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.

Comments

Well, duh

[kschendel]

I sure hope none of that is news to anyone, because it's what "classified" has meant for at least the last 70 years and probably a lot longer.

Anyone who thinks that "classified" means something like super duper secret is either uninformed or an idiot.

Re:Well, duh

[Tenebrousedge]

The last line of the summary is opinion, probably false, and flamebait. That may be what Fox or Rush Limbaugh are saying, but reasonable people need not repeat it, and it certainly doesn't belong on Slashdot.

A large part of prior discussions on the topic here was that SecState does actually have the power to unilaterally declare some material classified or not -- I believe this applies to material originating in the State Department. So, most people here should already know that there are degrees and nuances to classification, and the details of that matter considerably. I'm not suggesting that Clinton should or should not be indicted or tried, but for all its demonizing of Obama for trying to promote a narrative, this article is as bad or worse.

Re:Well, duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who thinks that "classified" means something like super duper secret is either uninformed or an idiot.

Wat. The thing that people are especially freaking out about are the "SECRET/SAP" emails that went out to/from her server.

I personally don't care (the Espionage Act of 1917 contributed greatly to the downfall of the American Republic - it should be but never can be repealed) but at least understand the controversy.

Re:Well, duh

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Arguably, the outlines of this issue were (surprisingly comprehensively) addressed by a ficticious talking egg in an 1871 children's book:

"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master— that's all."

Re:Well, duh

[Beezlebub33]

First I've heard of this. There were emails and / or attachments that were marked as special access? Who was the classification authority and when were they classified?

There is a big difference between things that are marked as classified, with the appropriate headers and footers, declass dates, etc, and things that someone 2 years later in a different agency says 'those should have been classified'. The first is a felony, the second isn't. Do people understand the difference? I don't think so.

Re:Well, duh

[Pseudonymous Powers]

I don't completely agree, you have to define what it is classified as: - Top Secret - Secret - Restricted - Public

Just stating Classified doesn't really tell much about how sensitive it is.

I agree (except for your proposed "default to secret" policy--see below).

If some things are indeed "more secret" than other things at the same level of classification, that means that we don't have enough levels of classification. The exact meaning of each level of secrecy, and which roles will have access to it, should be well-defined and a matter of public record. It sounds from this story like that's not the case, at least in certain officials' imaginations--probably because a lack of clarity lets them do whatever they want, whenever they want, and say it's just a matter of discretion.

Rule of law, rule of law, rule of law.

And anything that isn't classified at all should be handled as if it's Secret.

Or, we could default to "public", because this is a democracy, and we already make more things secret than is healthy.

Re:Well, duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it's Top Secret, Secret, and Confidential. And at the TS or S level, you can have an additional layer under the umbrella of "special access program". SAP, whether it's TS or S is that highly classified group Obama was talking about. A few of the email's on Clinton's server were TS/SAP, which is essentially the highest level of classification available. Also, as the TS/SAP emails were apparently about a drone program, the classifying authority would likely be DoD or CIA... not the Dept. of State.

What people don't understand is that this kind of stuff isn't discussed outside of a vault. Computers authorized to even have emails mentioning it have to be classified at the TS/SAP level, and stored in a vault as well. The amount of security needed to store such information is so extreme, that there is no way Clinton didn't know she was in violation of protocol. What she did constitutes negligent handling of classified information, which, along with straight up disclosure as the NDA signed to grant clearance makes no distinction, is punishable by up to 10 years and $10,000 per count where each classified document would be a single count. Even disregarding the whole criminal aspect of it, and the possibility of indictment, I cannot understand how this wouldn't disqualify her purely on her character. If she's playing fast and loose with highly sensitive documents, what other corners will she cut as president, and how will that negatively impact our country and worldwide repuation?

Re:Well, duh

[tripleevenfall]

I don't see why anyone would think this lawless regime that interprets and re-interprets laws in whatever way is expedient at the moment would have any other attitude towards the classification system. They do what they want, when they want, and the same things they howled about during the previous administration they are excusing now.

Re:Well, duh

[aardvarkjoe]

If it were anyone but the Left's best hope for the Presidency, she'd be in jail.

The left's best hope? Hillary is probably the only possible candidate who could actually lose to Donald Trump. If the Democrats nominated somebody else (and Republicans actually stick with Trump), the Democrats would be essentially guaranteed with the presidency.

Not saying that Hillary is definitely going to lose, but a Clinton/Trump race is going to be a whole lot closer than it would otherwise be.

Re:Well, duh

[operagost]

Just because someone has executive power to declare something classified (no matter the classification, e.g. secret, top secret) doesn't mean they get to IGNORE that classification. If she classified any communications, then they remain so until she officially declassified them. If she classified documents (or someone else did) and she passed them through her vulnerable email server without removing that classification, she is guilty of a violation. Doing otherwise is either lazy or scheming. I'm thinking the former here, because this whole mess started when she didn't want to carry two phones.

Come on, we're mostly IT people here. Do you like it when the CEO unofficially decides that he's above all the rules of the IT department? He'll be the first to fire people when company secrets get out. And this is why we have to demand that MINIMAL accountability to people who are supposed to be highly skilled in their area and honest in their dealings.

History

[kqc7011]

As Orwell said "but some animals are more equal than others".

not surprising

[ganjadude]

that there is a different set of rules for the leaders in the democrat party than there are for the rest of us

Re:not surprising

[bkr1_2k]

It's not just the Democrat party, it's the whole government. I've had a clearance for 25 years and, in many cases, things I was required by law to mark Top Secret with code words could be found in open source information readily. It's almost always about the source of the information when talking "classified" versus "unclassified" not the actual information itself.

The rules haven't changed. The public understanding of the rules needs to change.

Does that mean Clinton doesn't deserve any consequences? No. She most certainly should be held to at least the same standard as every other government employee. Is that going to happen? Not likely.

Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't make this a partisan issue when it isn't one. I'm sure every administration back to Washington considered it their prerogative to manage secrets any way they want. Nothing surprising here at all.

He's a goof, but still better than...

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> Obama said "There's classified, and then there's classified

The guy's a goof, but he's still one step less slimy than the couple that brought you "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

If you like your rule of law, you can keep your rule of law, right?

Re:He's a goof, but still better than...

[amiga3D]

I'd bet money, big money, that Hillary has never blown anyone.

Trying to get Hillary Clinton off by changing the

[Joe_Dragon]

Trying to get Hillary Clinton off by changing the rules. Now he needs to pardon his friend Blago.

If so, Petraeus was hosed for political reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

By all accounts Gen. David Petraeus was a straight shooting general who helped reform for the better the counter-insurgency strategy of the US military. He then was elevated to lead the CIA. By several accounts he fell out of favor with the president for arguing against policy changes made by the White House. Then he gets investigated after a suspected cyber security incident, which leads to agents uncovering an affair with his biographer, which leads them to uncover that he gave her his memoir which was classified.

  Petraeus' biographer held a security clearance and there is no reason to believe national security was endangered. Especially not more than allowing classified documents to be sent to an email server in the Clinton's closet was. Looking at the letter of the law, what Clinton did was far more a transgression than what Petraeus did, in both quantity of classified material and the fact that electronic material was far more likely to be hacked and copied.

And the brazen manner in which Clinton directed her staff to strip the classified markings off of material and transmit them in an insecure channel in at least one instance. The time the classified fax machine was not working it is documented that she did this.

Obama has clearly set a double standard and with his pronouncement that national security was not harmed he is trying to influence, interfere and undermine the investigation of Hillary Clinton.

Re:If so, Petraeus was hosed for political reasons

[spauldo]

Obama has clearly set a double standard

No, he hasn't. It's the same standard that's always applied to people at that level of power.

Laws don't apply to those in power. They're tools to be used against rivals, or just a way to control those without power. It's been that way ever since laws have existed, and it exists in every form of government. If someone can't get themselves out of trouble, they don't really have power, do they?

mandatory access control

[mbaGeek]

security wonk rule of thumb:

• "confidential" = it would be embarrassing if this information leaked
• "secret" = material/stuff might get destroyed if this information leaked
• "top secret" = people could die if this information leaked

• you need to control access to/the flow of "sensitive" information and therefore establish policies. Once policies are established they must be enforced. There isn't any allowance for "intent" - was the information "sensitive" were the policies violated. It isn't that complicated ...

Patraeus

[bhcompy]

I'm sure Patraeus didn't want to hurt the country, either, but it didn't save him from his felony charge and subsequent plea deal.

It is DNC problem

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a single party issue.
Nixon - Resigned for suggesting using IRS to target political opponents.
(D) Obama - Actually USED the IRS to target political opponents, no issue.

Bernie Madoff - Investment scam making people lose millions, in jail for life.
(D) John Corzine - Lost $600 million, to this day he can't explain where it went, no punishment.

You - Don't pay taxes and IRS will make your life hell.
(D) Geitner, Rangle, Daschle, Clinton - Failed to pay taxes, on purpose, and no punishment.

It is a one party issue on this. Not that the Rs are doing any one any favors, but the outright blatant corruption without any kind of repercussions is from a single party. Hell, Bill Clinton sold missile secrets to China for donations to the DNC, it even went public and was in a Gore presidential debate and nothing happened (illegal sale of classified info, illegal foreign political donations, and on and on)

Yea, it is a single party issue.

Discretion

[Tenebrousedge]

Prosecutorial discretion is a legal principle that predates the Constitution, and exists for many good reasons, not least of which is preventing the needless use of state resources. Similarly, we give discretion to police in their exercise of power, and we give discretion to juries in deciding whether to convict. It may be convenient for your current political agenda to have things be otherwise, but you should probably understand that if there were to be language in the Constitution regarding this subject, it would far more likely preserve this principle than dispose of it. I honestly don't have any idea how this will play out, personally; I'm just here for the show.

Re:Discretion

[The Real Dr John]

And prosecutorial discretion is and has been abused since long before the Constitution was written. Just because it is SOP doesn't make it good. When laws are very, very irregularly enforced, it makes a mockery of the judicial system itself. Of course there should be some leeway, but that doesn't mean that rich and powerful people should get off while poor and working people get hit with the maximum sentence. It also doesn't mean that corporate CEOs should only be fined, while small, non-violent offenders get years in jail, for example for a small drug charge. Laws have always been unevenly enforced to the detriment or regular people, and the benefit of the wealthy. We even see very uneven application of the law with regard to leaking so-called classified information, for example David Patraeus vs. Jeffrey Sterling. When laws are applied that unevenly, it is clear the law is being used as a targeted weapon, rather than a rule applied to all of society.

Re:Discretion

[DarkOx]

It is recognized that prosecuting all crimes to the fullest extent is neither feasible nor in the public interest

Attempts to reduce this discretion, for example mandatory minimum sentencing, are widely considered to have done more harm than good.

I would argue that reduction of discretion is precisely what is required, discretion to prosecute in the first place. Any crime which we are not prepared to attempt to detect, investigate, and prosecute vigorously should be no crime at all.

If the rules governing what classified materials have to be handled what way and when are to complex for follow and so frequently not important enough to peruse violators of the answer is have fewer rules. We should be able to define simple understandable rules for identify documents that MUST be protected as state secrets and what to do with them. Maybe the answer is for the rest is tell people "use your judgment" bad judgment as perceived by your superiors might get you fired but it isn't a crime.

Its just possible we have to many laws.

Re:Discretion

[buck-yar]

If the cops can watch people violate a crime, then pick a few people out and enforce the law against those people... then its not really about the issue the law was designed to deter, is it?

Then we arrived at the conclusion that its not about the law at all, and only about an excuse to prosecute selected people

(posted anonymously out of fear of police retaliation)

Re:Discretion

[ShanghaiBill]

Centuries of jurisprudence. Please do me the favor of researching the matter yourself before further argument.

Those centuries have included many oppressive governments, which have used "prosecutorial discretion" to a far greater extent than democracies. They prosecute their opponents, while giving their cronies a pass. That is what is happening in China today, as the opponents of Xi Jinping are arrested in the "corruption crackdown". When his brother-in-law was caught in the Panama Papers scandal, hiding billions in overseas accounts, it was not him, but the people trying to raise awareness of the issue that have been arrested or intimidated.

In America, blacks and other minorities are prosecuted for crimes while white people committing near identical crimes are let off with a warning.

Rather than "prosecutorial discretion", we should have clearly written laws, and a minimal number of them. If a crime is not prosecuted, then the decision and the reasoning should be made public, to ensure that the same standard is applied to others.

Good for the goose

[kilfarsnar]

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.

A similar thing happened to me recently. I got a little careless in managing my speed on the highway, but I would never intentionally do anything to endanger other drivers. So citing the President's logic I will not be paying the fine I received. Is that how it works now?

yeah right

[JustNiz]

>> she would never intentionally do anything to endanger the country ...but she did. Or has "I didn't intentionally mean to..." now become a valid excuse for every illegal activity?

I can't believe that we're still expected to vote for Hilary, I mean since she is clueless enough to do this, do we REALLY want her making key decisions around running the whole country? Hell no.

Oh, my!

[Taco Cowboy]

... I don't see why anyone would think this lawless regime that interprets and re-interprets laws in whatever way is expedient at the moment would have any other attitude towards the classification system. They do what they want, when they want, and the same things they howled about during the previous administration they are excusing now ...

When I arrived here (in the US) it was *Heaven*

It was so different from the place I was from

The laws were laws, and anyone, including the President, when they violate the law, got prosecuted --- and that did happen, to Nixon

Couple of decades on, I, an immigrant, starting to feel something wasn't right

I did not know if it was me or if it was the world, but something was not right

More and more I noticed that laws were not followed, more and more I noticed people got off scot free, just because they could (by rank, by money, by connection, or all of the above)

And then we have Obama --- the ultimate antithesis of what America is all about (at least to me)

Law is not law, Constitution is shit, Privacy is a joke, Bill of Rights? Fuck it!

(shaking my head)

I dunno man ... the time I escaped China the laws turned into shit. Everything was fucked up, cars had to stop on green light and proceed on red light because "Red is our color"

I have that feeling - when I went back to China for business trips - that China has been improving - not everything is upside down in China

But when I came back to America ... more things are getting upside down --- culminating in Obama's latest 'words of wisdom'

The other day Obama told us to let Big Brother in if we want online protection (see my submit at
https://slashdot.org/submissio... which Slashdot decides not to publish), and now ... "There's classified, and then there's classified"

What the fuck is that, man?

Is this still the United States of America which I used to know? Or has the US gone total bonker?

Re:Oh, my!

[tburkhol]

The laws were laws, and anyone, including the President, when they violate the law, got prosecuted --- and that did happen, to Nixon

Well, not really. Nixon resigned before he was impeached (ie, he avoided Senate trial), and Ford pardoned him so there never would be a criminal trial. Sure, Nixon lost his job, suffers some disgrace, but he was never prosecuted, let alone convicted. For serious crimes that almost certainly were committed and in which Nixon was almost certainly complicit.

How about the Keating Five, in 1989, who took money from S&L captain Keating to shut down a federal investigation of his bank? Keating got to go to jail for fraud, but those senators? One of them ran for President in 2008.

My point is, let's not pretend that politicians doing whatever the fuck they like, without consequence, is anything particularly new. If you're upset that Obama managed to push through the barely constitutional AHCA, you should be equally upset that Bush managed to push through the barely constitutional PATRIOT act.

If you think this is new, it's either because you've just started paying attention or because the brainwashing is just kicking in