Comment by alephnerd
8 hours ago
> Why redacted still
Because a number of the people associated with this are still alive on all sides.
1998-2001 was only 25-28 years ago, so a lot of sources are still alive or active sources as we speak, and in a number of cases now decisionmakers in theirs early-mid 60s.
It's the same way how a KGB liaison officer in 1989 Dresden ended up invading Ukraine 25 years later.
> Interesting to read but … why bother?
It still has academic value, and plenty of information to be garnered.
The redacted parts are a lot more than names and detailed locations.
I think there should be a law that any info is fully public after like 20 years unless releasing it would put a specific person or named group in danger, like a source's identity but not the things they said. No vague talk about national security that can't be verified unless you have a clearance and is probably subjective anyway.
Yes, that includes nuclear weapon designs, hacking tool source code and every assassination plan ever dreamed up by some megalomaniac CIA officer. The system needs to go.
From NYT article:
> the C.I.A.’s standard practice is to release them only after about 40 years, to ensure no sources are compromised and minimize any potential tension with allies.
So this was released much earlier than usual and that might be why it's more aggressively redacted
> fully public after like 20 years unless releasing it would put a specific person or named group in danger
As the recent AI safety discourse should make clear, the set of information that potentially endangers people could be much broader than you'd naively expect.
"the things they said" could very well reveal their identity.
There is an automatic declassification system with a 25 year clock but it’s a bit more restrictive than what you propose. That said we have a cornucopia of classified info from the Cold War era available today and that has had significant academic value.
> I think there should be a law that any info is fully public after like 20 years unless releasing it would put a specific person or named group in danger
They don't even release files about human trafficking rings (epstein). Pretty sure what you are suggesting is impossible.
From the outside, it even looks like Trump attacked Iran because of the epstein files. The war is causing more deaths and terror. And it is causing economic problems worldwide. Pretty sure US government legitimacy is at the lowest point in my lifetime.
> From the outside, it even looks like Trump attacked Iran because of the epstein files.
He attacked Iran because he has warhawks and wannabe crusaders in his core group of advisors who believed that it would actually be a quick war, and that the people who had always cautioned against it were just nervous nellies. It doesn't help that Hegseth actively worked to remove people who would have cautioned against it so the yes-men "leaders" left behind were more willing to go along with the false confidence that a short few strikes would be enough.
In surprised they're redacting things like labels on a map
> In surprised they're redacting things like labels on a map
I think you're referring to this one:
https://www.cia.gov/static/06-23-1998-Potential-Targets-for-...
Since it's redacted, we can only guess what's on the map, but looking at the various points preceding it there are a lot of specific location names that are redacted. If any were also on the map then it'd be kind of stupid to redact the name once, but not the other times they're included.
Well spoken.