What You Don't Know Won't Hurt You, 58 Years Later
Should the size of the CIA's budget from 1947 remain secret? Wednesday, a federal judge said yes.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
jesus fucking christ, matt, do you want the russians to win?
dhex -- That comment deserves an award ...
The Ruskies... they'll see everything! They'll see the BIG BOARD!
Did you read the article, dhex? While your statement was quite clever, the issue is slightly more complicated that that:
Judge Ricardo M. Urbina of the D.C. District Court accepted the CIA's argument that disclosure of such historical budget figures would compromise the "intelligence method" of transferring funds to the CIA. The CIA budget is not directly appropriated but is concealed within various budget line items in the Defense Department budget.
Granted, I'm still not sure why the CIA budget needs to be "secret" at all, but this doesn't seem like completely invalid reason on the part of the judge.
sadly, i did read the article. the problem is that we have no way of judging how true or false this may be, much less the issue of redaction...
not to mention they're implying that they haven't changed their funding methods in half a century.
There's no fighting in the War Room!