Effect of former SEAL's "No Easy Day" book on election

[With Rye]

So a former SEAL wrote a book about his firsthand account of the Bin Laden raid. It'll come out in September.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012...n-book.html?hp

How much of an effect will this have on the election?

Other news sites have copies of the book already and from what they've summarized, the author's not a huge fan of Obama.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/08/bin-laden-book/

[jasg]

The Atlantic has a piece up saying that the author is probably facing legal issues over disclosure of classified information.

If so, it seems it would complicate all the claims of leaks in the administration.

[Enkel]

Originally Posted by jasg

The Atlantic has a piece up saying that the author is probably facing legal issues over disclosure of classified information.

If so, it seems it would complicate all the claims of leaks in the administration.

I was amazed that a trade publisher didn't get it vetted. They knew they were supposed to. I remember them claiming that part of the reason to classify EVERY image from the raid was to prevent it from being used as a recruitment tool. Can you imagine this book being any less of a recruitment tool?

So, now the question becomes... if the author got an advance, who will end up paying out to the DOJ? The publisher who failed to get the book vetted or the author?

It will be interesting to see if the book actually goes on sale.

[Enkel]

Originally Posted by With Rye

How much of an effect will this have on the election?

From the author:

“My worry from the beginning is, you know, it’s a political season. This book is not political whatsoever. It doesn’t bad-mouth either party, and we specifically chose Sept. 11 to keep it out of the politics. If these — crazies on either side of the aisle want to make it political, then shame on them.”

Yup, that's why it is being released in Sept instead of mid Nov to avoid the political, election stuff.

I have no respect for the author who has now provided a recruitment tool to the enemy. If he winds up dead, it will be by his own doing and by his own need for attention.

I have no doubt the Right will rally around this attention whore because they want more battles, that's how they make their money.

[elucidator]

Depends. If the primary function of the book is a propaganda ploy to slur Obama, it has already succeeded, its out there, "Navy Seal Hero Says Obama Is A Wussy". No book has to be produced, sold or read, it has had its impact.

On the other hand, they guy just might be a heedless asshole, and none of this is high-minded treachery and skulduggery. Certainly possible.

[jasg]

Where is McCain demanding a leak investigation?

If this book is investigated, will it be the DOJ or DOD? When I left the service, I could have been recalled to duty. Can this guy be called back and subjected to military justice?

[Enkel]

Originally Posted by jasg

Where is McCain demanding a leak investigation?

If this book is investigated, will it be the DOJ or DOD? When I left the service, I could have been recalled to duty. Can this guy be called back and subjected to military justice?

The DoD has already said that because he is out of the service, it will be up to the DoJ to investigate.

[Enkel]

The Pentagon is reviewing the book now. So, you'd think the publisher would be happy to comply, after all the book isn't set to release until Sept 11th. Right?

Nope, they're releasing next week (IMHO in order to get it out there BEFORE they get told they can't).

NEW YORK — The publication of a former Navy SEAL's first-hand account of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden has been moved up a week, to Sept. 4.

[...]The first printing has been increased from 300,000 to 575,000 copies.

http://online.wsj.com/article/AP10f8...800d57438.html

I hope the DoJ puts a hold on the books and they have to pulp all 575,000 copies.

[elucidator]

I hope not, let 'er buck. Let's see what he's got. If I were Obama, I'd buy a couple hundred copies and offer them for free to notorious fact checkers. Pass 'em around, be cool as a moose.

This SEAL guy, with all due respect to his training and his service, he wasn't in the room. He was in the helicopter. I am entirely prepared to give credence to his account of what happened in that helicopter.

[Enkel]

Response from a prior team mate: ( http://www.theblaze.com/contribution...your-betrayal/ )

Part of me understands why Mark did what he did, but there’s another part of me is so disappointed it makes me physically ill. Every SEAL I’ve spoken with feels betrayed by his actions. He’s loved by his brothers, but forbidden to ever stand within their circle again.

[...]

Mark, the men who stood next to you should have been everything you needed. Now we weep from your betrayal and we pray for your soul.

Bolding mine

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by Enkel

. . . If he winds up dead, it will be by his own doing and by his own need for attention. . . .

Um...no. Not so. That isn't how it works in a free country. A woman can wear a skimpy halter-top and cut-off shorts and not invite rape; a man can write a book condemning Osama Bin Laden and not invite being killed under a fatwa.

[Enkel]

Originally Posted by Trinopus

Um...no. Not so. That isn't how it works in a free country. A woman can wear a skimpy halter-top and cut-off shorts and not invite rape; a man can write a book condemning Osama Bin Laden and not invite being killed under a fatwa.

Your comparison only works if the woman wearing the skimpy halter-top intentionally walks into a building full of men who are ideologically determined to rape every woman alive. The author was not oblivious to the beliefs and tactics of Al-Qaeda (who are not known fans of or observers of US laws).

[Esox Lucius]

A scantily-clad woman isn't betraying the trust of a secretive team or the country. This guy has invited enmity upon himself, and he doesn't have much control over what form it takes.

[John Mace]

Kinda hard to determine the effect without having the book released so we can read it. Hows about we resurrect this thread on Sept 12?

[WarmNPrickly]

I think the Republican political machine is simplistic enough that a pretty accurate portrayal of their response can be made in advance of its release.

We already know that he claims it was a shoot-to-kill mission.

Republican Machine: "OMG! Obama lied! They didn't even try to capture him. Romney would have tried to capture him for sure!"

If the DOJ prevents its release:

Republican Machine: "The administration is hiding any information that criticizes it, but they release all kinds of their own secret information! Investigate the leaks!"

[Bouncer]

Originally Posted by jasg

Where is McCain demanding a leak investigation?

If this book is investigated, will it be the DOJ or DOD? When I left the service, I could have been recalled to duty. Can this guy be called back and subjected to military justice?

The DoD doesn't want to, but yes, they can recall a retiree and subject them to UCMJ, if the crime occurred while in service before they retired. They can also strip away a pension if you are convicted of a felony after retirement. Not sure if that's permanent or just while in the pokey.

I know of one case where a crypto device was marked as destroyed and then when found years later they recalled someone to charge them with lying about it. Reduced them in rank and adjusted their retirement downwards. Significantly.

The thingy in question fell behind a crypto safe and the person responsible figured since there was no way to get to the damn thing without cutting through steel etc, to just mark it as destroyed. Years later the safe was being removed.

Someone found it and was like, "Hey what's this thingy?"

The nearest crypto tech probably felt the blood drain from his face, his lunch suddenly racing back up his throat, severe ringing in his ears... and then the *real* freakout started.

I think that the DoD may ask the DoJ to bring the smackdown on this guy, probably after the election. They need to nip this babbling brook of ex-specops in the bud but quick, and they're looking for someone to make an example of. It's not about Obama or Osama, it's about you solemnly promised to STFU, retiring doesn't undo that promise.

Regards,
-Bouncer-

[elucidator]

I was confused, maybe others as well, so here....

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/29/opinio...oks/index.html

According to this, there are two books spurting onto the scene. One is by the SEAL guy who is the main subject of this thread, the other is by a conservative hack (of the writing variety...) named Mintner. You can find the title if you want, I ain't gonna...

Anyway, the really hair-raisng stuff about what a total wussy von douchebag Obama is is in the second book. The one we're talking about is definitely disrespectful but without being actually slanderous.

A quote:

...Based on that reporting and also what is available on the public record, Miniter's account of the intelligence that led to bin Laden and the decision-making surrounding the operation that killed him is a pile of poppycock served up with heaps of hogwash...

Anyway, it seems more likely that the Mintner book is specifically intended as partisan propaganda, while the SEALS guy's books is therefore more likely about the benjamins. From what I've read about it, he relates that the SEALS team had no real respect or liking for Obama, and were anticipating him stealing all the credit. But the other book is a total slur. No mention of him being a Muslim, just stuff about Hilary bitch-slapping him around the room. Now that is a Situation Room!

[Oliveritaly]

Originally Posted by Bouncer

The DoD doesn't want to, but yes, they can recall a retiree and subject them to UCMJ, if the crime occurred while in service before they retired. They can also strip away a pension if you are convicted of a felony after retirement. Not sure if that's permanent or just while in the pokey.

I know of one case where a crypto device was marked as destroyed and then when found years later they recalled someone to charge them with lying about it. Reduced them in rank and adjusted their retirement downwards. Significantly.

The thingy in question fell behind a crypto safe and the person responsible figured since there was no way to get to the damn thing without cutting through steel etc, to just mark it as destroyed. Years later the safe was being removed.

Someone found it and was like, "Hey what's this thingy?"

The nearest crypto tech probably felt the blood drain from his face, his lunch suddenly racing back up his throat, severe ringing in his ears... and then the *real* freakout started.

I think that the DoD may ask the DoJ to bring the smackdown on this guy, probably after the election. They need to nip this babbling brook of ex-specops in the bud but quick, and they're looking for someone to make an example of. It's not about Obama or Osama, it's about you solemnly promised to STFU, retiring doesn't undo that promise.

Regards,
-Bouncer-

Wow Bouncer, how long ago was this and how old was the device?

[adaher]

Originally Posted by jasg

The Atlantic has a piece up saying that the author is probably facing legal issues over disclosure of classified information.

If so, it seems it would complicate all the claims of leaks in the administration.

What it would actually do is show that leaks that make the President look bad will be prosecuted, leaks that make the President look good will not be.

[Bouncer]

Originally Posted by Oliveritaly

Wow Bouncer, how long ago was this and how old was the device?

The stuff in question was paper keymat tape. This was in the 90's.

The freak out is because with old keying material you can go back and decode old comms, which will give you valuable data about plans and abilities as well as some reverse engineering information about the device itself. Custody of that material is taken very seriously.

Regards,
-Bouncer-

[adaher]

I'm not sure a precedent needs to be set here, given that details of the raid were already leaked. If he was revealing an op that took place that was not known to the public, that would be one thing. But all he's doing is correcting the record on an op that is well known, where nearly every important detail was already leaked. The only secrets to give away are where the administration wasn't telling the truth, which is what this guy says about how bin Laden died. They say he was reaching for a weapon, the SEAL says he just poked his head out the door.

[runner pat]

How can he be correcting the record when there's no more proof of his version than the official?

[adaher]

Then it all comes down to who you believe.

[runner pat]

Originally Posted by adaher

Then it all comes down to who you believe.

You stated he was correcting the record. Obviously you are privy to some information that he has that the public doesn't. Share.

[carnivorousplant]

Originally Posted by Esox Lucius

A scantily-clad woman isn't betraying the trust of a secretive team or the country.

Then we are in the gray area of having "Free Speech Except Sometimes."

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by elucidator

According to this, there are two books spurting onto the scene. One is by the SEAL guy who is the main subject of this thread, the other is by a conservative hack (of the writing variety...) named Mintner. You can find the title if you want, I ain't gonna...

Anyway, the really hair-raisng stuff about what a total wussy von douchebag Obama is is in the second book. The one we're talking about is definitely disrespectful but without being actually slanderous.

Actually, according to the Washington Post review, the "Mark Owen" book doesn't really say much about the politics, and doesn't seem to be particularly disrespectful (though the author and his comrades in arms aren't particularly sympathetic to the current CinC):

Finally, the SEAL team arrived back in Afghanistan, and Owen and some of his fellow SEALs who didn’t seem to be big fans of President Obama watched his news conference about the successful mission.

"We'd expected him to give away details," he writes. "If he had, we could have talked some smack. But I didn't think his speech was bad at all. If anything, it was kind of anticlimactic."

[Enkel]

Originally Posted by carnivorousplant

Then we are in the gray area of having "Free Speech Except Sometimes."

This is NOT a gray area. In order to get a clearance you sign agreements. You are not forced to sign those agreements, you are free to go back to your primary MOS. One of those agreements is that anything you publish must be vetted PRIOR to release. And, it isn't just some paragraph that you initial off. In my experience, they make darn sure you understand that even if you see XYZ on the news, you are still not free to discuss it and anything written (relating to your activities) must be vetted BEFORE release.

We're not talking about a guy who washed dishes at Quantico and told of their super secret SOS recipe. We have troops over there that could be put at risk and there are his team mates who could also be put at risk. Even if the book contains NOTHING, he still had to have it VETTED and he did not do it. So, yes he broke the agreement and should be held accountable for it, no matter what is contained in the book.

Again, this has NOTHING to do with Free Speech.

[carnivorousplant]

Originally Posted by Enkel

Again, this has NOTHING to do with Free Speech.

I'd think it has everything to do with it, but in the military one understandably must give that up in some circumstances.

[adaher]

Originally Posted by runner pat

You stated he was correcting the record. Obviously you are privy to some information that he has that the public doesn't. Share.

That is his intent.

[Enkel]

Originally Posted by carnivorousplant

I'd think it has everything to do with it, but in the military one understandably must give that up in some circumstances.

If I work for ABC Corporation and sign an NDA to not disclose their closely held secrets, I can't just turn around and sell that information to the competitor or put it into a book. So, if the author signed an NDA agreement to give up his right to Free Speech (in relation to his activities) as part of his clearance, then please explain how this is an issue of Free Speech.

[runner pat]

Originally Posted by adaher

That is his intent.

Why do you give more credence to his account?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by adaher

That is his intent.

That's what you've chosen to presume his intent is. I don't know what's in the book, but unless it shows Bin Laden isn't dead, I'm thinking it's not going to move the figurative needle.

[carnivorousplant]

Originally Posted by Enkel

If I work for ABC Corporation and sign an NDA to not disclose their closely held secrets, I can't just turn around and sell that information to the competitor or put it into a book. So, if the author signed an NDA agreement to give up his right to Free Speech (in relation to his activities) as part of his clearance, then please explain how this is an issue of Free Speech.

You described it rather well above.

[Esox Lucius]

Originally Posted by carnivorousplant

Then we are in the gray area of having "Free Speech Except Sometimes."

I see that others have explained, but just to pile on...

The military, and Navy SEALS in particular, have their own definition of "free speech" that is necessarily a lot more restrictive than the definition that applies to an open society. To the other SEALs, it could be that "Mark Owen" yelled fire in a crowded theatre. If he did, he's going to suffer the consequences.

[fiddlesticks]

Leaving the service doesn't give you a "get out of jail free" card to reveal classified information.

[Bob Ducca]

Originally Posted by adaher

That is his intent.

I believe his intent had a lot more dollar signs attached to it then that.

[BigT]

Are you guys seriously unaware that his account differs from the official one, saying he was shot on sight instead of only after he'd went back into the room? I'm usually not ahead of you guys, but here's the BBC article on it.

[coremelt]

Originally Posted by elucidator

This SEAL guy, with all due respect to his training and his service, he wasn't in the room. He was in the helicopter. I am entirely prepared to give credence to his account of what happened in that helicopter.

Whats your source that "Mark Owen" was only in the chopper and not one who took part in the raid? Curious haven't seen this stated anywhere else.

[elucidator]

Well, of course he took part in the raid. He's already skating on pretty thin ice as it is, if he were a complete fake his ass would be grass. What I mean by "not in the room" was the room Obama was in, where the decisions were being made.

[Andiethewestie]

I won't be buying this garbage. What the hell is this? An attempt to undermine the Obama administration's handling of the Bin Laden case? What does this jerk have to gain from that? A lame attempt to get Obama out of office?

Mark Owen has a sworn oath to the Seals and to his country not to divulge classified information. And this oath is in effect for his entire life. So if this book does that, he's toast and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

And Penguin Publishing needs to be prosecuted for profiting off of a breach of National Security.

It is absolutely disgusting for a soldier to outright defy his Comander in Chief. No other President would tolerate such utter disrespect for the office. I hope the adminstration goes after this turd.

[Kolak of Twilo]

I'm rather puzzled about all the hoopla around how this is supposed to be bad for Obama. (I will leave the discussion about the possible prosecution of this former member of the military to those who know better.)

No matter what this guy says, Bin Laden is still dead and Obama is the one who gave the order to carry out this mission. Can someone explain why this is bad for Obama's reelection chances? I'm totally missing that angle.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo

I'm rather puzzled about all the hoopla around how this is supposed to be bad for Obama. (I will leave the discussion about the possible prosecution of this former member of the military to those who know better.)

No matter what this guy says, Bin Laden is still dead and Obama is the one who gave the order to carry out this mission. Can someone explain why this is bad for Obama's reelection chances? I'm totally missing that angle.

That's the way I see it. This book publicity is just going to remind people that Osama bin Laden was killed during the Obama administration.

[JRDelirious]

Originally Posted by adaher

Then it all comes down to who you believe.

And being a SEAL or military in general does not mystically endow you with higher credibility than being a politician or just ol' Joe Civilian. Specially if you had agreed to abide by having everything you publish previously vetted but went ahead and proceeded to disregard that.

Besides what percentage of the electorate minds if OBL was just whacked on sight? If that means that the Team went in with no real intent of taking extra risk to get him alive... to most of us that's a brilliant statement of the bloody obvious. That part is is no Pat Tillman-type cover-up of a major clusterf**kup.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by JRDelirious

Besides what percentage of the electorate minds if OBL was just whacked on sight?

I'm just picturing Romney trying to get traction off this issue by publicly stating that he wouldn't have killed bin Laden.

This illustrates why Romney is avoiding military issues. What can he say? That he agrees with the things that Obama has done? That he opposes the things that Obama has done? Either way, it's a loss for Romney. The best he can do is avoid the subject as much as possible and nibble at trivia. And hope that he doesn't take too bad a hit on it at the debates.

[theR]

Originally Posted by Enkel

This is NOT a gray area. In order to get a clearance you sign agreements. You are not forced to sign those agreements, you are free to go back to your primary MOS. One of those agreements is that anything you publish must be vetted PRIOR to release. And, it isn't just some paragraph that you initial off. In my experience, they make darn sure you understand that even if you see XYZ on the news, you are still not free to discuss it and anything written (relating to your activities) must be vetted BEFORE release.

We're not talking about a guy who washed dishes at Quantico and told of their super secret SOS recipe. We have troops over there that could be put at risk and there are his team mates who could also be put at risk. Even if the book contains NOTHING, he still had to have it VETTED and he did not do it. So, yes he broke the agreement and should be held accountable for it, no matter what is contained in the book.

Again, this has NOTHING to do with Free Speech.

Not only that, SF312, "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement", also says that one assigns "royalties, remunerations, and emoluments" to the US Government if one discloses classified information without going through the proper vetting procedures. The government could try to make sure he doesn't see any of the income from the book, though I don't believe they are required to do so.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

That's the way I see it. This book publicity is just going to remind people that Osama bin Laden was killed during the Obama administration.

This. I can't imagine that the administration isn't quietly pleased about the book, at least with their political hats on.

[Andiethewestie]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

This. I can't imagine that the administration isn't quietly pleased about the book, at least with their political hats on.

I don't trust any assclown out there who will try to spin the President's decisions, especially when this type of publication potentially breeches National Security. Remember you're dealing with portion of a public who believes Michelle Bachmann when she says slavery was abolished by the founding fathers, and a Birthers movement that thinks Obama isn't American. To now put yet another outlandish claim against this president's ability to make the tough decisions implying he was merely propped up by stronger people around him is not only ridiculous it boarders on treason.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Huh? The book doesn't say anything about the President's decision making, as far as I can tell. The writer went out of his way to praise the decision. It says Obama politicized the killing a bit, which is certainly true (not that there's anything wrong with it).

[Andiethewestie]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Huh? The book doesn't say anything about the President's decision making, as far as I can tell. The writer went out of his way to praise the decision. It says Obama politicized the killing a bit, which is certainly true (not that there's anything wrong with it).

Oh come now, this asshole writes a book to slur Obama but gives him an "attaboy" to his decision to kill Bin Laden, well isn't that PRESH, let's give the dog a bone. He can't say anything different than the actual happenings can he. He is still trying to undermine the administration with the release of such drivel.

[Really Not All That Bright]

What, specifically, gives you the idea the book was written "to slur Obama"? It's a money grab, not a political statement.