Homeland Security's culture of secrecy.
"We have steadfastly refused to sign any nondisclosure agreements," stated Ken Johnson, spokesman for Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. "This is unclassified material and Congress has a right to it without signing away our lives." "They're forgetting who's overseeing who [sic]," commented another nameless panel official.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has adopted similar strictures. In October, former Congresswoman Helen Chenoweth-Hage, weary of being subjected to invasive and repeated pat-down searches at airports, demanded to see the regulation governing "secondary screening" searches at airports. "She said she wanted to see the regulation ... and she was told she couldn't see it," explained TSA official Julian Gonzalez to the October 10 Idaho Statesman. "She refused to go through additional screening [without seeing the regulation] and she was not allowed to fly. It's pretty simple."
Why wouldn't TSA simply allow the former congresswoman--or any other law-abiding American --to see the regulation? "Because we don't have to," insisted Gonzalez. "That is called 'sensitive security information' [SSI]. She's not allowed to see it, nor is anyone else."
So determined is the TSA to preserve such secrecy that it threatened to arrest and prosecute air marshals suspected of discussing non-classified SSI with the press or public. According to a Congressional Research Service report, "air marshals from two locations said they were threatened with arrest and prosecution if they were found to have released sensitive security information ... even though release of SSI is not a prosecutable offense."
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||Insider Report|
|Publication:||The New American|
|Date:||Dec 13, 2004|
|Previous Article:||Beware Alberto Gonzalez.|
|Next Article:||U.S.-Mexico merger accelerates.|