast our intelligence system has become. Think about all the things going on that we don't know about.

I presume it's an attempt to provide some context for the information that was disclosed. If such information was already in public circulation or widely disseminated, that could arguably mitigate anything the defendants did wrong by communicating it.

an implicit repudiation of the CIA, which was established to be the central focus and the integrator of the nation's intelligence production.

The development of this type of data-mining technology has serious implications for the future of personal privacy.

The idea that this law is some kind of dinosaur is a misunderstanding.

These incidents will have served a constructive purpose if the Pentagon is willing and able to learn from them. By exposing and highlighting vulnerabilities, the attacks can actually help to inoculate the system during times of crisis. But only if the appropriate lessons are learned now.

It prompts speculation that perhaps the government was using information that was illegally obtained.

It results in unnecessary secrecy that leaves citizens in the dark.

It's a 'trust me' response. That's not good enough anymore. There needs to be an external check and balance to restore confidence in the system.

It's a bit of a compromise, ... There is a cultural resistance to the polygraph that is different at the FBI than at the CIA. A polygraph is something that is given to new employees and suspected criminals, not to employees in good standing.

This whole activity was effectively concealed. It's baffling. It's basically a covert action taking place at the National Archives.

It makes reporter's job more difficult, but also gives them the responsibility to work to overcome the impediments put in their way.

I don't think anybody welcomed that proposal. It wouldn't serve the interests of those who benefit from the status quo.