In a previous life I can recall being constantly reminded regarding the need to restrict information sharing to those with a "need to know"--regardless of whether the other persons had a clearance or not. The urge to share information, to discuss and debate, is strong, but we took "need to know" seriously.
Eric Felten has a nice discussion of this basic principle of security today in an article (which I picked up via Powerline) titled: Whistlegate Reveals Some Very Chatty Minders of State Secrets. Felten makes the point that strict enforcement of "need to know" rules can be difficult or even counter productive, for the simple reason that information sharing in an intelligence setting is often more than merely gossip--it can serve a useful purpose. Sharing information and points of view can be essential to making sense of complex factual patterns.
However, none of those concerns were at play in the Ukraine Hoax. The breakdown of adherence to the principle of "need to know" appears from all the known circumstances to have been motivated by strictly political motives. Felten writes:
As Democrats in Congress assess a CIA analyst’s “whistleblower” allegations against President Trump regarding Ukraine, one thing already seems clear: There has been a breakdown within the government of traditional restrictions against sharing intelligence beyond those with a need to know it.
Unlike most whistleblowers, the CIA analyst was not a witness to events. Instead, he functioned as a kind of investigative reporter who worked sources to develop the information detailed in the complaint. While some have praised the informer for unearthing questionable behavior by the president, some experts in national security law say that the whistleblower and his sources may have violated regulations aimed at preserving state secrets.
Experts also say this breakdown was almost inevitable. Restrictions on information sharing were reinforced in response to some of the biggest spy breaches in U.S. history – involving Robert Hanssen, Aldrich Ames and Harold James Nicholson, among others. But they were undermined after 9/11 when government officials concluded that closer communication among various agencies might have helped it prevent the attacks.
Here I take issue. President Trump's conversation with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine was about foreign cooperation in law enforcement matters. There was no intelligence to be gleaned, no need to share the details of that call beyond the circle of knowledge determined by the president himself. In fact, as we have learned, a very real issue is not even the sharing of details but the invention of details. We are far beyond the issue of "need to know".
