[Larry Hancock]

I thought it was pretty clear that the directive was internal within the Agency and that it was an advisory to make sure that Schorr did not come across anything that would make him further question the story that was given - to me that suggests that something else did exist, otherwise the directive would be pointless.

The point I would make, and its revealed in many other instances, is the the Agency will not willingly release information on its sources and assets, or its employees for that matter. Sometimes things do slip though the cracks but generally Agency officers will do whatever is necessary including refusal to testify or making false statements in court under oath. The interesting thing about that, as I explore in great detail in my book Shadow Warfare, is that those officers are legally bound under National Security legislation and related legal code to do just that. There is a direct conflict between their obligation under that legislation and to what they deal with under both federal and civil law. In fact, the National Security act authorizes them to commit actions which would be illegal under other code, putting them in double jeopardy. Because of that its simply naive to expect them to provide open access to any and all information - and when challenged in court on FOIA they can almost always convince a judge that they are acting under the National Security act. A little far afield from the issue at hand but its important to understand the rules that actually control disclosure.