Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 06-12-2016, 10:55 PM
crypto is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,175
Richard Parker, Congratulations! You have seen the light.



Anyone on this board have a security clearance, or know someone who does?

Ask them, regardless of party affiliation, what they think about this.

Anyone who chalks this up as "no big deal" is either deluding themselves or has no idea what security classifications are all about, nor do they understand the rules on handling classified emails.

Here, let me help you.

This is an open letter to Obama, written by a number of intelligence officials.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/20...lintons-emails

(And before you Clinton fans start complaining about the website, pick whatever website you wish... This is an open letter and it is posted on a number of different sites, and they all are the same. I linked to the first one that came up in my search).

If what I have read is true, Hillary Clinton should be indicted on espionage charges.

Whether or not she is actually charged has nothing to do with the law, and everything to do with power and politics.

The woman is a flat-out criminal. And she knows that her supporters are not paying attention and/or simply don't care.

The US has turned into a pathetic reality TV show. I honestly don't understand how anyone with a brain could vote for this woman. Don't like Trump? Fine. But for all that is holy, is this the best we can do?

Read the letter carefully.... The FBI and the NSA know. If there is any justice left in the United States, she should be going to jail. And this is why Bernie Sanders is staying in the race. He would be crazy to pull out now.
  #252  
Old 06-12-2016, 11:10 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by crypto View Post
Read the letter carefully.... The FBI and the NSA know. If there is any justice left in the United States, she should be going to jail. And this is why Bernie Sanders is staying in the race. He would be crazy to pull out now.
Yes I read the letter, and gave up as soon as I noticed that they had swallowed what the "Guccifer" hacker declared.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...server-n568206
Quote:
A source with knowledge of the probe into Clinton's email setup told NBC News that with Guccifer in U.S. custody, investigators fully intend to question him about her server.

When pressed by NBC News, Lazar, 44, could provide no documentation to back up his claims, nor did he ever release anything online supporting his allegations, as he had frequently done with past hacks. The FBI's review of the Clinton server logs showed no sign of hacking, according to a source familiar with the case.

Brian Fallon, national press secretary for Clinton's presidential campaign, said Guccifer's claims were baseless.

"There is absolutely no basis to believe the claims made by this criminal from his prison cell," said Fallon. "In addition to the fact that he offers no proof to support his claims, his descriptions of Secretary Clinton's server are inaccurate. It is unfathomable that he would have gained access to her emails and not leaked them the way he did to his other victims.
Well I have read a lot of letters like that in the past, they usually come from former experts that are not longer involved that usually do take a position at odds of what the ones that are involved in current events or science journals are reporting (many times the odd position they get is based on politics first and then the information is made to match their opinion). Seen them before in cases like IQ and race, climate change denial, tobacco smoke not causing cancer, etc etc.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 06-12-2016 at 11:15 PM.
  #253  
Old 06-12-2016, 11:41 PM
Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by crypto View Post
Richard Parker, Congratulations! You have seen the light.



Anyone on this board have a security clearance, or know someone who does?

Ask them, regardless of party affiliation, what they think about this.

Anyone who chalks this up as "no big deal" is either deluding themselves or has no idea what security classifications are all about, nor do they understand the rules on handling classified emails.

Here, let me help you.

This is an open letter to Obama, written by a number of intelligence officials.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/20...lintons-emails

(And before you Clinton fans start complaining about the website, pick whatever website you wish... This is an open letter and it is posted on a number of different sites, and they all are the same. I linked to the first one that came up in my search).

If what I have read is true, Hillary Clinton should be indicted on espionage charges.

Whether or not she is actually charged has nothing to do with the law, and everything to do with power and politics.

The woman is a flat-out criminal. And she knows that her supporters are not paying attention and/or simply don't care.

The US has turned into a pathetic reality TV show. I honestly don't understand how anyone with a brain could vote for this woman. Don't like Trump? Fine. But for all that is holy, is this the best we can do?

Read the letter carefully.... The FBI and the NSA know. If there is any justice left in the United States, she should be going to jail. And this is why Bernie Sanders is staying in the race. He would be crazy to pull out now.
I have had security clearance. I know the classification system inside and out. I have also worked in IT. And I'm not impressed.

You'll also notice an interesting regularity...the big names on that list all worked/were appointed under Dubyah's administration. Funny how that works out. Why would any of those people have any reason to criticize Hillary?

For the umpteenth time...give me a break.
  #254  
Old 06-12-2016, 11:45 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Your invalid argument was that since important, sensitive matters crossed her desk,* they must necessarily have been dealt with through her BlackBerry.

In actual fact, Clinton did not conduct all the business of the State Department through her BlackBerry. She conducted business using conversations in person, conversations by telephone, State Department computers and cables, and even physical documents, among other alternatives to using a BlackBerry and nothing else.

Your construction:



---contains the tacit implication that the reason Clinton is Bad and Wrong is that she used her BlackBerry for all that "secret info on negotiations, intelligence [and] policy"--for all that crossed her desk. But for that to be true, we would have to assume that she did her entire job through the BlackBerry. We would have to assume that she did no part of the job through in-person and telephone conversations, through State Department cables, etc.

And that's plainly ridiculous.


*(see the quoted posts below for the beginning of the discussion)
I didnt use the word Blackberry once so I have no idea wtf you're on about.
  #255  
Old 06-13-2016, 12:12 AM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Ace View Post
I have had security clearance. I know the classification system inside and out. I have also worked in IT. And I'm not impressed.

You'll also notice an interesting regularity...the big names on that list all worked/were appointed under Dubyah's administration. Funny how that works out. Why would any of those people have any reason to criticize Hillary?

For the umpteenth time...give me a break.
I did a search for it and literally every site was derp.
  #256  
Old 06-13-2016, 02:25 AM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
It was the post the re-bumped this thread, immediately preceding your comments. But here you go, no need to scroll up...
Wouldn't you just know it, a pay-wall, and my subscription to the Wall Street Journal has lapsed. Again.

Intrepid Google monkey, "Clinton e-mails drone strikes" did the job, gave me a wealth of links to news outlets with essentially the same story. Best I can tell, just skimming, pretty much all of them rely on the same WSJ story. Except one.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...ocuous-n500586

From January, discussing the same events of 2011 and 2012

Quote:
The classified material included in the latest batch of Hillary Clinton emails flagged by an internal watchdog involved discussions of CIA drone strikes, which are among the worst kept secrets in Washington, senior U.S. officials briefed on the matter tell NBC News.

The officials say the emails included relatively "innocuous" conversations by State Department officials about the CIA drone program, which technically is considered a "Special Access Program" because officials are briefed on it only if they have a "need to know."

As a legal matter, the U.S. government does not acknowledge that the CIA kills militants with drones. The fact that the CIA conducts drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen, however, has long been known. Senior officials, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein and former CIA Director Leon Panetta, have publicly discussed CIA drones....
Now, I do not claim to be in a position to offer authoritative discernment about these two diverging narratives, though the latter does seem rather more calm. Perhaps if I just hum a few bars of "It Ain't Necessarily So"?

Quote:
....The responsible thing to do about that, at a minimum, is complain! And, I suspect, that's the least she could have done.
Perhaps. Would she have done so publicly, would that have been wise? Or would we be arguing whether or not she damaged national security by drawing our enemies attention to our deficiencies?

Last edited by elucidator; 06-13-2016 at 02:27 AM.
  #257  
Old 06-13-2016, 09:47 AM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by crypto View Post
Richard Parker, Congratulations! You have seen the light.
Sadly, I'm afraid I haven't seen the same light you're looking at. I think it is quite unlikely that Hillary Clinton committed a crime. I think she was probably negligent, but not grossly negligent, much less reckless. Nor do I think it would be an intelligent exercise of prosecutorial discretion to go after her, given that it would be a departure from how such cases have been prosecuted in the past.
  #258  
Old 06-13-2016, 09:55 AM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Wouldn't you just know it, a pay-wall, and my subscription to the Wall Street Journal has lapsed. Again.
I didn't get a pay-wall, and I have no subscription. Try googling the headline and clicking the link. I'll quote the relevant part:

Quote:
At the center of a criminal probe involving Hillary Clintonís handling of classified information is a series of emails between American diplomats in Islamabad and their superiors in Washington about whether to oppose specific drone strikes in Pakistan.

. . .

Some of the emails were then forwarded by Mrs. Clintonís aides to her personal email account, which routed them to a server she kept at her home in suburban New York when she was secretary of state, the officials said. Investigators have raised concerns that Mrs. Clintonís personal server was less secure than State Department systems.

. . .

State Department officials told FBI investigators they communicated via the less-secure system on a few instances, according to congressional and law-enforcement officials. It happened when decisions about imminent strikes had to be relayed fast and the U.S. diplomats in Pakistan or Washington didnít have ready access to a more-secure system, either because it was night or they were traveling.
You're obviously free to disbelieve that reporting, but there are no "diverging narratives." The NBC story is talking about the separate issue of whether any discussion of the drone program violates the classification rules. It does, but I think that's a clear example of over-classification and do not fault Hillary for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Perhaps. Would she have done so publicly, would that have been wise? Or would we be arguing whether or not she damaged national security by drawing our enemies attention to our deficiencies?
You're suggesting that she did so privately. By all indications--including that she continued to use these same systems, which would have been a pretty huge bit of hypocrisy if she had--she did not.
  #259  
Old 06-13-2016, 10:00 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,769
I was active duty military -- now I'm a military civilian. I've had a security clearance for many years. Hillary made mistakes and exercised poor judgment in handling email. These are marks against her, but IMO she'd be a far, far better choice than Trump even with a hundred such marks against her. From my understanding, there's no evidence of criminality. In my experience, mishandling classified information is very common (someone emailing classified stuff on the wrong server; leaving out a classified doc in public; forgetting to mark something classified), and never results in criminal sanctions unless it was done for profit or for treasonous reasons. I've seen it dozens of times, and the worst punishment for mishandling classified info by foolishness that I've ever seen was a months-long ban from transmitting or carrying classified data along with a retraining period on proper handling procedures.
  #260  
Old 06-13-2016, 10:01 AM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Hillary made mistakes and exercised poor judgment in handling email. These are marks against her, but IMO she'd be a far, far better choice than Trump even with a hundred such marks against her. From my understanding, there's no evidence of criminality. In my experience, mishandling classified information is very common (someone emailing classified stuff on the wrong server; leaving out a classified doc in public; forgetting to mark something classified), and never results in criminal sanctions unless it was done for profit or for treasonous reasons. I've seen it dozens of times, and the worst punishment for mishandling classified info by foolishness that I've ever seen was a months-long ban from transmitting or carrying classified data along with a retraining period on proper handling procedures.
I endorse every statement in this post, and do not see it to contradict anything I've said in this thread.
  #261  
Old 06-13-2016, 10:40 AM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
...You're suggesting that she did so privately. By all indications--including that she continued to use these same systems, which would have been a pretty huge bit of hypocrisy if she had--she did not.
Nope. Just asking if such a public disclosure of a weakness would be wise, or politically advantageous. If you want to suggest that's what I'm suggesting, that's entirely your business, but I much prefer the words that come out of my mouth to originate there.

That said, I fully endorse the clarifications you have offered. I intend to work towards changing my mind to align with them. Ah! Well, that was easy, didn't take any time at all!

Last edited by elucidator; 06-13-2016 at 10:41 AM.
  #262  
Old 06-13-2016, 10:45 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,586
You like words coming out of your mouth so much, I am surprised you're picky about the origin at all.
  #263  
Old 06-13-2016, 10:46 AM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Nope. Just asking if such a public disclosure of a weakness would be wise, or politically advantageous. If you want to suggest that's what I'm suggesting, that's entirely your business, but I much prefer the words that come out of my mouth to originate there.

That said, I fully endorse the clarifications you have offered. I intend to work towards changing my mind to align with them. Ah! Well, that was easy, didn't take any time at all!
OK...but after all the teeth-pulling to get you to finally read the article, you have no comment on it? Your previous posts suggested you would be quite troubled if she sent insecure emails concerning imminent drone strikes. Is that not what you meant to suggest?
  #264  
Old 06-13-2016, 10:50 AM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
You like words coming out of your mouth so much, I am surprised you're picky about the origin at all.
You don't have to read any of them. I'll get over it.
  #265  
Old 06-13-2016, 10:57 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
You don't have to read any of them.
Actually, I do. I was assigned 40 hours of Community Service.
  #266  
Old 06-13-2016, 11:03 AM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
OK...but after all the teeth-pulling to get you to finally read the article, you have no comment on it? Your previous posts suggested you would be quite troubled if she sent insecure emails concerning imminent drone strikes. Is that not what you meant to suggest?
My suspicion, well founded or not, is that she afoul of that technicality mentioned in the article I cited.

Quote:
...The officials say the emails included relatively "innocuous" conversations by State Department officials about the CIA drone program, which technically is considered a "Special Access Program" because officials are briefed on it only if they have a "need to know."

As a legal matter, the U.S. government does not acknowledge that the CIA kills militants with drones. The fact that the CIA conducts drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen, however, has long been known. Senior officials, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein and former CIA Director Leon Panetta, have publicly discussed CIA drones....
To oversimplify, questioning and/or discussing the wisdom of the drone strike program is a far cry from "Maybe we should reconsider our scheduled attack on Ahmed Camelbugger, now set for next Tuesday morning at 9:30 am, Kabul time...".
  #267  
Old 06-13-2016, 11:05 AM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Actually, I do. I was assigned 40 hours of Community Service.
Oh, you poor dear! Lethal injection was not an option?
  #268  
Old 06-13-2016, 11:06 AM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
My suspicion, well founded or not, is that she afoul of that technicality mentioned in the article I cited. . . .To oversimplify, questioning and/or discussing the wisdom of the drone strike program is a far cry from "Maybe we should reconsider our scheduled attack on Ahmed Camelbugger, now set for next Tuesday morning at 9:30 am, Kabul time...".
Yes, I realized that was your position three posts ago, which is why I expressly explained why you'd be wrong to think that.
  #269  
Old 06-13-2016, 11:13 AM
crypto is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Ace View Post
I have had security clearance. I know the classification system inside and out. I have also worked in IT. And I'm not impressed.

You'll also notice an interesting regularity...the big names on that list all worked/were appointed under Dubyah's administration. Funny how that works out. Why would any of those people have any reason to criticize Hillary?

For the umpteenth time...give me a break.
Please.

You throw out something untrue to dismiss the letter. When exactly was William Binney "appointed"? Do some research.

Your reply proves you have never had a security clearance. Easy to throw that out here, but no way to prove it, is there? But since you claim you know the system "inside and out", we all need to take your word.

Give me a break.
  #270  
Old 06-13-2016, 11:15 AM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,097
Quote:
Yes, I realized that was your position three posts ago, which is why I expressly explained why you'd be wrong to think that.
I have already clearly stated, more than once, that my opinions on this are not authoritative. Nor are they based on any exceptional level of expertise. Are yours? With all due awe, of course.

Last edited by elucidator; 06-13-2016 at 11:16 AM.
  #271  
Old 06-13-2016, 11:15 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
Yes, I realized that was your position three posts ago, which is why I expressly explained why you'd be wrong to think that.
You'll have to excuse him, he much prefers the words that go into his ears originate from his own mouth.
  #272  
Old 06-13-2016, 11:17 AM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,097
Ooh. Snap.
  #273  
Old 06-13-2016, 11:24 AM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
I have already clearly stated, more than once, that my opinions on this are not authoritative. Nor are they based on any exceptional level of expertise. Are yours? With all due awe, of course.
I'm not asking you to be an expert, or trying to appeal to my own expertise, elucidator. I'm asking you to read my posts before replying to them.

Obviously, whether you want to address my take on things is entirely your call. But if you're going to address it, please take the time to read what I've written. I addressed your comments about the NBC News "diverging" narrative in Post #258.
  #274  
Old 06-13-2016, 01:02 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
When it was originally reported, my view of the scandal was that it was not properly a national security scandal but instead a scandal over the effort to hide emails from FOIA access. I believed that it was unlikely that she sent any truly sensitive information, as distinct from technically classified stuff like the existence of the drone program. I also believed that the security for the home server was likely good enough for these purposes.

In retrospect, I was incredibly naive about the level of security necessary to protect an email server from foreign governments, and the level of security employed for officials like SecState. I was also naive about Clinton's understanding of what information is sensitive. As it turns out, Clinton had people telling her how vulnerable this made her communications, and she continued to do it anyway--and sent highly sensitive information over a server without even using any form of encryption.

Here's what was reported last week in the Washington Post (and has previously been reported elsewhere):



That's pretty damning. If security people were telling her to knock it off for good reason, she acknowledged those concerns, and then essentially ignored them, then this is a justified national security scandal. I still doubt that a crime was committed, given the scope of the criminal law. But it has caused me to downgrade my estimation of Clinton's judgment by a good notch. I'm not sure she has worse judgment than her competitors, but it's now a closer call in my book.
I'm pretty mixed on this to be honest. On the one hand, having had a security clearance myself and having seen co-workers and peers who have screwed up on security get hammered, it's a bit infuriating to see someone like Hillary get away with flaunting the rules. On the other hand, top officials, regardless of who they are, often do just that with little or no consequence, so the fact that Hillary did it too just shows the dual standards between the run of the mill grunts like me and my peers and co-workers and the upper echelons of our government wrt elected or appointed officials (or even very high level government workers). It sucks...but it's the way things are.

This isn't another manufactured scandal such as the wolf crying the Republicans have done over and over in the past decade or so, especially since Obama became president (but really since Clinton's baby daddy war president)...it's a real issue and it definitely shows that Hillary considers herself entitled and immune from the the rules that the ordinary grunts have to abide by (or lose their clearances and, usually, their jobs too). But there really is something to the 'everyone does it' meme wrt high level officials, so if we are going to hold her accountable we need to do so with everyone else as well (and I think we should).

That said, it hasn't changed my own mind about voting for her in November. She is still, even despite this, the least bad choice and I decided to vote for her knowing full well that she had done this and knowing what the real world implications of what she did actually are, unfiltered by partisan politics I see so many in this thread displaying, one way or the other.
  #275  
Old 06-13-2016, 01:45 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by crypto View Post
Anyone on this board have a security clearance, or know someone who does?

Ask them, regardless of party affiliation, what they think about this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crypto
Your reply proves you have never had a security clearance. Easy to throw that out here, but no way to prove it, is there? But since you claim you know the system "inside and out", we all need to take your word.

Give me a break.
I think it's pretty ridiculous to ask people if they have a security clearance, and then when someone says they do, but don't share your opinion, you don't believe them. I'm sure you could come up with a few simple questions to test someone's knowledge of the security clearance system... like I might ask you: Describe what type of information would be classified above Top Secret?

Quote:
This is an open letter to Obama, written by a number of intelligence officials.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/20...lintons-emails

(And before you Clinton fans start complaining about the website, pick whatever website you wish... This is an open letter and it is posted on a number of different sites, and they all are the same. I linked to the first one that came up in my search).

If what I have read is true, Hillary Clinton should be indicted on espionage charges.
You should be aware that at least three or four of the people who signed that letter have been convicted of mishandling classified information during the Obama Administration. Several have been very active in the anti-war movement. More than a couple are just outright loons, having made claims along the lines that the 9/11 attacks were a "false flag" operation. These aren't impartial intelligence professionals sharing an unbiased view of national security; they are advocates for their own agendas. Which is totally fine, as long as people don't mistake them for people without an agenda.

And this group doesn't really have a terribly impressive record. In August 2010, they warned that an Israeli attack on Iran was only weeks away unless Obama publicly condemned such an attack, and accused Obama of being too trusting of Netanyahu. Considering the state of Obama-Netanyahu relations, the accusation that they are too close to either other is a real belly-laugher.

And a few years earlier, this group opined that a "cornered" George Bush had psychological problems that would cause him to attack Iran unless impeached. So, there's that.
  #276  
Old 06-13-2016, 04:03 PM
Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by crypto View Post
Your reply proves you have never had a security clearance. Easy to throw that out here, but no way to prove it, is there? But since you claim you know the system "inside and out", we all need to take your word.
Please, since my reply has 'proven' that I've never had a clearance, do so. Prove it. Bring all your deep knowledge to bear.

Last edited by Johnny Ace; 06-13-2016 at 04:05 PM.
  #277  
Old 06-13-2016, 04:40 PM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,970

The Moderator Speaks


Quote:
Originally Posted by crypto View Post
Please.

You throw out something untrue to dismiss the letter. When exactly was William Binney "appointed"? Do some research.

Your reply proves you have never had a security clearance. Easy to throw that out here, but no way to prove it, is there? But since you claim you know the system "inside and out", we all need to take your word.

Give me a break.
It's against the rules to accuse another poster of lying. Warning issued. Please don't do it again.
  #278  
Old 06-13-2016, 04:43 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by crypto View Post
Richard Parker, Congratulations! You have seen the light.



Anyone on this board have a security clearance, or know someone who does?

Ask them, regardless of party affiliation, what they think about this.

Anyone who chalks this up as "no big deal" is either deluding themselves or has no idea what security classifications are all about, nor do they understand the rules on handling classified emails.

Here, let me help you.

This is an open letter to Obama, written by a number of intelligence officials.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/20...lintons-emails

(And before you Clinton fans start complaining about the website, pick whatever website you wish... This is an open letter and it is posted on a number of different sites, and they all are the same. I linked to the first one that came up in my search).

If what I have read is true, Hillary Clinton should be indicted on espionage charges.

Whether or not she is actually charged has nothing to do with the law, and everything to do with power and politics.

The woman is a flat-out criminal. And she knows that her supporters are not paying attention and/or simply don't care.

The US has turned into a pathetic reality TV show. I honestly don't understand how anyone with a brain could vote for this woman. Don't like Trump? Fine. But for all that is holy, is this the best we can do?

Read the letter carefully.... The FBI and the NSA know. If there is any justice left in the United States, she should be going to jail. And this is why Bernie Sanders is staying in the race. He would be crazy to pull out now.
A couple of points.

Regardless of whether or not Hillary broke the law, General Patraeus intentionally gave classified material to a woman he was having an affair with. He did not go to jail. So why should Hillary?

The FBI director is on record saying that he would resign rather than let anyone pressure him on this matter and everyone on both sides of the aisle seem to believe him (he has an impeccable reputation for professional integrity). The white house can no more hurry him than they can slow him down without causing severe damage to themselves. There are few things more damning than high level officials resigning in protest over the politicization of their agency.

I agree that this is Bernie's only hope.
  #279  
Old 06-13-2016, 04:51 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by crypto View Post
Please.

You throw out something untrue to dismiss the letter. When exactly was William Binney "appointed"? Do some research.

Your reply proves you have never had a security clearance. Easy to throw that out here, but no way to prove it, is there? But since you claim you know the system "inside and out", we all need to take your word.

Give me a break.
I don't know where you live but security clearances are not really that hard to come by if you live in some parts of the country. Almost every IT professional in the greater DC area seems to have some sort of security clearance. A lot of the stuff is entirely uninteresting to anyone but is classified because its easier to explain an overabundance of caution than missing something that ought to have been classified.

I hear stories about publicly available information being stamped classified because its in a file where there are one or two items that should be classified.
  #280  
Old 06-13-2016, 05:11 PM
Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi
I don't know where you live but security clearances are not really that hard to come by if you live in some parts of the country.
Or served in the military.

crypto seems to be laboring under the assumption that the mere fact of claiming a clearance is by definition disclosing classified information. He is wrong, of course, but he thinks he 'got me.'

Makes me wonder why he asked the question in the first place, if that is what he thinks.

Last edited by Johnny Ace; 06-13-2016 at 05:15 PM.
  #281  
Old 06-13-2016, 05:22 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,586
I'd still love to know how you came to know the classification system inside and out.
  #282  
Old 06-13-2016, 05:25 PM
Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I'd still love to know how you came to know the classification system inside and out.
U.S. Naval Academy, Class of '86. Standard part of officer training. Are we clear now?

Last edited by Johnny Ace; 06-13-2016 at 05:26 PM.
  #283  
Old 06-13-2016, 05:32 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,586
Uh, ok. Little bit of a bold statement to make based on a college course you took 30 years ago.
  #284  
Old 06-13-2016, 05:37 PM
Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Uh, ok. Little bit of a bold statement to make based on a college course you took 30 years ago.
Not my only source of working knowledge of the system, but that's all I'm going to mention. Yeah I know, it's easy to be mysterious about it. Too bad.
  #285  
Old 06-13-2016, 05:41 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,586
Yeah, I figure you're overstating your mastery of the subject but whatever.
  #286  
Old 06-13-2016, 05:47 PM
Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,064
Aww, I'll just have to live with that.
  #287  
Old 06-13-2016, 05:53 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Ace View Post
Aww, I'll just have to live with that.
The familiar cry of the internet blowhard. Never loses it's charm.
  #288  
Old 06-13-2016, 09:02 PM
Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 5,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
The familiar cry of the internet blowhard. Never loses it's charm.
Nice innuendo when you know I can't possibly defend myself. Nevertheless, I have shown that I have experience with the topic.

How many security clearances have YOU had? Lemme help you; it's an integer greater than -1 and less than 1.
  #289  
Old 06-13-2016, 09:28 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,586
Look, you're the guy who bragged he knew a fairly complex topic "inside and out". I've seen lots of high officials and departments have points of disagreement. I have seen posters here make reasonable seeming testaments of their level of experience with security clearances. No, you have not impressed me that you know the issues inside and out.
  #290  
Old 06-13-2016, 09:44 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,922
Johnny Ace seems well-informed to me. What, specifically, do you think he is wrong about, CarnalK?
  #291  
Old 06-14-2016, 08:49 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Johnny Ace seems well-informed to me. What, specifically, do you think he is wrong about, CarnalK?
Oh? Could you point to something he said here that gave you that impression? Because I have just looked over his posts and failed to find really anything of substance. Mostly just standard internet bickering and "only anti-Clinton people think this means anything".
  #292  
Old 06-14-2016, 08:58 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,922
You won't point out anything you think he's wrong about, so you want me to pick out what he's said that sounds reasonable? I asked you first.
  #293  
Old 06-14-2016, 09:57 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
You won't point out anything you think he's wrong about, so you want me to pick out what he's said that sounds reasonable? I asked you first.
That's my point: he hasn't said anything. Not one of his posts has demonstrated knowledge or ignorance on the handling or mishandling of classified info. He's apparently not at liberty to divulge in even the broadest terms what real world experience he has with handling classified info. Compare that to what, for instance, iiandyiii has posted.
  #294  
Old 06-14-2016, 10:02 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,896
Wikileaks has some emails:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...julian-assange
  #295  
Old 06-14-2016, 10:31 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
That's my point: he hasn't said anything. Not one of his posts has demonstrated knowledge or ignorance on the handling or mishandling of classified info. He's apparently not at liberty to divulge in even the broadest terms what real world experience he has with handling classified info. Compare that to what, for instance, iiandyiii has posted.
He said crypto's post was a load of nonsense, which is a very credible position.

Do you think crypto's post was a good one?
  #296  
Old 06-14-2016, 10:45 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
He said crypto's post was a load of nonsense, which is a very credible position.

Do you think crypto's post was a good one?
No, I don't think it was a good one. Now do you think I know security clearance inside and out?
  #297  
Old 06-14-2016, 11:21 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,922
I literally have no idea why you're so bothered by Johnny Ace.
  #298  
Old 06-14-2016, 11:32 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,586
An appeal to your own authority on the iinternet is always a little annoying. Refusing to even give it's context doubly so. YMMV.
  #299  
Old 06-14-2016, 11:39 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,922
Hey Johnny Ace -- you know the bags used to carry classified stuff? Can you describe how the locks work?
  #300  
Old 06-14-2016, 11:41 AM
Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Hey Johnny Ace -- you know the bags used to carry classified stuff? Can you describe how the locks work?
It took me less than a minute to google that one. Granted it took a few tries to get the name of the bags right, but that's not a good test.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:12 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017