What is the POTUS' level of clearance in top secret matters?

[pbase]

I asked this question of Cecil, but he and his staff are busy geniuses and may not answer. So I'm throwing it open to the community:

I recently saw the now-famous video clip of President Carter stating how he once saw a UFO and I got to thinkin', if the governement were really hiding something from us, wouldn't any of the modern-day presidents have said something to the populace by now? Well, that is, if any of them really knew anything?

So exactly what is the President's level of clearance? Does he have access to all top secret government information?

I mean, is it that any ordinary Joe/Jane can run for president, and then if elected, he/she then has the highest level of clearance of all government employees? Can he declassify documents? Can he request (demand) a tour of any top secret government facility? And if not, who in the government would actually have higher clearance than the POTUS?

[Shagnasty]

We have done this exact question before but it might take a few minutes to find. IIRC, the president does have full access to virtually all government information. I am sure there are some weird exceptions though. I think it may not even be a clearance but just part of the president's job. A clearance would imply applying for one and that isn't necessary.

[Whack-a-Mole]

I seem to recall this being done here before too. I admit I find it disconcerting to think the president might have access to anything. For instance I would think the names of deep cover spies would be better kept a secret only known to a very select few necessary for overseeing their work.

[pbase]

So the president has full clearance? I saw a documentary on the employees of Area 51 last year, where they stated that the people employed at the facility are completely anonymous. They were brought to the facility by nondescript conveyances (private bus to private plane on private airfield) and are prohibited from disclosing their place of employment to anyone, upon what penalty I know not.

So whatever was at area 51 was something the government wanted isolated from the public.
I would figure that any elected official would be too close to the public to have full access to all levels of government information, no?

Carter for instance, doesn't seem like a secretive guy. I don't think he could have been trusted to hold any really important top secret government info. So if there was anything to know, he must not have known it.

I would be really interested to read the other thread on this topic. I'll search for it!

[Ravenman]

The President, and members of Congress, do not apply for or hold a security clearance. Access to classified information is provided because of their constitutional positions.

Furthermore, under Executive Order, the President is the ultimate holder of authority to determine the classification of items, with a few exceptions (e.g., politically embarrassing material may not be classified in order to cover it up). There are actually only a few laws which govern the use of classified material, and they tend to be rather specific; so questions of how classified information is handled is usually (but not always) a matter handled by the Executive Branch, not laws.

Furthermore, many would argue that Article II of the Constitution ("The executive power shall be vested in the President of the United States of America") would mean that no executive branch employee or official could refuse a lawful request by the President to see or do something. The Constitution simply does not contemplate an inferior officer overruling the exercise of executive power by the President on matters of administration of the executive branch. (Not talking about laws, here, folks.)

The point has frequently been brought up that anyone's access to classified information is determined by a need to know. I suppose it is fair to say that there have been some differences of opinion on this point, but my view is that if the President holds ultimate authority on matters of classification, and he holds the executive power, there's no way that an inferior officer's opinion of need to know could limit the President's near-plenary constitutional powers in this particular area.

[Captain Amazing]

Security clearances and classified information work on a need to know basis. You might have a "Secret" clearance, for instance, but that doesn't mean you can now wander around reading everything that's classified "Secret" just because you feel like it.

It works the same way for the President. As President, he 's going to be in situations where he has to see classified or restricted information, but that doesn't mean he can go around reading stuff for the hell of it.

[pbase]

Thank you Ravenman, for stating the law on this matter.

But tell me: Do you believe that being an ordinary citizen, that the president upon taking office has full knowledge of and access to all levels of government information? I'm asking for your opinion, not the facts.

If so, then all the theorists are incorrect. Our government really has nothing to hide. Who can guarantee that a president, in his dotage, wouldn't one day ramble on about what he saw at certain top secret installations?

Or, for the same reason, there are certain aspects of the government that the president has no knowledge of and by policy will never be informed about.

It seems that I'm unable to search threads. Can anyone post a link to the thread where this topic was discussed previously?

[muldoonthief]

Originally Posted by pbase

Carter for instance, doesn't seem like a secretive guy. I don't think he could have been trusted to hold any really important top secret government info. So if there was anything to know, he must not have known it.

Carter was a submarine officer for several years. He almost certainly had fairly high security clearances during that time. I'm no fan of Carter, but the idea that he'd give away secrets that would damage the USA just because he could is ludicrous.

[pbase]

So Captain Amazing, the president decides he wants to read a top secret document, just for the hell of it. Who tells him "no?" Who has the authority over him in this case?

And muldoonthief, I doubt any former president would blab damaging information once out of office. But people get old, they grow ill, they may blab and ramble. Who's to say what information a mentally ill former president may disclose. Isn't it therefore sensible to keep him out of the loop on top secret matters?

[RealityChuck]

Originally Posted by muldoonthief

Carter was a submarine officer for several years. He almost certainly had fairly high security clearances during that time. I'm no fan of Carter, but the idea that he'd give away secrets that would damage the USA just because he could is ludicrous.

He did give away the information about the development of the stealth bomber. The Pentagon was not amused.

But he merely announced its existence before it was supposed to be announced. You're right in that he wouldn't give out secrets that might damage the US (the Soviets probably knew that we had such a program, so it really wasn't big news).

But the president is the chief executive officer in the government and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. If he asks for top secret information, you could try to dissuade him, but he has the final say, since he's the boss.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by pbase

And muldoonthief, I doubt any former president would blab damaging information once out of office. But people get old, they grow ill, they may blab and ramble. Who's to say what information a mentally ill former president may disclose. Isn't it therefore sensible to keep him out of the loop on top secret matters?

Well someone presumably knows whatever secret information you care to posit. Why is there no concern over them growing old and blabbing?

I would imagine if the president asked for a list of all US spies abroad he'd get some pushback from the folks who keep that info. I would think they would politely suggest it is not something he needs to know but from reading the above answers it sounds like in the end the president would get it if he insisted.

[Ravenman]

I think I've made my opinion clear, for what it is worth, and I don't think this is the forum to go deeper into my opinions. But suffice it to say that somebody who runs for and wins the presidency is by no means an "ordinary citizen," no more than Warren Buffett is an "ordinary businessman."

In terms of Presidents blabbing secrets, keep in mind that the President has the ultimate authority to determine what is a secret and what is not. That's why he gets to live in that big house a few miles down the road from me.

Who's to say what information a mentally ill former president may disclose. Isn't it therefore sensible to keep him out of the loop on top secret matters?

If that were the reasoning, then nobody should know about top secret information, whether president, general, or rocket scientist.

[Elendil's Heir]

As I understand it, the President has the authority to read or see anything held by the government. He holds the Federal executive power, ne plus ultra, and automatically gains top security clearance (even if it's not called that, as such) when he swears his oath of office. He has the authority to declassify anything he deems fit and may apparently delegate that authority to others by executive order, for example, Bush did to Cheney (or so they argue, at least - I was tempted to say "Cite?" when that question arose in the Plame case).

That said, he'd be a fool to use the power carelessly. He could run afoul of various privacy laws if he asked to see the Medicare or Social Security files of private citizens without a damned good reason to do so. Eisenhower, among other Presidents, made it a point not to ask for the real names of American spies when receiving briefings from the CIA, because he recognized that he truly had no need to know. On the other hand, Nixon abused his executive authority by siccing the FBI, the CIA and the IRS on his enemies, making use of confidential information for political reasons, and it cost him his job. Good thing, too.

[Polycarp]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

The President, and members of Congress, do not apply for or hold a security clearance. Access to classified information is provided because of their constitutional positions.

Furthermore, under Executive Order, the President is the ultimate holder of authority to determine the classification of items, with a few exceptions (e.g., politically embarrassing material may not be classified in order to cover it up). There are actually only a few laws which govern the use of classified material, and they tend to be rather specific; so questions of how classified information is handled is usually (but not always) a matter handled by the Executive Branch, not laws.

Furthermore, many would argue that Article II of the Constitution ("The executive power shall be vested in the President of the United States of America") would mean that no executive branch employee or official could refuse a lawful request by the President to see or do something. The Constitution simply does not contemplate an inferior officer overruling the exercise of executive power by the President on matters of administration of the executive branch. (Not talking about laws, here, folks.)

The point has frequently been brought up that anyone's access to classified information is determined by a need to know. I suppose it is fair to say that there have been some differences of opinion on this point, but my view is that if the President holds ultimate authority on matters of classification, and he holds the executive power, there's no way that an inferior officer's opinion of need to know could limit the President's near-plenary constitutional powers in this particular area.

I believe this is an outstandingly good answer. Without being in the least flip, the proper answer here is very much akin to "Where does the 800-pound gorilla sit?" The answer is, of course, "Anywhere he wants to." And the President is, by the nature of his office, privileged to see any information held by the government, whatever its level of classification or secrecy. Under 'We the People', he is the source of any authority to classify or make secret, and he, as our Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, has the right and authority to review whatever material he chooses, of whatever classification.

Note one minor distinction: we are talking here of national security. Suppose a psychiatrist working at a V.A. hospital. His patient files are confidential, not for security reasons but for personal privacy reasons. It's within his professional power (and required by his professional ethics) to refuse a request by anyone, even the President, to review those files unless the patient himself has released them. If the President or a U.S. Attorney needs access to them for reasons of public safety, he needs to apply for a court order.

[pbase]

Mole, I would think that like the employees at Groom Lake, there a certain degree of isolation from the public for employees that hold positions with the government where they deal with top secret information. I remember that it was posited that one of the reasons for this would be to easily discredit a former employee if he/she happened to disclose sensitive information at any point later in life. The government can simply say the blabbermouth never worked for us, they're insane, and that's that.

But you can't do that with a former president. Even Carter has a certain degree of credibility. If he discloses a national secret, people are more likely to take him seriously than someone they've never heard of.

And Ravenman, by ordinary citizen I mean an individual who has not been steeped in military/governmental protocol, may or may not agree with the reasons as to why certain information has been deemed classified and hasn't been briefed and cleared by whatever officials give clearance to certain government employees.

He's essentially "Joe," and the moment he enters office he has access to the same documents that other government employees can never see unless they've worked inside for years and established a certain degree of trust?

It just seems a bit odd to me.

[alphaboi867]

Originally Posted by pbase

...But people get old, they grow ill, they may blab and ramble. Who's to say what information a mentally ill former president may disclose. Isn't it therefore sensible to keep him out of the loop on top secret matters?

That's true of anyone who's ever had access to state secrets. How does the government deal with this? Are they specialized nursing homes for ex-spies? Did Ronald Reagan's nurse's need security clearances? Did Nancy?

[iwakura43]

Minor point: note that the very existence of a secret is, in and of itself, frequently a secret. In some instances, even if the President would be interested in something, if he's not aware of its existence he would not request it.

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

Given the vast amount of secret+ information our government has access to, I don't think the question of whether the President is allowed to look at it is the key here. I think the question is whether the President will even deduce the existence of any given piece of information.

If the government has been hiding something from us for decades, would the incoming POTUS even know to go looking for it?

[tim314]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

I seem to recall this being done here before too. I admit I find it disconcerting to think the president might have access to anything. For instance I would think the names of deep cover spies would be better kept a secret only known to a very select few necessary for overseeing their work.

It's worth noting that there's a difference between what the President has a right to know and what he actually knows.

The President probably could call up the head of the CIA and say "I want a list of every one of your deep cover spies on my desk by the end of the day" and the CIA director would be duty-bound to comply (although I suppose if he lied the President might never find out about it). But why would the President ever make such a request?

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by tim314

It's worth noting that there's a difference between what the President has a right to know and what he actually knows.

The President probably could call up the head of the CIA and say "I want a list of every one of your deep cover spies on my desk by the end of the day" and the CIA director would be duty-bound to comply (although I suppose if he lied the President might never find out about it). But why would the President ever make such a request?

The why would he need it part of course being the whole point.

It would not surprise me, as I mentioned before, if the director of the CIA pushed back and tried to discourage the president from acquiring that information. If it went far enough I could even see (possibly) the CIA director threatening to resign publicly and let it be known he did so because he could not, in good conscience, divulge that info without a very good reason even if it is the president's right to see it.

[pbase]

Mole, the "why would he need it" aspect of this question is something I inquired about. If he asked for confidential information just because he wanted to know and for no other reason, who has the authority to tell him "no"?
Polycarp mentioned that the president has near-plenary power here. So what inferior officer can deny him?

Well, as mentioned by iwakura and Wombat, it's probably true that there are certain things that the president does not know, is not made aware of when assuming office, and therefore would never ask about. Except of course for such controversial "supposed" secrets like Groom Lake. And even if the president demanded a tour of the facility, who's to say he would be shown everything?

I think that elected officials are just too close to the public to be given full disclosure, despite what the law says. As I mentioned, it's much easier to destroy the record of an anonymous official once he/she starts to talk, and discredit him/her completely. Not so easy with a former pres.

Could anyone link me to the prior thread discussing this topic?

[Quercus]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

And the President is, by the nature of his office, privileged to see any information held by the government, whatever its level of classification or secrecy. Under 'We the People', he is the source of any authority to classify or make secret, and he, as our Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, has the right and authority to review whatever material he chooses, of whatever classification.

Um, cite?
'Cause that's kind of different from the most common reading of the Constitution throughout its history.
The constitution says nothing about secrets, so under the usual reading of the Constitution, the only source of the President's authority to classify and make secret is particular laws passed by Congress, though of course, the only duty she has to share information is that embodied in laws passed by Congress as well. In the absence of any laws, she is probably free to order various procedures in the executive branch about sharing and not sharing information, but this freedom is always subordinate to the law.
Not surprisingly, Presidents have on occasion argued that their power is not limited by particular laws they dislike, but to date neither the consensus of neutral legal scholars nor the Courts have looked favorably on such arguments.
In theory, Congress could pass a law creating a body of information denied to the President. It's possible some medical records fall into this category; if they do it's not because of some inherent property of medical records, but because laws duly passed by Congress apply.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Originally Posted by Quercus

In theory, Congress could pass a law creating a body of information denied to the President. It's possible some medical records fall into this category; if they do it's not because of some inherent property of medical records, but because laws duly passed by Congress apply.

In theory, yes. The president could veto this, but Congress could override the veto. Then the Supreme Court would have to make a decision. Laws passed by Congress only apply if they are constitutional.

We know the answer to this because we've been through it with regard to IRS data.

That this is presumed to be illegal even for the President is shown by its being included in Article 2 of Nixon's proposed impeachment.

http://www.watergate.info/impeachmen...articles.shtml

This conduct has included one or more of the following:

He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.

Where the distinction lies is that information classified as secret is not the same as information that is personal and private. They are two different classes of information, although they may overlap in practice.

I have to side with the others here who insist that the President has complete authority to ask for and receive any information that is classified as secret. There can be no such thing as democratic government if an unelected subordinate gets to decide what elected officials can and can't know. Our entire system of government is predicated on the proposition that any citizen can step in and do the work of governance. Contrary to what pbase keeps saying, this is the basis for our democracy, not a danger to it. (Well, any more than every other aspect of our democracy is a potential danger in extreme cases.)

So like everyone else I have to ask for a cite that there is any actual limitation on the President's ability to see classified information rather than confidential information.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by pbase

Could anyone link me to the prior thread discussing this topic?

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=235126
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=348407
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=290589
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=235126
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...d.php?t=117186

[pbase]

Exapno,

I agree with you. And I'm not saying that providing an elected official full access to sensitive information is a danger to national security. I'm just wondering if this is what is actually done when any president takes office. The president may have this right under the constitution, but many people in office seem to consider the constitution a suggestion, rather than laws of governance.

I mean, we've all seen the blacked out lines on documents released under the Freedom of Information Act. Even though the FOIA has exemptions that provide the government with an "out" as far as disclosing the document, even the documents they release are heavily edited of all but the most basic information. So under the law, the record is released, but the information is still withheld. A fast and loose interpretation of the law, no?

So even if by law, a president has access to all levels of information, can he actually get anything he requests, was my quandary. Because it seems to me, considering who he/she is, that although it's the law, it may not make common sense to do so.

Perhaps my thinking has been tainted by conspiracy theorists. I believe I'm of a mind that in order for the most sensitive government information to remain confidential, no public official has access to it, the officials that do are not known to the public, their record of employment is sealed and in itself considered classified, and there are probably only a few unknown individuals who have complete access to all.

I just don't see any other way to employ people to work on projects that must be kept confidential and under control until it's decided that the info can be declassified.

[pbase]

Thanks for the links, Raven. I'll read them through.

[Otto]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

The President, and members of Congress, do not apply for or hold a security clearance. Access to classified information is provided because of their constitutional positions.

As much as I hate to ask for a cite...cite?

I asked a similar question re members of Congress and security clearance and got a rather different answer. I can't find the thread on search, but the gist IIRC is that members of Congress can be denied access to classified documents on some basis, and therefore would be unable to sit on certain congressional committees that routinely deal with classified material.

[Jonathan Chance]

Originally Posted by pbase

Mole, I would think that like the employees at Groom Lake, there a certain degree of isolation from the public for employees that hold positions with the government where they deal with top secret information. I remember that it was posited that one of the reasons for this would be to easily discredit a former employee if he/she happened to disclose sensitive information at any point later in life. The government can simply say the blabbermouth never worked for us, they're insane, and that's that.

I'm not trying to be mean but this shows a certain naivete about classification habits and federal employees.

I am sitting in a small town in rural Ohio and within 15 feet of me are two people who have held Top Secret clearance. One still has it. I no longer do. It was part of being a federal contractor about 15 years ago and and it permitted me to see information that was part of my job. Back in Washington, DC (where I moved here from) I can think of, literally, hundreds of people I know who hold or have held SOME form of clearance, that they hold it is known due to where they work, and no effort is made to hide that fact.

Bear in mind, not all 'Top Secret' material is of the 'we hid the button of the destructo-ray at the mall in the Victoria's Secret' kind. A lot of it is budgetary or proprietary information that consists of rather mundane stuff that is classified for some reason or another by someone up the chain of command.

To get my clearance I filled out a form (a LONG one), a full background check was done, and I had to be interviewed (that took about an hour) by a security officer. In addition, I had yearly briefings from security officers about what classification meant, what the punishment for breaking such was, and methods they'd known for getting people to divulge such information.

Note that my briefings were attended by a few dozen people. Having a clearance in Washington is not exactly a rare thing.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Otto

I asked a similar question re members of Congress and security clearance and got a rather different answer. I can't find the thread on search, but the gist IIRC is that members of Congress can be denied access to classified documents on some basis, and therefore would be unable to sit on certain congressional committees that routinely deal with classified material.

Yeah, I saw that thread when I was doing a search for the OP. And it was me that provided the answer.

To recap, the lack of a clearance for members of Congress doesn't mean they have full access to classified information. Members of the intelligence committees, for example, are privy to matters not shared with other members. The membership of those committees isn't determined by passing a background investigation, it is determined by who the leadership thinks should be on the committee. Each house of Congress may place rules on their members pertaining to access to classified information, for example, the House each member to basically sign a non-disclosure agreement before seeing classified information. There were a couple members who refused to sign, therefore they didn't get anything -- but that was due to the House rules, not anything having to do with a security clearance. See clause 13.

Here's a cite for the no-clearance thing. I provided the plain text rather than the PDF of the DOD document for the sake of convenience. Link.

By tradition and practice, United States officials who hold positions prescribed by the Constitution of the United States are deemed to meet the standards of trustworthiness for eligibility for access to classified information. Therefore, the President, the Vice President, Members of Congress, Supreme Court Justices, and other federal judges appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate need not execute the SF 312 as a condition of access to classified information.

There's also a bit in that link on need to know.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by pbase

I mean, we've all seen the blacked out lines on documents released under the Freedom of Information Act. Even though the FOIA has exemptions that provide the government with an "out" as far as disclosing the document, even the documents they release are heavily edited of all but the most basic information. So under the law, the record is released, but the information is still withheld. A fast and loose interpretation of the law, no?

No, you don't understand the Freedom of Information Act at all. FOIA doesn't require that national security secrets be released. In fact, if you sent in a FOIA request for certain types of classified information -- I believe cryptographic information is one -- the agency doesn't even have to look for what you asked for, since the law provides that it is a waste of time and effort for a clerk somewhere to go look for something that can never be released under FOIA.

Because it seems to me, considering who he/she is, that although it's the law, it may not make common sense to do so.

For better or for worse, our government operates by rules, not reliance on common sense.

[pbase]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance

I'm not trying to be mean but this shows a certain naivete about classification habits and federal employees.

I am sitting in a small town in rural Ohio and within 15 feet of me are two people who have held Top Secret clearance. One still has it. I no longer do. It was part of being a federal contractor about 15 years ago and and it permitted me to see information that was part of my job. Back in Washington, DC (where I moved here from) I can think of, literally, hundreds of people I know who hold or have held SOME form of clearance, that they hold it is known due to where they work, and no effort is made to hide that fact.

Bear in mind, not all 'Top Secret' material is of the 'we hid the button of the destructo-ray at the mall in the Victoria's Secret' kind. A lot of it is budgetary or proprietary information that consists of rather mundane stuff that is classified for some reason or another by someone up the chain of command.

To get my clearance I filled out a form (a LONG one), a full background check was done, and I had to be interviewed (that took about an hour) by a security officer. In addition, I had yearly briefings from security officers about what classification meant, what the punishment for breaking such was, and methods they'd known for getting people to divulge such information.

Note that my briefings were attended by a few dozen people. Having a clearance in Washington is not exactly a rare thing.

Thanks, Jonathan. I'm unclear as to the actual levels of clearance, and I don't think that I will probably have the opportunity to speak with anyone who really knows for certain. But your info was helpful.

[pbase]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

No, you don't understand the Freedom of Information Act at all. FOIA doesn't require that national security secrets be released. In fact, if you sent in a FOIA request for certain types of classified information -- I believe cryptographic information is one -- the agency doesn't even have to look for what you asked for, since the law provides that it is a waste of time and effort for a clerk somewhere to go look for something that can never be released under FOIA.
For better or for worse, our government operates by rules, not reliance on common sense.

Ravenman, I think I do have a pretty good grasp of the FOIA. I completely understand that the law has caveats built in, that allow the government to refuse the request of certain documents.

What I'm speaking of is the frequent habit of complying with this law by sending the document, but often blacking out over 90% of the information. Rather than denying the request by not sending the document at all (a violation of the law) it seems that the government has found a loophole by sending the requested document, heavily edited. This is a common complaint of many who have requested information under this law.

Yes, ideally the government is supposed to work by rules. But rules don't govern, the humans who interpret the rules and laws do. And besides, if you don't know that a rule is being broken, then who's to say it actually was? Variations of this question play themselves out in court every day.

[Little Nemo]

He's essentially "Joe," and the moment he enters office he has access to the same documents that other government employees can never see unless they've worked inside for years and established a certain degree of trust?

It just seems a bit odd to me.

He just got elected President of the United States. He's not some "Joe" off the street.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Originally Posted by pbase

Exapno,

I agree with you. And I'm not saying that providing an elected official full access to sensitive information is a danger to national security. I'm just wondering if this is what is actually done when any president takes office. The president may have this right under the constitution, but many people in office seem to consider the constitution a suggestion, rather than laws of governance.

This is ridiculous. And I say that as someone who has been an adult since the Johnson administration and has seen numerous violations of the constitution.

I mean, we've all seen the blacked out lines on documents released under the Freedom of Information Act. Even though the FOIA has exemptions that provide the government with an "out" as far as disclosing the document, even the documents they release are heavily edited of all but the most basic information. So under the law, the record is released, but the information is still withheld. A fast and loose interpretation of the law, no?

No. I assume the law you're speaking of is the FOIA law, not the constitution. I can't figure out how you conflate the two in the same answer. How is not disclosing the information that the law specifically allows to be redacted a violation of the law or of the constitution? What does this have to do with security clearances of the President, the executive branch, or other elected or appointed officials?

So even if by law, a president has access to all levels of information, can he actually get anything he requests, was my quandary. Because it seems to me, considering who he/she is, that although it's the law, it may not make common sense to do so.

It makes complete and total sense. It could not possibly be any other way and make any sense at all.

Perhaps my thinking has been tainted by conspiracy theorists.

At the very least.

I believe I'm of a mind that in order for the most sensitive government information to remain confidential, no public official has access to it, the officials that do are not known to the public, their record of employment is sealed and in itself considered classified, and there are probably only a few unknown individuals who have complete access to all.

This is somewhat incoherent. However, as far as I understand it, it is wrong in every way.

I just don't see any other way to employ people to work on projects that must be kept confidential and under control until it's decided that the info can be declassified.

Why not allow the people who must do the work, supervise the work, and be accountable for the work have access to it? That seems sensible to me. It's also exactly the way it works.

[Little Nemo]

What I'm speaking of is the frequent habit of complying with this law by sending the document, but often blacking out over 90% of the information. Rather than denying the request by not sending the document at all (a violation of the law) it seems that the government has found a loophole by sending the requested document, heavily edited. This is a common complaint of many who have requested information under this law.

It's not a loophole. It's part of the law that some documents have portions that are not subject to release. If a document is requested, it's released with any non-releasable portions blacked out.

[flurb]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

And the President is, by the nature of his office, privileged to see any information held by the government, whatever its level of classification or secrecy.

I do think we need to make a distinction between "the government" and "the executive." As the Constitutional source of all executive authority, the President arguably has the right to any information generated or held by the executive. He would NOT have the right to demand to see a Congressman's internal work product, as that would be protected under the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution. This was an issue with the FBI raid of William Jefferson's Congressional office -- the DC Appeals court ruled that the FBI's seizure of official documents and use of a "filter team" to separate out what was relevant to the investigation from what was purely pertaining to his legislative duties did not afford him adequate protection under the clause.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by pbase

Rather than denying the request by not sending the document at all (a violation of the law) it seems that the government has found a loophole by sending the requested document, heavily edited.

It is not a loophole. You really do not understand the law correctly. FOIA is designed for deleted information to be reflected on released documents. From 5 USC 552:

Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be provided to any person requesting such record after deletion of the portions which are exempt [ed: from disclosure] under this subsection. The amount of information deleted shall be indicated on the released portion of the record, unless including that indication would harm an interest protected by the exemption in this subsection under which the deletion is made. If technically feasible, the amount of the information deleted shall be indicated at the place in the record where such deletion is made.

Originally Posted by flurb

As the Constitutional source of all executive authority, the President arguably has the right to any information generated or held by the executive.

He does not and that allegation, as phrased, is not supportable in any way, shape or form. See United States v. Nixon.

[pbase]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

He just got elected President of the United States. He's not some "Joe" off the street.

Sure he's "Joe", Nemo. That's the beauty of a democracy. Any citizen can become president, if he can convince the voters he's worthy of the job. You don't even need to have held a government position prior.

In the context of this topic, "Joe" is someone without any military briefing, who hasn't established trust through years of maintaining the confidentiality of top secret information. He's a civilian, elected to office.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Originally Posted by pbase

Sure he's "Joe", Nemo. That's the beauty of a democracy. Any citizen can become president, if he can convince the voters he's worthy of the job. You don't even need to have held a government position prior.

In the context of this topic, "Joe" is someone without any military briefing, who hasn't established trust through years of maintaining the confidentiality of top secret information. He's a civilian, elected to office.

I find this incredibly naive, pbase. In theory, yes, anyone can become President, but never has some "Joe" (and I take that to mean an everyman with no political experience whatsoever) been elected to the Presidency without stints in local, state or federal government, or at least service in the military at the general officer level, which is politically initiating in and of itself by the nature of being a general officer.

[pbase]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

This is ridiculous. And I say that as someone who has been an adult since the Johnson administration and has seen numerous violations of the constitution.


No. I assume the law you're speaking of is the FOIA law, not the constitution. I can't figure out how you conflate the two in the same answer. How is not disclosing the information that the law specifically allows to be redacted a violation of the law or of the constitution? What does this have to do with security clearances of the President, the executive branch, or other elected or appointed officials?


It makes complete and total sense. It could not possibly be any other way and make any sense at all.


At the very least.


This is somewhat incoherent. However, as far as I understand it, it is wrong in every way.


Why not allow the people who must do the work, supervise the work, and be accountable for the work have access to it? That seems sensible to me. It's also exactly the way it works.

Exapno, I'll admit you're more knowledgeable than me in matters regarding the law.
You can still make your points without being so terse.

Although I didn't state that the deletion of information in the FOIA was a violation of constitutional law, it's been cleared for me that it is legal under the caveats of the act itself. I only mentioned the FOIA to show that it's a common practice, and understandably so, to selectively divulge information. My original question was just that it seemed a bit odd considering the amount of time it takes for an government employee to gain a high-level of clearance, that a president is given the same clearance once in office without undergoing the same scrutiny.

The topic has become a bit sidetracked, and I don't want it to continue in the adversarial tone you've established. I'm willing to let it rest at "the law says he can" and that's that.

Thank you all for your responses!

[pbase]

Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil

I find this incredibly naive, pbase. In theory, yes, anyone can become President, but never has some "Joe" (and I take that to mean an everyman with no political experience whatsoever) been elected to the Presidency without stints in local, state or federal government, or at least service in the military at the general officer level, which is politically initiating in and of itself by the nature of being a general officer.

There's no question of that, Foiegras. But remember, in this context, "Joe" is an individual without the credentials that the government usually requires for access to top secret information.

I mean, if a few years of military and public service is all that's required, then many of my local politicians, whom I wouldn't trust to keep a surprise party secret, would have access to sensitive national info.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Originally Posted by pbase

There's no question of that, Foiegras. But remember, in this context, "Joe" is an individual without the credentials that the government usually requires for access to top secret information.

I mean, if a few years of military and public service is all that's required, then many of my local politicians, whom I wouldn't trust to keep a surprise party secret, would have access to sensitive national info.

I think this is your argument's fallacy, as it presents a situation that doesn't occur (well, mostly doesn't) in that there AREN'T predetermined credentials for politicians to receive or request sensitive information due to the fact that we are (supposed to be) a representative form of government. Once they're in office, the predetermined accessability to secrets is implied. But nobody without some political or military experience with this will have access, outside the random agent, hacker or spy.

[VunderBob]

Originally Posted by pbase

So Captain Amazing, the president decides he wants to read a top secret document, just for the hell of it. Who tells him "no?" Who has the authority over him in this case?

And muldoonthief, I doubt any former president would blab damaging information once out of office. But people get old, they grow ill, they may blab and ramble. Who's to say what information a mentally ill former president may disclose. Isn't it therefore sensible to keep him out of the loop on top secret matters?

The President, by virtue of being Commander In Chief, has the right to see any kind of classified material he wants. End of story.

Congressmen don't need security clearences either, but classified material access is controlled by who sits on the relevant committee(s). Joe Schmuck Congressman can't see anything he wants, but can see what his committee has oversight of. Congressmen are booted off committees on a semi-regular basis for screwing up their positions of trust.

[Quercus]

Originally Posted by flurb

As the Constitutional source of all executive authority, the President arguably has the right to any information generated or held by the executive.

I repeat, there is no inherent Constitutional right for the President to view information, even that generated by the executive branch. The President's ability to view information is subordinate to any laws passed by Congress.

Two examples have already been given where under current law the President is clearly not given authority to view: medical records and tax return information, either of which could be seen by other executive branch employees (for instance, a VA doctor, and an IRS employee, respectively).

Now, I don't know the current laws for secret/classified/super double secret information; I certainly find it plausible that current laws do not forbid the President from ordering executive branch employees to show her whatever secret info she wants. But it is still theoretically possible for Congress to create a category of secret information that could not be legally shared with the President (for instance, Congress might decide to formalize the Secret Service tradition that agents never reveal information gained while guarding public figures, since candidates from opposing parties may receive protection.)

[Rhythmdvl]

Originally Posted by alphaboi867

That's true of anyone who's ever had access to state secrets. How does the government deal with this? Are they specialized nursing homes for ex-spies? Did Ronald Reagan's nurse's need security clearances? Did Nancy?

What, you've never heard of the Village?

I believe there’s a line between private information (e.g., doctor, tax) that have other protections and Executive branch entities that create or collect information (e.g., UFOs, stealth bombers). Congress has limited power over the latter, mainly due to separation of powers issues (they can’t tell the Executive branch how to do its business).

What about the grey area between the two? Say, FBI or CIA files that have legitimate surveillance records? Can information gathered via a wiretap or other warrant-required method legally be shared with someone outside the investigation? Can the President just ‘become’ part of the investigation if interested? What about no-warrant-required surveillance (e.g., photos from the street, analysis of contacts and routines)? While the President may have need/desire to be in on surveillance of a terrorist cell in order to determine whether or not a third country is supporting them, the President could also have a need/desire to see the files on his political or business opponents. Who draws the line? Under one analysis, Congress can’t get involved, but on the other, there has to be some check, no?

[Exapno Mapcase]

Originally Posted by Quercus

I repeat, there is no inherent Constitutional right for the President to view information, even that generated by the executive branch. The President's ability to view information is subordinate to any laws passed by Congress.

Two examples have already been given where under current law the President is clearly not given authority to view: medical records and tax return information, either of which could be seen by other executive branch employees (for instance, a VA doctor, and an IRS employee, respectively).

You keep conflating confidential information with classified information. I agree that Congress can pass laws about the former. I don't have any evidence that it can pass laws about the latter that would stand constitutional muster.

To make your case you need two things you haven't presented. One is that there is no difference between confidential and classified information. The other is that Congress has ever passed a law curtailing the viewing of classified information by the president.

I'm saying you can't give me those two things because they're wrong or non-existent. If I'm wrong, please give me the cites. Your opinion that Congress can do this isn't sufficient because I'm saying flatly that your opinion is incorrect.

[flurb]

Originally Posted by Quercus

I repeat, there is no inherent Constitutional right for the President to view information, even that generated by the executive branch. The President's ability to view information is subordinate to any laws passed by Congress.

You and Ravenman are free to disagree with the proposition that the President has a Constitutionally derived right to complete authority over the operations of the executive branch, but unitary executive theory has its proponents.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by flurb

You and Ravenman are free to disagree with the proposition that the President has a Constitutionally derived right to complete authority over the operations of the executive branch, but unitary executive theory has its proponents.

Once again, see U.S. v. Nixon. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the President couldn't use executive privilege to withhold documents from investigators.

So they may be people out there that think that ruling was wrong, but the fact is that the law does not allow the President complete authority over all information created by the executive branch.

[Rhythmdvl]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

Once again, see U.S. v. Nixon. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the President couldn't use executive privilege to withhold documents from investigators.

So they may be people out there that think that ruling was wrong, but the fact is that the law does not allow the President complete authority over all information created by the executive branch.

[picayune]
You are correct. For clarity's sake, I just wanted to note that the gist of the OP and much of the thread was about Presidential access to information, not control of that information. This doesn't conflict with your post, nor does it mean to imply that your post isn't a logical extension of the topic. [/picayune]

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

I seem to recall this being done here before too. I admit I find it disconcerting to think the president might have access to anything. For instance I would think the names of deep cover spies would be better kept a secret only known to a very select few necessary for overseeing their work.

You'd think the names of deep cover hit squads covertly assanating American citizens would be better kept a secret, too- but then who's going to regulate them?