Are there security clearances higher than Top Secret?

NSA? There is No Such Agency :cool:

I don’t know about DOE or other countries, but in DOD, all classified information is disseminated on a need-to-know basis, even when classified at the lowest level, which is “Confidential”. You can only find out where the toilets are in the D-ring of the Pentagon if you really have to go. Then they send a guy in behind you to make sure you’re not faking it with a turkey baster or something. I made up the part about the toilets.

This thread reminds me of that scene in Cryptonomicon where one of the characters has a clearance level that is itself secret and so the base guards won’t let him in because they’ve never heard of it. Finally, a coworker recognizes him and gets him into the base. :rolleyes:

See this link:
http://www.nsa.gov/

US Presidents receive their clearances as a result of their position. At least a couple of Presidents might not have qualified for (or might have lost) some of their access if they had to qualify via the traditional investigation, due to associations with known or suspected foreign agents (Kennedy), drug use, bankruptcy (which Truman barely avoided) or many other causes. Of course, there is some flexibility (and even more inconsistency) in how the standards are applied, even in ordinary clearance investigations.

Presidents aren’t automatically cleared for anything they feel like asking. As noted by others, above a certain level, information is on a “need to know” basis, and there are many things a President doesn’t need to know. The classic example is “source identity” info. S/He may need to know that we have a proven reliable source inside <organization of your choice> who has told us X, Y and Z, but s/he almost certainly does not need to know the name of that source.

“Means and methods” is traditionally among the most closely guarded classes, with source identity being a particularly sensitive subset - even accidental hints about means, methods and sources can help the target close them down or at least impede their use. [e.g. many of our classic adversaries might execute a ‘suspected traitor’ on little more than a suspicion, and even when they get the wrong guy, it’s likely to make the real source wary. Similarly, some access to electronic comms could be thwarted or impeded if their nature or even existence was suspected.]

The question has been asked (in another thread): “Who tells the President he can’t know?” Well, as a practical matter, Presidents don’t just walk into the agency of their choice and grab files. They are briefed by intelligence experts in each given field. There is some filtering at that level, which can be colored by instructions by the expert’s superiors (and, as noted scandals over the past 40 years, sometimes additional undesirable filtering due to organizational agendas)

As a practical matter, Presidents understand this (it’s part of their briefings from the time they become serious candadates) and, offhand, I can only think of one case when a President really fought it. I’ve heard thirdhand accounts of Presidents being less-than-happy, or even suspicious, about the info in their briefings, but I don’t know how accurate those reports were, and such incidents are probably inevitable anyway, even withthe most well-meaning of briefing experts.

When if push ever came to shove on such a conflict, it would probably be determined by backstage political infighting, rather than a Supreme Court ruling, explicit Executive Branch firings or any other public event. (Hey, it’s Washington. What’d you expect?) I would guess the infighting starts well before the crisis level, and probably at much lower levels than the President himself.

The Valerie Plame case is a perfect example of why sources in particular do not need to be known by the White House.

That was a spook joke.

It’s not.

How do you get a job with the National Security Agency?

Walk over to your thermostat and say “Hello, NSA. Please send me an application.”

That might be an hijack, but what is this “briefing of candidates” thing?

Could you be more specific?

The candidates of the two major parties recieve briefings (probably preliminary, but still important) before the election. I know that Reagan’s briefings before the 1980 election (reagan v. Carter v. Anderson) were widely reported in both the general media at the time, and more recently, on the web. A simple we bsearch should turn up substantial information on what he was told, and his reaction (I did such a search a few years ago for a book I was working on then)

I don’t know if this reporting owes more to a) the tenor of the times (1980 was still the “post Watergate era”, as judged by, say, the rejection of incumbents); b) a media image and concern that Reagan may have been less “engaged with the facts” than his predecessors; or c) a steady release of info with time and declassification – or perhaps some other factors.

I can’t address the reportage of later candidate briefings, because I have no personal information to judge it by. By the Bush Sr. administration, I was as far from the intelligence community as I could make myself. However, I would imagine that substantial information whould have been amde available to “rehabilitate his image”, after his loss to Clinton. Of course, he wouldn’t exactly have needed the same degree of briefing after 8 years as VP, a term as Director of the CIA, years as ambassador to China, and head of the Republican National Committee under Nixon

Is it truly so surprising that we don’t expect our President-elect to come up to speed and assume the reins of office while assembling a cabinet and White House staff in the six short weeks between the election and Inauguration?


[1] There was a definite and sudden change in politices after Watergate. IIRC, after Nixon resigned (1973), the next few elections strongly favored “inexperienced but idealistic freshmen”. The HR “<incoming> class of '74” is still legendary. Things were slower in the Senate , both by design (only 1/3 of the Senate is up for election in each Congressional election) and history (traditional caution about replacements in this “more weighty” office partly because Senate seniority is even more valuable than it is among Representatives)

There is no legal impediment to prevent the President of the United States from designating himself, or even some other person to have need to know any specific classified material, or all classified material. The facts of life are that the president really doesn’t need to know a lot of stuff, and he does really need to have the willing cooperation of field agents of the various intelligence services.

People die when agents are even suspected to be agents. Even when they have been retired for years, an intelligence operative’s identity can reveal associates of long standing to be risks in their own country. Some countries consider “being a potential security risk” to be a capital offence.

There is another category of very effective secret keeping classifications. Really boring stuff. Weather reports are rivitingly interesting when compared to the vast bulk of things which are classified secret.

Tris

such as who really killed JFK, who shot down TWA Flight 800 or the fact that Al Qaida helped Mcveigh blow up the Murah building in Oklahoma or the fact that the Anthrax really did come from terrorists (it’s all about the Bentonite folks) or what really happened at Roswell (assuming it wasn’t just project Mogul) then all it would take is a Top Secret clearance and the need to know in order to learn the truth. Would these sort of super secrets be classified above sensitive intelligence contacts or just on the same level?

It indeed makes sense. But it never crossed my mind that it would be done, so…yes, I was surprised.

Now, I’m wondering if it’s the same over here…Particularily since I just posted about the extreme-right leader who lost the last election to Chirac in GD, and I’ve somehow a hard time envisionning officials briefing him before the election.

You have to realize that most presidents may not want to know, on one level , it keeps em deniable in regards to knowledge that may impact politically at some point in the future.

Second , they are human and may just want to sleep at night , with out worrying that there is a kardazzian battle cruiser hovering in orbit.

Third , most presidents are probably drenched with information , bordering on information overload, thats why the presidential daily briefing is held , to summerise the current situations ongoing. IF he wants to zoom in on a particular item, he can have a special briefing , just on that one subject.

Me , If I was pres , would imediately fly Airforce one ,to Nevada , to see the big enchilada :slight_smile:

Declan

Except that IF there is a “big enchilada” it’s probably no longer at the Groom Lake complex. My money would be on certain bases in Utah, New Mexico, Colorado or even possibly a complex located in down under in the “outback”. Then again the skeptics like Klass may be correct. That’s my problem, I subscribe to the possibility of almost everything, but believe in almost nothing!

I would have to agree that Dreamland is no longer in Nevada , but that does not mean that the facility is empty, just to see that warehouse full of endless crates would be a thrill.

Declan

Oh , by the way , you do realize that you are the subject of a pit thread?

Declan

There is no security clearance that allows one to know the truth about conspiracy theories. That requires a tin foil hat, and then all will be revealed.

Cecil never addressed this topic in any of his columns – but William Poundstone did in one of his Big Secrets books. I can’t remember if it was in Big Secrets or Bigger Secrets. It was in one of the two.

Both books came out in the 80s, so the information is obviously outdated now. All Poundstone really says is that security clearances higher than Top Secret are routinely assigned on an ad hoc basis. He goes on to list a few levels of clearance by code name … the only one which I can remember offhand is “Canoe”.

Again, codewords like Yankee White, Gamma, Ultra, Keystone, and Canoe (I haven’t heard of that one before) are NOT higher clearances than Top Secret. They are compartments of Top Secret information.

It may help to review why things are classified at different levels:

Confidential: The designation applied to information or material the unauthorized disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to cause damage to the national security.

Secret: The designation applied to information or material the unauthorized disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to cause serious damage to the national security.

Top Secret: The designation applied to information or material the unauthorized disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.