Peace Promotion or Peace Disruptions: To Classify or Declassify Government Documents

TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 31 Mar 2025

Prof Hoosen Vawda – TRANSCEND Media Service

“Classified Documents are the nemesis of various governments. Whatever is done, the entire citizenry cannot be pleased.

 Introduction

29 Mar 2025 – This publication, demystifies and enables the reader to understand the concept of “Classified Documents”, their purpose, and the implications of classification of specific documents, pertaining to certain cases of global and national importance by governments. It is a contemporary topic that intersects with issues of security, privacy, and governance. In some countries, the classification of documents generated, following intense investigation by various security services has created national dissent and has made ruling governments unpopular with the citizenry.  Often, as part of their election campaign, presidential candidates, promise the declassification of certain controversial documents, but dot deliver when elected into office. President Donald Trump has stated subsequent to his inauguration as the 47^th president of the United States that he will release the classified files, on the assassination investigation of two prominent community leaders; Senator Robert F. Kennedy and Dr. Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.  Both the global community and Americans await this declassification, to analyse the CIA, official documents on the assassinations.

The paper is prompted by two significant news worthy items, this week, which are relevant to elaborate upon, with the scope of this topic:

1. Statement that Secret CIA files claim Ark of the Covenant has been found
2. The Signalgate Crisis

The Ark of the Covenant and the CIA

Declassified CIA documents claim that the mystical Ark of the Covenant was located by a psychic decades ago in the Middle East as part of one of the intelligence agency’s experimental, secret projects in the 1980s. The Ark of the Covenant was thrust back into the spotlight as globetrotting archaeologist Indiana Jones attempted to uncover the artifact in Steven Spielberg’s 1981 Oscar-winning Raiders of the Lost Ark. According to Jewish and Christian tradition, the gold-plated wooden chest housed the two tablets bearing the Ten Commandments, which God, in theology, gave to Moses between the 13th and 16th centuries BC.

The Ark of the Covenant is a sacred artifact in Jewish and Christian traditions, described as a gold-plated wooden chest that housed the two stone tablets inscribed with the Ten Commandments given to Moses by God. According to biblical accounts, the Ark also contained Aaron’s rod and a pot of manna.[1]

Constructed during the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt, the Ark symbolized God’s presence among His people. It was meticulously crafted from acacia wood, overlaid with gol[2]d, and featured a lid known as the “Mercy Seat,” where God’s presence was believed to dwell. ​

Throughout its history, the Ark played a central role in various events:​

• Wandering in the Desert: The Ark accompanied the Israelites during their 40 years in the desert, leading them and serving as a tangible representation of God’s guidance. ​
• Crossing the Jordan River: As the Israelites entered the Promised Land, the priests carrying the Ark stepped into the Jordan River, causing the waters to part and allowing safe passage.​
• Battle of Jericho: The Ark was carried around the city of Jericho for seven days, culminating in the city’s walls collapsing, demonstrating divine intervention in battle.​
• Capture and Return: The Philistines captured the Ark but returned it after experiencing misfortunes, recognizing its sacred power.​
• Placement in the Temple: King Solomon eventually placed the Ark in the Holy of Holies within the First Temple in Jerusalem, solidifying its significance in worship.​

The ultimate fate of the Ark remains a mystery, with various theories and legends suggesting its concealment or loss during tumultuous periods in Israel’s history.

The “Signalgate” Crisis in the Trump administration

 

• Top Trump administration officials accidentally shared highly sensitive attack plans on Iranian-backed militants in Yemen with a journalist on the messaging app Signal.
• Signal is a free, encrypted messaging service that is not approved by the government for classified communications.
• The use of Signal for government business may violate the Presidential Records Act and federal law.

Highly sensitive attack plans on Iranian-backed militants in Yemen were seemingly accidentally shared with a journalist as they were happening when top Trump administration officials included Jeffrey Goldberg, editor of The Atlantic, in a group chat on the commercial messaging app Signal. “I didn’t think it could be real,” The Atlantic article’s headline said. “Then the bombs started falling.” Signal, a common messaging app available in the Apple and Android app stores, has not been approved by the government for classified communications. Goldberg said he received the Signal invitation from Mike Waltz, President Donald Trump’s national security advisor and former U.S. Representative from Florida. Also on the message chain were Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State and former U.S. senator from Florida Marco Rubio, and Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s director of national intelligence.

The cofounder of Signal’s company Open Whisper Systems, Moxie Marlinspike, aka Matthew Rosenfeld, posted a gleeful marketing pitch for the app on Monday.

Leak of highly classified information of US attack on the Houthis in Yemen, two hours before the event. A deep crisis Despite his attempts at reducing its importance, it is undeniable that the scandal around the Yemen chat group is President Trump’s most significant setback so far, the editor-in-chief, of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg. Still, the incident also shows some cracks within the Administration. According to the WSJ, President Trump has privately expressed frustration about the incident, which he viewed as one of his administration’s first setbacks. According to the WSJ, President Trump has privately expressed frustration about the incident, which he viewed as one of his administration’s first setbacks. The newspaper also said that inside the walls of the White House, the incident sparked a battle of finger-pointing to assign the blame for the severe mishap. The newspaper revealed that some in the Administration see Pete Hegseth as responsible for sharing the most sensitive information in the chat group during bombing times, but the President has backed him. Still, despite most officials’ tight fronts, one of them has publicly expressed frustration: Marco Rubio. He was in the chat but emphasized he did not share sensitive information. It is not the first time that the Secretary of State, a seasoned politician, expressed his displeasure with the methods of other officials with less experience, showing the cracks within. A few weeks ago, during a meeting to discuss Elon Musk’s agency over federal departments, Mr. Rubio had a particularly heated exchange with the billionaire, the New York Times revealed. The NY Times said Mr. Rubio was frustrated at the DOGE’s attempt to dismantle USAID, an agency he was to oversee, quickly and without notice and expressed his frustration clearly. The argument between both officials dragged on and intensified until President Trump interrupted to praise the Secretary of State’s work and push them to work together. The newspaper said the meeting was the first significant indication that President Trump is willing to limit the power of Mr. Musk, who has been a divisive force within the Administration. Mr. Musk has held a polemic role in the Trump Administration. He has been the focus of most protests against Trump policies, from outside and inside the GOP. The Tesla owner has influenced many of the DOGE’s actions, including firings and controversial emails. Some GOP allies sympathize with the goal but are unhappy with the method. A notable example is Kash Patel. The new FBI director asked his officials to ignore an email from the DOGE asking them to report their activities or be fired. According to the WSJ, Stephen Bannon, one of Trump’s closest allies and strategists, has repeatedly attacked the billionaire in the media.

The author intends to inform the readers of the concept of classified documents, to assist them in realising the complex issues operating and why are documents related to certain cases of profound public interest and following are classified or declassified, usually after a minimum of five decades, by the ruling government administration, at the time.  Usually, conspiratory theorists are at the forefront of generation of intrigue and public misinformation, when documents are classified enhancing the various theories propagated by these peace disturbing hyper-theorists.  The author makes contextual analysis of the matter at the time, their commonalities, and the question of a potential governmental agency conspiracy, necessitating the need of a foundation for a deeper exploration of the topic.

 

1. What are Classified Documents?

Classified documents are records, information, or materials that are deemed sensitive by a government or organization and therefore restricted to specific individuals or groups. These documents are classified in order to protect national security, political stability, or economic interests.

2. Why Do Governments Classify Documents?

Governments classify documents for various reasons, including:

• National Security: Information related to defense, intelligence, and military operations needs to be protected to prevent threats to national security.
• Diplomatic Relations: Sensitive information regarding foreign policy and international negotiations is kept classified to safeguard relationships between countries.
• Law Enforcement: Information relevant to ongoing criminal investigations, undercover operations, or intelligence activities may be classified to protect the integrity of these processes.
• Economic Interests: Certain trade secrets, technological advancements, or economic strategies might be classified to protect the interests of a nation’s economy.

3. Periods of Restriction (Classification Levels)

Classified documents usually fall under specific classification levels based on the sensitivity of the information. Common classification levels include:

• Confidential: Information that could harm national security if disclosed but is less sensitive than higher levels.
• Secret: Information that could cause significant damage to national security if released.
• Top Secret: Information that could cause grave damage to national security if made public.

Each level typically has a time period for classification. This could range from a few months to decades, depending on the information. Some documents may even be classified indefinitely, particularly if they contain information that could compromise national security for a prolonged period.

4. Who Can Declassify Documents?

Declassification can only be authorized by the individual or group that originally classified the document or by their successors. This authority often rests with high-ranking officials in the government, such as:

• The President or Prime Minister: In many countries, the highest office has the power to declassify information.
• Government Agencies: Certain government departments (e.g., defense, intelligence, foreign affairs) may have internal processes to declassify documents.
• Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request: In some countries (e.g., the United States), citizens can file requests for declassification through mechanisms like the FOIA, though this process can take years.

5. Which Countries Classify Documents?

Nearly every country has some form of classification system, although the specifics may vary. Here are some countries known for their classification systems:

• United States: The U.S. government has a robust classification system managed by different agencies like the Department of Defense and the CIA.
• United Kingdom: The UK also has an extensive classification system, with documents often categorized as Official, Secret, or Top Secret.
• Russia: Russia has a well-defined classification system for military and state secrets.
• China: China classifies documents to protect state security and strategic interests.
• India: India has a classification system for documents related to national security and defense.

Some countries have more open governments (e.g., through Freedom of Information Acts), while others, particularly authoritarian regimes, may heavily control what information is made public.

6. Advantages of Classified Documents

• National Security: Protects sensitive information related to military strategies, intelligence, and diplomatic negotiations from falling into the wrong hands.
• Public Safety: Keeping some information secret can prevent public panic or the exploitation of vulnerabilities.
• Diplomatic Relations: Protecting classified communications can maintain stable international relations.
• Control Over Sensitive Technologies: Governments can prevent the unauthorized spread of advanced technologies that may be detrimental to their interests.

7. Disadvantages of Classified Documents

• Lack of Transparency: Citizens may feel excluded from understanding key government actions and decisions, potentially eroding trust in institutions.
• Risk of Abuse: Governments may misuse classification to cover up wrongdoing or prevent scrutiny.
• Stifling of Innovation: Classified documents sometimes involve patents, research, and technologies that could benefit the public, but their classification restricts their dissemination.
• Information Hoarding: Sometimes information that is no longer sensitive remains classified for extended periods, hindering public access to historical data.

8. Impact on the Citizenry

• Trust in Government: Governments that are overly secretive may foster distrust or suspicion among the public. On the other hand, transparency can improve the democratic process.
• Rights and Freedoms: The classification of certain information may be seen as limiting the public’s right to know and affecting freedoms of speech or information.
• Education and Research: Citizens, particularly in academia, may find themselves unable to access information that could aid research or technological development.
• National Security and Personal Safety: On the positive side, citizens are better protected if sensitive information (e.g., military plans) is kept secret.

9. Examples of Document Declassification

• The Pentagon Papers (U.S. 1971): A classified study detailing the U.S. political and military involvement in Vietnam. When declassified, it revealed significant government deception.
• The Chilcot Inquiry (UK, 2016): The investigation into the UK’s involvement in the Iraq War uncovered a large volume of classified documents that helped citizens better understand the decision-making process.

In these cases, the declassification of documents stirred public debate about the balance between government transparency and the protection of sensitive information.

 

In summary, classified documents play a crucial role in protecting national security and state interests, but their classification also raises concerns about government transparency, accountability, and citizens’ access to information. Governments must balance the need for security with the public’s right to be informed.

 

Some well-known examples of classified documents in the U.S., ranging from the early days of classification to more recent incidents. These examples have often been pivotal in shaping public discourse about transparency, government secrecy, and the public’s right to know.

1. The Pentagon Papers (1971)

• Summary: One of the most famous examples of classified documents being leaked to the public, the Pentagon Papers were a classified report detailing the U.S. political and military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967. The documents were prepared by the Department of Defense under Secretary Robert McNamara.
• Leak: Daniel Ellsberg, a former military analyst, leaked the documents to The New York Times in 1971.
• Impact: The publication of the Pentagon Papers revealed that successive U.S. administrations had misled the public and Congress about the scale and nature of the Vietnam War, leading to widespread public criticism and increasing anti-war sentiment.
• Outcome: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the press’s right to publish the papers, establishing a significant precedent for freedom of the press.

2. The Watergate Scandal (1972-1974)

• Summary: During the Watergate scandal, classified documents related to the Nixon administration’s illegal activities, including the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters and subsequent cover-up efforts, were exposed.
• Leak: The release of these documents, along with the testimony of insiders like Mark Felt (known as “Deep Throat”), helped uncover the full extent of the cover-up.
• Impact: The revelations led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon in 1974, the first-ever resignation of a U.S. president in history.
• Outcome: Watergate heightened public awareness of governmental abuse of power and was a key event in the evolution of investigative journalism.

3. The Iran-Contra Affair (1980s)

• Summary: During the Reagan administration, classified documents revealed that senior officials secretly facilitated the sale of arms to Iran (which was under an arms embargo) and used the proceeds to fund Contra rebels in Nicaragua, which was prohibited by U.S. law.
• Leak: The information was uncovered through investigative journalism and official investigations. Documents, such as The Walsh Report, provided crucial evidence of wrongdoing.
• Impact: The affair led to investigations, convictions, and later pardons, with key figures like Oliver North being involved.
• Outcome: The scandal raised concerns about government accountability and the unchecked power of national security agencies.

4. The 9/11 Commission Report (2004)

• Summary: In the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, classified documents were compiled by the U.S. government and later declassified in the 9/11 Commission Report, which was issued in 2004.
• Leak: While the report itself wasn’t a leak, there were significant revelations from declassified documents detailing failures by intelligence agencies to prevent the attacks and issues within U.S. counterterrorism efforts.
• Impact: The declassification of these documents was a significant move toward greater transparency, leading to public hearings and heightened efforts to improve U.S. security and intelligence gathering.
• Outcome: The 9/11 Commission Report is considered a key document in understanding the attack and its aftermath, pushing for reforms like the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security.

5. Wikileaks (2010)

• Summary: One of the most controversial episodes of document classification and declassification in recent history, Wikileaks released a massive trove of classified U.S. government documents.
• Leak: The documents, known as the Afghan War Logs, the Iraq War Logs, and U.S. diplomatic cables, were provided by Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning.
• Impact: The release of these documents exposed details about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including civilian casualties, secret operations, and candid assessments of foreign leaders. It also revealed embarrassing U.S. diplomatic cables, such as assessments of foreign leaders’ personal qualities.
• Outcome: Manning was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to prison, though her sentence was commuted by President Obama in 2017. The leaks prompted widespread debates over government transparency, national security, and the ethics of whistleblowing.

6. Edward Snowden and the NSA Surveillance Leaks (2013)

• Summary: In 2013, former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden leaked classified documents that exposed the scale of the U.S. government’s surveillance programs, including mass data collection from phone and internet communications under programs like PRISM.
• Leak: Snowden provided the documents to journalists Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras, and the leaks were published in The Guardian and The Washington Post.
• Impact: The leaks revealed that the U.S. government was monitoring communications not just of foreign nationals, but also of American citizens without proper legal oversight.
• Outcome: Snowden’s actions sparked an intense global debate about privacy, civil liberties, and the balance between security and personal freedoms. Snowden fled to Russia to avoid prosecution, where he remains in asylum.

7. The DNC Email Hack and Russian Interference (2016)

• Summary: During the U.S. presidential election in 2016, classified documents from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) were hacked by Russian operatives and released via Wikileaks.
• Leak: The leaked emails revealed bias against Bernie Sanders during the Democratic primary and other internal communications that caused public embarrassment for the DNC.
• Impact: The revelations led to widespread media coverage, public outrage, and significant political fallout. The leak also became a central point in ongoing investigations into Russian interference in the election.
• Outcome: The U.S. intelligence community concluded that Russia interfered in the election, and the DNC hack remains a central issue in U.S. political discourse.

8. The CIA Torture Report (2014)

• Summary: In 2014, the Senate Intelligence Committee declassified a report that revealed the CIA’s use of torture on detainees in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. The report criticized the effectiveness and morality of these methods.
• Leak: Although the report was officially declassified, it had been delayed for years, and portions of it were leaked to the media prior to the release.
• Impact: The report reignited debates over U.S. interrogation techniques, the ethics of torture, and the broader war on terror.
• Outcome: While the report led to criticism of the CIA’s actions, there were no prosecutions of high-level officials involved in the program. However, it added to the growing debate on the balance between security and human rights.

9. The Saudi 9/11 Documents (2021)

• Summary: In 2021, the U.S. government released long-classified documents related to the 9/11 attacks, focusing on the potential connections between the Saudi government and the attackers.
• Leak: These documents were part of a broader release of information prompted by lawsuits from 9/11 families seeking accountability for the attacks.
• Impact: While these documents did not definitively prove the involvement of the Saudi government, they provided more context regarding the financial and logistical support that the hijackers may have received.
• Outcome: The release led to renewed calls for accountability and greater transparency regarding the attacks.

 

Conclusion:

These examples demonstrate the wide range of impacts that classified documents can have on politics, governance, and public opinion in the U.S. While classification is vital for national security, the leaks of such documents have often led to significant shifts in public policy, accountability, and trust in government institutions.

 

The concept of “classified documents” has its roots in the early 20th century, though its origins can be traced back even earlier in the form of state secrets and military information being kept confidential. The formalization of classified documents, as we understand it today, began primarily with the United States during and after World War I.

Here’s a brief overview of how classified documents became an official protocol:

1. Early Beginnings (Pre-20th Century)

• Ancient and Medieval Times: In various cultures, certain types of information were considered secret or reserved for specific individuals. This could include military strategies, political decisions, or royal decrees, but these were typically controlled by kings or rulers rather than a formal system of classification.
• Early Modern Era: During the 18th and 19th centuries, European governments, especially during wartime, began to formalize secret diplomatic correspondences and military plans. However, it wasn’t until the modern era that the classification of information became standardized.

2. The Formalization of Classified Documents in the U.S. (1910s)

• World War I: The United States is widely credited with formalizing the modern concept of classified documents during World War I. With the increasing importance of military and diplomatic secrecy, the U.S. government took steps to ensure that sensitive information, especially related to wartime strategy and diplomacy, was properly protected.

In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson issued an executive order, which established the practice of marking documents as “Confidential” to protect military secrets. The executive order created a system where government documents could be officially classified and restricted from public access, especially in times of national crisis.

3. The Birth of Modern Classification Protocols (1930s-1940s)

• The Roosevelt Administration and World War II: During World War II, the system of classified documents grew significantly more complex. In 1940, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an executive order that set up the foundation for modern classification levels. This order defined different levels of classification (e.g., “Confidential,” “Secret,” and “Top Secret”) and established strict procedures for handling classified materials.
• National Security and Intelligence Agencies: With the formation of organizations like the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA) during the 1940s, the need for classified information grew. These agencies handled a range of sensitive materials related to espionage, military operations, and diplomacy.

4. Post-WWII Era and the Establishment of Formal Classification Systems (1950s-Present)

• Executive Order 10501 (1953): President Dwight D. Eisenhower issued Executive Order 10501, which further expanded and formalized the classification system within the U.S. government. This executive order outlined the responsibilities for classifying documents, specifying who could classify and declassify materials, as well as establishing the various levels of classification.
• The Cold War and Beyond: During the Cold War, the U.S. and the Soviet Union engaged in intense espionage and secrecy, leading to the continued expansion of classified documents. Both superpowers developed more detailed systems for protecting sensitive information, which spread to other countries as well.

5. The Global Spread of Classified Document Protocols

• While the United States played a key role in formalizing the system of classified documents, other countries quickly adopted similar systems. For example:
  • The United Kingdom had its own system for secret documents, which evolved through the 20th century, particularly during and after World War I and World War II. The UK had official classification levels such as “Official,” “Secret,” and “Top Secret.”
  • The Soviet Union had a highly secretive and controlled classification system during the Cold War, with significant emphasis on military and state secrecy.
  • Other countries (e.g., Germany, France, and China) also established their own classifications during and after the major world wars.

6. Modern-Day Classification Systems

• United States: The U.S. system continues to be one of the most developed in the world, governed by Executive Order 13526 (signed by President Barack Obama in 2009), which sets the standards for classifying, declassifying, and safeguarding national security information.
• Other Countries: Many other countries have adopted their own versions of classification systems, often mirroring or influenced by the U.S. system, with some variations in classification levels, declassification processes, and protocols for handling sensitive information.

Key Milestones in the U.S. Classification History

• 1917: The United States formalized its system of classified documents during World War I.
• 1940s: The U.S. government expanded the system significantly during World War II, setting the framework for modern-day classification protocols.
• 1953: Executive Order 10501 formalized the classification levels and procedures for handling classified documents.
• 2009: President Obama signed Executive Order 13526, which modernized the process and standards for handling classified information, aiming to increase transparency and ensure better oversight.

 

Conclusion

The concept of classified documents, particularly the formal and structured system we see today, was primarily initiated by the United States in the early 20th century. It began with the formal need to protect military and state secrets during World War I and expanded significantly through World War II and the Cold War, becoming a cornerstone of national security protocols. Other nations followed suit, adopting similar classification systems to safeguard their own sensitive information.

 

Assassinations of Prominent American Politicians

 

The investigations into the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy (JFK), Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and Senator Robert F. Kennedy (RFK) are all significant moments in U.S. history, and the documents related to these events have been the subject of widespread public interest. Let’s break down the status of the official investigation documents on these assassinations, including whether they are still classified.

1. Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (1963) [3]

• Date of Assassination: November 22, 1963, in Dallas, Texas.
• Official Investigation: The primary investigation into JFK’s assassination was conducted by the Warren Commission (1964). It concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in assassinating Kennedy.
• Classified Documents:
  • Many documents related to JFK’s assassination were initially classified due to national security concerns, ongoing investigations, and diplomatic matters. However, in subsequent decades, significant portions of these documents have been declassified.
  • The JFK Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 mandated that all government documents related to the assassination be released to the public. This led to a large-scale release of classified documents, but not all were declassified immediately.
  • As of October 2021, many of the remaining documents were scheduled for declassification, as they were subject to a 25-year review under the JFK Records Act. However, some documents still remain partially redacted or withheld due to national security concerns.
• Status Today: While a large number of documents have been declassified and made available to the public, some documents remain classified, and the release of certain materials continues to be delayed for reasons including national security concerns and the protection of individuals’ privacy.

2. Assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (1968)[4], [5]

• Date of Assassination: April 4, 1968, in Memphis, Tennessee.
• Official Investigation: The FBI conducted an investigation into Dr. King’s assassination, which concluded that James Earl Ray was the lone gunman. However, there have been persistent conspiracy theories suggesting that others may have been involved, and questions regarding the involvement of government agencies have continued to surface.
• Classified Documents:
  • The FBI, under the leadership of J. Edgar Hoover, had been monitoring Dr. King for years due to his civil rights activities. Some documents related to the FBI’s surveillance of King were classified and remain controversial.
  • In the years following the assassination, the U.S. government released many of these documents. However, some remain classified, especially those relating to FBI surveillance and potential involvement in the events leading up to and following King’s death.
• Status Today: The National Archives has released many documents related to the investigation, but there are still classified materials that have not been made available. These documents are mainly concerned with surveillance and intelligence gathering by the FBI. Further declassification may occur over time, but as of now, some records remain sealed.

3. Assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy (1968)[6]

• Date of Assassination: June 5, 1968, in Los Angeles, California.
• Official Investigation: The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) conducted an investigation into the assassination of RFK, concluding that Sirhan Sirhan was the lone gunman. Sirhan’s motivation has been questioned over the years, and various conspiracy theories exist, suggesting potential involvement by others.
• Classified Documents:
  • Like the investigation into JFK’s assassination, various documents related to RFK’s assassination were classified. These documents mainly involve law enforcement materials, intelligence assessments, and related investigations.
  • In the years following RFK’s assassination, some classified documents regarding the case were declassified and made available to the public. However, there have been concerns about the potential withholding of additional records that could shed light on other possible theories surrounding his death.
• Status Today: While a significant portion of the investigative records have been declassified and made available, there are still classified documents related to the RFK assassination. The California State Archives and the National Archives hold some of these documents, and there may be additional declassification in the future, though some materials remain secret for reasons related to national security, privacy, and unresolved investigations.

Why Are Some Documents Still Classified?

• National Security: Some of the classified documents may involve sensitive information about intelligence gathering, law enforcement methods, or diplomatic matters that could affect U.S. security if disclosed.
• Protection of Sources: Some documents may contain information about confidential informants or law enforcement personnel whose safety could be compromised if their identities were revealed.
• Privacy: There could be ongoing concerns about the privacy of individuals involved in the investigations or associated with the events.

Key Takeaways

• JFK Assassination: A significant number of documents have been declassified, but some documents remain classified or redacted for national security reasons.
• MLK Assassination: While many documents related to the investigation have been released, there are still classified materials related to the FBI’s surveillance of Dr. King and other aspects of the case.
• RFK Assassination: A substantial portion of the records have been made public, but some documents remain classified or restricted.

In all of these cases, the declassification process is ongoing, and more documents may be released in the future. The public and researchers continue to push for greater transparency in these historic investigations, especially given the many conspiracy theories that have surrounded each of these assassinations.

 

The idea of a country not classifying any government-related documents is quite rare. Most nations classify certain documents for reasons related to national security, diplomacy, or other sensitive matters. However, there are indeed countries with more transparent systems or policies that classify far fewer documents than others.

1. New Zealand:

New Zealand is one of the countries that is often cited for its relatively open approach to government transparency and the declassification of documents. While it does have some classification systems in place, it has a strong commitment to transparency and access to information.

• Freedom of Information: New Zealand has a “Official Information Act” (OIA), passed in 1982, which ensures that most government documents and information are available to the public, with some exceptions related to national security, defense, or personal privacy.
• Classification System: New Zealand’s classification system does exist, but it is generally more restricted compared to countries with extensive secrecy policies. New Zealand follows a classification system with three main levels: Confidential, Restricted, and Top Secret. However, there is a strong culture of releasing information unless there is a compelling reason not to, and even classified documents can be declassified over time.
• Public Access: New Zealand places a heavy emphasis on public access to government records, and the government is often quite proactive about releasing documents. For example, the country has released a significant amount of its historical archives, and many records that might still be classified in other countries are made available to the public.

In practice, New Zealand might not classify everything, and there is a greater degree of openness compared to many other countries, especially those with authoritarian or opaque governments.

2. Nordic Countries (Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, and Iceland):

Other nations with relatively high transparency levels in government documents include several Nordic countries. While they do have systems for classifying sensitive information, they have strong commitments to freedom of information and public access to government records.

• Sweden: Sweden is particularly famous for its commitment to transparency and freedom of information. The Swedish Freedom of the Press Act (the world’s oldest such law, dating back to 1766) ensures that government documents are generally accessible to the public, though some sensitive national security materials can still be classified.
• Finland: Finland also has strict rules about public access to information, with exceptions only for national security reasons. The Finnish government often publishes documents related to policy and governance, and there is a high level of public accountability.
• Denmark: Denmark has robust freedom of information laws as well, allowing citizens to access a wide range of government documents. Some national security documents are classified, but the classification system is generally more transparent.

In these Nordic countries, the classification of government documents is much more restricted and transparent than in countries with authoritarian regimes. These countries have laws that generally favor openness, and information is made available to the public as much as possible.

3. The United Kingdom (UK)

The UK has a system of classification for government documents, but it is widely regarded as one of the more open democracies when it comes to access to information.

• Freedom of Information Act: The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was passed in 2000, giving the public the right to request access to government documents. Although there are exemptions for sensitive materials (e.g., national security), the UK has made many government documents public through this act. A key principle in the UK is that the government should be as transparent as possible, and the National Archives holds declassified materials that the public can access.
• National Security and Sensitive Documents: While the UK has declassification procedures, it still retains the ability to classify documents for reasons like national security, intelligence, or defense, particularly in relation to military operations or intelligence.

The UK is not entirely without classification, but it does prioritize public access to government records, and documents are often declassified after a certain period, usually 20-30 years.

4. Countries with High Transparency and Declassification Cultures[7]:

There are also other countries that have a relatively high degree of openness compared to authoritarian states:

• Canada: While Canada has a classification system, it is generally very transparent in terms of providing public access to government documents, with certain restrictions based on national security. Canada also has a Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP), which allows citizens to access government records, though there are exemptions.
• The Netherlands: The Dutch government is known for its openness and has a solid framework for the declassification of documents. Though they classify certain documents, there is a strong tradition of releasing public records, especially after a period of time.
• Germany: In Germany, government transparency is highly valued, and citizens have access to a wide range of documents through their Freedom of Information Act. However, like most countries, national security and military-related materials can still be classified.

5. Countries with Less Classification but Some Restrictions:

While there is no country that entirely avoids classifying government documents, some countries have relatively light classification systems compared to others. This includes:

• Switzerland: Switzerland, known for its neutrality and transparency, has some classified information, but it does not have the same level of government secrecy as some other nations.
• Belgium: Belgium also emphasizes transparency and is known for its relatively open access to government documents. However, some documents related to national security or intelligence are still classified.

Countries with Extensive Classification (Notable Mention)

On the other end of the spectrum, countries like China, Russia, North Korea, and certain African countries classify a vast majority of government-related documents. These countries often prioritize secrecy for political control, national security, and the maintenance of power.

• China: The Chinese government classifies extensive information related to governance, politics, security, and foreign policy. Many documents, especially those related to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and military affairs, are closely guarded.
• Russia: Under the Putin administration, Russia has seen an expansion of classified materials, particularly related to its military, intelligence agencies, and political matters.
• North Korea: North Korea is perhaps one of the most secretive countries in the world, with nearly all government-related documents being classified to maintain totalitarian control over its population.
• Some African countries: Certain African nations, particularly those with authoritarian regimes, tend to classify a significant portion of government documents, including political and economic matters, to restrict information and control dissent.

 

Conclusion:

There are few countries that avoid classifying government documents altogether. New Zealand is a notable example of a country with relatively low levels of classification and a strong commitment to government transparency. Similarly, many Nordic countries (like Sweden, Finland, and Denmark) are known for their high transparency and relatively light classification systems.

However, while some countries have lighter classification and greater openness, the vast majority of countries, including democratic nations, still classify certain sensitive government information, particularly related to national security, defense, and intelligence.

 

The relationship between classification of documents and Official Release of Information Acts (commonly called Freedom of Information Acts, or FOIAs) is a crucial aspect of how governments balance transparency with national security, privacy, and other concerns. It is relevant to explore this relationship and how governments can navigate potential conflicts of interest.

What is the Classification of Documents?

Classifying documents is the process of designating information as confidential, secret, or top secret, usually based on its sensitivity and the potential harm to national security, foreign relations, or law enforcement if released to the public. Governments implement classification systems to protect sensitive information, such as:

• Military operations or intelligence gathering.
• Diplomatic negotiations or trade secrets.
• Ongoing investigations that could be compromised.
• National security threats that require secrecy.

What is the Official Release of Information Act?

An Official Release of Information Act, also known as a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or Access to Information Act in many countries, is a law that grants the public the right to access government documents and records. The main goals of these acts are:

1. Transparency: To ensure that government actions are open to scrutiny and that citizens can hold governments accountable.
2. Public Access: To enable citizens, journalists, and researchers to access information about public administration, policies, and decisions.
3. Accountability: To help ensure government transparency and foster trust in democratic systems.

How Do They Relate to Each Other?

At first glance, classification and FOIA seem to be in direct opposition. On one hand, classification restricts access to certain government documents to protect national security and other sensitive matters. On the other hand, FOIA encourages open access to information, demanding that governments release records unless there are compelling reasons not to.

Here’s how they relate and coexist:

1. FOIA Exemptions: While FOIA laws promote transparency, they recognize that there are legitimate reasons why certain information should remain restricted. Most FOIA laws include exemptions for classified documents that relate to national security, defense, intelligence, and foreign policy.
   • For example, in the U.S., FOIA Exemption 1 allows for the withholding of documents that are classified under an executive order (like those marked Top Secret). Similar exemptions exist in other countries as well.
2. Balancing Act: The key is balancing the public’s right to know with the government’s need to protect sensitive information. In cases where a government document is classified, it may not be subject to FOIA requests unless it is declassified. However, even when documents are classified, FOIA systems often allow citizens to request them, and the government may decide to declassify them after a certain period.
3. Declassification: Over time, many classified documents are declassified and made available to the public. FOIA requests can lead to the release of previously classified information if the documents are declassified or if the reasons for keeping them classified no longer apply. For instance, many government documents are automatically declassified after 25 years or a specified period, making them available for public access.

Does the Official Release of Information Act Create a Conflict of Interest?[8]

The potential for conflict exists, particularly when it comes to national security or issues that could potentially harm a government’s political or economic interests. Some common tensions include:

1. National Security vs. Transparency:
   • Conflict: If governments classify a large number of documents to avoid releasing information that could harm national security, FOIA requests for these documents can create a conflict between the need to protect sensitive information and the desire for transparency.
   • Example: In the U.S., documents related to military strategies, intelligence operations, and espionage are highly classified under national security concerns. Releasing such documents could reveal vulnerabilities or operational tactics, which might compromise future security efforts.
2. Political or Economic Motives:
   • Conflict: Sometimes, governments might classify documents to protect political or economic interests, such as avoiding embarrassment, preventing a scandal, or safeguarding trade secrets. This can create a tension between a government’s interest in secrecy and the public’s right to know.
   • Example: If a government classifies documents that expose corruption, fraud, or unethical practices, it could be accused of using classification as a tool for covering up wrongdoing. This is a key concern for accountability and citizen trust in democratic systems.
3. Excessive Secrecy: In some cases, governments might over-classify documents, making it difficult for citizens, journalists, or researchers to access useful and non-sensitive information. This can lead to accusations of undue secrecy or lack of transparency, which can erode public trust.

How Can Governments Navigate These Pitfalls?

Governments need to strike a careful balance between keeping certain information classified for legitimate reasons (e.g., national security, public safety) and allowing for transparency to foster accountability. Here are some ways governments can navigate these challenges:

1. Clear Classification Guidelines:
   • Governments should have clear, objective criteria for classifying documents and limit classification to genuinely sensitive matters. This can help prevent the overuse of classification for non-sensitive information and ensure that secrecy is justified.
   • Regular reviews of classified documents can help determine if they are still relevant to national security and whether they can be declassified after a period.
2. FOIA Exemptions and Transparency**:
   • Proper FOIA exemptions should be in place for documents that need to remain classified (e.g., national defense, intelligence). However, governments should ensure that these exemptions are narrow and used only when necessary. Blanket secrecy should be avoided.
   • To minimize conflicts, governments should also ensure that they release as much information as possible within the constraints of the law and not classify documents for purely political reasons.
3. Declassification Procedures:
   • Governments should have an automated declassification system where documents are reviewed and declassified after a specific period, typically 25 years, unless there is a compelling reason to keep them classified.
   • Periodic releases of documents to the public (e.g., releasing declassified documents in annual batches) can also build public trust and encourage transparency.
4. Public Access to Information and Accountability:
   • Governments should ensure that they are fully accountable to the public by providing access to documents unless there is a real and demonstrable risk to national security or public safety.
   • Independent oversight bodies can be established to review classification decisions and FOIA requests to ensure that they are being applied fairly and in accordance with the law.
5. Educating the Public and Government Officials:
   • Governments should engage in public education about the importance of both transparency and national security. By making clear to the public why some documents must remain classified, governments can help people understand the need for balance.
   • Training officials on the appropriate handling and classification of documents can also reduce unnecessary secrecy.

 

Conclusion

While there is a natural tension between the classification of documents and the Official Release of Information Act, governments can manage this relationship by being transparent about their classification decisions, setting clear guidelines, and using FOIA exemptions judiciously. Governments must balance the need to protect national security with the public’s right to know, and they should have mechanisms in place to ensure that information is declassified and released over time, ensuring accountability and maintaining public trust.

 

 

 

The Classified Document Situation in Pre and Post-Apartheid South Africa[9]

 

Post-apartheid South Africa underwent significant reforms in the management and accessibility of government documents, marking a stark contrast to the practices of the previous apartheid regime.

Destruction of Documents Prior to 1994:

In the final years of apartheid, the outgoing government systematically destroyed state records to obscure evidence of human rights abuses and sanitize historical narratives. Key points include:

• 1980s-1994: Departments such as the National Intelligence Service (NIS), South African Police (SAP), and South African Defence Force (SADF) engaged in extensive document destruction. For example, in 1993, the NIS destroyed approximately 44 tons of records. citeturn0search4
• November 1996: Despite earlier moratoriums, document destruction continued, with agencies like the National Intelligence Agency (NIA) systematically demolishing documents. citeturn0search0

This deliberate destruction severely hindered the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s (TRC) efforts to uncover the full extent of apartheid-era abuses.

Post-1994 Reforms:

In the aftermath of liberation, South Africa prioritized transparency and accountability in managing governmental records:

• National Archives and Record Service of South Africa Act (Act No. 43 of 1996): Enacted to establish the National Archives, this act aimed to oversee the proper management, care, and preservation of governmental records, ensuring public access and safeguarding the national archival heritage. citeturn0search1
• Protection of Information Act (Act No. 84 of 1982): While enacted during the apartheid era, this act was amended post-1994 to regulate the protection of sensitive state information. Amendments addressed concerns about over-classification and aimed to balance national security with transparency. citeturn0search6
• Promotion of Access to Information Act (Act No. 2 of 2000): This legislation further reinforced the public’s right to access information held by public bodies, promoting transparency and accountability in government operations.

These legislative changes reflect South Africa’s commitment to transforming its archival system, moving from a history of secrecy and suppression to one emphasizing openness and public participation. However, challenges persist, particularly concerning the recovery of documents destroyed prior to 1994, which continue to impede comprehensive historical research and reconciliation efforts.

The tragic case of Jamal Khashoggi and the associated classified documents during President Donald Trump’s first term.

 The Quartering of Jamal Khashoggi:[10]

Jamal Khashoggi, a prominent Saudi journalist and Washington Post columnist, was murdered inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on October 2, 2018. Initially, Saudi authorities denied involvement but later claimed Khashoggi died during a “brawl” within the consulate.

 

Turkish officials provided detailed accounts, including audio recording, suggesting premeditation. These recordings allegedly capture conversations among Saudi officials discussing plans to dismember Khashoggi’s body, with one individual mentioning, “The body is heavy. First time I cut on the ground.” [11]

 Classified Documents and U.S. Intelligence:[12]

During Trump’s presidency, U.S. intelligence agencies possessed sensitive information regarding Khashoggi’s murder. Some of this information was classified, limiting public access. The classification was primarily due to national security concerns and the protection of intelligence sources and methods.

However, there were debates about declassifying certain documents to promote transparency. In 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution calling for the release of intelligence reports on Khashoggi’s death. Yet, many documents remained classified, with the Trump administration citing the need to safeguard sensitive information.

Reactions and International Response:

The murder strained U.S.-Saudi relations. While President Trump condemned the killing, he faced criticism for not taking stronger actions against Saudi Arabia, a key ally. Human rights groups and international bodies called for accountability, but the classification of certain documents hindered a full understanding of the events.

 

In summary, the classification of documents related to Jamal Khashoggi’s murder during President Trump’s first term was influenced by national security considerations and the protection of intelligence sources. This balance between transparency and security continues to be a subject of discussion in international relations and intelligence practices.

 

The perspective on President Trump’s relationship with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) and its potential influence on the handling of the Jamal Khashoggi case is indeed thought-provoking. The intricate interplay of personal, political, and economic factors during this period invites deeper scrutiny.

 

President Trump’s Relationship with MBS:

Throughout his tenure, President Trump maintained a notably close relationship with MBS, often expressing admiration for the crown prince’s leadership and vision. This rapport extended beyond diplomatic niceties, influencing policy decisions and international relations. For instance, Trump referred to MBS as a “great guy” and praised his global respect.

 

Potential Conflicts of Interest:

The alignment of personal business interests with foreign policy decisions has been a subject of scrutiny. Reports indicate that during Trump’s presidency, there were efforts to advance personal business ventures in collaboration with Saudi entities. Notably, the Trump Organization facilitated meetings between the PGA Tour and the Saudi-funded LIV Golf league, potentially benefiting Trump’s golf properties. citeturn0news26 Additionally, MBS pledged significant investments in the U.S., including a reported $600 billion, following discussions with Trump.

 

CIA’s Assessment and Classified Documents:

The CIA’s assessment concluded with high confidence that MBS ordered Khashoggi’s assassination. This conclusion was based on multiple intelligence sources, including intercepted communications and audio recordings from the consulate. Despite this, the Trump administration faced criticism for not taking stronger actions against Saudi Arabia, partly due to strategic and economic interests. citeturn0search0

 

Analysis of Classified Documents:

The classification of documents related to Khashoggi’s assassination can be attributed to several factors:

1. Protection of Intelligence Sources and Methods: Releasing detailed intelligence could compromise the techniques and sources used, affecting future operations.
2. National Security Concerns: Disclosing certain information might have broader implications for U.S. national security, especially regarding relations with allies and counterterrorism efforts.
3. Diplomatic Relations: Given the strategic partnership with Saudi Arabia, some information may have been withheld to preserve diplomatic ties and economic interests.

 

Circumstantial Evidence Against Saudi Arabia:

The circumstantial evidence linking Saudi officials, including MBS, to Khashoggi’s assassination is compelling. This includes the presence of a 15-member team in Istanbul, communications between team members and MBS’s aides, and the rapid disposal of evidence. However, without direct evidence unequivocally implicating MBS, official accountability remains a complex issue.

Conclusion:

The convergence of personal interests, economic considerations, and national security priorities during Trump’s administration undoubtedly influenced the handling of the Khashoggi case. While the classification of certain documents can be justified on grounds of protecting intelligence and national interests, transparency is crucial for accountability. Striking a balance between safeguarding sensitive information and ensuring public trust remains a challenging endeavor for governments worldwide.[13]

 

News Highlights: Trump and MBS

 

Recent Developments in U.S.-Saudi Relations and Khashoggi Case. According to The Guardian Trump is using the presidency to seek golf deals, but hardly anyone’s paying attention.

A report in Vanity Fair cites Trump Goes on Saudi State TV and Says He Has “So Much Respect” for Crown Prince Linked to Bone-Saw Murder

A report in the New York Post, cites  Saudi Crown Prince MBS pledges massive US investment in call with Trump  “after prez quipped he’d visit for $500Billion.

Trump Goes on Saudi State TV and Says He Has “So Much Respect” for Crown Prince Linked to Bone-Saw Murder.  He believes Mohammed bin Salman is a “great guy.”

Trump met with leaders and members of the organized labor group while looking for union support after the United Auto Workers endorsed President Joe Biden’s re-election campaign one week ago.   Donald Trump has never been shy about proclaiming his affection for[14] various dictators and right-wing authoritarians. One individual he has consistently praised since his time in office? Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, whom the ex-president dubbed a “great guy” in a recent interview, despite the minor manner of that whole bone-saw-murder business.[15]

 

Appearing on Saudi state-owned TV network Al Arabiya, Trump said that while the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States is “fine right now,” when he was president, “it was great with capital letters. G-R-E-A-T, great.” (Yes, he actually spelled it out.) Trump added that he has “so much respect for the king, so much respect for Mohammed, who is doing great. I mean, he’s really a visionary. He’s done things that nobody else would have even thought about.” Later in the interview, he declared MBS a “great guy” who is “respected all over the world.” Just so it’s clear, the man Trump claims is a “great guy” and “respected all over the world” is the same person who, according to the CIA, approved[16] the 2018 assassination of US resident and Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi, which involved luring Khashoggi to the consulate in Istanbul, murdering him, and dismembering him via bone saw. The Saudi government has long claimed MBS had nothing to do with the grisly murder, a claim that the UN does not believe, either.

‘Bridgerton'[17] Cast Test How Well MBS and DJ know each other

 

In 2020, Bob Woodward revealed[18] in his book Rage that the then president had bragged about protecting MBS following Khashoggi’s assassination. According to Woodward, after being informed that “The people at the [Washington] Post are upset about the Khashoggi killing,” Trump responded: “I saved his ass. I was able to get Congress to leave him alone. I was able to get them to stop.”

Why the continued praise? We’ll give you two guesses but you’ll probably only need one. Per The Hill:[19]

Earlier this year, the Trump Organization announced it would be building a Trump Tower building in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The building is the Trump Organization’s first development in the country and is in partnership with a Saudi-owned developer. The Saudi government also cut a $2 billion check for former first son-in-law Jared Kushner’s investment fund in 2022;[20] earlier this year, Kushner  called MBS “a visionary leader” [21] who has “done a lot of things that have made the world a better place.”

The National Importance and Secure Housing of Classified Documents [22]

It is important and relevant to know where and how are the classified documents are housed. These infamous documents are physically or digitally housed for 60 or 70 years without degradation or being destroyed in some disaster, war or sabotage. There are special repository to accommodate, the presumably millions of hard copies before scanners and digital technology!

 

It is relevant, pertinent and insightful to elaborate and enquire into the operative long-term preservation of classified documents is. Ensuring the integrity and security of such materials over decades necessitates meticulous storage and safeguarding protocols.​

 

Physical Storage of Classified Documents:[23]

 

Historically, before the advent of digital technology, classified documents were stored in secure facilities designed to protect them from environmental hazards and unauthorized access. These facilities, known as Records Storage Facilities (RSFs), adhere to stringent standards to maintain the integrity of the documents. Key features include:​eCFR[24]

• Structural Integrity: Record Storage Facilities are constructed to withstand natural disasters, such as earthquakes and floods, minimizing the risk of physical degradation.​
• Environmental Controls: Temperature and humidity levels are meticulously regulated to prevent deterioration of paper and ink.​
• Security Measures: Access is strictly controlled, with authorized personnel undergoing thorough background checks. Storage containers within these facilities are approved by the General Services Administration (GSA) to ensure compliance with federal standards. ​Defense Logistics Agency+1CDSE+1[25]

Transition to Digital Preservation:

With advancements in technology, many agencies have transitioned to digital formats for storing classified information. This shift offers several advantages: ​

• Enhanced Security: Digital systems can implement advanced encryption and access controls, reducing the risk of unauthorized access.​
• Space Efficiency: Digital storage minimizes physical space requirements, allowing for the consolidation of records.​
• Disaster Recovery: Digital backups can be replicated across multiple secure locations, ensuring data integrity in the event of physical disasters.​

However, transitioning to digital storage requires careful planning to address challenges such as data migration, cybersecurity threats, and ensuring long-term accessibility of digital formats.​

Specialized Repositories for Long-Term Storage:[26]

For documents requiring preservation over extended periods, specialized repositories are employed:​

• Federal Records Centers (FRCs): [27]Managed by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), FRCs provide secure storage for federal records, including classified materials. These centers are equipped with advanced security systems and environmental controls to safeguard the documents. ​National Archives
• Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIFs): [28]For highly sensitive materials, SCIFs offer a controlled environment with stringent access protocols, ensuring that only authorized personnel can handle specific information. ​CDSE

In summary, the preservation of classified documents over decades involves a combination of secure physical storage, environmental controls, and, increasingly, digital preservation strategies. Specialized facilities and repositories are designed to mitigate risks associated with disasters, unauthorized access, and technological obsolescence, ensuring that these materials remain intact and accessible for future generations.​

 

Regarding unauthorized access to secure storage facilities, such as those housing classified documents, these facilities are designed with multiple layers of security to prevent such intrusions. Access is strictly limited to authorized personnel, and any attempts to breach these facilities are met with robust security measures. While tunneling might be a theoretical method of infiltration, the extensive security protocols in place make unauthorized access highly improbable.​

 

The Bottom Line

 

In essence, the legal entity of “Classified Documents” is a convenient tool and scape goat to prevent general public access to material which could be embarrassing to the parent government of allies thereof.

 

In the context of classified government documents typically refers to the core message, key takeaway, or ultimate conclusion of a document. It is often a summary of the essential findings, intelligence assessments, or policy recommendations presented in a way that decision-makers can quickly understand.

Use of “Bottom Line” in Classified Documents

1. Intelligence Briefings & National Security Assessments
   • Agencies like the CIA, NSA, or DoD often include a “Bottom Line Up Front” [29](BLUF) in reports for quick decision-making.
   • This section distills critical intelligence findings, risks, or policy recommendations.
2. Government Policies & Strategic Reports
   • Reports on military operations, foreign affairs, and classified economic policies often contain a “Bottom Line” to summarize the most pressing issues.
3. Legal & Classified Investigations
   • When handling matters like espionage, government leaks, or covert operations, classified documents will present a Bottom Line to justify actions taken or policies implemented.

Impact on Society

1. Transparency vs. Secrecy
   • When these documents are leaked (e.g., Pentagon Papers[30], Snowden leaks, WikiLeaks), the Bottom Line can reveal government deception, mismanagement, or hidden agendas.
   • On the flip side, secrecy is often justified to protect national security and prevent panic.
2. Public Trust in Government
   • If the Bottom Line of a classified report contradicts what officials say publicly, it can erode trust.
   • Example: The Afghanistan Papers (2019) [31]  revealed that U.S. officials misled the public about progress in Afghanistan.
3. Policy Decisions & Democracy
   • A suppressed Bottom Line (e.g., reports on climate change, public health, or military failures) can prevent policymakers from making informed choices.
   • If released, it can empower the public but also create political controversy.
4. Whistleblowing & Ethical Dilemmas
   • Officials who leak classified documents (like Daniel Ellsberg[32], Chelsea Manning[33], or Edward Snowden[34]) often do so because they believe the Bottom Line exposes government wrongdoing.
   • These leaks can lead to legal consequences for whistleblowers but also reforms in policy.

 

The secure storage of all classified documents is paramount and in particular, the possibility of “insiders” who will leak the documents, so classified.  This is the Bottom Line nightmare and nemesis of several governments.  Hence, with the stringent security realities surrounding sensitive storage facilities, in place, employing loyal staffers, without their personal opinion affecting their judgement and modus operandi, the existential threat of security failure can be obviated and that is the Bottom Line.

 References:

[1] CIA found the Ark of the Covenant by using psychics, declassified files claim | The Independent

[2] Topical Bible: The Mercy Seat as a Symbol of God’s Presence and Forgiveness

[3] https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=a9e30545bbae9fa956e93821bfae34e70983a628cfd910da5f078a70c01894b0JmltdHM9MTc0MzIwNjQwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=0b169dbf-af38-623b-047a-8803aef16323&psq=.+Assassination+of+President+John+F.+Kennedy+(1963)&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9lbi53aWtpcGVkaWEub3JnL3dpa2kvQXNzYXNzaW5hdGlvbl9vZl9Kb2huX0YuX0tlbm5lZHk&ntb=1

[4] https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=f2b5c61aa05771c8ac8c16916fcffb74141cfe7784850a7bc7773c4a2193bae9JmltdHM9MTc0MzIwNjQwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=0b169dbf-af38-623b-047a-8803aef16323&psq=Assassination+of+Dr.+Martin+Luther+King+Jr.+(1968)&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9lbi53aWtpcGVkaWEub3JnL3dpa2kvQXNzYXNzaW5hdGlvbl9vZl9NYXJ0aW5fTHV0aGVyX0tpbmdfSnIu&ntb=1

[5] TRANSCEND MEDIA SERVICE » Peace Disruptions: The Hidden Contexts of Assassinations of Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr (Part 1)

[6] https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-na-robert-f-kennedy/

[7] https://worldostats.com/country-stats/corruption-perceptions-index-by-country-updated-list-2025/

[8] Public Service Commission Act: Rules: Managing conflicts of interest identified through the financial disclosure framework for senior managers

[9] SAHA – FOIP – Apartheid-era Security Files

[10] https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=3b49677ef937cf7967dc05b97fabf6077cf45938750d5158b7787f23899ddca3JmltdHM9MTc0MzIwNjQwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=0b169dbf-af38-623b-047a-8803aef16323&psq=The+Quartering+of+Jamal+Khashoggi&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudHJhbnNjZW5kLm9yZy90bXMvMjAyMy8wMS90aGUtZm9yZ290dGVuLWpvdXJuYWxpc3RzLXBhcnQtMi10aGUtcXVhcnRlcmluZy1vZi1qYW1hbC1raGFzaG9nZ2kv&ntb=1

[11] https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=1055e9a15aa1532197f201bdd28b2a69d3ab39bdf856fa3e1f1ba0e06b6b683cJmltdHM9MTc0MzIwNjQwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=0b169dbf-af38-623b-047a-8803aef16323&psq=The+Quartering+of+Jamal+Khashoggi&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYWxqYXplZXJhLmNvbS9uZXdzLzIwMjEvMi8yNi90aW1lbGluZS1vZi10aGUtbXVyZGVyLW9mLWpvdXJuYWxpc3QtamFtYWwta2hhc2hvZ2dpIzp-OnRleHQ9S2hhc2hvZ2dpJTJDJTIwYSUyMGNvbHVtbmlzdCUyMGZvciUyMHRoZSUyMFdhc2hpbmd0b24lMjBQb3N0JTIwd2hvLDIwMTguJTIwSGlzJTIwZGlzbWVtYmVyZWQlMjBib2R5JTIwaGFzJTIwbmV2ZXIlMjBiZWVuJTIwcmVjb3ZlcmVkLg&ntb=1

[12] https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=a920b3d4413bc7ed48987317c57d6d7c754385067f015a49f92b27aed866ab83JmltdHM9MTc0MzIwNjQwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=0b169dbf-af38-623b-047a-8803aef16323&psq=Classified+Documents+and+U.S.+Intelligence%3a+knowns&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9lbi53aWtpcGVkaWEub3JnL3dpa2kvQ2xhc3NpZmllZF9pbmZvcm1hdGlvbl9pbl90aGVfVW5pdGVkX1N0YXRlcw&ntb=1

[13] Saudi Crown Prince MBS pledges massive US investment in call with Trump — after prez quipped he’d visit for $500B

[14] https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=bc59b42c7fa78869937e10d178fd23dea73c0b772b618e9c9ff17c582fa75e71JmltdHM9MTc0MzIwNjQwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=0b169dbf-af38-623b-047a-8803aef16323&psq=proclaiming+his+affection+by+trump&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmFuaXR5ZmFpci5jb20vbmV3cy9zdG9yeS90cnVtcC1zYXlzLWhlLWhhcy1zby1tdWNoLXJlc3BlY3QtZm9yLWNyb3duLXByaW5jZS1saW5rZWQtdG8tYm9uZS1zYXctbXVyZGVy&ntb=1

[15] https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=b44243440cf39a9e07615754e828fe3eb5d378abd9b5eec1aad44f6ece0392eaJmltdHM9MTc0MzIwNjQwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=0b169dbf-af38-623b-047a-8803aef16323&psq=bone-saw-murder+business.jamal+khashoggi&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9ueW1hZy5jb20vaW50ZWxsaWdlbmNlci8yMDE4LzEwL3NhdWRpLWFyYWJpYS1tYnMtYm9uZS1zYXctYmVoZWFkaW5nLWtoYXNob2dnaS5odG1s&ntb=1

[16] https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=c6f534bc5646cc420760b9148d702b0ac59bddb9c5cb0b9a230884852f211bedJmltdHM9MTc0MzIwNjQwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=0b169dbf-af38-623b-047a-8803aef16323&psq=according+to+the+cia%2c+approved+jamal+khashoggi+death&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuY25uLmNvbS8yMDE4LzExLzE2L3BvbGl0aWNzL2NpYS1hc3Nlc3NtZW50LWtoYXNob2dnaS1hc3Nhc3NpbmF0aW9uLXNhdWRpLWFyYWJpYS9pbmRleC5odG1s&ntb=1

[17]https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=e576ccf2fcf5bd1b704de82b51955fc263f9aff19d7d42b250e4fbbb76de4b25JmltdHM9MTc0MzIwNjQwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=0b169dbf-af38-623b-047a-8803aef16323&psq=%27Bridgerton%27&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9lbi53aWtpcGVkaWEub3JnL3dpa2kvQnJpZGdlcnRvbg&ntb=1

[18]Report: Trump Bragged About Protecting Saudi Prince Whose Goons Dismembered a Journalist via Bone Saw | Vanity Fair

[19] https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=fc9366cd51674f695f39f3bf9997247971de32f0d7d2a192725d5853f936ba13JmltdHM9MTc0MzIwNjQwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=0b169dbf-af38-623b-047a-8803aef16323&psq=Why+the+continued+praise%3f+We%e2%80%99ll+give+you+two+guesses+but+you%e2%80%99ll+probably+only+need+one.+Per+The+Hill&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9iaWJsZWh1Yi5jb20vdG9waWNhbC9jL2NvbnRpbnVvdXNfcHJhaXNlLmh0bQ&ntb=1

[20] https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=e18f9275e12d61db8f9f251c5563f471613bc6d6db5c33aec202dbe2256573f4JmltdHM9MTc0MzIwNjQwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=0b169dbf-af38-623b-047a-8803aef16323&psq=%242+billion+check+for+former+first+son-in-law+Jared+Kushner%e2%80%99s+investment+fund+in+2022&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9ueXBvc3QuY29tLzIwMjMvMDgvMTAvY29tZXItc2F5cy1qYXJlZC1rdXNobmVyLWNyb3NzZWQtdGhlLWxpbmUtb2YtZXRoaWNzLWJ5LWFjY2VwdGluZy0yLWJpbGxpb24tc2F1ZGktaW52ZXN0bWVudC8&ntb=1

[21] Jared Kushner Remains Full of Praise for Mohammed bin Salman, His Problematic Fave | Vanity Fair

[22] https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=a94b2e2e3520c9750c539933bc04c48bdaa7687970406602975dbd38e43588a8JmltdHM9MTc0MzIwNjQwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=0b169dbf-af38-623b-047a-8803aef16323&psq=The+National+Importance+and+Secure+Housing+of+Classified+Documents&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9qb3VybmFscy5jby56YS9kb2kvZnVsbC8xMC40MTAyL2Fwc2Rwci52OWkxLjM4NQ&ntb=1

[23] https://www.bing.com/search?q=Physical%20Storage%20of%20Classified%20Documents&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&lq=0&pq=physical%20storage%20of%20classified%20documents&sc=6-40&sk=&cvid=C9E4B580DB0A4895B2C42E628805CEEF&ghsh=0&ghacc=0&ghpl=#:~:text=The%20General%20Services%20Administration%20(GSA)%20establishes%20and%20publishes%20minimum%20standards%2C%20specifications%2C%20and%20supply%20schedules%20for%20containers%2C%20vault%20doors%2C%20modular%20vaults%2C%20and%20other%20associated%20security%20devices%20suitable%20for%20the%20storage%20and%20protection%20of%20classified%20information%20against%20forced%2C

[24] eCFR :: 36 CFR Part 1234 — Facility Standards for Records Storage Facilities

[25] https://www.dla.mil/About-DLA/News/News-Article-View/Article/3279769/dla-intelligence-reinforces-classified-document-rules/

[26] Open_Storage_Approval_Checklist.pdf

[27] https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=a4a3924e71121717c4f7fb3fd2a73e2b3a08fe86fe1bf23a3c0e7afa6e022ac8JmltdHM9MTc0MzIwNjQwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=0b169dbf-af38-623b-047a-8803aef16323&psq=%e2%80%a2+Federal+Records+Centers+(FRCs)%3a&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYXJjaGl2ZXMuZ292L2ZyYy90b29sa2l0Izp-OnRleHQ9VGhlJTIwZmlyc3QlMjBGZWRlcmFsJTIwUmVjb3JkcyUyMENlbnRlcnMlMjAlMjhGUkMlMjklMjBvcGVuZWQlMjBpbixtb3JlJTIwdGhhbiUyMDI5JTIwbWlsbGlvbiUyMGN1YmljJTIwZmVldCUyMG9mJTIwcmVjb3Jkcy4&ntb=1

[28] https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=21c400392d81523b540181593ec2744a0613ac7c4cdf3bf83f9764e9460d3f65JmltdHM9MTc0MzIwNjQwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=0b169dbf-af38-623b-047a-8803aef16323&psq=%e2%80%a2%09Sensitive+Compartmented+Information+Facilities+(SCIFs)%3a+&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9lbi53aWtpcGVkaWEub3JnL3dpa2kvU2Vuc2l0aXZlX2NvbXBhcnRtZW50ZWRfaW5mb3JtYXRpb25fZmFjaWxpdHk&ntb=1

[29] https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=6d821169666ff0effbf1e4ed7d5ef7bfbe7b71122b2e88b172e1975e392f3b99JmltdHM9MTc0MzIwNjQwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=0b169dbf-af38-623b-047a-8803aef16323&psq=Intelligence+Briefings+%26+National+Security+Assessments+o%09Agencies+like+the+CIA%2c+NSA%2c+or+DoD+often+include+a+%22Bottom+Line+Up+Front+and&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZG5pLmdvdi9pbmRleC5waHAvbmV3c3Jvb20vcmVwb3J0cy1wdWJsaWNhdGlvbnMvcmVwb3J0cy1wdWJsaWNhdGlvbnMtMjAyMy8zNjc2LTIwMjMtYW5udWFsLXRocmVhdC1hc3Nlc3NtZW50LW9mLXRoZS11LXMtaW50ZWxsaWdlbmNlLWNvbW11bml0eQ&ntb=1

[30] https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=c0042e8d69dc42fe69e610d6a250d838be92a4a807d3978e157dbc5b73ba39f9JmltdHM9MTc0MzIwNjQwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=0b169dbf-af38-623b-047a-8803aef16323&psq=pentagon+papers+new+york+times&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubnl0aW1lcy5jb20vc3BvdGxpZ2h0L3RoZS1wZW50YWdvbi1wYXBlcnM&ntb=1

[31] https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=ce0f93fd9ef999dce0963ad8793c8b9212763c608f564bec1627359c9c30b233JmltdHM9MTc0MzIwNjQwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=0b169dbf-af38-623b-047a-8803aef16323&psq=the+afghanistan+papers+summary&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9zb2JyaWVmLmNvbS9ib29rcy90aGUtYWZnaGFuaXN0YW4tcGFwZXJz&ntb=1

[32] https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=ce8b3fcf95b2ba1c0e0aeabb5f9b13bbe13a13b12b9ac558a226d3ae6cd3a66cJmltdHM9MTc0MzIwNjQwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=0b169dbf-af38-623b-047a-8803aef16323&psq=daniel+ellsberg+pentagon+papers&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9lbi53aWtpcGVkaWEub3JnL3dpa2kvRGFuaWVsX0VsbHNiZXJn&ntb=1

[33] https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=38920500ebf0f258f1a5f3d00f8df5301e7917595d2055f951855264a249b9eeJmltdHM9MTc0MzIwNjQwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=0b169dbf-af38-623b-047a-8803aef16323&psq=Chelsea+Manning&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9lbi53aWtpcGVkaWEub3JnL3dpa2kvQ2hlbHNlYV9NYW5uaW5n&ntb=1

[34] https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=51f5f13a3d463109b54fb7d28051cbd372b8cd45987708864eff3dd377d037d3JmltdHM9MTc0MzIwNjQwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=0b169dbf-af38-623b-047a-8803aef16323&psq=Edward+Snowden&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9lbi53aWtpcGVkaWEub3JnL3dpa2kvRWR3YXJkX1Nub3dkZW4&ntb=1

______________________________________________

Professor G. Hoosen M. Vawda (Bsc; MBChB; PhD.Wits) is a member of the TRANSCEND Network for Peace Development Environment.
Director: Glastonbury Medical Research Centre; Community Health and Indigent Programme Services; Body Donor Foundation SA.
Principal Investigator: Multinational Clinical Trials
Consultant: Medical and General Research Ethics; Internal Medicine and Clinical Psychiatry:UKZN, Nelson R. Mandela School of Medicine
Executive Member: Inter Religious Council KZN SA
Public Liaison: Medical Misadventures
Activism: Justice for All
Email: vawda@ukzn.ac.za

Tags: Peace

This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 31 Mar 2025.

Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source, TMS: Peace Promotion or Peace Disruptions: To Classify or Declassify Government Documents, is included. Thank you.

If you enjoyed this article, please donate to TMS to join the growing list of TMS Supporters.

Share this article: email mastodon facebook 🔗 copy link

This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0 License.

One Response to “Peace Promotion or Peace Disruptions: To Classify or Declassify Government Documents”

1. Alberto Portugheis says:

   31 Mar 2025 at 19:31

   Dear Professor Hoosen Vawda,

   Thank you for you in-depth analysis of the Classified Documents issue.

   For you, the Bottom Line is that in essence, “the legal entity of “Classified Documents” is a convenient tool and scape goat to prevent general public access to material which could be embarrassing to the parent government of allies thereof.”

   To me, in the majority of cases, the legal entity of classified documents is a convenient tool and scape goat to prevent family and friends learning and the general public of the involved politicians’ dirty, dishonest, corrupt and criminal activities. To me, the government’s allies is a secondary consideration.

   Examples: when the UK and Argentina planned the war in the Falklands Islands, surrounding seas and air space, each country knew what to expect from the other. Similarly Russia and Ukraine with Zelensky and Putin meeting in 2019 to discuss details of the war. Same with Israel and Palestine, all planned and why on 7 October 2023 Israel left the borders with Gaza open for the attack to take place.

   Reply