Osama Bin Forgotten

[dd74]

Originally posted by Joeaksa
And the next question, after the information has been out in the public for 10 days now, was anything that was released by this report by the NYT really important for the American public to know?

On one hand I cannot see one thing that we (the public) really needed to know about with this disclosure and on the other hand there was a very strong need for the terrorists (our enemy by the way) not to know about the program. The newspaper did nothing but give a good working tool away to the terrorists, using it only to sell more newspapers.

The argument that the NYT puts up will not hold water, no matter how fancy they try to package it.

That's a lame bit of reasoning simply for the fact that someone internal to the Bush administration can't be trusted to hold onto sensitive material.

Again - three years into the making, this war has not improved one bit. Who are you to say ANYONE would have benefitted from this information not being printed?

New-world conservative behavior, as usual: blame others, take no responsibility.

[tobster1911]

Originally posted by Rodeo
This is a completely lopsided "contest." If a leaker reveals truly classified information, they go to jail for a long time. If a government hack classifies something that should not be classified, there is no price to pay.

I am with you on this. I had though that there was congressional over-site committees and the like to police classified operations and programs. Who was doing the snooping? Who do they report to? Someone in the other branches of Gov had to know about it. If I am wrong please correct me.

I am surprised no one with more information has joined in to clue me in on the branches of gov since I apparently don't understand completely.

[Rodeo]

What I know is that there is an executive branch declassification procedure that involves the CIA, Defense and State Departments signing off on the declassification. Its a formal process, as one would expect. I know this because when Bush supposedly declassified the National Security estimate so it could be leaked to reporters, he followed NONE of these procedures.

His lackeys justified it later by taking the position that he is the president and he can't leak anything classified, since the very act of leaking acts as a "declassification."

As someone that trusts NO ONE in government, as someone that values checks and balances, this is pretty scary. If the president "declassifies" in this manner, what is to stop him from classifying information he would rather not share with the public? What's to stop him from throwing in jail anyone that leaks this politically damaging information?

It's too lopsided and it's too dangerous for a democracy.

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by dd74
That's a lame bit of reasoning simply for the fact that someone internal to the Bush administration can't be trusted to hold onto sensitive material.

Again - three years into the making, this war has not improved one bit. Who are you to say ANYONE would have benefitted from this information not being printed?

New-world conservative behavior, as usual: blame others, take no responsibility.

Boy am I glad to know someone who "knows it all!"

How can you be 100% positive that its not someone in the govt, CIA, NSA etc who was a Clinton appointee? You cannot but you point fingers and shout trying to divert attention from the real problem!

Bush Admin holding onto classified materials? Well, when Sandy Burgular, a Clinton appointee, is caught stuffing classified documents into his underwear a year or two ago I did not hear you stand up and ask for him to be brought to justice. Here is an American who was stealing classified materials and who has never told anyone what he was going to do with them, who now has pulled behind the scene strings to never spend a day in jail over the offence. Your wonderful Democratic party is made up of people like this and you rant and rave about Bush and his party keeping our secrets secure? Idiot...

Again, three years in the making, the war has improved things greatly! You are listening to the liberal news media and not people who have been there and know what is going on!

Please prove to anyone on this forum how the opening up of classified information about this program benefited ONE frigging person in America? One person! Then remember that telling the terrorists about the program very well may cost American lives in the future.

I take responsibility for my own actions. My security clearance is still valid and has never been in jeopardy. I am not a security risk nor will ever be to my country.

Yes, I am blaming the NYT as well as the person who leaked the information to them. They need to go to jail. It could very well have been Sandy Burgular, we just do not know at this time.

You and your cronies need to wake up and unfortunately it will probably take another terrorist action on American soil to accomplish this.

[tobster1911]

Originally posted by Rodeo
What I know is that there is an executive branch declassification procedure that involves the CIA, Defense and State Departments signing off on the declassification. Its a formal process, as one would expect. I know this because when Bush supposedly declassified the National Security estimate so it could be leaked to reporters, he followed NONE of these procedures.

His lackeys justified it later by taking the position that he is the president and he can't leak anything classified, since the very act of leaking acts as a "declassification."

As someone that trusts NO ONE in government, as someone that values checks and balances, this is pretty scary. If the president "declassifies" in this manner, what is to stop him from classifying information he would rather not share with the public? What's to stop him from throwing in jail anyone that leaks this politically damaging information?

It's too lopsided and it's too dangerous for a democracy.

So the solution is to give everyone the power to declassify info by leaking? That does not sound like checks and balances to me. I would prefer that someone try to do something about it in the current channels before the just mouth off to the nearest news paper.

Oh, and as someone who trusts NO ONE in the legal system, lawyers are scary to me.

[Seahawk]

Originally posted by tobster1911
I am with you on this. I had though that there was congressional over-site committees and the like to police classified operations and programs. Who was doing the snooping? Who do they report to? Someone in the other branches of Gov had to know about it. If I am wrong please correct me.

I am surprised no one with more information has joined in to clue me in on the branches of gov since I apparently don't understand completely.

This is going to be apolitical...I don't care about the NYT and what they decided to publish, and why, for the sake of this post.

There are multiple tiers of clasification, from "Confidential" up to compartmentalized security classifications wherein the MENTION of the code letters assigned to the program is a breach of security.

For ease of understanding, programs that can be broadly discussed are known as, "white"; programs with more indepth classifications are called, "black" programs.

Within both white and black programs, the tiers of security I mentioned can apply...it depends on the specifics being discussed.

There are also special classifications for specific programs that require unusual access...think Air Force One and the Presidential Helicopter program.

Now the discussion must turn to clearances for each of the type of programs I just mentioned above.

Up to the level of, "secret" clearances, the scrutiny is hard but not withering in order to gain access. Above that, into the realm of, "Top Secret" and beyond, there are rigorous background checks and interviews, which repeat every few years.

Clear so far? Probably not, but it is what it is.

Next up is, "need to know". Compartmentalized programs assign clearances only on a NTK basis, which means even though I might have the clearances required, I must have a bonified reason for getting, "read" into the program. In fact, there are specific forms that must be signed, with the requisite penalties delineated should you breech security, at every, "read in".

Most compartmentalized program have congressional oversight.

The logical question is, "Who assigns classification, and why?" The answer is, it depends. There are rules and regs at every agency...the military has a detailed matrix that we must follow when deciding what level of classification to afix, which I happily let my security office vet.

Ok...the reason I went through this is that the penalties for devulging classified information get progressively less pedestrian with each level of classification...meaning telling the San Diego Tribune when the fleet is going to sail may not get you arrested, but giving up a three letter access program will make you disappear.

So, those that leak, the leakers, know the risks, are routinely briefed on the risks and are very lucid concerning the penalties; and so are the recipients of the classified data.

All I require is that the law be obeyed, irrespective of the political leaning of the violator.

Hope this helps.

[tobster1911]

So, seahawk, do you have any comments on Bush (or WH) apparent ability to classify and declassify stuff on a whim. Can they do this to all the levels or just the lowest level? i.e. Can they classify our KKK meeting as a "black"?

Any comments on penalties of classifying info for purely political reasons?

[Seahawk]

Originally posted by tobster1911
So, seahawk, do you have any comments on Bush (or WH) apparent ability to classify and declassify stuff on a whim. Can they do this to all the levels or just the lowest level? i.e. Can they classify our KKK meeting as a "black"?

Any comments on penalties of classifying info for purely political reasons?

Sure...the rules that ALL Presidents play by are naturally whimsical because the rules allow for interpretation by the folks that classify the information; which, as I am sure you are alluding to, they often do in their own self interest.

If, tobster, you think Bush is the first to abuse how and why data is classified, we have nothing more to discuss.

If, however, you want to to talk about how to try and reform the process, I'm all ears.

"Our KKK meetings"!!!

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by dd74
You are clear. Just clearly wrong. When will you understand that the media is under no obligation to anyone to dissemanate information to its viewers/readers?

Are you aware that your thinking on this is not in accordance with standing US law that is on the books?

[tobster1911]

Originally posted by Seahawk
Sure...the rules that ALL Presidents play by are naturally whimsical because the rules allow for interpretation by the folks that classify the information; which, as I am sure you are alluding to, they often do in their own self interest.

Rodeo was the one alluding to this not me. I was questioning if there is any check in place to prevent it.

Originally posted by Seahawk
If, tobster, you think Bush is the first to abuse how and why data is classified, we have nothing more to discuss.

If, however, you want to to talk about how to try and reform the process, I'm all ears.

No I don't think Bush is the first to abuse. I was not aware that they (Presidents) were able to do this as easily as it would appear with no consequences.

Originally posted by Seahawk
"Our KKK meetings"!!!

This was referring to Rodeo's fictional meeting between Bush and the KKK that we were using as a discussion point. Not sure if you read all that. I did not realize the irony of my last statement. I guess it came out a little funny. Oops.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by tobster1911
This was referring to Rodeo's fictional meeting between Bush and the KKK that we were using as a discussion point.

When I hear Democrat talking-points like the assertion that the KKK would, naturally, be Republican, I immediately assume the Democrats are hiding their own guilt...Afterall, they do have a Grand Kleagle at the senior level of the Democrat party and never have had a black at the top of any ticket, or in any position of real power.

The KKK, naturally, would vote Democrat. They are socialists, they like to keep the minorities down, and they are Christian and Jew haters.

[RoninLB]

The NYT deserves what it sows.

It wasn't enough to just defeat their political enemies they wanted to deligitmize them. Criminalize political differences is the scam that failed. Special pros Fitzgerald never found the underlying crime he was sent to find but a reporter wound up in jail anyway.

Case law now makes it clear that journalists can be hauled before a grand jury without a presumption of guilt. If there was any concern besides politics concerning the latest NYT "leak" it should have been addressed to the Feds whistleblower statue that allows info on the issue to be brought up to Congress. There is no right or wrong moralism concerning classified info. Bush hating Lefties posing as whistleblowers are traitors.

The NYT and it's followers are guilty of the fact that to subpoena a journalist to find out their sources is no longer much of a legal or social problem. Fitz established that the gov't can pursue a leak of merely "alleged" classified info.

[dd74]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Are you aware that your thinking on this is not in accordance with standing US law that is on the books?

Post the law, then we'll discuss how it will not apply to what is, generally, good and opportunistic reporting.

[RoninLB]

Originally posted by dd74

Post the law, then we'll discuss.

lol..


but he would nota said that if he couldn't prove it.
I think you're done on another one. What else you got!

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by dd74
Post the law, then we'll discuss how it will not apply to what is, generally, good and opportunistic reporting.

Well, I'm not a lawyer, but allow me to refer to someone who is, I hope he does not mind me reposting him:

Originally posted by john_cramer
JP:

Two points strike me:

1) Hearing of the existence of a program to access the SWIFT database is surprising to me only insofar as I'm impressed by our ingenuity: I would think it a very difficult task to generate actionable intelligence out of the nonstop stream of global financial transactions.

What is NOT a shock to my "substantive expectation of privacy" is the existence of the program. Nor, for example, would be having my digital wired or wireless communications audited. Nor, for that matter, these very keystrokes, which are passed through a terminal maintained by my employer who DEFINITTELY audits them and passes them to an ISP whose terms of service are unknown to me, but who is required by law to comply with USA PATRIOT ACT. In short, the publicization of the existence of these programs that tap into my communications actually serves to DIMINISH my privacy expectations, and we can thank, in part, THE MEDIA for carrying that message broadly. Ironic, yes; and

2) Irrespective of whether or not I think disclosure of the program diminishes the harvest of intelligence, or whether disclosure greases the Constitutional skids so to speak, "the law is the law," so we have to turn to the relevant statutes to determine whether the NYT's action falls within their prohibitions: if it does, they certainly shouldn't expect any forbearance to prosecute them with absolutely no quarter given.

The most relevant, based on my 30-second survey of the applicable statutes, is Section 798 of Title 18 of the USC, ("Section 798") which provides in relevant part:

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or

(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or

(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.


Now, before the hand-wringing ignorami here begin to bleat their hackneyed paraphrase of the First Amendment, let me preempt that ovine anvil chorus by quoting Justice Potter "I know it when I see it" Stewart's concurrence in 403 U.S. 713 (1971), popularly known as "the Pentagon Papers Case:"

The Criminal Code contains numerous provisions potentially relevant to these cases. Section 797 makes it a crime to publish certain photographs or drawings of military installations. Section 798, also in precise language, proscribes knowing and willful publication of any classified information concerning the cryptographic systems or communication intelligence activities of the United States as well as any information obtained from communication intelligence operations. If any of the material here at issue is of this nature, the newspapers are presumably now on full notice of the position of the United States and must face the consequences if they publish. I would have no difficulty in sustaining convictions under these sections on facts that would not justify the intervention of equity and the imposition of a prior restraint.

Now, that all being said, why don't we get a couple of Uniforms and head over to 43rd street?

Now, here are a few tidbits from Section 798 to clarify (I found this stuff myself):

The term "classified information" means information which, at the
time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national
security, specifically designated by a United States Government
Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;

The term "foreign government" includes in its meaning any person
or persons acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any
faction, party, department, agency, bureau, or military force of or within a foreign country, or for or on behalf of any government or any person or persons purporting to act as a government within a foreign country, whether or not such government is recognized by the United States;

[dd74]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
(I found this stuff myself):
[/I]

Do you know the outcome of what you cut and pasted, Rick?

The argument you have now occurred in 1971. It was called "The Pentagon Papers," and pitted the NYT against the Defense Department. Guess what? The NYT won.

So my only question is why in the world didn't you find a case that supports your argument?

http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itdhr/0297/ijde/goodsb1.htm

Oh well, better luck next time...

[dd74]

Originally posted by RoninLB
lol..


but he would nota said that if he couldn't prove it.
I think you're done on another one. What else you got!

What I HAVE is the same link I posted for Rick in his response to showing me the law (which he never did, btw):

http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itdhr/0297/ijde/goodsb1.htm

As you wrote: "lol... I think you're done on another one."

Yeah, LOL!

[RoninLB]

".... The Court left open the possibility that dire consequences could result from publication of classified documents by newspapers, but said that the government had failed to prove that result in this instance.


"........ , most observers agree that the publication of the papers did not do injury to the national security of the United States. "


above from your site dd.

I don't see the connection with the NYT' latest leak.

Yep, LOL!

[Nathans_Dad]

dd74, so you don't consider Section 798 of Title 18 of the USC a law?

I'm confused.

Your position is that if something is leaked it is fair game to publish and the press has no responsibility towards national security. I believe you specifically said their only responsibility is to sell papers. Section 798 directly contradicts that position.

[dd74]

The outcome is the government lost against the NYT in '71, and that loss, in the hands of any half-educated lawyer, will set precedence for this latest case. Sections 797 and 798 were linked to this case, and even with those, the Times still won.

Deny it any way you please, but as I said all along, treason, jail time, flogging, beheading - whatever you two believe should be the acusation & penance for the NYT - it hasn't happened historically, and likely won't happen now.

Any other questions?