giraldi does not appear to know that the source of the SAP HUMINT was jordanian intelligence, not israeli

The Real Meaning of ‘Sensitive’ Intelligence
Philip Giraldi, AmConMag, May 16 2017

Intelligence agencies and senior government officials tend to use a lot of jargon. Laced with acronyms, this language sometimes does not translate very well into journalese when it hits the media. For example, I experienced a sense of disorientation two weeks ago over the word “sensitive” as used by several senators, Sally Yates, and James Clapper during committee testimony into Russiagate. “Sensitive” has, of course, a number of meanings. But what astonished me was how quickly the media interpreted its use in the hearings to mean that the conversations and emails that apparently were recorded or intercepted involving Trump associates and assorted Russians as “sensitive contacts” meant that they were necessarily inappropriate, dangerous, or even illegal. When Yates and Clapper were using “sensitive” thirteen times in the 86-page transcript of the Senate hearings, they were referring to the medium rather than the message. They were both acknowledging that the sources of the information were intelligence related, sometimes referred to as “sensitive” by intelligence professionals and government insiders as a shorthand way to describe that they are “need to know” material derived from either classified “methods” or foreign-liaison partners. That does not mean that the information contained is either good or bad or even true or false, but merely a way of expressing that the information must be protected because of where it came from or how it was developed, hence the “sensitivity.” The word also popped up this week in a WaPo exclusive report alleging that the president had, in his recent meeting with Sergei Lavrov, gone too far while also suggesting that the source of a highly classified government program might be inferred from the context of what was actually revealed. The WaPo describes:

The information Trump relayed had been provided by a Pindosi partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the Pindosi government, boxtops said. The partner had not given Pindostan permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said that Trump’s decision to do so risks cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of Daesh.

The WaPo is unfortunately also providing Daesh with more information than it “needs to know” to make its story more dramatic, further compromising the source. Furthermore, it should be understood that the paper is extremely hostile to Trump, the story is as always based on anonymous sources, and the revelation comes on top of another unverifiable WaPo article claiming that the Russians might have sought to sneak a recording device into the White House during the visit. No one is denying that the president discussed Daesh in some detail with Lavrov, but McMaster and Tillerson, both of whom were present at the meeting, have denied that any sources or methods were revealed while reviewing with the Russians available intelligence. McMaster described the report as “false” and informed the WaPo:

The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation. At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly.

Tillerson commented:

The nature of specific threats were discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods, or military operations.

So the question becomes to what extent can an intelligence mechanism be identified from the information that it produces. That is to a certain extent a judgement call. The president is able on his own authority to declassify anything, so the legality of his sharing information with Russia cannot be challenged. What is at question is the decision-making by an inexperienced president who may have been showing off to an important foreign visitor by revealing details of intelligence that should have remained secret. The media will no doubt be seeking to magnify the potential damage done while the White House goes into damage control mode. The media is claiming that the specific discussion with Lavrov that is causing particular concern is related to a so-called Special Access Program, or SAP, sometimes referred to as “code word information.” An SAP is an operation that generates intelligence that requires special protection because of where or how it is produced. In this case, the intelligence shared with Lavrov appears to be related to specific ISIS threats, which may include planned operations against civilian aircraft, judging from Trump’s characteristically after-hours tweets defending his behavior, as well as other reporting. There have also been reports that the White House followed up on its Lavrov meeting with a routine review of what had taken place. Several NSC members observed that some of the information shared with the Russians was far too sensitive to disseminate within the Pindosi intelligence community. This led to the placing of urgent calls to NSA and CIA to brief them on what had been said.

Based on the recipients of the calls alone, one might surmise that the source of the information would appear to be either a foreign intelligence service or a technical collection operation, or even both combined. The WaPo claims that the originator of the intelligence did not clear its sharing with the Russians, and raises the possibility that no more information of that type will be provided at all in light of the White House’s apparent carelessness in its use. The NYT, in its own reporting of the story, initially stated that the information on Daesh did not come from an NSA or CIA operation, and later reported that the source was Israel. The NYT is also reporting that Trump provided to Lavrov “granular” information on the city in Syria where the information was collected that will possibly enable the Russians or (illicit and nonsensical suggestion – RB) Daesh to identify the actual source, with devastating consequences. That projection may be overreach (sic – RB), but the fact is that the latest gaffe from the White House could well damage an important intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East while reinforcing the widely held impression that Washington does not know how to keep a secret. It will also create the impression that Donald Trump, out of ignorance or hubris, exhibits a certain recklessness in his dealing with classified information, a failing that he once attributed to his presidential opponent Hillary Clinton. And Trump has one more thing to think about. No matter what damage comes out of the Lavrov discussion, he has a bigger problem. There are apparently multiple leakers on his NSC.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s