Libby, The CIA, and the PDBs

The CIA response to the Libby defense request for a years worth of Presidential Daily Briefs was unsealed yesterday (Bloomberg, Breitbart).  The CIA estimated it would take nine months to comply with the defense request for nearly a year's worth of PDBs, and three months to comply with the judge's suggestion for summaries over a restricted time period of about 40 days.  From Bloomberg:

The request for more than 10 months of the President's Daily Brief would impose an ``enormous burden'' on the agency because it would have to ensure that any classified information in the reports stayed secret and because the request would take nine months to comply with, the Central Intelligence Agency said in court documents unsealed today in Washington.

``Any disclosure of the PDB beyond its intended narrow audience -- the President and his most senior advisers -- increases the possibility of damage to the national security,'' Marilyn Dorn, information review officer at the CIA's National Clandestine Service, said in a sworn affidavit.

From Breitbart:

But Dorn estimated it would take about three months to comply with a more streamlined request of about 40 days of the briefings that U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton suggested. That period would cover when Libby allegedly spoke to three reporters, along with two days before and after he was interviewed by FBI agents and testified before the grand jury.

"While the size of the task would be reduced if the time periods were restricted, the process is nevertheless time-consuming and laborious," Dorn said.

Three months sounds OK to me, especially since I don't have to do the work.

Comments

[Patton]

Shouldn't they include the time when he talked to Bob Woodward?

[Patton]

I don't understand, Libby was part of the 'narrow, intended audience' and has already seen all this material. How sould a second reading hurt National Security?

[R C Dean]

The time periods are utter bullshit. They can get the documents together in less than a day, because its just the daily editions of the same report.

Reviewing them and redacting the naught bits might take a bit longer, but hey, if the CIA doesn't want to have to do shit like this, they shouldn't make referrals to the Justice Department for prosecution.

[Cecil Turner]

Reviewing them and redacting the naught bits might take a bit longer . . .

I presumed that was what Ms Dorn was referring to (she may well have believed that was understood, coming from the "information review officer"). But I, like you, have little sympathy for the "burden" on the CIA to review its own work.

However, I think both articles almost completely missed the point. The issue at hand is the Executive's privilege to secure information for decisionmaking. Assuming that privilege is invoked (which I think is the odds-on favorite), the President will make the decision, and it won't be based on the workload at CIA.

[MayBee]

I do have sympathy for the CIA having to determine what is too classified to release publicly and what is not, and how best to release a summary of one of the most top-secret documents in the land, while preserving said secrecy. Over a year? Get out. There must be so many intertwined bits of information in those documents. Can't give away an ongoing secret or even a past secrety that isn't ready to be declassified.
I'm sure there would be a lot of research that would have to go into summarizing each briefing.
Having said that, there's simply no way Bush will budge on allowing them to be released. The precendent would be horrible, and while he can pardon Libby he couldn't put that particular genie back in the bottle.

[Rob Crocker]

It seems a little ironic that the CIA has more problems with complying with a subpoena than they do when it comes to leaking to the NYT. Maybe Libby should subpoena CIA reports about covert European prisons and see what they say about security concerns on those...

[Dave in W-S]

In a former life I handled classified intelligence on a daily base, up to the TS level. I also had to use that intelligence to prepare unclassified briefings and orders. It requires thought and effort. I have never seen a PDB, BUT I sincerely doubt that it should take the CIA, with its vast resources, 90 days to prepare unclassified summaries of 40 PDBs. Because each paragraph in a classified document is marked with the classification level of that specific paragraph, it is relatively easy to spot the highly classified stuff.

The first question should be the scope of the final product desired by Libby, et al. I think what he is seeking is more or less a graphic presentation aid that will allow the defense to talk to the volume of high priority issues Libby dealt with on a daily basis, as well as the relatively insignificant priority of Plame. If that is so, then I would think a product that listed basic topics, with a line or two vaguely describing the issue, and a couple of metrics for actions required, urgency, etc., would fit the bill. This type of product stirps away virtually all the classified content and should be relatively quick and painless to produce. Anything that remains sensitive would stand out in the review done by CIA authorities before it leaves their hands and would be made even further non-specific.

An additional question that should be asked is whether the final product needs to be "Unclassified", or merely classified at a lower level, such as "Confidential". "Confidential" extracts would be much easier to produce than unclassified and should, in my opinion, be easily handled by courtroom security.

Example:
(Date) "Iran Update" - Nuclear program developments, status update on multi-source collections (Urgency 3, Action 2);
Terrorist groups in Phillipines, activities and status of all known groups (Urgency 4, Action 4);
London Bombing, updates and links to known groups (Urgency 2, Action 1);
(REDACTED*) (Urgency 1, Action 2)

* There may be some information in a PDB that is so extremely sensitive that the topic can't even be mentioned. I suspect that should be the exception rather than the rule and that there should be a way to provide a memory jogger without giving away anything.

[clarice]

I think he also wanted vopies of the brieifings perpared for him with a notation of which were action items he was responsible for..He wants to show that the information he received and his duties were so much more significant than Plame that he had no particular reason to remember that part of the briefings.

[Dave in W-S]

The file copies of the PDB as reviewed should include who was assigned actions for specific topics. I would think so, at any rate, since that is pretty standard practice for any executive review, whether military, government or business. Only those action notes that directly or indirectly pertain to Libby are of interest and should be provided. Libby can flesh that out with his own recollections and notes.

[Cecil Turner]

I sincerely doubt that it should take the CIA, with its vast resources, 90 days to prepare unclassified summaries of 40 PDBs.

I haven't worked with PDBs, but I used to be in the section that prepared the briefs for a Combatant Commander (what we used to call a "CinC"), and they were a mishmash of operational reports, intelligence, indicators, etc. They were also preliminary, sometimes wrong, and often misclassified. Further, the challenge is not to strip all classified information (which would yield an unusable product in any event), but only the stuff that's too sensitive for the CIPA process. Seems to me that'd require a bunch of very fine judgments, and that CIA is unlikely to have a current process in place to handle it. Personally, I thought it was an optimistic estimate (and, in fact, I'll boldly predict™ that, if tasked, the CIA will be late . . . and the recipients will gripe about the product).

[Larry]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't these things called Presidential Daily BRIEFS/BRIEFINGS (Emphasis on the brief part)? I cannot imagine them being highly detailed or lengthy. Ten months to prepare nine months or 90 days to prepare 40 of them is ludicrous. If one person can't do five or ten a day, they need to fire the whole bunch and start over.

[Sue]

Larry,

Think back to the August 2001 PDB that confirms Bush knew or should have known about 9/11. /sarcasm/

Less than 2 pages. Very concise. I would imagine they are very brief.

[dorf]

It took 'em a few days to make the referral though right? :)

[Larry]

In my (long ago...retired USAF '84) experience, generally, the higher level the target of the briefing, the less detailed the brief. The pres doesn't need or want to know the grid coordinates of yesterday's S. O. input, target and ops status like some levels below him do. His version would say like, "Operation Red Sneaker initiated on schedule." If he wants details, he asks.

In every USAF outfit I was in there were always several guys who knew how to do stuff. Commanders and staff ID'd them and used them. Example: When I wrote papers for generals, I always overwrote, then had some young dude come over from his primary job and tear heck out of them, boiling 3 pages down to 1. CIA has people who know how to do stuff, whether they have a procedure or not. If they don't know who these people are, shame on them, they should all be fired.

[Cecil Turner]

. . . the higher level the target of the briefing, the less detailed the brief . . .

Yes, for each individual subject, but as you go up in level, you add more subjects (from more sources). Further, there are additional things not normally seen at lower levels (e.g., assessments of indicators, recon missions, black ops) . . . often very sensitive and highly classified.

. . .then had some young dude come over from his primary job and tear heck out of them, boiling 3 pages down to 1 . . .

Heh, so true (we used to call that "dumbing it down for the brass"). But this isn't really the same subject. Someone now has to sift through all that crap deciding what's truly sensitive, and that usually involves tracking down someone who knows the subject matter intimately (after deciding what level of risk they were willing to accept in providing the material to CIPA). In your example, the young dude would have to come back to see you, explain to you what the ground rules were, and then ask what of your brief would give away unacceptably sensitive information--and if there was some way to summarize it to remove that particular concern.

Repeat that process for each subject matter expert involved, and it adds up to considerable effort. I also suspect they'd have a couple iterations as decisionmakers argued over and then refined the acceptable level of risk. I admit guessing on the timeframe, but I think some here are grossly underestimating the difficulty.

[cathyf]

CIA has people who know how to do stuff, whether they have a procedure or not. If they don't know who these people are, shame on them, they should all be fired.

CIA used to have those people, but then the Clinton administration cut their budget by 20% and erected Gorelick Walls, and generally blew through the "peace dividend" like drunken sailors. Lots of CIA people left in disgust, and a bunch of the rest were outted by Aldrich Ames. Not to criticize the Clinton administration -- we were all in an "irrational exuberance" during that time, not letting any wacko muslims damp our optimism for a world free of the fear of the US and USSR exchanging our complete inventory of thermonuclear weapons.

Not to mention, but if the CIA has some competent people, I think they are better used fighting terrorists than helping to convict ex vice presidential aides of crimes of High Bafflegab and Low Autism.

cathy :-)

[Larry]

The one I used most's first name was Bill. I called him Shakespeare. Gen would say this reads well, Larry. I'd tell him Shakespeare was my ghostwriter, aka, Capt. Jones.

Okay, okay, I'm a gross misunderestimater.

Cecil: "I also suspect they'd have a couple iterations as decisionmakers argued over and then refined the acceptable level of risk." I think we all know this CYA is half or more of the time required. LOL

[Larry]

Cathyf: "...if the CIA has some competent people, I think they are better used fighting terrorists than helping to convict ex vice presidential aides of crimes of High Bafflegab and Low Autism."

If CIA is anything like USAF, 10% of the people do 90% of the work anyway. Hope they didn't let too many of the 10%ers get away.

May I use that, "High Bafflegab and Low Autism."?

[JM Hanes]

The court already has a procedure in place for dealing with classified info in this trial. If it takes the CIA 90 days to figure out what's sensitive info and what's not in 40 PDB's, they're in the wrong business. This is a turf issue from start to finish, not a burden issue.

[cathyf]

If CIA is anything like USAF, 10% of the people do 90% of the work anyway.

Hey, that's not just the USAF, that's most any organization. I've always maintained that the key and indeed only job of management is keeping the 90% out of the way of the 10%. But, alas, only 10% of management is up to the job. A big push of management guruism out there involves either directly harassing the 10% by management, or setting up incentives for the 90% to harass the 10% and sabatoge their work. But, y'know, at least we have Scott Adams on our side!

I'm still tinkering with the slogan...

High Bafflegab and Low Autism...

High Crimes of Bafflegab and Low Autism...

High Bafflegab and Misdemeanor Autism...

Whaddya'all think?

cathy :-)

[maryrose]

Let's hope they take their time coming to a resolution of these "turf" issues. They should have thought about all these burdensome problems before they made the erroneus referral.

[Larry]

I'd be surprised if they didn't, Maryrose. Probably said if it all turns to doodoo, we'll just misundercooperate.

[Rick Ballard]

I don't believe that "how long" will be relevant at all because I agree with Cecil's assessment of the Executive's respone, which, briefly summarized, will be: Go Fish.

Someone of a cynical bent might surmise that the CIA has a very strong suspicion that Executive will respond in just such fashion and is providing a bit of padding for the anticipated response. If the matter were going to be tried and if the verdict by chance were against Libby, the Executive's exercise of its privilege would provide for an interesting appeal. We'll never know.

[Cecil Turner]

I think we all know this CYA is half or more of the time required. LOL

Agreed (though in my opinion that's why they can't get it done in 90 days). And I maintain it's all theoretical anyway, because the White House isn't going to go along. (I further suspect the Judge, knowing this, will rule Libby doesn't really need that stuff--probably aided by Fitz's willingness to stipulate Libby was busy with "weighty matters.)

[Larry]

But.......but........but, we spent all this money on presents and there's no Fitzmas? Next thing you know, you'll tell me there's no Easter Bunny.

[clarice]

We should be getting Fitz' response to the Motion to Dismiss soon. Certainly this response by the CIA will also be on J. Walton's mind when he reads it. (As in,"The appointment issue is a strong one, do I want to kell myself for a year on a case which may have a strong basis for appeal built right into the heart of it.") Remember, it's not the busyness argument alone, but rather these reports had really important stuff in it Libby was charged to deal with and crap like Plame that meant nothing in comparison.)

[clarice]

"kell"=KILL

[Cecil Turner]

. . . and crap like Plame that meant nothing in comparison.

This is the main reason I can't see Walton ruling against Libby on the damage assessment and whether she was actually covert (along with the fairness issue). The obvious lack of import makes that whole "outed for revenge" meme incredible; it also makes it considerably more likely it was a footnote to the whole "who sent Wilson" issue. And though I'm not sure the legal rules comport with my sense of fair play, I suspect the latitude traditionally extended to the defense will carry the day on that one.

[JM Hanes]

Do you remember what the due date is on Fitz's response? I am so dying to hear what he has to say and sometimes wonder if he's got staff desperately trying to figure out some excuse for filing it under seal...

[JM Hanes]

Meant to direct previous question to Clarice.

[PaulV]

The most qualified people to do this job have more inportant tasks. Any bit of imformation has to be traced back to a busy expert to detemine how much can be released, Since the briefings are interrelated and the whole may be gretaer than sum of parts in revealing sources that too has to be evaluated. I could go through the PDBs and cut enough out to ensure no secrets were released but what would be left would not be responsive to defense request for anything that had meaning. Let Fitz make a stipulation that is acceptible to defense. That would ruin Fitz's case in a honorable way.

[Specter]

I too handled classified data a few years back (Up to TS level). Knowing how bureaucracies work, I'd be willing to bet there is a file cabinet somewhere with every single PDB all bundled by day, month, and year. Simple - open the drawers and withdraw the info. I suspect the problem is that it will take the CIA 9 months to find the cabinet...

[blubi]

I´m baffled about comments suggesting his line of defence might be that when (supposedly) told that Plame sent her husband to Niger his response meant that he was unaware that the press knew. But acc. to the indictment he states that he was unaware of him being married at all. There is evidence to suggest he was told repeatedly, and considering the issue (allegations that the VP sent him) I cannot believe he forgot about it.
Am I missing something?

[Patt]

Libby allready has a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility) set up at his lawyers, he's seen all this intelligence...this is all stalling on the part of the government.

And yes, I too have had above TS/SCI clearance for more then 20 years and while I was producing intelligence, we usually considered the CIA analysts as some of the worst in the community.

[topsecretk9]

This is a "crazy report", especially considering it is from a far left site. Thought I would link for fun.

[Syl]

I read today a phrase in a sentence referring to old information that the NYTimes had purchased About.com.

I learned it as if it were new. I said, wow I didn't know that. Then I vaguely remembered I DID know it but had forgotten it. And for the life of me I don't remember where or when I learned it.

All I can surmise is at the time I learned it, I also learned so many other things that were more important that this bit of info just didn't sink in.

So, blubi, there you have it.

[clarice]

ts what an odd story...

How crazy are the kosniks?Some are claiming the Reps rigged the Texas Dem primaries.

http://www.rightwingnews.com/archives/week_2006_03_05.PHP#005334

[Jeff]

I read today a phrase in a sentence referring to old information that the NYTimes had purchased About.com.

I learned it as if it were new. I said, wow I didn't know that. Then I vaguely remembered I DID know it but had forgotten it. And for the life of me I don't remember where or when I learned it,

even though I learned it from my boss almost exactly a month ago, heard it again from two colleagues in the next couple of days, complained to someone who works at the Times about the purchase about two days after that, told a reporter about it nine days after that, told a colleague who talks to the press a lot about it about two weeks later -- which is to say three days ago -- heard about it from a subordinate a day later or so, and on that same day talked to the reporter about it again. That same day I also had a conversation with another colleague about such purchases.

Like I said, when I read that sentence today I learned it as new and was taken aback. And so on.

[MayBee]

Hmmm about that Brewster Jennings story, Top9.
I think it makes perfect sense that BJ, even if it was a CIA front company, wouldn't be hiding its existence. The idea is to create a normal-seeming company that does secret activities. The existence of the company isn't a secret, its real work is.

[Jeff]

topsecret - Maybe this is a misreading or an overreaction, but it seems to me there is reason to be troubled by that report (and I don't mean by its completely faulty logic, although the transparency of that faulty logic is part of what makes me suspicious).

[topsecretk9]

FTR I thought it was pretty much a moot point, and thought it awfully strange that a lefty site would be flatly stating Libby should be in the pink because of it.

[MayBee]

Ts9- You are right, that part is very strange.

[Rick Ballard]

Clarice,

That's an evenly split district so the Kosling choice winning 40% would equal 20% in the general. I'd say that's a damn good showing for the 13%ers. Heh, maybe next week when the FAIR profs finish the wearing dunce caps (per SCOTUS mandate), the profs can file some sort of silly suit? Nothing like joning together in another act of utter futility - it's good for the team spirit.

[clarice]

Really, I feel as if I'd been dropped into some utterly mad alternative universe.

[topsecretk9]

How crazy are the kosniks?Some are claiming the Reps rigged the Texas Dem primaries

Really, I thought Dems accusing a fellow Dem of Voter fraud was craziest I heard.

[clarice]

Tides FOundation (Soros and Teresa's charitable money laundering outfit) and Fenton communications (every left operation in the country's pr firm) have worked up an ad called Def/Con (Defend the Constitution) which attacks Reed and Hobson tying them to Abramoff. Problem is that Hobson has zero connection--never took a dime from Abramoff or his clients.

It'll be a good chance of Erwin Chemerinsky (Duke law prof who was a named plaintiff in the FAIR case) to shoe us yet again his legal skills.

[clarice]

FOR Erwin.....to shoW

[Gary Maxwell]

Rick:

I know you directed the comment to Clarice but if you are referring to it as evenly split 50/50, I just want to know evenly with who. It sure aint Republicans for a 1/2 in Webb County and the west side of San Antonio, which is the barrio.

Ciro was an incumbent who lost to Cuellar last time by 58 votes. He got the strong backing of Kos and promptly got his head handed to him. It was not close this time. Ciro headed towards zero. This is not spinnable to anything other than a juge blackeye for Kos ( and the Hamster lady).If I am a Democrat running for office and I see Kos coming my way, I am ducking into the alley and hiding until he goes away.

[clarice]

I'm trying to get the job as Kos' bag lady--pay us and we won't endorse you--He's being balky on terms..

[Rick Ballard]

Gary,

I was thinking of TX-17. You're absolutely right about Cuellar's district. I'm still chuckling over how well the 'elect a vet' strategy worked.

So, really, the Koslings did extraordinarily well in losing badly or poorly? IYO, of course.