Classified Documents: Article in New York Times

[John Simkin]

National Security Archive Update, April 11, 2006

SECRET AGREEMENT REVEALS COVERT PROGRAM TO HIDE RECLASSIFICATION FROM PUBLIC

National Archives Signed Deal with Air Force to Disguise Re-review of Open Files and Mislead Researchers on Reasons for Withdrawing Previously Open Records.

March 2002 Memorandum of Understanding Released Through FOIA Request, After Grilling of National rchivist During Congressional Hearing.

March 16.

For more information contact:

Thomas Blanton/William Burr/Meredith Fuchs 202/994-7000

http://www.nsarchive.org

Washington, D.C., 11 April 2006 - The National Archives and Records Administration secretly agreed to a covert effort, led by the Air Force, the CIA, and other still-hidden intelligence entities, to remove open-shelf archival records and reclassify them while disguising the results so that researchers would not complain, according to a previously secret Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

The secret agreement, made between the Air Force and the National Archives, was declassified pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request by the National Security Archive and posted on the NARA website yesterday.

The heavily excised MOU, signed by assistant archivist Michael Kurtz in March 2002, reveals that the National Archives agreed that the existence of the program was to be kept secret as long as possible: "it is in the interests of both [excised] and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to avoid the attention and researcher complaints that may arise from removing material that has already been publicly available," states the MOU. NARA agreed that the withdrawal sheets indicating the removal of documents would conceal any reference to the program and "any reason for the withholding of documents."

NARA also agreed to conceal the identities of the intelligence personnel who were reviewing and removing the documents, according to the agreement, including from NARA's own staff. "NARA will not disclose the true reason for the presence of [deleted agency] AFDO [deleted] personnel at the Archives, to include disclosure to persons within NARA who do not have a validated need-to-know."

The National Security Archive first learned of the existence of the agreement, classified SECRET/[codeword deleted], earlier this year, when Archive staff accompanied historian Matthew Aid to a meeting at NARA to complain about absurd reclassifications such as 50-year-old documents that had been widely published. On February 1, Archive analyst William Burr filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the document. NARA and Defense Department officials acknowledged the existence of the MOU at the March 14, 2006 hearing of a House Government Reform subcommittee chaired by Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Ct), but refused to discuss the substance of the MOU in public session.

During the hearing, Archivist of the United States Alan Weinstein suffered persistent questioning about the MOU from Chairman Shays and other members of the Committee, to which Dr. Weinstein could only reply "it's classified."

"This secret agreement reveals nothing less than a covert operation to white-out the nation's history, aided and abetted by the National Archives," said National Security Archive executive director Thomas Blanton.

The excised portions of the MOU released yesterday apparently still hide other intelligence entities involved with the Air Force and the CIA in reclassifying public records. The MOU was originally classified at the codeword level, but the codeword itself remains classified, according to the markings on the released MOU.

The reclassification activities at NARA began at the end of the Clinton administration. So far, more than 55,000 pages of declassified documents, dating back to the World War II era, have been removed from the open files. During the March 14 hearing, Congressman Shays noted that the reclassification program was not in the national interest.

"This absurd effort to put the toothpaste back into the tube persists despite the growing consensus - supported by testimony before this Subcommittee - that from fifty to ninety percent of the material currently withheld should not be classified at all," Shays stated in his opening statement.

According to National Security Archive historian William Burr, concern over references in some declassified records to various aerial reconnaissance systems that Air Force has used over the years, such as the -2 and the earlier GENETRIX balloon program, may have triggered the reclassification project. Censored sections of the MOU, he noted, could refer to operations of the National Security Agency. If the NSA was involved, then perhaps the re-review referenced in the MOU focused on specialized intelligence activities.

In February 2002, a recruitment notice shows that the Raytheon Corporation received a contract from the Air Force to conduct the reclassification review and that the project team would include at least 20 people.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20060411/index.htm

[John Simkin]

Does anyone know the number of documents being withheld concerning the events surrounding the assassination of JFK. I think I remember reading that it is over a million.

[John Geraghty]

I think your right john. Apologists for not releasing documents try to lessen this by saying that it was less than 1% of the warren commissions documentation, thus leading people to believe that it was really nothing.

John

[Robert Howard]

I think your right john. Apologists for not releasing documents try to lessen this by saying that it was less than 1% of the warren commissions documentation, thus leading people to believe that it was really nothing.

John

Well, Well, Well. The Latest, as they say doesent reflect too well on some of the staff at the National Archives, it seems a well known JFK author signed off on the memo which, was designed to keep the 're-classification' Program secret even from the individuals working at the National Archives!!

See Christopher Lee's Washington Post Article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6041101475.html

And theres more, the FBI wants to peruse Jack Anderson's Papers for....well use your imagination

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

It is truly amazing, I cannot speak for anyone else, but what is it we are supposedly exporting to Iraq? Oh yeah, that's right DEMOCRACY!!!

I guess its that 'particular brand of democracy' where you basically live in a Police State but you get 'all the Cable Programming you could ever want.'

Edited April 20, 2006 by Robert Howard

[John Simkin]

Well, Well, Well. The Latest, as they say doesent reflect too well on some of the staff at the National Archives, it seems a well known JFK author signed off on the memo which, was designed to keep the 're-classification' Program secret even from the individuals working at the National Archives!!

Who was the well-known JFK author?

[Robert Howard]

Well, Well, Well. The Latest, as they say doesent reflect too well on some of the staff at the National Archives, it seems a well known JFK author signed off on the memo which, was designed to keep the 're-classification' Program secret even from the individuals working at the National Archives!!

From:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20060411/index.htm

Washington D.C., 11 April 2006 - The National Archives and Records Administration secretly agreed to a covert effort, led by the Air Force, the CIA, and other still-hidden intelligence entities, to remove open-shelf archival records and reclassify them while disguising the results so that researchers would not complain, according to a previously secret Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The secret agreement, made between the Air Force and the National Archives, was declassified pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request by the National Security Archive and posted on the NARA website yesterday.

The heavily excised MOU, signed by assistant archivist Michael Kurtz in March 2002, reveals that the National Archives agreed that the existence of the program was to be kept secret as long as possible: "it is in the interests of both [excised] and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to avoid the attention and researcher complaints that may arise from removing material that has already been publicly available," states the MOU. NARA agreed that the withdrawal sheets indicating the removal of documents would conceal any reference to the program and "any reason for the withholding of documents."

From:http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKkurtz.htm

Michael Kurtz was educated at the University of New Orleans (B.A.), the University of Tennessee (M.A.) and Tulane University (Ph.D). Kurtz is currently professor of history at Southeastern Louisiana University.

Kurtz has taken a keen interest in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and has published several books on the subject including Lee Harvey Oswald: A Reappraisal (1980) and The Kennedy Assassination From a Historian's Perspective (1982).

In addition Kurtz also wrote 'Crime of the Century - The Kennedy Assassination From a Historians Point of View - 1993, and has testified before the ARRB

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arrb/index28.htm

I am not familiar with Kurtz's work, and I would add that under the circumstances, I would tend to give him the 'benefit of the doubt' that it indeed would not surprise me if his signing of the 'Memorandum of Understanding' was possibly made under duress or even more extreme circumstances, however given the fact that among Kurtz's 'contributions' to JFK research is, it is alleged that he 'personally saw Oswald and [David] Ferrie together on the LSU campus.' I do not know if that is the case, but I would point out the obvious, when someone who is included in the category of a 'JFK researcher' or 'historian' is 'party to' something like the Memorandum of Understanding in question, then it casts doubt on their own credibility insofar as their 'contributions' to the historical record, in this case the unresolved aspects of the JFK Assassination; to say something of this nature is fraught with implications, I would submit, is an understatement.

Edited April 21, 2006 by Robert Howard

[Robert Howard]

Call me suspicious... but I'm wondering if the re-classification of many of these harmless documents isn't designed to disguise what they're REALLY re-classsifying. It could all be a smokescreen. I'm curious if any of the Guatemalan Operation have been re-classified. I'm wondering if some of the JFK documents haven't been withdrawn. Besides what happened at the Gulf of Tonkin, what else are they trying to hide? Sickening.

Mr Pat Speer posted those words in February, and like him I had similar misgivings, before proceeding I would advise the reader, (if he or she hasn't done so already to read this thread from the beginning.)

The last (April 2006 Issue of Deep Politics Quarterly Vol. 11 #3 pgs. 13-14) featured a blurb by Walt Brown which is as follows, I would add, that if you have any documents in your possession obtained through the National Archives, you most definitely want to read this.

It was learned in late January that United States intelligence agencies have begun an ambitious campaign to reclassify materials previously declassified. Tens of thousands of documents have already passed through this process, and while nobody is citing the specific contents--- since they are, after all, now classified-- it is fair to argue that some, if not many may involve events tangential or directly related to the events of Dallas.

But heres the catch: if you are a historian/researcher and possess copies of the reclassified documents, even though you haven't been told what they were (or to return them) you could find yourself in violation of federal statutes that prohibit individuals from being in possession of "secret" material. You could face Federal Felony charges for possession of secret documents that you obtained in a totally legal manner.

I would like to ask other members of the Forum, if they have heard or, talked to anyone representing the National Archives concerning this, and if so, to add their information to this thread. I cannot speak for anyone else, but this is not what I call 'Democracy in Action."

Might it also be suitable for everyone concerned with this issue (living in the continental USA, especially) to contact their local and state Representatives in Congress and the Senate and ask them if this is their idea of constitutional government.

Edited May 1, 2006 by Robert Howard

[Robert Howard]

Call me suspicious... but I'm wondering if the re-classification of many of these harmless documents isn't designed to disguise what they're REALLY re-classsifying. It could all be a smokescreen. I'm curious if any of the Guatemalan Operation have been re-classified. I'm wondering if some of the JFK documents haven't been withdrawn. Besides what happened at the Gulf of Tonkin, what else are they trying to hide? Sickening.

Mr Pat Speer posted those words in February, and like him I had similar misgivings, before proceeding I would advise the reader, (if he or she hasn't done so already to read this thread from the beginning.)

The last (April 2006 Issue of Deep Politics Quarterly Vol. 11 #3 pgs. 13-14) featured a blurb by Walt Brown which is as follows, I would add, that if you have any documents in your possession obtained through the National Archives, you most definitely want to read this.

It was learned in late January that United States intelligence agencies have begun an ambitious campaign to reclassify materials previously declassified. Tens of thousands of documents have already passed through this process, and while nobody is citing the specific contents--- since they are, after all, now classified-- it is fair to argue that some, if not many may involve events tangential or directly related to the events of Dallas.

But heres the catch: if you are a historian/researcher and possess copies of the reclassified documents, even though you haven't been told what they were (or to return them) you could find yourself in violation of federal statutes that prohibit individuals from being in possession of "secret" material. You could face Federal Felony charges for possession of secret documents that you obtained in a totally legal manner.

I would like to ask other members of the Forum, if they have heard or, talked to anyone representing the National Archives concerning this, and if so, to add their information to this thread. I cannot speak for anyone else, but this is not what I call 'Democracy in Action."

Might it also be suitable for everyone concerned with this issue (living in the continental USA, especially) to contact their local and state Representatives in Congress and the Senate and ask them if this is their idea of constitutional government.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060501/pl_nm/...rveillance_dc_3