迄今为止，解密的过程中已基本由下式定义：（1）1984年的CIA信息法，其免除从信息自由法机构操作的文件，但授权这样豁免的十年一次审查;（2）国际原子能机构自己的“目标”的相关性，以特定主题的基础上，选择材料的解密程序;（3）1995年总统的4月，在“国家安全机密信息”（E.O. 12958）行政命令;以及1992年的外交关系授权法案和总统约翰·肯尼迪遇刺的1992年记录稽征法我们想对前三个方面的意见：
1。中央情报局信息法案。虽然该机构一样，受到法律的授权，进行其操作的文件豁免十年一次的审查and report to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on May 11, 1995, it neglected to provide this panel with a copy of its report, or to brief the panel on this important matter, at its February, 1996 meeting. We regard this as a serious omission, because the decennial review in fact removed certain files of considerable historical interest from the exempted lists administrative files of the Office of Policy Coordination, National Committee for a Free Europe, and Asia Foundation- making them subject to FOIA requests.
2.“有针对性的”解密。Prior to the end of the Cold War, a plausible case could be made for the declassification and publication of selected documents from the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, even though the files from which they were drawn remained classified. It is much more difficult now to make that case.
在our March 6, 1996, report to you我们注意到这样的出版物“不要替代品金博宝更改账户for the opening of archives that would allow historians not affiliated with the Agency to work directly with its records." Meanwhile the Department of State's Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic Documentation passed a resolution on June 7,1996, criticizing this CIA policy.
Not a single whole collection from CIA files- as opposed to selected documents- is as yet available for research at the National Archives. Until such files do become available, CIA will continue to have problems of credibility with the public and with the academic community.
3。遵照总统的行政命令。专家小组感到关切地得知，美国中央情报局已要求其记录64％，从25年的“自动”解密E.O.规定的豁免12958.我们承认，有25年也许不失为太早撤销密级一些机构的材料，特别是有关的来源和方法。但是，我们怀疑该机构的记录三分之二是否合法就属于这一类。
We also note the absence of any clear Agency guidelines on just when materials too sensitive for 25-year release might in fact be made available: 35 years? 50? 75? Even "exempted" material under E.O. 12958 is subject to mandatory review: it is unrealistic, therefore, to assume that the Agency can permanently keep its records secret. As CIA approaches its 50th anniversary, we urge that consideration be given to this matter.
我们还关注的是，其记录的36％，为此该机构已要求下E.O.没有豁免内12958，时间和金钱的大量已经花了外国广播信息服务，大批量，其中是公众可从当下的审查材料，但曾几何时，他们原本播出。该机构有兴趣在解密省钱;在这里，我们认为，本来是开始的好地方。
省钱另一种方式是，以确保谁是审查自动解密材料的年金都充分什么样的信息已经在公共领域，无论是作为调查报告的结果，或允许其前任的中情局长期政策介绍官员与一些坦率他们的活动，或信息由外国政府公布的写。
在这方面，我们的印象是外国政府，有时候，少谈CIA“股市”，在他们释放比CIA是他们的物质敏感的。我们也有证据表明，在那里这些政府寻求中情局在史料该机构并不总是即将发布的合作。随着越来越多的外国政府发起自己的历史解密程序，我们敦促他们被释放，并与这种努力合作时，合作是可能愿意更仔细监测。
结论与建议
The fact that historians expect greater access to CIA documentation is due in large measure to actions taken by the Agency itself. At the same time, historians are being inundated with documents of great significance from Russia, Eastern Europe, and the Peoples' Republic of China, all of which focus attention on related materials from the United States, nearly all of which remain inaccessible. The danger we see arises from the clash of expectations and practice to date. To continue on the present course will not provide the sort of results the public and the academic community have been led to expect and that we think accord with your own intentions. Some new directives and initiatives appear to be needed if there is to be significant progress.
以下是我们认为能够满足合理的期望和的头在这方面的问题的一些具体建议：
1。The Agency should develop a master plan for the declassification of its historical materials, including its analytic products, which pose few problems of sensitivity, and those relating to sources and methods. Such a plan should be informed by concerted thought on the general problem of how sources and methods can be best protected while still declassifying large quantities of documents. Above all, it should include a "date certain" interval, after which only a minimal body of exempted documents would be opened. Whatever the timetable of declassification and whatever the exemptions, such a plan must be well understood and carefully followed throughout the Agency. The Agency should appoint a single well-informed and articulate spokesperson to communicate that policy to the public and to the scholarly community.
2.局应接受其“针对性”解密的政策进行仔细和严格审查。我们承认，有可能是为了继续这项政策的合理解释，但我们仍然不相信。的时机已经到来，我们认为，原子能机构的历史学家和其他工作人员的精力投入到早期CIA文件转移到国家档案馆的方式比得上其次是其他政府机构的全面审查。我们特别注意到该机构的失败，几年后，承诺为实现这一目标，就有关的秘密行动，其存在是早已公开承认提供档案记录。
3。The Historical Review Panel needs a chair, and the chair should be a historian well experienced in both the writing of recent intelligence history and the use of archival materials. Otherwise, as in the matter of clearances, the committee will carry no credibility among those very historians who are the primary consumers of the historical material CIA is seeking to declassify.
4.我们敦促中情局历史回顾小组和历史学家的可比委员会之间的密切合作是国务院，国防部和能源部内的功能，以帮助解决跨部门的问题，“公平”。在这方面，我们欢迎的形成，内中央情报局和其他情报机构，社区历史回顾咨询委员会。这应该是足够的工作人员，并应想方设法工作“外部”咨询委员会就像我们自己为了克服解密障碍。
5. The Agency should use its Historical Review Panel as an ally in this process. That means providing it with full, accurate, and timely information regarding its declassification policies; it also means providing members of the panel with sufficient security clearances to allow them to be briefed in detail on why solve materials cannot be released, and we are pleased that CSI has suggested this. Comparable historical review panels in the State, Defense, and Energy Departments operate in this manner. CIA's panel cannot really be helpful to you, or carry credibility within the academic community, until this is done.
感谢您抽出时间来与我们见面，这是其他DCI定期进行，并希望上述建议可在他们提供的积极精神好评。
Respectfully submitted