By Joseph Weisberg 由約瑟夫魏斯博格

When a federal judge dismissed Valerie Plame’s lawsuit against the Central Intelligence Agency earlier this month, she ruled that the agency was entitled to stop Plame from publishing the dates of her agency service, even though these dates had been supplied to Congress in an unclassified letter from the CIA and had been published in The Congressional Record.當一名聯邦法官駁回帕拉米的控告中央情報部本月初，她裁定，該機構有權停止普拉姆從出版的日期，她代理服務，即使這些日期已被提供給國會一個非機密一封來自中央情報局，並已刊登在國會紀錄。 Plame is just one in a long line of ex-CIA employees to lose similar suits, in which the agency successfully defended the position that information in the public domain was classified.普拉姆只是其中之一，在長期線前中央情報局僱員失去了類似的套裝，在該項目中成功地捍衛了立場，即公共領域的信息分類。

How can information that’sa five-minute Google search away be classified?怎樣才能資訊that'sa五分鐘的Google搜索距離被歸類？ It’s simple.答案很簡單。 Classified information is not the same thing as secret information.機密資料，是不是同一回事，因為秘密信息。

When I worked in the CIA’s directorate of operations (now called the national clandestine service) in the early ’90s, we were told that information was classified when it involved sources or methods.當我曾經在中情局行動部門的副主管（現在稱為國家秘密服務） ，在九十年代初，當時告訴我們的信息是分類的時候，它涉及的來源或方法。 It seemed logical that sources were classified.這似乎是順理成章的來源分類。 These were actual agents who would be put in jeopardy if their identities were revealed.這些都是實際的代理商，可以在危險之中，如果他們的身份被暴露無遺。

But practically everything the CIA does could be considered a “method,” so the CIA can decide that almost anything relating to its work is classified.但實際上，一切中情局是否可以被看作是一個"法" ，因此中央情報局可以決定說，幾乎所有的東西有關，其工作仍屬機密。 You’d probably want this latitude if you were running an intelligence agency.你一定希望這一緯度，如果你運行的一個情報機構。 But one of its unfortunate byproducts is that no one, inside or outside the intelligence community, really knows what classified information is.但它的一個不幸的副產品，是任何人，境內或境外情報界，真正知道什麼是機密資料。

Because so many things at the CIA are classified, only a small percentage of them are actually secrets.因為這麼多事情，在美國中央情報局分類中，只有一小部分是真正的秘密。 Take agency cover arrangements.採取機構支付的安排。 I cannot write about them in this article in any detail.我不能寫，他們在這篇文章中的任何細節。

If I point out that agency officers are often under cover as XXXXXXXXXX, the CIA will make me take it out before publishing this article.如果我想指出，機構人員往往掩護下作為xxxxxxxxxx ，美國中央情報局將我帶它出來之前出版這篇文章。 (Before I submitted this article to the CIA’s publications review board, I blacked it out myself to save the reviewers the trouble.) （之前，我提交了這篇文章，以美國中央情報局的出版物審查委員會，我做塗抹出自己救審評麻煩） 。

But are cover arrangements secret?但涵蓋安排秘密？ Most of the time, no.大部分的時間裡，沒有。 Anyone with even a passing interest in espionage knows about the CIA’s use of the specific cover that I redacted above.任何人，即使是合格的興趣間諜知道中情局使用的具體範圍，我節錄以上。 If you think you know what’s under that black bar, you’re probably right.如果你認為你知道什麼是下黑酒吧，你可能正確。 Certainly every foreign intelligence agency in the world knows about it.當然，每一個外國情報機構，在世界上知道。 It can’t possibly be considered secret.它不可能被視為秘密。 But it is definitely classified.但是，這絕對機密。

What about the CIA’s covert action in Afghanistan in the 1980s?對於中情局的秘密行動，在阿富汗，在上世紀80年代嗎？ Everyone knew about this at the time - in no way, shape or form was it a secret - but it was a covert action, and it was classified.每個人都知道這在當時-在沒有出路，形狀或形式，它是一個秘密-但這是一個秘密行動，它被分類。

I’m assuming it has since been declassified because I’ve read all about it in books by ex-agency officers that were vetted by the agency.我假設它已被解密的，因為我已經讀過所有關於它在書本上，由前代理人員被審查，由該機構。 If I’m wrong, there will be some more redactions in this paragraph.如果我是錯的，因此，將有更多的節錄，在這一段。

There are actually legitimate reasons to classify so much information that isn’t secret.現時其實正當理由歸類如此多的信息，這不是秘密。 Even if every foreign government in the world knows about our cover arrangements, countless diplomatic and legal problems would be created if we officially admitted that we use them.即使每一個外國政府，在世界上也知道我們的支付安排，以無數的外交和法律等問題，將可創造，如果我們正式承認我們使用它們。

Official acknowledgment of covert actions would be even riskier.官方承認的秘密行動會更冒險。 It was problematic enough to be arming rebels in Afghanistan who were killing Soviet soldiers.它是有問題，足以讓武裝叛亂分子在阿富汗被殺害的蘇聯士兵。

How would the Soviets have responded if we had openly admitted it?如何將蘇聯方面已作出回應，如果我們已公開承認它？ How would we respond today if Iran openly admitted training and arming insurgents in Iraq?如何將我們今天作出回應，如果伊朗公開承認，訓練和武裝叛亂分子在伊拉克？ We may know their denials are false, but they help Iran avoid international sanction, and they help us avoid being forced to respond militarily.我們知道他們的否認是假的，但它們幫助伊朗避免國際制裁的，他們幫助我們避免被迫作出軍事反應。

If the government openly admitted various CIA activities, even those that are already well-known, it could also precipitate a great deal of negative news coverage in the foreign press.如果政府公開承認，美國中央情報局的各種活動，甚至是那些已十分清楚，它也可能沉澱了大量的負面新聞報導的外國記者。 (It would create yet another public perception problem to admit we classify information because of public perception, which is one of the reasons the fiction is maintained that information is classified because it is secret.) （它會創造又一個公眾觀感問題，要承認我們的分類信息，因為公眾的看法，這是其中一個原因，小說，是認為資料均屬機密，因為這是秘密） 。

In the end, then, the classification system serves a perfectly valid purpose.在年底前，然後，分類制度是一個完全有效的目的。 It draws a distinction between the information that the government does, and does not, want to discuss publicly.它提請區分資料表示，政府不，不，不想討論公開。

What ends up classified may seem a bit perverse at times, such as when information in the public domain is ruled off limits for publication.什麼結束了歸類，可似乎有點倒行逆施的時候，例如當公共領域的信息是法治小康限制出版。 But that’s troubling only if you make the mistake of thinking that classified information is supposed to be secret.但是那只是困擾，如果你做出錯誤的以為機密資料應該是秘密。

For former CIA employees turned writers, like Plame, the vagaries of the system have tremendous advantages.對於前中央情報局僱員變成作家，就像普拉姆，變幻無常的系統具有很大的優勢。

Plame just wrote a book that the CIA could reasonably maintain was entirely classified.普拉姆剛剛寫了一本書說，中情局可以合理地保持，是完全分類。 After all, you’re not supposed to quit an intelligence agency and then tell everybody about what you did when you were there (certainly a lot of methods would be involved).畢竟，你不是要退出的一個情報機構，然後再告訴大家什麼，你做的時候，你有（當然有很多方法，將參與） 。

But since nobody is really sure what is and isn’t classified, the agency permits publication of a lot of material that could go either way.但由於沒有人真正知道是什麼，是不是機密，該機構許可證出版了大量的材料，兩者都有可能。 It seems petulant to sue over a few dates the CIA wanted to take out of a book that it was otherwise allowing to go forward.看來petulant控告超過數日期中央情報局希望能出一本書，這是其他方式允許向前邁進。 Plame was right that the dates weren’t secret.普拉姆是正確的日期，並非秘密。 But the agency didn’t want to officially admit them, so they were, in fact, classified.但該機構並沒有要正式吸納他們，使他們，事實上，分類。

Joseph Weisberg is the author of the forthcoming novel “An Ordinary Spy.” 約瑟夫魏斯博格是作者即將舉行的小說"一個普通的間諜" 。

Comment on 'The CIA’s open secrets' : 評論』中央情報局的公開秘密' ：

RSS 的RSS TrackBack URL 跟踪 RUI

Related News: 相關新聞：