0

"Demented" Research Chief Isolates Agency

National News

 Submitted by Dan

NORMALLY, I'd ask that you submit your own entry based on the article or topic you'd like to discuss. However, I'll make an exception today :)

The Congressional Research Service is well known in policy circles -- especially defense policy circles -- for writing some of the smartest, sanest analyses you could ever hope to get in Washington.  Their reports are non-partisan.  They present dissenting points of view.  And they are unclassified -- meaning, everyone is allowed to read them.

Or so you'd think.

But, in practice, taxpayers are prevented from seeing the work of these taxpayer-funded researchers.  CRS' database of reports has been kept from public view -- although "members of the press, other researchers, and other government officials to request specific" documents, Secrecy News notes.  While CRS fights the Internet age, a few organizations, like the Center for Democracy and Technology and the Federation of American Scientists and the State Department, have built up online catalogs of the Service's reports.

Now, however, "in what is being characterized by subordinates as an act of 'managerial dementia,' the Director of the Congressional Research Service [Daniel Mulhollan] this week prohibited all public distribution of CRS products without prior approval from senior agency officials," Secrecy News says.

The new policy demonstrates that "this is an organization in freefall," according to one CRS analyst. "We are now indeed working for Captain Queeg."

"We're all sort of shaking," another CRS staffer told Secrecy News. "I can't do my work."

"There's not a day that goes by that I don't talk to someone in another agency, another organization, or someone else outside of Congress and we share information," the staffer said. "Now I can't do that?"

Mulhollan's choice is going to make executive branch policy decisions dumber and slower (since they rely on the CRS reports, too).  It's going to make Congressional decisions dumber and slower (since information-swapping will become that much more difficult).   It's going to make our government function less efficiently.  And it's going to put the public further in the dark.

Nice going, Mulhollan. 

Posted by Noah Shachtman 12:06:28 PM in  Secret Squirrel

Gster said:
 
I don't know anything more than what's presented here, but is the guy "Daniel Mulhollan" real? Is he a Bush appointee? You know the kind : loyalty trumps competency!

Someone in power needs to make this guy go away, if that's even possible!!
 
posted 974 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
lindainks55 said:
 
I suspect you're correct, Gster! We've seen the strong-arm tactics used by this administration when anyone disagrees with them. How many years will it take to clean up the messes bush&co have left everywhere?
 
posted 974 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
Danny said:
 
This was the article/blog on Wired that I had found. I thought it interesting. While I agree there needs to be secrets, but if these records are open to reporters then why are they just not generally left open to everyone?
 
posted 974 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
lindainks55 said:
 
I suspect for the same reasons people in this administration can't raise their right hand and promise to tell the truth. Too many things might be discovered.
 
posted 974 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
Gster said:
 
Danny- I think this shows the difference between OUR SECRETS and your piddly secrets! Guess who makes the distinctions !
 
posted 974 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
Danny said:
 
Gster,

Probably so. However, is it really 'secret' if reporters have access to these records? I guess I'm just not seeing that distinction between 'reporter' and 'public'.
 
posted 974 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
Vaughn Tolle said:
 
Danny, a distinction without a difference.

I suspect, but do not know, the issue here is with the dissenting views contained within the analyses, together with the nonpartisan nature of the same. Not being a conspiracy theorist, or anything.

If the work is truly unclassified, then there is no reason for the latest edict.
 
posted 974 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 
Danny said:
 
VT,

Maybe that is my issue, distinction versus difference.
 
posted 974 days ago
Add Comment Reply to: this comment OR this thread
 

Search