It's my understanding that CIA officials sign a contract as a term or condition of employment that they will submit writings on matters related to their employment or using materials derived (or derivable_ through it to an agency pre-publication review process allowing the CIA to admit or censor portions of their writing, classified or not, that it deems objectionable. In this respect it is analogous to a commercial noncompetition and non disclosure agreement, obviously adopted for different purposes, in which an employee may be required, if he leaves his job, to not work for a competitor or not share information with a competitor derived during his employment. Such agreements have been upheld by the courts as long as they are of reasonable scope and duration. Also likewise, a lawyer who switches firms is "firewalled" from cases where he represented the other party in a case where the firm is suing that party; he may not discuss or disclose ant matters he may have learned in the prior representation with his new firm. This is a matter of professional ethics.
Now the CIA rule does not have a commercial or a professional ethical purpose and no doubt it is often used in a dumb and heavy handed way. But it does not prevent non-CIA ex-employees not bound by the agreement from publicizing the same information the ex-agent may not, so it's not exactly censorship.
Moreover, it is contractual --although (as with a noncompete you need to agree to get the job, it is a voluntary agreement and not a unilateral imposition. And it is limited to just the CIA employees who sign. So it is overstating matters to say that this is chilling censorship. In this case, the ex-agents where able to provide a bibliography and links for all the missing information provided by others or themselves in other contexts. I'd describe it as more of a bureaucratic pain in the tuchus than censorship.
--- Andy F <andy274 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/23/06, Kevin Robert Dean
> <Qualiall at adelphia.net> wrote:
> > Well this is too weird---and creepy-scary--...(for
> as long as it stays up)
> >
> >
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/22/opinion/22leverett.html
>
> See the linked article "What We Wanted to Tell You
> About Iran":
>
>
<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/22/opinion/22precede.html>
>
> --
> Andy
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com