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.
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.
As Orwell said "but some animals are more equal than others".
Passionately Indifferent
"she would never intentionally do anything to endanger the country"
She is running for the presidency, isn't she?
>> 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?
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.
Our great Leader, President Barack Hussein Obama, recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, through Whom only all our aspirations can and will become reality, has spoken. The issue is settled, the debate must stop. To keep arguing would mean doubting the good faith and wisdom of our great Leader, President, Barack Hussein Obama, recipient of the Nobel Prize, through Whom only all our aspirations can and will become reality, and that would be treasonous at best. I for one accept without condition the Truth as revealed by our great Leader, President, Barack Hussein Obama, recipient of the Nobel Prize, through Whom only all our aspirations can and will become reality, and will never doubt His hallowed and wise words.
I am not and I will never be counted among the malcontents. I can assure this great country and our great Leader, President, Barack Hussein Obama, recipient of the Nobel Prize, through Whom only all our aspirations can and will become reality, that I will be always faithful and will not hesitate to inform on any traitor expressing dissent and spreading malcontent among the populace.
security wonk rule of thumb:
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 ...
It ain't what they call you. It's what you answer to. http://mylyceum.us/
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.
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?
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
>> "She would never intentionally put America in any kind of jeopardy"
Obama is quite the wordsmith in his own right. That quote is the nicest way I've ever heard anyone say either, "she's so fucking stupid she wouldn't know if she put America in jeopardy," and/or "she's so focused on her own wealth and power that putting America in jeopardy isn't even on her radar when she makes decisions."
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.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
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.
A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
On my road they lowered the speed limit to 25. Then they set up personalized speed traps for people they're after. They pull over and set up the trap as the person nears, then only point the gun at that one car. As soon as its gone, the cop drives away. Seen it 4 times in the last month and a half (they're after flagged "dangerous drivers" that they track with the states license plate scanners).
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. . .
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.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
First off, reduce the number of laws that pertain to non-violent and victim-less crimes. That would include drug laws, which should be health issues, not legal issues. How many laws are on the books? Obviously too many, and a significant percentage are for behaviors that don't affect society or other citizens. Meanwhile, other activities that severely hurt society are not even against the law (e.g., off-shoring billions of dollars to avoid taxes, increasing the tax burden on everyone else). Further, we have a for-profit prison system that needs to fill beds to make a profit. Right there you clearly have a conflict of interest. So you could also get rid of all for-profit prisons. The are a number of changes that could be made that would reduce the number of people charged, while appling the law much more evenly across society.
A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
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 ... "There's classified, and then there's classified"
https://slashdot.org/submissio... which Slashdot decides not to publish), and now
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?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
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.