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.

18 of 554 comments (clear)

  1. Well, duh by kschendel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Well, duh by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    2. Re:Well, duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

    3. Re:Well, duh by tripleevenfall · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Well, duh by andyring · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes, that is established fact. It is also on record where Hillary was having trouble receiving classified information via secure methods. She specifically instructed one of her staff members to remove the classification markings and send the material to her in an unsecured method.

      http://dailycaller.com/2016/01...

    5. Re:Well, duh by TheCarp · · Score: 5, Funny

      They are an independent administration that don't need no constitutional powers.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    6. Re:Well, duh by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

      Bullshit. Clinton is the Beltway-insider-status-quo's best hope for the Presidency. The Left's best hope for the Presidency is Sanders, and failing to prosecute criminal sociopath Clinton is nothing less than a conscious effort to sabotage him.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    7. Re:Well, duh by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
  2. History by kqc7011 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    Passionately Indifferent
  3. Ummm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "she would never intentionally do anything to endanger the country"

    She is running for the presidency, isn't she?

  4. If so, Petraeus was hosed for political reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:If so, Petraeus was hosed for political reasons by spauldo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
  5. Patraeus by bhcompy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Good for the goose by kilfarsnar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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)
  7. Re:Discretion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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).

  8. Actually, the general categories are: by Salgak1 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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. . .

  9. Re:Discretion by DarkOx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  10. Oh, my! by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... 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?

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !