Probably they don’t want any details released, because regardless of whether you think it’s a big deal for that information to be readily available, they are clearly uncomfortable with that idea.
But* that* information (the video of the raid, the pictures) has been carefully managed. I am talking about the knowledge of the simple fact that the SEAL team actually wore helmet cams being in some way a violation of mission secrecy…I thought everyone assumed they had…otherwise how did those in the know in the situation room get a live feed as events were unfolding?
Seems much ado about nothing unless were talking about the names or identities of the SEAL team themselves, actual mission protocols, etc.
Perhaps the criteria for getting cleared aren’t really the correct criteria for keeping secrets, just pet ideological datapoints that have nothing to do with whether or not you can keep a secret, but that your their kind of sumbitch.
SpecOps and Intel are organically undisposed to disclose ANY operation details, however innocuous or obvious-seeming. They have been trained to extract valuable info that may slip between the lines in the middle of the most mundane day-to-day conversations so they expect the same is being done unto us.
That is the nature of much of the “unnamed inside sources familiar with the subject” material in my experience. Not really something that will sink ships, but a way to manage of the information stream without personally owning it. Often used to get a jump on someone else’s announcement; give a preemptive spin on the info; create deliberate misdirection by making it look like there are several versions so as to keep people guessing; test how X piece of info would be received; draw in the reporter/editor into a “relationship” so she owes you one; or merely make it so Public Opinion, the opposition or the parties potentially inconvenienced have no messenger to shoot.
The higher up you are, the more you have to lose. Management, in my experience, are always extremely paranoid about the littlest details, forcibly coercing the flow of information through official and approved channels. I work for the government, nothing top secret or life threatening, and even our little department has its Media Relations area where, a few times a year when we interact heavily with the public, we are told never to answer any reporter’s questions, but to direct them to MR
The problem is that too much mundane and pointless information is classified. I disagree that you could get anything of significance about information on helmet cams. From my experience with management at my job, they are always concocting fanciful narratives about leaks, such as “what if you say something off the cuff, and that person was a reporter, or it gets back to upper management, and they ask us how that information was obtained, and then they trace it back to you?” I would say, “So what, how does that harm or help us? It’s the truth.”
For instance, I emailed another department with a question on something we do. It got back to my boss, and he told me not to email another department without going through him and upper management. I asked him why, these people are there to answer this type of question. He said that what if it got back to his boss that I asked this question and the assumption was that we were doing it wrong or wasn’t doing it properly. I told my boss that they are there to shed light on those clarifications, but he felt it would make our department look bad somehow. He’s an idiot and so are people classifying helmet cams
But your example and the simple fact that its become known that the SEAL team wore helmet cams aren’t comparable.
I understand keeping a lid on things, but the fact that the knowledge of the use of helmet cams “leaked” isn’t a big revelation, IMO. Again, am I the only one that pretty much figured out that the SEALS had to be wearing them in order for the folks in the situation room to watch their live feed in the first place?
Is this thing on?
It’s freeper crazy because the real name, Jed Babbin, is one of their own. He has a long standing big problem with news outlets.
What does the bolded part of this quote from that blog posting mean?
“The latest straw came when CBS revealed that the members of Special Warfare Development Group, formerly SEAL Team Six, wore helmet cams into bin Laden’s lair. For many, that was a detail too far and could lead those being targeted by the military to somehow deploy countermeasures.”
No, what you’ll get is a 20% pop on future job offers, on average. At least, that’s what I’ve had to pay, and in my case, have gotten.
And Arky, in response to this
the criteria isn’t really ideological; they don’t ask much about that, they know that few will admit to being a commie sympathizer if they intend to be a spy.
Mostly, they care about criminal records and your financial stability (to make sure you won’t be tempted to sell out, literally).
I have no idea. Perhaps the countermeasures against helmet cams in the future will be those Groucho Marx glasses/mustaches thingie.
Why does it matter what YOU think is alright to divulge for public consumption? Are you a SEAL or something? It’s not up to you to decide what operational details aren’t sensitive.
Of course, the Gov’t could be LYING about the information they give us, and no, the death of bin Laden was confirmed, so that wasn’t a lie. However, they could only be telling us what they think we want to hear. Sometimes they let information leak out in some manner that will further their agenda, by only telling us little bits and pieces of the whole story.
I need to ask how old you are. Or if you’ve ever read American history. In my lifetime, I remember presidents back to Johnson complaining about leaks. Nixon sent burglars and wiretappers around to look for evidence of leaks. It cost him his job.
In fact, many of the leaks from the White House are known and approved of by the presidents. They are called ‘backgrounders’ and they’ve been around longer than either of us.
Dude, I assumed they were watching Patriot Games.
Not a real-life version of the movie, I’m talking about Harrison Ford. You know, movie night at the White House courtesy of that Air Force one-star and some torrent he found.
Yeah; you’re right about that…I was thinking more of hiring practices than security clearance criteria, and should have said it that way. I could be wrong there, too, but in my experience as a contractor, I’ve found that it skews more conservative. It could be that less conservative folks find the idea of helping kill people repugnant or something, I dunno.
Well, don’t want to threadjack this too much, but I’d suggest that it’s more than conservatives (last poll I saw: 40% of America) feel that it’s ok to whack certain people. According to this, for example, 87% thought nailing OBL was a good idea, only 6% thought it wasn’t, an operation at least partly made possible/successful by the investment in cleared personnel.
Contractor hiring may skew conservative, true, but that’s probably because they are close to the government, and have more info than most on how useless many govies are (I count myself among this number). I also believe there’s a natural selection going on, similar to why most reporters are liberal - their emotional worldview loves the David vs Goliath stuff, those stories sell papers, the 4th estate loves the idea of bringing down the powerful, etc.
Amen. If I’d heard details of the raid BEFOREhand, then I’d be upset. And frankly, I’m amazed in this day of instant info (What, no “@SealTeam Twitter Feed”?) that we DIDN’T hear anything!
I agree that it does not matter what I think and not for me (nor YOU) to decide. But again, the fact that they wore helmet cams isn’t some huge revelation of operational secrecy. I would have been more shocked to learn that they* hadn’t* worn helmet cams to at least record the operation for future SEAL training purposes.
I was in the Army, I had a top-secret clearance, I’m not completely ignorant on the subject.
That’s hilarious, by the way.
Says who? You?