Comments on: The Question Before The Court http://informedspeculation.com/2006/04/26/the-question-before-the-court/ Refunds Cheerfully Given To All Who Disagree Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:53:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: protein wisdom http://informedspeculation.com/2006/04/26/the-question-before-the-court/comment-page-1/#comment-20994 protein wisdom Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:17:15 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/04/26/the-question-before-the-court/#comment-20994 <strong>Mapping McCarthy, continued</strong> Even as National Democrats are making noises about instituting impeachment proceedings against President Bush (and perhaps even VP Cheney), and more former intel personnel spin their CYA stories for a (thus far) compliant and helpful media (on "60... Mapping McCarthy, continued

Even as National Democrats are making noises about instituting impeachment proceedings against President Bush (and perhaps even VP Cheney), and more former intel personnel spin their CYA stories for a (thus far) compliant and helpful media (on "60…

]]> By: Cato http://informedspeculation.com/2006/04/26/the-question-before-the-court/comment-page-1/#comment-20979 Cato Thu, 27 Apr 2006 14:52:07 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/04/26/the-question-before-the-court/#comment-20979 In looking at the statutes governing classified information and its disclosure, I do not find anything that distinguishes the cupability of disclosure based on current or retired employment status. I would think that the "resignation" option would simply give the resigning officer the right to go to Congress and explain they had resigned as a matter of conscience over matters that were classified, and request an appropriate (i.e. appropriately cleared) forum to air their grievances. Publicly, all they could do unless and until Congress legally made all or some part of the information in question publicly available, would be to state they resigned as a matter of conscience and that they have sought to discuss the matter with Congress. That's certainly enough for people to know something's up and to start looking into policies, without disclosing classified information. That serves the legitimate function of providing accountablity without the compromise of classified information. In looking at the statutes governing classified information and its disclosure, I do not find anything that distinguishes the cupability of disclosure based on current or retired employment status.

I would think that the “resignation” option would simply give the resigning officer the right to go to Congress and explain they had resigned as a matter of conscience over matters that were classified, and request an appropriate (i.e. appropriately cleared) forum to air their grievances. Publicly, all they could do unless and until Congress legally made all or some part of the information in question publicly available, would be to state they resigned as a matter of conscience and that they have sought to discuss the matter with Congress. That’s certainly enough for people to know something’s up and to start looking into policies, without disclosing classified information.

That serves the legitimate function of providing accountablity without the compromise of classified information.

]]> By: The Strata-Sphere » Blog Archive » More Rogue CIA Agents In The Media http://informedspeculation.com/2006/04/26/the-question-before-the-court/comment-page-1/#comment-20975 The Strata-Sphere » Blog Archive » More Rogue CIA Agents In The Media Thu, 27 Apr 2006 14:09:22 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/04/26/the-question-before-the-court/#comment-20975 [...] Addendum: Now I am thinking this could be shady reporting. The quotes in the article above from McGovern are in this AP article from the same period. Still, I would wonder about the claim the VIPS gave the intel to the IAEA - given this article also calls on the CIA to leak. And check out Mark Coffey’s analysis on the legality of ex-CIA discussions with the press.  Fascinating. [...] [...] Addendum: Now I am thinking this could be shady reporting. The quotes in the article above from McGovern are in this AP article from the same period. Still, I would wonder about the claim the VIPS gave the intel to the IAEA – given this article also calls on the CIA to leak. And check out Mark Coffey’s analysis on the legality of ex-CIA discussions with the press.  Fascinating. [...]

]]> By: Fargus http://informedspeculation.com/2006/04/26/the-question-before-the-court/comment-page-1/#comment-20971 Fargus Thu, 27 Apr 2006 12:34:41 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/04/26/the-question-before-the-court/#comment-20971 Gwedd is exactly right. The employee's employment status doesn't change the nature of the information, and whether it's classified or not. I'm not entirely sure on the specifics here at DoD, but I feel pretty confident in saying that a person, retired or not, would still be liable for disclosure of information that he or she knew to be classified. Gwedd is exactly right. The employee’s employment status doesn’t change the nature of the information, and whether it’s classified or not. I’m not entirely sure on the specifics here at DoD, but I feel pretty confident in saying that a person, retired or not, would still be liable for disclosure of information that he or she knew to be classified.

]]> By: Gwedd http://informedspeculation.com/2006/04/26/the-question-before-the-court/comment-page-1/#comment-20969 Gwedd Thu, 27 Apr 2006 12:00:23 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/04/26/the-question-before-the-court/#comment-20969 Comrades, I know that when I left the military I had to sign an agreement that forbid me from discussing any classified information for a period of at least 10 years. Additionally, there were quite a few countries that I was prohibited from travelling to for the same period of time. My security clearance was high-level, and my job entailed analysis of intelligence. My crew was also trained to deliver nuclear ordnance (as were all the others in the wing). However, other individuals with lower-level clearances also had the same restrictions upon leaving the service, so that it seems that any level of security clearance would trigger such safeguards. I have no problem with any type of restrictions. Just because someone doesn't work with classified information doesn't mean that the information is no longer classified. It is not up to the individual to determine classification, and what should or should not be released. If someone wishes to divulge classified information, then they should be held accountable for their actions, regardless of their motives. Just because you have a clearance doesn't mean you have access to ALL the data. It means that you get access to the data that falls within your classification level and for which you have a need to know. Thus, someone leaking classified information may only know part of the whole situation, and, when that information is put into context may show a completely different picture than what the leaker first thought. Kind of confusing, but it's still early..... need more black joe... Respects, Gwedd Comrades,

I know that when I left the military I had to sign an agreement that forbid me from discussing any classified information for a period of at least 10 years. Additionally, there were quite a few countries that I was prohibited from travelling to for the same period of time.

My security clearance was high-level, and my job entailed analysis of intelligence. My crew was also trained to deliver nuclear ordnance (as were all the others in the wing). However, other individuals with lower-level clearances also had the same restrictions upon leaving the service, so that it seems that any level of security clearance would trigger such safeguards.

I have no problem with any type of restrictions. Just because someone doesn’t work with classified information doesn’t mean that the information is no longer classified. It is not up to the individual to determine classification, and what should or should not be released.

If someone wishes to divulge classified information, then they should be held accountable for their actions, regardless of their motives. Just because you have a clearance doesn’t mean you have access to ALL the data. It means that you get access to the data that falls within your classification level and for which you have a need to know.

Thus, someone leaking classified information may only know part of the whole situation, and, when that information is put into context may show a completely different picture than what the leaker first thought.

Kind of confusing, but it’s still early….. need more black joe…

Respects,

Gwedd

]]>