Our classified leaks conundrum: ‘Need to know’ became ‘a need to share’

One of my colleagues during my time at CIA was Aldrich Ames. We knew him as Rick. I was never that fond of him.  He seemed a bit of an arrogant, know-it-all jerk, unhappy with his position and not “recognized” for his brilliance. But, if they fired everyone with that character in D.C., the place would revert to being a steamy swamp.

When Ames was caught as a Russian spy, I thought of a dear friend in the counterintelligence field who said they were “never surprised, only disappointed.” Counterintelligence is not a field filled with optimists — nor should it be.

When Massachusetts Air National Guardsman Jack Teixeira was arrested last week, I thought, ‘Here we go again — the latest in a long line of arrogant, unhappy people leaking information for political purposes.’ It appears in this case, I was wrong. And in being wrong, I think we may be starting to see a troubling pattern to come.

‘Need to know’ becomes the need to share

It has been over 20 years since Sept. 11 turned this country upside down. The reaction to the murder of 3,000 of our fellow citizens put the military and intelligence organizations of our country on overdrive. We’d been caught out short. It was never going to happen again.

The separation of foreign and domestic intelligence issues went away. There were no borders or boundaries in the war on terror. What happened in Bagram, Afghanistan, could be linked to potential events in Bellingham, Wash., or Key West, Fla.

And so, the Cold War concept of “need to know” went out the window.

“Need To Share” was the new mantra. And as we tied together the FBI, DOD, the Intelligence Community, the Department of Homeland Security, and the 17,900-plus state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement authorities to protect us — the ability to access classified information to inform and analyze vastly expanded.

The number of people who have Top Secret clearances exceeds 1 million according to the Director of National Intelligence; even more have lower-level clearances.

Legislating against stupid

There are a number of reasons leaks of classified information occur. Some — like Aldrich Ames — are doing it deliberately to inflict damage on a system and for personal gain. Others — like Cuban spy Anna Montes — are doing it for ideology. Then there are the leakers who oppose a policy and feel frustrated or simply damn the system they are in, and put the material online or leak to the press. 

Then, we have Jack Teixeira who, for all intents and purposes, seemed to do it, apparently, to show off to his friends in a chat room. No doubt, by my experience, he had been lectured by security on the dangers of leaking such information. He no doubt signed a legal commitment to protect the information. And, it seems, he viewed this as perfunctory paperwork that you need to get a job where you had access to “cool stuff.”

And to this last point, I am reminded of a late senator I worked with who said to me one late legislative night, “It is hard to legislate against stupid.”

Do we need to share?

The usual post-massive leak Congressional wailing and rending of garments is already taking place. The letters are being sent out to the DOD and IC demanding answers and hearings by the appropriate committees. Task forces are no doubt being formed within the executive to see what can be done in the future to prevent such things. And they will provide reports and potential scapegoats for the process.

And, in my opinion, we will be no further ahead than we were before.

I know we don’t wish to be wrong on terrorist activities. In fact, whether we know it or not, we’ve declared a zero tolerance for it. And to enforce that, we spend more than $50 billion per year on Homeland Security (and rising) and billions more in Defense and Intelligence to boot — for over 20 plus years. And, of course, it involved millions of people.

But, in the final analysis, I think it is time to look carefully at the “need to share” and why we need that many people with clearances. Can this be done more efficiently? And, going back to an old concept — Who really needs to know?

Frankly, we need to come to grips with the third decade of the 21^st century and how information is viewed and handled by a new generation. The vast amounts of information available on the internet have, in some young minds, devalued classified information. In my day, it was treated like written nitroglycerine. Now, it is simply part of the furniture — and old, brown, “grandma” furniture at that.

A bit more education in that arena might have some effect — sources and methods still matter and do mean lives. And a few more dollars spent in internal document tracking and external surveillance of “non-traditional” venues (read gamer sites, etc.) might help somewhat.

But, finally, it is hard to legislate against stupid.

And given the sheer volume of classified information, the large-scale access to it, and the mistaken devaluation of it by younger people, I am afraid we are in for more of these leaks going forward than anyone will like.

Ronald A. Marks is a former CIA officer who served as Senate liaison for five CIA Directors and intelligence counsel to two Senate Majority Leaders. He currently is a non-resident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center at The Atlantic Council and visiting professor at the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University. Follow him on Twitter @ronamarks