What’s the purpose of publishing these? Why now? Why redacted still?

Interesting to read but … why bother?

Supermancho 19 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Without a doubt, this material has been scrubbed and censored and altered. There are no lengths to which this administration (or any other) would go to, to safeguard publishing material that might be used against them or their associates.

There is no reason that anyone should consider these briefs credible. It's theater.

▲

alephnerd 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Why redacted still

Because a number of the people associated with this are still alive on all sides.

1998-2001 was only 25-28 years ago, so a lot of sources are still alive or active sources as we speak, and in a number of cases now decisionmakers in theirs early-mid 60s.

It's the same way how a KGB liaison officer in 1989 Dresden ended up invading Ukraine 25 years later.

> Interesting to read but … why bother?

It still has academic value, and plenty of information to be garnered.

▲

tancop 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The redacted parts are a lot more than names and detailed locations.

I think there should be a law that any info is fully public after like 20 years unless releasing it would put a specific person or named group in danger, like a source's identity but not the things they said. No vague talk about national security that can't be verified unless you have a clearance and is probably subjective anyway.

Yes, that includes nuclear weapon designs, hacking tool source code and every assassination plan ever dreamed up by some megalomaniac CIA officer. The system needs to go.

▲

dmix 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

From NYT article:

> the C.I.A.’s standard practice is to release them only after about 40 years, to ensure no sources are compromised and minimize any potential tension with allies.

So this was released much earlier than usual and that might be why it's more aggressively redacted

▲

zahlman 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> fully public after like 20 years unless releasing it would put a specific person or named group in danger

As the recent AI safety discourse should make clear, the set of information that potentially endangers people could be much broader than you'd naively expect.

▲

SoftTalker 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"the things they said" could very well reveal their identity.

▲

ls612 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There is an automatic declassification system with a 25 year clock but it’s a bit more restrictive than what you propose. That said we have a cornucopia of classified info from the Cold War era available today and that has had significant academic value.

▲

ozgrakkurt 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> I think there should be a law that any info is fully public after like 20 years unless releasing it would put a specific person or named group in danger

They don't even release files about human trafficking rings (epstein). Pretty sure what you are suggesting is impossible.

From the outside, it even looks like Trump attacked Iran because of the epstein files. The war is causing more deaths and terror. And it is causing economic problems worldwide. Pretty sure US government legitimacy is at the lowest point in my lifetime.

	▲	Jtsummers 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> From the outside, it even looks like Trump attacked Iran because of the epstein files. He attacked Iran because he has warhawks and wannabe crusaders in his core group of advisors who believed that it would actually be a quick war, and that the people who had always cautioned against it were just nervous nellies. It doesn't help that Hegseth actively worked to remove people who would have cautioned against it so the yes-men "leaders" left behind were more willing to go along with the false confidence that a short few strikes would be enough.

▲

an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

Rebelgecko 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In surprised they're redacting things like labels on a map

	▲	Jtsummers 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> In surprised they're redacting things like labels on a map I think you're referring to this one: https://www.cia.gov/static/06-23-1998-Potential-Targets-for-... Since it's redacted, we can only guess what's on the map, but looking at the various points preceding it there are a lot of specific location names that are redacted. If any were also on the map then it'd be kind of stupid to redact the name once, but not the other times they're included.

▲

Fischgericht 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Well spoken.

▲

dboreham 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Distraction from Epstein?

▲

infamouscow 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't understand this fascination with Epstein, maybe someone can tell me what I'm missing.

It's pretty clear Epstein was in involved with intelligence agencies. Which ones, or if he was acting independent isn't interesting to me. The reality of the world is at a nation-state level, anything outside your borders is anarchy. Intelligence agencies take advantage of that—it why throughout human history the punishment for espionage has been a slow and painful death. Another reality of the world is the panopticon also applies to intelligence agencies, and sometimes they need financial institutions and other transnational corporations to look the other way on things, e.g., there's a lot of civilian ships in shipping lanes comprised entirely of paramilitary folks.

Why would intelligence agencies risk uncovering the financial networks necessary to do their job, and why would they implicate many companies and individuals inside those companies for very serious crimes?

From an anarchist perspective, the idea that a government can't allow certain companies and individuals managing significant geopolitical and economic interests to break the law is nonsensical. If a government passed a law that required everyone to starve, out of self preservation the government would simply allow everyone to break the law. The real world is no different.

If you believe Epstein was some puppet-master of the ruling class for some other ambiguous evil person/group, what do you think you think is going to happen if that were to be made public? Imagine such revelations get 9/11-level media coverage. Do you honestly believe that the ruling class will miraculously step-aside?

▲

DANmode an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Coward.

▲

simoncion 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> If you believe Epstein was some puppet-master of the ruling class...

Huh? The guy was a fixer for upper-crusters. Think "That sales guy who can -and is willing to- do anything for a client to close a big sale" times a million.

The fascination is a combination of

1) How so very many of the "powerful class" went to him to get things.

2) How it's very hard to believe that few of those who went to him to get things weren't even a little bit aware that he could get you anything.

3) How this has gotten approximately zero airtime.

There's also the fact that he died in prison. "Kill a guy who has dirt on everyone after he transitions to a position where he might decide to start spreading that dirt around." is a movie plot point, but it also makes a lot of sense to do if you're the sort of person who's willing to kill to keep yourself and your friends from going to jail for the rest of forever. [0]

[0] ...and before you dismiss that as baseless conspiracy bait, consider both the fairly-well-substantiated rumors of world leaders like Putin killing those who become political rivals or threats, as well as the callous disregard for human life demonstrated by entering into and engaging in the Vietnam War (knowing what we know that they knew from the Pentagon Papers), Bush starting Gulf War II and the invasion of Afghanistan (and the protracted occupation of both), Trump starting the war in Iran, and many other poorly-justified (or unjustifiable) acts of war. I find it hard to believe that the sort of person who will kill hundreds, hundreds of thousands, or millions of people to enrich themselves and/or their allies will balk at having one man who has dirt on everyone of importance killed to prevent him from ever changing his mind about delivering said dirt.

▲

hackernud3s an hour ago | parent [-]

I never found any of those things surprising. Of course rich men are getting away with those things. Of course he killed himself when he finally got caught.

	▲	Supermancho 13 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		If someone believed he committed even a portion of the crimes attributed to him and his associates, it follows that someone would have to believe he had firsthand knowledge. There's no reason to believe he would kill himself while still retaining that leverage.