Ahhh… very clever.
But not exactly a complete analysis.
Above, you said:
I’m trying to figure out why, exactly, you can’t just bundle all the evidence together and say the collective bundle contains classified information.
Let me give you an example. In the early days of the Manhattan Project, Richard Feynman relates that he was told to buy his train ticket to Albequerque somewhere other than the train station at Ithaca, because the government didn’t want any observer to wonder why all these physicists from Cornell were suddenly leaving New York to travel to New Mexico.
So Feynmen, being contrary, bought his tickets at Ithaca, reasoning that since no one else was doing it, he’d be safe.
“So you’re going to New Mexico, eh?” said the railway clerk.
“Yes,” replied Feynman.
“Ah… then all this stuff must be for you!” They had completely forgotten the large quantity of equipment that they were shipping out to New Mexico, and now the railway clerk had an explanation: it was all Feynman’s!
Funny, but it highlights the nature of issue. There’s nothing classified about a physicist traveling to New Mexico. But when it’s ten physicists and mathematicians, and a huge supply of scientific equipment, it begins to mean something.
So even though there was nothing classified about any one piece, the piece can be classifed BECAUSE, combined with other information, it may reveal information.
The Air Force never said the report contained classified information, even though the report was classified. Do you see the distinction?
Because the report was a seperate and distinct piece of evidence from the other pieces of evidence. You can’t claim that the secrecy of other evidence somehow rubs off onto it.
Suppose I’m a defendant. And I tell you that I have ten witnesses who will give me an unimpeachable alibi that I did not commit the crime I cam accused of. But I cannot produce these witnesses so you just have to take my word for what they would say.
Then suppose you locate one of these witnesses. And he testifies that he was not with me at the time I said he was.
And I respond to this by saying that this witness is a notorious liar and my other nine witnesses will not only verify my alibi but will also verify that I’m very honest and the other witness is a pathological liar. But again, you have to accept my statement as to what these witnesses would say under oath.
Now would you accept a judge’s ruling that the testimony of nine witnesses is more credible than the testimony of a single witness and therefore he’s ruling that the witness’ testimony be stricken from the record? Because if nine people say I’m honest then I must be honest. And you can believe what I tell you those nine people would say because I’m honest.
And that’s the situation with the Air Force in this case. It claimed that the accident report contained information that needed to be classified for security reasons. Later this was revealed to be untrue. Then the argument was made that the information in this report was related to information in other classified reports. But we cannot verfiy this because those other reports are classified.
So how do we know that these other reports exist? Maybe the claim of their existence is as false as the original claim that the accident report contained secret information.
When you’ve caught somebody telling one lie, you shouldn’t believe them when they claim they have an explanation but you’ll have to trust them on it. At that point you should insist on verification of their claims.
Why not?
You keep saying, as if pronouncing a great religious truth, that you can’t do this. Why?
No, despite your repeated attempts to make it so by saying it over and over. The Air Force said the document was classified, yes.
Please read this carefully: “Later this was revealed to be untrue.”
When did that happen?
It did not.
Sure… except that you haven’t shown the first lie.
Are you claiming that the original accident report - in and of itself and without reference to other documents - contained secret information that needed to be classified for security reasons?