4 ms·

Someone previously decided that the remaining 1%, 1700 files, shouldn't be viewed by the public. Why? 1700 files is plenty to hold some interesting truths.

by nomel 2y ago

ttyprintk 2y ago
Some people have seen those and are allowed to talk about them: https://thecyberwire.com/podcasts/spycast/646/transcript https://thecyberwire.com/podcasts/spycast/646/transcript https://thecyberwire.com/podcasts/spycast/647/notes https://thecyberwire.com/podcasts/spycast/647/notes
- petee 2y ago
  Allowed to talk about classified material? Doubtful
  - ttyprintk 2y ago
    Judge for yourself: > the correct figure now is about 3,600 documents in the collection of 320,000 documents still contain redactions. That might mean we might have most of the document except for a sentence, a word, a name. In other cases, you know, several pages or, you know, I don't think there's any document that's withheld in its entirety. But, you know, it's still a lot of records. The bulk of those are CIA records. A lot you can tell from the context, like Mark says, stuff about surveillance techniques, covert arrangements with foreign governments. They're very -- they guard those very closely. That's one of the things that they're still keeping. But, you know, why is this necessary? I mean, again, to step back, you know, the JFK Records Act, all this stuff was supposed to be made public in 2017. Judge Tunheim, the head of the review board, I asked him, I said, What did you expect after 25 years? How many records would have to be -- remain secret? And he said, Out of the stuff that I saw, you know, maybe 100 documents. Not, you know, and when in 2017 the CIA and FBI came to Trump and said, We have 14,000 documents that have redactions that we couldn't possibly remove. So it's like, why is the presumption around a Presidential assassination that we're going to keep -- you know, keep these secrets for good?
    - petee 2y ago
      Sounds like that person knows very little and wants to sound important for a podcast. Security clearances are taken very seriously, you can't just spitball about classified things you've seen. My dad had classified knowledge from his time in the air force, and he wouldn't even discuss the category of information let alone give an overview of the contents, 50 years onward
      - ttyprintk 2y ago
        Well, these records are special because of an act. Just because a President proactively blocked release does not promote them to a classification. But Mark Zaid on that podcast is a lawyer who specializes in people’s classification. There are many, many more people less qualified than him who are trying to sound important in this domain, like Roger Stone.
IncreasePosts 2y ago
I think the idea was to wait for people mentioned in those documents to die, so as to not affect their privacy. You want people to tell the truth to government investigations in the future, and not hold something back because they think in 15 years the government might just release a transcript of everything you told them.
- declan_roberts 2y ago
  That's not the stated reason why they're dragging their feet.
  - yardstick 2y ago
    What’s the stated reason?
    - echelon 2y ago
      And who stated a reason?
- dehrmann 2y ago
  > I think the idea was to wait for people mentioned in those documents to die, so as to not affect their privacy I also remember that story, but it's no justification for keeping something with this much public interest secret.
  - MeetingsBrowser 2y ago
    So you would like people to feel comfortable telling the whole truth, unless it’s something really important?
    - dehrmann 2y ago
      Secret witnesses aren't allowed to testify in the US. Not that these were court trials.
legitster 2y ago
Former directors have answered this pretty openly. Anything that is left is just because it contains identifiable information for people still alive. Lots of home addresses, names of investigators, etc.
rat87 2y ago
Interesting truths? Maybe. Possibly some embarrassing things for FBI Or CIA. But nothing likely to satisfy conspiracy theorists. We know who killed JFK https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/671ky4/is_the_official_explanation_for_the_jfk/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/671ky4/is_th... > Yes, the official explanation that Lee Harvey Oswald was, on his own, responsible for murdering President Kennedy is overwhelmingly accepted as correct. It has largely held up to intense scrutiny over the past 50 years and there is no substantial evidence toward any other explanation. > As I mentioned in my older post linked elsewhere, one of the reasons why there was so much criticism of the official explanation after the fact is that the investigation was not handled well. This resulted in a lot of seemingly contradictory and unexplained information that opened the door to questioning the overall conclusion as a whole.

Someone previously decided that the remaining 1%, 1700 files, shouldn't be viewed by the public. Why? 1700 files is plenty to hold some interesting truths.

by nomel 2y ago

Someone previously decided that the remaining 1%, 1700 files, shouldn't be viewed by the public. Why? 1700 files is plenty to hold some interesting truths.

ttyprintk 2y ago

Some people have seen those and are allowed to talk about them: https://thecyberwire.com/podcasts/spycast/646/transcript https://thecyberwire.com/podcasts/spycast/646/transcript https://thecyberwire.com/podcasts/spycast/647/notes https://thecyberwire.com/podcasts/spycast/647/notes

petee 2y ago
Allowed to talk about classified material? Doubtful
- ttyprintk 2y ago
  Judge for yourself: > the correct figure now is about 3,600 documents in the collection of 320,000 documents still contain redactions. That might mean we might have most of the document except for a sentence, a word, a name. In other cases, you know, several pages or, you know, I don't think there's any document that's withheld in its entirety. But, you know, it's still a lot of records. The bulk of those are CIA records. A lot you can tell from the context, like Mark says, stuff about surveillance techniques, covert arrangements with foreign governments. They're very -- they guard those very closely. That's one of the things that they're still keeping. But, you know, why is this necessary? I mean, again, to step back, you know, the JFK Records Act, all this stuff was supposed to be made public in 2017. Judge Tunheim, the head of the review board, I asked him, I said, What did you expect after 25 years? How many records would have to be -- remain secret? And he said, Out of the stuff that I saw, you know, maybe 100 documents. Not, you know, and when in 2017 the CIA and FBI came to Trump and said, We have 14,000 documents that have redactions that we couldn't possibly remove. So it's like, why is the presumption around a Presidential assassination that we're going to keep -- you know, keep these secrets for good?
  - petee 2y ago
    Sounds like that person knows very little and wants to sound important for a podcast. Security clearances are taken very seriously, you can't just spitball about classified things you've seen. My dad had classified knowledge from his time in the air force, and he wouldn't even discuss the category of information let alone give an overview of the contents, 50 years onward
    - ttyprintk 2y ago
      Well, these records are special because of an act. Just because a President proactively blocked release does not promote them to a classification. But Mark Zaid on that podcast is a lawyer who specializes in people’s classification. There are many, many more people less qualified than him who are trying to sound important in this domain, like Roger Stone.

IncreasePosts 2y ago

I think the idea was to wait for people mentioned in those documents to die, so as to not affect their privacy. You want people to tell the truth to government investigations in the future, and not hold something back because they think in 15 years the government might just release a transcript of everything you told them.

declan_roberts 2y ago
That's not the stated reason why they're dragging their feet.
- yardstick 2y ago
  What’s the stated reason?
  - echelon 2y ago
    And who stated a reason?
dehrmann 2y ago
> I think the idea was to wait for people mentioned in those documents to die, so as to not affect their privacy I also remember that story, but it's no justification for keeping something with this much public interest secret.
- MeetingsBrowser 2y ago
  So you would like people to feel comfortable telling the whole truth, unless it’s something really important?
  - dehrmann 2y ago
    Secret witnesses aren't allowed to testify in the US. Not that these were court trials.

legitster 2y ago

Former directors have answered this pretty openly. Anything that is left is just because it contains identifiable information for people still alive. Lots of home addresses, names of investigators, etc.

rat87 2y ago

Interesting truths? Maybe. Possibly some embarrassing things for FBI Or CIA. But nothing likely to satisfy conspiracy theorists. We know who killed JFK https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/671ky4/is_the_official_explanation_for_the_jfk/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/671ky4/is_th... > Yes, the official explanation that Lee Harvey Oswald was, on his own, responsible for murdering President Kennedy is overwhelmingly accepted as correct. It has largely held up to intense scrutiny over the past 50 years and there is no substantial evidence toward any other explanation. > As I mentioned in my older post linked elsewhere, one of the reasons why there was so much criticism of the official explanation after the fact is that the investigation was not handled well. This resulted in a lot of seemingly contradictory and unexplained information that opened the door to questioning the overall conclusion as a whole.