Slashdot Mirror
Obama: The Word 'Classified' Means Whatever We Need It To Mean (techdirt.com)
An anonymous reader writes: During an interview with Fox News, President Obama said "There's classified, and then there's classified" when trying to answer questions about an ongoing investigation about Hillary Clinton and her emails. Techdirt writes, "Clinton sent, received and stored classified info on a private email server. But some classified info is more equal than others. It all depends on who has it and how the current administration feels about that person. Clinton playing fast and loose with classified info is subject to an entirely different standard than the large number of whistleblowers the Obama administration has prosecuted over the years." President Obama said in an interview broadcast on Sunday that while Hillary Clinton had been careless in managing her emails as secretary of state, she would never intentionally do anything to endanger the country. Obama says, "There's stuff that is really top-secret, and there's stuff that is being presented to the president or the secretary of state that you might not want on the transom, or going out over the wire, but is basically stuff that you could get in open-source." Basically, classification means all things to all people, as long as it allows officials and agencies to control narratives and disrupt public accountability.
Sure. We know very well, that "Classified" may mean any of the restriction levels, most of which are not "super duper".
But it was still illegal (felonious) for Hillary Clinton to mishandle such material — and she knew it. She needs to be charged with the crime and convicted of it. President Obama can then show leniency and pardon her, if he wishes.
And if that costs Democrats the election, so be it — their own fault for giving the nation a choice between a Russia-manipulated crypto-Communist and a this spy-magnet.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
>> Can you please point me at a source?
Here's one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3391031/Game-set-match-classified-emails-Bombshell-email-shows-Hillary-Clinton-telling-aide-secure-information-send-nonsecure.html
Google "clinton fax strip broken classified" for more...
Actually both are felonies. Classification of data does not depend on how it is marked. One might be able to make a reasonable argument that they were not aware of some data being classified if it were marked incorrectly or not at all, but with the magnitude of this problem and her position at the time she does not enjoy the ability to make that argument.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
Top Secret - data, that, if released, would cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security
Secret - same thing, but "serious" damage
Confidential - damage to national security.
For Official Use Only - not classified, but not for public release.
Additionally, there are "caveats" that restrict distribution to certain groups, and Special Access / Compartments (aka SCI) that one needs to be specifically approved for, and briefed into. . .
My work in the military was in a classified career field. Most of it was Confidential, with occasional Secret classifications, and more commonly (but not mostly) NOFORN.
Much of it was of value only for short periods of time. Some was actually information that could be found publicly, that by itself was not very dangerous, but when combined with other information also sometimes available publicly could be used against our nation with damaging effect.
Some was genuinely in the realm of industrial secrets, and would materially improve the abilities of our adversaries to defeat us in war, which is by itself a good reason to keep some things secret.
Others were more operational in nature, limited duration, and could be described as useful only for a moment. Higher classifications would not yield more protection or security.
To this day I am not yet free to discuss most of my work, though my knowledge is now 19 years out of date. Some of it is still important, and I'm not at liberty to choose what to talk about and what not to. I'm also not sure if I need to notify the government if I intend to travel to Russia or other countries labelled similarly as security risks. But I'm not planning to either.
Multiple levels of classification are just as critical as file permissions in operating systems. Some levels are just useful, others critical to security.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
To support the parent, here is the relevant document; the NDA Hillary signed ..
http://freebeacon.com/wp-conte...
Enjoy.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
We even see very uneven application of the law with regard to leaking so-called classified information, for example David Patraeus vs. Jeffrey Sterling
That's the main thing here. Having held a clearance myself, yes those huge legal penalties are a possibility. However, most incidents of mishandling involve a slap on the wrist and a very annoyed security officer who has to do a ton of paperwork. In extreme cases, you might see your clearance revoked, but I've never even seen it come to that. They just have the draconian penalties there so that in cases of true malice, its possible to come down on the miscreant like a ton of bricks. But that's almost never actually done, unless there's an actual case of espionage, or it somehow gets political.
So when you see someone demanding a full penalty for a non-espionage incident involving a politician, its pretty clear what's going on here, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with normal security procedures.