Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Security Government United States Politics

U.S. Mass Declassified Documents At Midnight 131

Posted by kdawson
from the seekrits dept.
Alchemist253 writes "Advocates of open government have another reason to celebrate New Year 2007: at midnight hundreds of millions of U.S. government documents that were classified more than 25 years ago got automatically declassified. Various agencies have applied for exemptions for specific documents, but nonetheless there should be a release of a number of interesting papers." From the article: "'It is going to take a generation for scholars to go through the material declassified under this process,' said Steven Aftergood, who runs a project on government secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

U.S. Mass Declassified Documents At Midnight

Comments Filter:
  • So ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by tomhudson (43916) <.barbara.hudson. ... bara-hudson.com.> on Monday January 01, 2007 @01:10PM (#17422786) Journal
    Do we finally find out who killed JFK?
    • Re:So ... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by prelelat (201821) on Monday January 01, 2007 @01:14PM (#17422812)
      What will this even prove, if there were conspiracies I'm sure they would have added them to the exemption pile. If not the conspiracy junkies will yell out that the documents were destroyed or put in the exempt pile. People will believe what they want, its all cloak and dager when it comes to the government.
      • I think the documents will be very interesting to historians and other reality based types. Obviously it's not for the benefit of the conspiracy crowd since, as you observed, they believe what they want.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by tomhudson (43916)
          I wonder if someone could run for president on a single promise - release ALL the info on the JFK killing ... or how long they'd survive before an "accident", or a "deranged gunman" took them out ...
          • Considering that the FBI and CIA have told the president to go take a leap before, they might let him run on that campaign, but he'd never be able to actually release them.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by khallow (566160)
            Answer, no way. That's a really lame single issue. Besides Clinton pretty much did this as part of his policy of more openness in government. And he didn't have an accident or get assassinated.
            • by tomhudson (43916)

              More than 40 years later, people still ask questions, they're not buying the official party line, and its not really a "single issue". It affects the credibility of the FBI, the CIA, the Department of Justice, and government in general.

            • Re:So ... (Score:4, Insightful)

              by rifter (147452) on Tuesday January 02, 2007 @04:12PM (#17435044) Homepage

              Answer, no way. That's a really lame single issue. Besides Clinton pretty much did this as part of his policy of more openness in government. And he didn't have an accident or get assassinated.

              Why assassinate the man when you can assassinate his character?

      • Check out http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8136240710 964892606&q=%22kennedy+assasination%22 [google.com] for your answer. The Zapruder footage has it clear as day.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by 4D6963 (933028)

        Big deal, the only thing the US Intelligence has to hide when it comes to the JFK assassination is its own incompetence (as to how they miserably failed to prevent it as Fidel Castro has survived 638 assassination attempts, part of them which had been directly ordered by JFK and RFK)

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      No, but since it goes back to the early 80s, maybe we'll find out who shot Ronald Reagan.

      Oh wait, we already know that. Oh well.
      • Re:So ... (Score:4, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 01, 2007 @01:54PM (#17423120)
        No, but since it goes back to the early 80s, maybe we'll find out who shot Ronald Reagan.

        Oh wait, we already know that.

        Or do we? I submit that the KGB grew genetically-altered assassins equipped with light-bending camoflauge armor to do the job, while using mind control to set up John Hinckley, Jr. as the fall guy (with the help of communist fifth columnists within the film industry who re-edited Taxi Driver to contain subliminal messages, which also caused the rise of MTV, which is a whole other conspiracy which I do not have the space to cover here), and that they in fact succeeded in killing him, but quickly switched the real, dead Reagan with a insidiously clever android based on alien technology. Did you ever seen Ronald Reagan around any large magnets after the shooting? Didn't think so.

        I suggest those of you who can see this memorize this information as quickly as you can, because the government DOES NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW THIS, and this post will surely not remain up for very long. (AND DON'T COPY AND PASTE IT. THEY HAVE CODE EMBEDDED IN YOUR BROWSER THAT SEND EVERYTHING EVERYBODY COPIES AND PASTES DIRECTLY TO THE NSA.) Don't worry about me, I'm posting from behind a proxy server (NOT Tor, which is in fact run by Dutch intelligence), and will be taking the next boat to another continent after I've sent out the signal. See through the lies. Good luck to you.
        • Here [underreported.com] is some evidence from the New York Times that assassins are created.
        • Come on out, William Shatner, I know it's you!
        • I'd like you to know that you honestly just made my day.

          Possibly my year.

        • Funny, but... (Score:1, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward
          ...unfortunately jokes like yours serve to undermine the effort of people who are attempting to get wrongly classified documents out in the open.

          In the world view of far too many, to question anything the government says, or to demand answers of them, is sure proof of being a "conspiracy theory nutjob", unpatriotic, unAmerican, and probably a treasonous Commie.

          A huge chunk of the population tell themselves - and others - that the government never lies, it covers nothing up, and has never misbehaved. They ho
        • by abb3w (696381)

          and will be taking the next boat to another continent

          Tsk, tsk. Loose Lips Sink Ships [archive.org]. I hope you're on good terms with the Bermuda Triangle's secret masters....

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by ScrewMaster (602015)
      Yes. It was Microsoft Bob.

      Hey! That's just as reasonable as most of the other "theories" that have been propounded in the decades since.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by tomhudson (43916)

        No, Microsoft Bob was like herpes.

        1. Nobody would admit to having it
        2. It seriously damaged your reputation
        3. People shunned you
        4. There is no "cure", only treatment.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by yabos (719499)
      Most of the possibly interesting documents are always censored when they're declassified. Various UFO documents are mostly blacked out and so are useless.
    • UFOs (Score:2, Insightful)

      by trelayne (930715)
      If FOI in the UK is any indication, the top topic of requests will be
      regarding UFOs. We should expect a lot of revelations on this in the New Year
      (Kecksburg to name one...)
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Lord Kano (13027)
        I'm from Pittsburgh. I have heard secondhand stories about Kecksburg from my grandfather. He was a steelworker and some of his coworkers lived in Kecksburg.

        SOMETHING definately crashlanded there, but I suspect that it may have been Soviet.

        Either way, I'd like to find out for sure.

        LK
    • Lee Harvey Oswald did it ;)
      • by Lord Kano (13027)
        Lee Harvey Oswald did it ;)

        Yeah, but now we'll find out who made his Magic Bullet!

        LK
        • by SydBarrett (65592)
          Duh, dont you watch infomercials?

          http://www.buythebullet.com/ [buythebullet.com]

          The Magic Bullet can make any pasta sauce, fresh salsa, omlettes, smoothies and even kill the president! All in under 10 seconds! It's the ultimate party machine!
      • by tomhudson (43916)

        psssssssss

        Lee Harvey Oswald did it ;)

        ... yes, the air has been leaking out of that excuse for decades.

        What's really funny is that if he hadn't thrown his back (he had back problems for decades) with YAEA (Yet Another Extramarital Affair), he wouldn't have been wearing his back brace that day, which prevented him from moving, and wouldn't have been killed.

    • by creimer (824291)
      The X-Files already proved that it was the Cancer Man who did the assassination.
      • by blugu64 (633729)
        "The X-Files already proved that it was the Cancer Man who did the assassination."

        Hello Dear X-Files brother! I agree!
      • Umm.... EVERYBODY knows that JFK was shot by himself from an alternate timeline with the assistance of a cleaning android, hologram, highly evolved cat, and a man from the future in desperate need of more curry.
    • by Angostura (703910)
      From the headline, I assume we find out the dark secrets behind the definition of the kilogram.
    • by walstib (620771)
      No, but we get to find out who shot JR.
    • by greylion3 (555507)
      The Mafia ordered the assasination, to mess up a much bigger plan:
      http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1019-21.htm [commondreams.org]
  • by thelost (808451) on Monday January 01, 2007 @01:12PM (#17422796) Journal
    move along. Oh the irony. Anyhow, while this may be good news correct me if I'm wrong but US government has made headway reclassifying previously unclassified documents, as reported for instance here [nytimes.com]. I don't really know the ins and outs, but isn't it kind of one hand giving while the other takes away?
  • Give and take (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MikeRT (947531) on Monday January 01, 2007 @01:13PM (#17422800) Homepage
    This policy is one of the few things, in my libertarian-leaning mind, that Bill Clinton got very right. There needs to be give and take on both sides. The public needs to respect the need for state secrecy on certain issues, and the state needs to bring everything it can to the public when the problem has been fixed. The only exception that to me is valid would be one that could really cause a war or that would get a foreign contact of the US Government or their friends and family killed.
    • Re:Give and take (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kadin2048 (468275) <slashdot.kadin@x[ ].net ['oxy' in gap]> on Monday January 01, 2007 @01:52PM (#17423104) Homepage Journal
      Agreed. However, I don't think the people should ever passively accept classification of documents or withholding of information. Every decision in that direction should be actively questioned and debated. There should be a constant public push to declassify everything, because only when you have that impetus, will anything ever be declassified, particularly because you have a government with an obsession to act secretive and horde information.

      The only legitimate reason for secrecy is when the disclosure of a document would result in direct and immediate harm to a U.S. national, ally, or key national interest. The classification of documents for "face saving" reasons is harmful and should be stopped. If we as a nation have made mistakes in the past we should be upfront with them to ourselves and move on.
      • I don't think the people should ever passively accept classification of documents or withholding of information

        They don't. Niether do they want war. But they are whipped into a fervor, kept afraid of the enemy, and government can push us to war and cloak their own actions in secrecy because of it.

        "Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common p

    • by asuffield (111848)
      If the government has 25-year-old secrets that would cause a war if revealed, we're probably all better off with the war than with the secrets. Anything that could cause that after so long would be so bad that we could not possibly justify continuing to do nothing about it.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by DavidTC (10147)

        No shit.

        Theres only three things that shouldn't automatically be declassified after 25 years: The names of operatives and assets, and blueprints of weapons and stuff, and intelligence gathering methods, like the fact we have a tap hooked into the closed circuit TV in a certain hotel in London that ambassadors always stay at.

        Anything else should be public, and I personally think 25 years is way too damn long. Let's go for five years. This is our country, we are in charge, and we can't make decisions withou

        • by Creepy (93888)
          I agree, but there's only so much that is realistic.

          For instance, I doubt the US will stop trying to undermine the Cuban government and will continue to do so secretly and not-so-secretly, and the documents may never get released (heck, as long as we're at war with anyone, the President can just Edict them to the shredder). Cuban expatriates are considered a key in winning Florida elections and since Florida also has the fourth largest pool of electoral college votes, it's in the best interest of the Presi
  • by bunhed (208100) on Monday January 01, 2007 @01:16PM (#17422818)
    Perhaps we need a seti type project to go though it all. We could dub it SAIG, Search for Any Intelligent Governance. I figure it would get the same number of false positives seti does.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by FinnWinter (968422)
      More importantly, one would expect it to get exactly the same number of true positives.
    • We could dub it SAIG, Search for Any Intelligent Governance

      And like SETI, if we were ever able to discover Intelligent Governance, the difficulty in communication would make any such discovery pointless. With ET's, the vast distances involved would mean communications turnaround would take longer than the typical lifespan of a person, whereas with IG's, the necessity to use 3000-page memoranda with fine print and unintelligible, acronym-sprinkled jargon would render any discussion meaning-free.

  • by macadamia_harold (947445) on Monday January 01, 2007 @01:17PM (#17422826) Homepage
    It is going to take a generation for scholars to go through the material declassified under this process,' said Steven Aftergood, who runs a project on government secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists.

    Well, if the government really wanted to keep people busy, I'm sure they could just use an algorithm to randomly generate a few million pages of government-speak, formatted to look important, but containing no information whatsoever. That way, they could mask the few nuggets of truly important information in a mound of nonsense and red herrings.

    Wait, that's congress' job. Nevermind.
    • Attn: Clearance Level AquaMarine Only

      It has come to our attention that several morning papers yesterday depicted several incorrect details. These are FALSE. Report Follows:

      1. "Saddam was Executed". Saddam Hussein was previously in a position of executive powers in Iraq. Therefore, when the US instituted the Bush Doctrine, he was removed from those executive powers. Therefore, he was De-Executed.

      2. "Saddam's Life was taken". Things which are taken are assumed to be in a condition to either return, or sometim
  • by PurifyYourMind (776223) on Monday January 01, 2007 @01:26PM (#17422896) Homepage

    "Secret documents 25 years old or older will lose their classified status without so much as the stroke of a pen"

    I'm curious as to how they switch the documents over. 25 years ago it's not like everything was computerized. Are they having people manually sort through classified docs in an "old documents" area, looking and the date, and moving them? I doubt they'd just let historians in to do the sorting.
    • by symbolset (646467) on Monday January 01, 2007 @01:56PM (#17423134) Journal
      When a document is classified, that doesn't mean it's pressed on thick orange cardboard with brown ink to prevent photocopying. The government has millions of classified documents and some of the most wonderful document scanners you've ever seen. The original documents were all probably scanned and archived long ago. If they want to, they can release the documents on DVD.

      It seems likely they won't want to.

      I imagine google will do a nice index and we'll know why Kennedy had the CIA assassinate the guy who invented the 100MPG on tapwater carbeurator shortly.

    • by lawpoop (604919)
      I think what happens is that there are librarians who are in charge of handling requests for documents or information of any type -- whether it's from the government or the public, through FOIA requests. They are in charge of determining whether they organization or individual has a right to see the documents they are requesting.

      So, what happens now is that those librarians take into account the criteria of the FOIA act in deciding whether or not to release the documents.

      And, of course, the FOIA give ind
    • NISPOM tells us (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DragonHawk (21256) on Monday January 01, 2007 @02:07PM (#17423230) Homepage Journal
      Are they having people manually sort through classified docs in an "old documents" area, looking and the date, and moving them?


      Well, I can't speak for everybody, but in the industrial part of US classified world, the NISPOM spells it out pretty clearly. One has to mark every classified document with the date of declassification. The "Declassify On" date comes from the Classification Guide delivered with the contract.

      The NISPOM (National Industrial Security Program - Operating Manual) is publicly available; Google for it. Contrary to popular belief, classified information is mainly about accountability and trust, not dark rooms and guys in trench coats. Classified information is about letting information *be distributed*, in an accountable fashion. If somebody in a government position is doing something illegal, they probably just won't tell anybody about it. Calling it "classified" would just draw attention to it.

      Which is not to say declassifying old, benign information isn't a good thing; it is. It increases public knowledge of our government while decreasing operating overhead. Indeed, it's generally preferred to have the smallest amount of classified information one can. It's a lot cheaper to work with unclassified material. Better to spend the money on men and equipment.
      • by rah1420 (234198)
        Mod this informative. My bro' was a classified records clerk in the Marines back in the day, and he (without divulging classified knowledge, I would assume) told me that this post was pretty close to the truth... and common sense should tell you a lot of it ('have as little classified information as possible', and the bit about being accountable for classified information.)
      • Re:NISPOM tells us (Score:4, Insightful)

        by theLOUDroom (556455) on Monday January 01, 2007 @03:21PM (#17423782)
        If somebody in a government position is doing something illegal, they probably just won't tell anybody about it.

        That statement is based on the ridiculously flawed assumption that these actions involve only a single person.

        If you want to do something like assasinate a foreign head of state are you going to hop a plane and try to do it yourself, or are you going to collect the right people and develop a plan?

        Watergate would be a great example of how totally full of shit this statement is.
        The NSA wiretapping program would be another.

        The whole point of doing illegal things in government is that you have the resources of the gov't at your disposal. To take advantage of this you need to communicate with your underlings and co-conspirators.
        How is the NSA going to set up an illegal wiretapping program if you don't tell them to? How are they going to keep it secret without piles of secret money?

        • DragonHawk: "If somebody in a government position is doing something illegal, they probably just won't tell anybody about it. "

          theLOUDroom: "That statement is based on the ridiculously flawed assumption that these actions involve only a single person."

          Um, no. You'll notice it reads just as well if you assume a group instead of a single person.

          The intent of my statement, which you and others seem oblivious to, is that classifying information creates accountability. There's all sorts of rules and regulation
          • You'll notice it reads just as well if you assume a group instead of a single person.

            Except that a group needs to communicate within itself. So yes, you can pronounce the words, but it doesn't make logical sense.

            Exactly what classified material did the Watergate scandal involve?

            Please read a little more on this subject. [washingtonpost.com] Classified information and "executive priveledge" were key issues in the Watergate debacle.

            Speaking of just TSP, you'll remember that there's a not insignificant amount of suppor
      • by El Torico (732160) *
        If somebody in a government position is doing something illegal, they probably just won't tell anybody about it. Calling it "classified" would just draw attention to it.

        Not exactly; classifying a program is a great way of getting around those pesky contracting laws.

    • by Vulch (221502)
      It's been working in the UK for years, although the minimum period is 30 years rather than 25 and some material will have a 50 or 100 year delay. The Public Records Office tends to store material by date rather than by subject, so the relevant shelves become accessible to researchers at the beginning of each year. Indexes may or may not be available, actually finding a declassified document still takes a lot of effort.

      This year we've had a look at the timetable of Harold Wilsons resignation, and found out a
  • by Anonymous Coward
    It seems that Slashdot's offices and many of its editors are infected with top secret radioactive element duplonium, resulting in dupes like this [slashdot.org].
  • Does this happen every year?
    • Re:Is this new? (Score:4, Informative)

      by swordgeek (112599) on Monday January 01, 2007 @01:34PM (#17422944) Journal
      If you read the article, you'd find that this is the first time. Clinton enacted a law, and Bush (!) has enforced it. From here on in, it will happen every year, but this is the first.
      • by R2.0 (532027)
        "Clinton enacted a law, and Bush (!) has enforced it"

        That's completely rediculous, as it violated the laws of physical existence. It is impossible for Bush to do anything that is not evil. Were he to do so, the world would cease to exist (Ref. "Dogma"). Since the world still exists as of my writing this, Bush's actions are therefore evil, and the releasing of the documents has a sinister purpose far beyond most mortals comprehension.

        Fortunately for us credulous masses, there are the chosen few who are un
      • "and Bush (!) has enforced it."
        Only after exempting every piece of paper with the words Bush and Reagan printed upon them.
      • by SeaFox (739806)
        Clinton enacted a law, and Bush (!) has enforced it. From here on in, it will happen every year, but this is the first.

        So you mean we have to wait 25 years to find out what really happened with the NSA wiretapping?

    • by jorghis (1000092)
      Not only does it happen every year but slashdot already reported on it happening this year a couple days ago.

      http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/ 28/0328251 [slashdot.org]
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by OriginalArlen (726444)
        A similar process happens here in the UK every year [bbc.co.uk]. (That article's from 2001, but it's still current info.) There are various documents that are classified for 30, 50 or 100 years. Eventually everything gets turned over to historians, in theory at least. It'll be interesting to see how the digital age will affect this process in 25 years' time...
  • by mr_luc (413048) * on Monday January 01, 2007 @01:40PM (#17422988)
    It turns out, I wasn't born in Creston Iowa to Matt and Barbara at all. I was created as part of a series of a domestic experiments with in-vitro fertilization, and ... and my father ...

    My father is Margaret Thatcher. /me sits on ground and cries.
  • Yeah right! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ratzmilk (137380) on Monday January 01, 2007 @01:44PM (#17423032)
    There is not a government on the planet that is ever going to tell it's people all their dirty little secrets.

    And they don't keep stuff buried for national security, or to protect the innocent, or what ever other reason you may think. The one and only reason any government keeps secrets from it's people is because if they were to get out, they would be lynched.

    They are only ever going to release the shit that doesn't matter.

    Besides, the most foul things perpetrated by governments usually start with "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?", or words to that effect.

    • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

      by PopeRatzo (965947)
      The most foul thing perpetrated by the current administration started with the words "Whether they (the perpetrators of 9/11) are brought to justice, or justice is brought to them, justice will be done." To Bush, "justice" means hanging 1 dictator in exchange for 3000 American military dead, half a million (give or take) Iraqi deaths, and 1.5 TRILLION DOLLARS spent "staying the course". Oh, and just to stay "on-topic", the administration of George W. Bush is the most secretive administration in American h
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Let's go over this declassifying thing. See, there are laws about hte handling of classified information. In fact, the law specifically states what may be classified, and by who. In fact, ever classified document must be marked to say why it's classified, who's the authority for classifying it, and when it will be declassified. Further, if it's not marked with a declassify on date, there's has to be a justification trail saying why it can't be automatically declassified. The law limits those to a very few c
      • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

        by ratzmilk (137380)
        Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?
      • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

        by Qzukk (229616)
        In fact, the law specifically states what may be classified, and by who.

        I bet the law doesn't say that KBR can redact entries from its audit that demonstrated that they overcharged Americans, but they got to do it anyway.

        However, shitheads like you just accuse everyone of working with classified material as conspirators.

        They must have had help from the inside. I mean, I can't just go into the IRS office and redact my taxable salary if I want to, now can I?
      • by petrus4 (213815)
        There's a reason congress wrote the law that way. However, shitheads like you just accuse everyone of working with classified material as conspirators. So go fuck yourself.

        That's probably the single main thing I've always admired about American government apologists: the amazingly compelling eloquence of their arguments. ;)
    • So we shouldn't even try? A couple of tid bits from the last load of declassified docs: Johnson started the bombing of cambodia, not nixon. More explosive force was droped on that country (we have the day by day logs now) than was dropped by all sides in WWII (including nukes). Which has lent credence to the theory that the psychologicaly and physical devestation of the country was the reason a nutter like the k.Rouge went from a fringe force with less then a hundred followers to the genocidal ruler he
    • by Phil246 (803464)
      Wasn't that said by a certain king ( Henry II ), not a government? :)
    • by Torvaun (1040898)
      First, lynching is done to people who can't defend themselves from the mob. I have great faith that the American government could put down an uprising of the people.

      Second, you seem to be saying that there are no national security issues in classified documents. They're all about Roswell or the JFK assassination or thermite bombs in the World Trade Center. Intellectual osmosis demands I move away from these kinds of statements before I get some on me.

      Third, you're busy assuming that the American pe
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by cheesygrapes (927272)
        I love how when Bush tries to spy on the American people, all the neofacists chime in with the "if people aren't doing anything wrong they shouldn't mind if the government knows their business" bit but when people want to be able to see what the government (also made of people, but with more power and more corrupt) is doing, the neofacists instantly defend the government's right to privacy. I'm sorry but this is America we're talking about. We the people, rule America. The government should answer to the p
        • by Torvaun (1040898)
          I love the idiotic Utopian view some people take. Now, let's stop with the false dichotomies and name-calling, and get down to logical arguments, shall we?

          I am in favor of declassification of documents that will no longer directly harm our nation or its citizens. My statement was that claiming that everything the government does needs to be open to whoever wants to know it is both absurd, and harmful to America. Let's say we open source the list of our intelligence officers in other nations. Now the
    • by Myrcutio (1006333)
      thats something of a logical fallacy there, to say,

      The one and only reason any government keeps secrets from it's people is because if they were to get out, they would be lynched.

      There's no evidence for that, and nothing to go on to support such a claim. The only real claim you could make on classified information with absolutely nothing to go on, is that governments keep secrets because they can. The why is a complete mystery to everyone but the guy with the "Classified" stamp.

    • by Bo'Bob'O (95398)
      You ever seen the kinds of shit they do release? What they did to Chile.. helping Saddam's rise to power, the countless things that have been made passing mention of that are really astonishing. Yet, nobody much cares. I guess people don't much care about history, no matter how relevant or intrinsic to the events of today they were.
  • Where? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 01, 2007 @01:47PM (#17423056)
    So, where the hell can we find these documents?
    • Re:Where? (Score:5, Informative)

      by AlXtreme (223728) on Monday January 01, 2007 @02:20PM (#17423344) Homepage Journal
      Not sure if declassified documents have already been placed online for the FBI or NSA, but the FBI [fbi.gov], NSA [nsa.gov] and CIA [cia.gov] FOIA sites might be good places to start. The CIA does have a few new documents online. Pick your favorite incident and happy hunting!
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by manastungare (596862)
      Haven't you heard? They have been on display at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'.
  • See, Jimmy Carter was a great president.
  • 'It is going to take a generation for scholars to go through the material declassified under this process,' said Steven Aftergood, who runs a project on government secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists.

    I find this very unlikely. Not to dismiss the sheer number of documents to sort through, correlate, and summarize, but search isn't exactly a dead field. A significant portion of the smartest people in the world are working on problems which parallel this one.

    It'll be years, not tens of years, bef

    • That's a lot of stuff to read through, and understand, which is what Mr. Aftergood (what a name, by the way) meant, I think.
  • by abb3w (696381) on Monday January 01, 2007 @02:57PM (#17423568) Journal
    It seems something like this would fit in well with their "Google Books" virtual library.
    • I would comment on this article, but there's a guy in a black war watching me through the window. Maybe it's because of that weird round saucer thing I picked up as a souvenir when I going through New Mexico. What the hell, it makes a wonderful birdbath, what with the Masonic symbols on the side and all.
  • Give it to Google, let them index it, and then we can all work on it. They everyone will Myspace and blog it, and the world will know everything.
  • Anybody thinking about making copies?
  • Note to all conspiracy lovers: the government is not a single person. If there was such a thing as aliens and stuff, someone would have come forward by now; keeping a military base that can keep an alien locked hidden from the public is extremely difficult, given that there are perhaps thousands of people that work there.

Air is water with holes in it.

Working...