The "28 pages" thread

[Sabrina]

Strictly speaking, the authority to declassify rests with the classification authority; i.e. the agency that classified it. The President does not usually classify documents, therefore he has little or no declassification authority. There are regulations that deal with how to declassify documents, and it usually depends greatly upon the type of intelligence or sensitive information contained in the document that has been classified.

From EO 13526:

Sec. 1.5. Duration of Classification. (a) At the time of original classification, the original classification authority shall establish a specific date or event for declassification based on the duration of the national security sensitivity of the information. Upon reaching the date or event, the information shall be automatically declassified. Except for information that should clearly and demonstrably be expected to reveal the identity of a confidential human source or a human intelligence source or key design concepts of weapons of mass destruction, the date or event shall not exceed the time frame established in paragraph (b) of this section.

(b) If the original classification authority cannot determine an earlier specific date or event for declassification, information shall be marked for declassification 10 years from the date of the original decision, unless the original classification authority otherwise determines that the sensitivity of the information requires that it be marked for declassification for up to 25 years from the date of the original decision.
(c) An original classification authority may extend the duration of classification up to 25 years from the date of origin of the document, change the level of classification, or reclassify specific information only when the standards and procedures for classifying information under this order are followed.
(d) No information may remain classified indefinitely. Information marked for an indefinite duration of classification under predecessor orders, for example, marked as "Originating Agency's Determination Required," or classified information that contains incomplete declassification instructions or lacks declassification instructions shall be declassified in accordance with part 3 of this order.

Sec. 3.1. Authority for Declassification. (a) Information shall be declassified as soon as it no longer meets the standards for classification under this order.
(b) Information shall be declassified or downgraded by: (1) the official who authorized the original classification, if that official is still serving in the same position and has original classification authority; (2) the originator's current successor in function, if that individual has original classification authority; (3) a supervisory official of either the originator or his or her successor in function, if the supervisory official has original classification authority; or (4) officials delegated declassification authority in writing by the agency head or the senior agency official of the originating agency.
(c) The Director of National Intelligence (or, if delegated by the Director of National Intelligence, the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence) may, with respect to the Intelligence Community, after consultation with the head of the originating Intelligence Community element or department, declassify, downgrade, or direct the declassification or downgrading of information or intelligence relating to intelligence sources, methods, or activities.

(d) It is presumed that information that continues to meet the classification requirements under this order requires continued protection. In some exceptional cases, however, the need to protect such information may be outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of the information, and in these cases the information should be declassified. When such questions arise, they shall be referred to the agency head or the senior agency official. That official will determine, as an exercise of discretion, whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the damage to the national security that might reasonably be expected from disclosure. This provision does not:

(1) amplify or modify the substantive criteria or procedures for classification; or

(2) create any substantive or procedural rights subject to judicial review.

(e) If the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office determines that information is classified in violation of this order, the Director may require the information to be declassified by the agency that originated the classification. Any such decision by the Director may be appealed to the President through the National Security Advisor. The information shall remain classified pending a prompt decision on the appeal.

(f) The provisions of this section shall also apply to agencies that, under the terms of this order, do not have original classification authority, but had such authority under predecessor orders.

(g) No information may be excluded from declassification under section 3.3 of this order based solely on the type of document or record in which it is found. Rather, the classified information must be considered on the basis of its content.

(h) Classified nonrecord materials, including artifacts, shall be declassified as soon as they no longer meet the standards for classification under this order.

(i) When making decisions under sections 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5 of this order, agencies shall consider the final decisions of the Panel.

Basically, there's a period of time the information has been classified for; it can be up to fifty years depending on the classification assigned. Once that time period is up, the original classification authority (or their successor) can declassify it. Things do not stay classified; once time is up, they get de-classified and archived. And the highest authority that can declassify something is not the President, but rather the DNI. So the notion that the declassification authority rests with the President is rather absurd, because there's no reason for the office of the President to classify anything; he GETS reporting, he doesn't generate it.

 

[Oystein]

Strictly speaking, the authority to declassify rests with the classification authority; i.e. the agency that classified it. The President does not usually classify documents, therefore he has little or no declassification authority. There are regulations that deal with how to declassify documents, and it usually depends greatly upon the type of intelligence or sensitive information contained in the document that has been classified.

From EO 13526:


Basically, there's a period of time the information has been classified for; it can be up to fifty years depending on the classification assigned. Once that time period is up, the original classification authority (or their successor) can declassify it. Things do not stay classified; once time is up, they get de-classified and archived. And the highest authority that can declassify something is not the President, but rather the DNI. So the notion that the declassification authority rests with the President is rather absurd, because there's no reason for the office of the President to classify anything; he GETS reporting, he doesn't generate it.

Thanks, Sabrina, that's valuable information.

Upon a ca. 20-minutes search, I could not find a direct source that tells us which officer in which agency did the classifying of those 28 pages.
However, the language of the current House Resolution 14 (a copy here) states explicitly that it was President Bush who classified, and calls on the current President to declassify:

Whereas President George W. Bush classified 28 pages...

...be it Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that--
(1) the President should declassify the 28-page section...

 

[Oystein]

The info / activist page I linked above, www.28pages.org, was created by a certain Brian McGlinchey, who also created the current Petition at whitehouse.org.
...
They are not the only ones:

There's also http://hr14.org/
This website, I understand, is run by Les Jamieson, ...

Perhaps the 28pages petition isn't promoted by the big players such as ae911t because they are actually competing?
...

I read some more:

• hr14.org has a friendly link to 28pages.org
• hr14.org says that 28pages.org is "a site created by a 9/11 family member"; I assume that refers to Brian McGlinchey (both items under "Resources")
• hr14.org also has a Facebook page PASS H.RES.14 (28 Pages on 9/11)

 

[Sabrina]

Thanks, Sabrina, that's valuable information.

Upon a ca. 20-minutes search, I could not find a direct source that tells us which officer in which agency did the classifying of those 28 pages.
However, the language of the current House Resolution 14 (a copy here) states explicitly that it was President Bush who classified, and calls on the current President to declassify:

I HIGHLY doubt that President Bush actually classified the document in question. It's a report that was given TO him, not generated BY him. He wouldn't have the original classification authority. Whomever authored the report is very likely the one who classified it, and therefore THEY have classification authority. Or their immediate boss who may have decided that they didn't classify it high enough and changed the classification, or the FDO who reviewed it to ensure it was classified appropriately. Point is, the office of the President, doesn't matter who is sitting in it at the time, does not classify material. He (or she, assuming that ever happens) receives classified reports all the time; but does not classify material him/herself. Therefore I find that claim to be spurious at best. Do we know who the author of the original report was, by chance?

 

[theprestige]

A proper investigation ought to be able to disentangle this web.

A proper investigation would untangle the inner workings of the government of a sovereign state? Who would have the authority to carry out such an investigation? By what power would they compel the necessary cooperation and disclosures?

 

[theprestige]

There is a case to declassify this section of the Joint Inquiry report precisely BECAUSE several ranking people - Congressmen, former heads of intelligence review bodies - HAVE actually read the pages and say they contain nothing that actually touches on national security, and that they ought to be released. I don't know if and what beef former Senator Bob Graham may be cooking, but I have seen no one argue convincingly that he is a kook or a liar. As he was the chairman of the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence around the 9/11 attacks and in that position also co-chaired and presented the very Joint Inquiry into the 9/11 attacks that we are debating here (it's its report that contains the redacted 28 pages), he is eminently qualified to have a reasoned position on the issue - that's the sort of authority we can validly summon when we don't have the data or the tools ourself to come to conclusions.

It's nice that these people who don't have the authority to declassify it are saying it should be declassified. Who actually has the authority to declassify it? What do they say? Why have those 'ranking officials' not compelled those in authority to exercise their authority to declassify the material? Who can compel them to declassify? Why hasn't that compulsion yet been effected? Etc.

I don't know what beef Graham is cooking either, but if he has not yet convinced the classifying authority to relent, then it seems it must be a rather gristly cut, with little good meat on it.

I have no well-formed opinion on that. Must I? I am sure the staffs of the two dozend or so members of Congress who sponsor the two legal initiatives should have the resources to make a decent proposal here.

I don't think you must have a well-formed opinion. I did think it would be nice if you did, as we could then compare it to the process currently in place, and see what deficiencies are apparent. We could also compare it to the proposal made by the staffs of the two dozen or so members of Congress, but it seems we don't yet even know what their proposal is, or if they have even made one.

 

[jaydeehess]

Agreed.


A proper investigation ought to be able to disentangle this web.


Bob Graham (whose motives may be questioned; I have no insight or opinion on this yet) seems quite clear that some such individuals are place quite close to the King and the Saudi administration in and before 2001.


I think you have fallen for some scare tactics.
There are, in the first step, two possibilities:
Either the King, the Saudi government, or most senior officials thereof (cabinet rank, heads of major agencies such as intelligence services, key diplomats) knowingly aided and financed the attacks; then indeed the Kingdom can be said to have launched a war of aggression on the United States, and not to defend against this might be construed as High Treason. Also, this information would be political to the utmost degree, and be put under deliberation by the Sovereigh of the USA, which is The People, represented by Congress.
Or the culprits are lesser individuals; then the victims of these murders and their families have the goddamned right to know and prosecute and let justice run its course, while having it clear that this is an act of crime more that war. Saudi Arabia presumably wants to sell oil more than protect Al Qaeda supporters, so I think it we can reasonably expect the Kingdom to cooperate on the matter, apprehend the guilty, and make sure they are handed a fitting verdict and punishment. (I have a hunch that some of this has been done clandestinely already; and perhaps compensation to victims has in part beemn funded out of secret deals taking care of this problem)

Do not ascribe knowledgeable, ratuonal thought to Congress, or the general populace. I was not saying that this necessarily WOULD actually be a cause for war. It isnt unless the Royals in high places had knowingly financed a mass murder.
BUT my point was that all it would take for the American public and Congress is a few mid level Saudi Royals to have financed the general coffers of OBL , plus at least one firebrand Hawk, to get war with S.A. One need only see how the Iraq war (latest one of course) was pushed. Rational people said Hussien had no ties to AQ, had had no role in 9/11 and indeed AQ had previously offered to take Saddam out. Oh yeah ,WMD, none of which threatened the USA and by and large did not even exist. YET, the irrational move to go to war with Iraq happened.

 

[jaydeehess]

The King would be committing suicide to agree to mass murder in the USA. If true that and/or very high ranking family members did finance and condone 9/11, then first, the USA stops buying their oil. The USA pressures Europe and Japan to cease trade with S.A. as well. The Royals probably like being rich and in power. Their cash train would sliw down AND more importantly so would USA and European Intel about the activities of radicals that want the Royals replaced, many of whom want their heads removed.

 

[ozeco41]

A proper investigation would untangle the inner workings of the government of a sovereign state? Who would have the authority to carry out such an investigation? By what power would they compel the necessary cooperation and disclosures?

Naughty. You are addressing some of the real issues. The focus is on the issue of whether or not the President personally signed the authorisation. I mean the had of th executive branch could never indicate his wishes in a meeting with senior staff and agency heads and - coincidence of coincidences - the relevant executive department follows EITHER the Presidents wishes OR the consensus view.

The US political machine must operate on different processes to the AU one.

It's nice that these people who don't have the authority to declassify it are saying it should be declassified. Who actually has the authority to declassify it? What do they say? Why have those 'ranking officials' not compelled those in authority to exercise their authority to declassify the material? Who can compel them to declassify? Why hasn't that compulsion yet been effected? Etc.

You allude to the issues of standing and due process which somehow are preventing a minority from defining national policy or its application. You and I are on similar tracks. See my post at #5

I don't know what beef Graham is cooking either, but if he has not yet convinced the classifying authority to relent, then it seems it must be a rather gristly cut, with little good meat on it...

He is playing "play safe politics" advocating something so he can look like a good guy to the minorities - knowing he hasn't got the numbers or weight of opinion so it won't happen - and knowing that those of the majority who have any interests will also know what game he is playing.

Win-Win-Win

That is how this politically cynical Aussie would read it if it was in AU Federal politics. BUT US politics may not be as devious as AU.

I don't think you must have a well-formed opinion. I did think it would be nice if you did, as we could then compare it to the process currently in place, and see what deficiencies are apparent. We could also compare it to the proposal made by the staffs of the two dozen or so members of Congress, but it seems we don't yet even know what their proposal is, or if they have even made one.

Are you sure? Surely postulating about micro details on Internet forums carries more weight than the principles and practice of due processes of governance?

 

[Sabrina]

There is a case to declassify this section of the Joint Inquiry report precisely BECAUSE several ranking people - Congressmen, former heads of intelligence review bodies - HAVE actually read the pages and say they contain nothing that actually touches on national security, and that they ought to be released. I don't know if and what beef former Senator Bob Graham may be cooking, but I have seen no one argue convincingly that he is a kook or a liar. As he was the chairman of the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence around the 9/11 attacks and in that position also co-chaired and presented the very Joint Inquiry into the 9/11 attacks that we are debating here (it's its report that contains the redacted 28 pages), he is eminently qualified to have a reasoned position on the issue - that's the sort of authority we can validly summon when we don't have the data or the tools ourself to come to conclusions.

I would assume at this point that the classification has been vetted at least once, if not more, by a Foreign Disclosure Officer, or FDO. They typically have the last word on classification of documents and are the ones who are supposed to be aware of all the regulations and requirements of classification. Given that, I'd be very much surprised if the Congressmen and such that you cite above would equal the qualifications of an FDO, who very likely has agreed with whatever classification was assigned. The FDO is the final word in most (if not all) agencies on whether disclosure of something will affect national security. I respect that the Congressmen have their opinion, but their opinion of whether it would affect national security does not trump that of whichever FDO reviewed the document. That's the reason FDOs are around to begin with; they vet classifications of all documents and are the ones that can downgrade the classifications if necessary with approval from the classification authorities.

 

[jaydeehess]

He is playing "play safe politics" advocating something so he can look like a good guy to the minorities - knowing he hasn't got the numbers or weight of opinion so it won't happen - and knowing that those of the majority who have any interests will also know what game he is playing.

That is how this politically cynical Aussie would read it if it was in AU Federal politics. BUT US politics may not be as devious as AU.

Its always possible that he truly feels that the redacted info is something the public should be able to know.

,,,,, yeah , I know, I'm an optimist wrt to politicians

 

[ozeco41]

Its always possible that he truly feels that the redacted info is something the public should be able to know.

Could well be true - but it doesn't negate my point that it is "safe politics".

I recall my experiences as City Engineer for a local government council. A female councilor - former Mayor - and recognised head of the conservative side of local politics would vote for maximum personal attention.

This way: Where the motion was one she wanted to oppose BUT she would gain popularity by voting to support it. When the call came to vote - by show of hands - she would delay - count the "No" votes (Actually count the "Yes" votes and presume the no hands were "No")

If the "Noes" had the numbers she would wait and vote "Yes" - a win both ways for her. Got what she wanted AND seemed to support the other view. The body language was blatantly obvious to the staff.

,,,,, yeah , I know, I'm an optimist wrt to politicians

 

[Mark F]

I signed the petition, #891.

While on the one hand it makes it look like there is yet another CT nutter out there, on the other I think the 28 pages should be released if for no other reason they likely don't do anything to make the CT case for an inside jobby-job.

 

[ozeco41]

I signed the petition, #891.

While on the one hand it makes it look like there is yet another CT nutter out there, on the other I think the 28 pages should be released if for no other reason they likely don't do anything to make the CT case for an inside jobby-job.

Whilst I understand your personal view including "they likely don't do anything to make the CT case" I suggest CT discussion is not a sound basis for determining release or not.

The key aspects for me remain the "due process" for deciding release/withhold and mechanisms for review of decisions under due process.

I note from a reliable source ( ) that:

"There are currently two legislative initiatives in Congress to do just that:
House Resolution 14
Senate Bill 1471"

If those formal process do not "succeed" then the resort is to build up sufficient community support which will gain more political support.

Bottom line is the majority of the community as represented by the politicians currently don't want the docs released. And they - with the minority - are governed by rule of law operating under the previsions of a constitution. If they don't like it - and cannot change it - accept it or move out.

 

[Mark F]

Whilst I understand your personal view including "they likely don't do anything to make the CT case" I suggest CT discussion is not a sound basis for determining release or not.

The key aspects for me remain the "due process" for deciding release/withhold and mechanisms for review of decisions under due process.

I note from a reliable source ( ) that:

"There are currently two legislative initiatives in Congress to do just that:
House Resolution 14
Senate Bill 1471"

If those formal process do not "succeed" then the resort is to build up sufficient community support which will gain more political support.

Bottom line is the majority of the community as represented by the politicians currently don't want the docs released. And they - with the minority - are governed by rule of law operating under the previsions of a constitution. If they don't like it - and cannot change it - accept it or move out.

I care not a lot either way if the pages get released. I doubt very much the content is earth shattering or likely to move the meter on our understanding of what happened on 9/11 in any significant way.

But if it doesn't need to be classified on national security grounds then by all means release it. If I end up being in the minority on that so be it. I did my bit.

 

[ozeco41]

I care not a lot either way if the pages get released. I doubt very much the content is earth shattering or likely to move the meter on our understanding of what happened on 9/11 in any significant way.

But if it doesn't need to be classified on national security grounds then by all means release it. If I end up being in the minority on that so be it. I did my bit.

I understand your position. I was simply outlining the realities of the valid decision making processes.

I'm also familiar with being in the minority position. Dare I mention Bazant/Szamboti fantasies shared by truthers and many debunkers?

 

[Sabrina]

I care not a lot either way if the pages get released. I doubt very much the content is earth shattering or likely to move the meter on our understanding of what happened on 9/11 in any significant way.

But if it doesn't need to be classified on national security grounds then by all means release it. If I end up being in the minority on that so be it. I did my bit.

The problem is that the senators and representatives who are introducing those measures do not have any authority to determine what information would be considered damaging to national security or not. That lies with, as I said in an earlier post, a Foreign Disclosure Officer or the classification authority (who likely had the classification reviewed by an FDO). The congresspeople in question can spout off all they want about how they've read the pages and don't think they're damaging to national security; at the end of the day, they have NO, ZERO, NADA, ZILCH authority to make that determination.

The documents will eventually be unclassified; that's a given. What isn't a given is that an FDO will review the documents right now and say, "this shouldn't be classified at this level; we're doing to downgrade it" and therefore allow the documents to be released. This is the reason we HAVE FDOs to begin with; they make the final call on that sort of thing, not some random Senator or Representative.

 

[Oystein]

Sabrina, do I get this right?

If Congress passes a law with majorities of both the Senate and Congress, and the signature of the President, that orders the declassification and release of these papers, then a FDO could stand up and say "Urrr... no", and there is nothing Congress and the President can do?

Because that is of course what HR14 and SB whatwasthenumber are aiming at - to be voted into law eventually.


Or, if the President goes to the FDO and says "I know you have your criteria, but I am the President - release this!", it's not going to happen?


If that is not what you are saying, what then are you saying?

 

[Oystein]

I signed the petition, #891.

They have 963 now. Whoohoo, only 99,037 to go, they almost have 1%

They need well over 5000 every day now till September 25.
One feels almost pity. Another abject failure by the TM.

 

[DGM]

Sabrina, do I get this right?

If Congress passes a law with majorities of both the Senate and Congress, and the signature of the President, that orders the declassification and release of these papers, then a FDO could stand up and say "Urrr... no", and there is nothing Congress and the President can do?

I'm not answering for Sabrina but, she does not go to the level of POTUS support. Without the support of the POTUS , this has no teeth.

Sabrina naturally is better informed but, this is my understanding of law and her post.