Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

When unelected (and elected) personnel with security clearances don't take their oaths seriously:

May to confront Trump as UK police stop sharing attack information with U.S.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-brita ... SKBN18L0QU

There are a lot of fast and loose attitudes about the handling of privileged info, and many apologetics for this kind of thing when it fits someone's personal belief or narrative. But at the end of the day there are very good reasons for keeping secrets. I'm all for a discussion about overclassification, but people need to start spending their entire lives in prison for this crap.

CID1990 wrote: There are a lot of fast and loose attitudes about the handling of privileged info

Israel has changed the way it shares intelligence with the U.S., Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman said Wednesday. The move comes after U.S. President Donald Trump divulged to Russia classified information reportedly obtained from Israel.

“We discussed the issue with our friends in America,” Liberman said in an interview with Army Radio. “We did our checks.” The defense chief didn’t specify what changes had been made, saying: “Not everything needs to be discussed in the media, some things need to be talked about in closed rooms.”

http://www.politico.eu/article/israel-c ... to-russia/

Skjellyfetti wrote:

CID1990 wrote: There are a lot of fast and loose attitudes about the handling of privileged info

Israel has changed the way it shares intelligence with the U.S., Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman said Wednesday. The move comes after U.S. President Donald Trump divulged to Russia classified information reportedly obtained from Israel.

“We discussed the issue with our friends in America,” Liberman said in an interview with Army Radio. “We did our checks.” The defense chief didn’t specify what changes had been made, saying: “Not everything needs to be discussed in the media, some things need to be talked about in closed rooms.”

http://www.politico.eu/article/israel-c ... to-russia/

If you read between my lines Jelly, youll see I was referring to this as well

but your insta-reply indicating I may not be sufficiently aware is duly noted


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Everybody on every side appears to be loose and free with information these days. I'm no Trump fan, but at least he has the office behind him that permits him to use classified information as he sees fit (even if we all mostly agree that he doesn't have the critical thinking to make us confident about his decision making on what to say and when - but enough people in the past election were okay with that). Once you move away from the President's level, though, there's not a lot of leeway, other than whistle-blowing (and there are proper channels for that as well) for giving out information that isn't yours to give out. Sharing crime scene photos from Manchester with the NYT certainly doesn't fall into the whistle-blowing realm.

GannonFan wrote:Sharing crime scene photos from Manchester with the NYT certainly doesn't fall into the whistle-blowing realm.

Exactly- this served no purpose whatsoever except to appeal to the ghoulish interest by NYT readers

It had no value in terms of government transparency or anything related to that

I hope we catch the asshole who forwarded it on



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All this as "Chelsea" Manning gets off really easy. Remind me again what "good" leaks are and "bad" ones are? They're good when someone does it to embarrass a president with an R next to his name, is that what it is?

Manning should have been made an example of at the time and maybe there wouldn't be so much now.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Jjoey52 wrote:Manning should have been made an example of at the time and maybe there wouldn't be so much now.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Manning was made an example of...but Obama decided in the last days to reduce his prison sentence from 35 years to 7...so his recent release.

Pwns wrote:Remind me again what "good" leaks are and "bad" ones are? They're good when someone does it to embarrass a president with an R next to his name, is that what it is?

Or when a CIA analyst's husband writes an op-ed arguing against Iraq possessing WMD.

Honest question- do we know the leaks came from the US side, or is everyone just assuming that do to the other recent leaks?

CID1990 wrote:

GannonFan wrote:Sharing crime scene photos from Manchester with the NYT certainly doesn't fall into the whistle-blowing realm.

Exactly- this served no purpose whatsoever except to appeal to the ghoulish interest by NYT readers

It had no value in terms of government transparency or anything related to that

I hope we catch the asshole who forwarded it on



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed. Just awful.

BDKJMU wrote:Honest question- do we know the leaks came from the US side, or is everyone just assuming that do to the other recent leaks?

Yeah, it's the same question with all these leaks. We have no idea where they come from (investigators as well). And, foreign intelligence was on the Trump - Russia connection well before the US. So, perhaps some of those leaks are coming from overseas. But, we have no idea.

I think Britain is saying it was from us... so, we have to assume that's true unless we get some other info, imo.

Personally, I'm ok with some leaks - the one that led to Flynn's firing, for example - I don't think it's a good thing to have a foreign agent as National Security Advisor. But, that's just my opinion. The leak was a crime and whoever did it put their careers and their future on the line. And, they should be prosecuted if caught. I think it was an honorable act, but I get that people disagree.

The leaks on the Manchester bombing aren't defensible, imo.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Pwns wrote:Remind me again what "good" leaks are and "bad" ones are? They're good when someone does it to embarrass a president with an R next to his name, is that what it is?

Or when a CIA analyst's husband writes an op-ed arguing against Iraq possessing WMD.

And the leaker was in fact charged, and his "buddy" the President commuted the sentence without a pardon.

But yeah, he should still be breaking rocks.

This is how I agree in principle but not on the analogy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CID1990 wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
Or when a CIA analyst's husband writes an op-ed arguing against Iraq possessing WMD.

And the leaker was in fact charged, and his "buddy" the President commuted the sentence without a pardon.

But yeah, he should still be breaking rocks.

This is how I agree in principle but not on the analogy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Scooter Libby was the only one charged in the Plame affair, and that was for after the fact obstruction/lying to investigators.

I thought Richard Armitage was the leaker (and wasn't charged with anything)?

Yup, score one for BDK.

Armitage testified truthfully and got off on similar "intent" BS like Clinton

I stand corrected- I was working from memory

The fact remains that I think significant jail time was warranted in all cases




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll add that I have minimized this in the past- Plame was declared... in other words, she wasnt an operations officer. But I dont care for semantics in this or any other case. Somebody beeds to break rocks for each and every breach of protocol when it comes to this kind of thing


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BDKJMU wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
And the leaker was in fact charged, and his "buddy" the President commuted the sentence without a pardon.

But yeah, he should still be breaking rocks.

This is how I agree in principle but not on the analogy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Scooter Libby was the only one charged in the Plame affair, and that was for after the fact obstruction/lying to investigators.

I thought Richard Armitage was the leaker (and wasn't charged with anything)?

You'd think these people would learn that it's not the crime but the cover-up that causes more problems.

CID1990 wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:

http://www.politico.eu/article/israel-c ... to-russia/

If you read between my lines Jelly, youll see I was referring to this as well

but your insta-reply indicating I may not be sufficiently aware is duly noted


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A bit peevish today are we?

CID1990 wrote:When unelected (and elected) personnel with security clearances don't take their oaths seriously:

May to confront Trump as UK police stop sharing attack information with U.S.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-brita ... SKBN18L0QU

There are a lot of fast and loose attitudes about the handling of privileged info, and many apologetics for this kind of thing when it fits someone's personal belief or narrative. But at the end of the day there are very good reasons for keeping secrets. I'm all for a discussion about overclassification, but people need to start spending their entire lives in prison for this crap.

I'm thinking John Baron was behind it...waving that false-flag so he'd have something to tweet about.