stupid wikileak question

[murphey]

Actually the Executive branch of government, of which the DHS and DoD are in, has a unified classification program.

I concede that there may be some customizations per department. My access to DoD classified SCI material was suspended years ago when I left that job function. I do have some limited access to DHS classified materials. Although rare and mostly LE related, the systems appears the same to me.

Dated Dec 2009 - that's after my access ended. Obviously there is some level of common sense and logic somewhere to realize the multiple schemes were silly.

 

[murphey]

Classifiied (National Security Information or NSI) starts at Confidential, technically, and goes up to Top Secret with compartmentalization taking place at TS to further restrict information.

Non-classified-but-still-important information is at several levels

FOUO - I think this is only still in use in DoD - SBU has replaced it in other areas. Sometimes NOFORN (No Foreign Nationals) further restricts SBU/FOUO data.

Back in 2007-08 when I was working NASA, FOUO was replaced by ITAR. But NASA aint DoD.

Somewhere I expect Obama or somebody high up to issue something declassifying the stuff.

Back in "the days", only the Classifying Authority (the person who decided the material needed to be classified) could de-classify the document. At least that's what I was told in all those interminable security meetings. Hence we were reminded to think carefully if something really deserved to be classified, because it required a boatload of effort to manage it.

 

[murphey]

Also, every US military personnel "back in the day" was required to sign a non disclosure statement over information. I assume they still do that.
If they do and this Pvt. DID do it, he will be in violation of the UCMJ and will go to jail.

Civilians signed the same. And it's good for life no matter what.

What's that great movie line, "If I tell you, I have to kill you".

Nope, in reality, it's "If I tell you, I go to jail for the rest of my life".

 

[Baron2PG]

There.. fixed it for you. Mr Manning has not had his day in court. He is presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Is this true for a member of the US armed forces? For a civilian we're always told 'innocent until proven guilty' (usually proven guilty by the media long before the trial for example the Duke Lacrosse Team...but I digress) Does that same mantra apply to the military code of justice or whatever it is called?

 

[ScottM]

Does that same mantra apply to the military code of justice or whatever it is called?

Yes..

 

[Tom-D]

IF OUR GOVERNMENT REALLY WANTS TO KEEP OUR NATION'S TOP SECRETS CLASSIFIED, THEY SHOULD BE KEPT IN THE SAME PLACE THAT OBAMA'S COLLEGE TRANSCRIPTS AND BIRTH CERTIFICATE ARE KEPT.

 

[ScottM]

IF OUR GOVERNMENT REALLY WANTS TO KEEP OUR NATION'S TOP SECRETS CLASSIFIED, THEY SHOULD BE KEPT IN THE SAME PLACE THAT OBAMA'S COLLEGE TRANSCRIPTS AND BIRTH CERTIFICATE ARE KEPT.

His Birth certificate can be seen on the Internet and his college transcripts he elected to not to release, just like George W. Bush.

Is there some reason you are shouting nonsense?

 

[TMetzinger]

And can we stop this going any further before a good thread gets SZed?

Hmm, is this the forum equivalent of me telling a student "more rudder, more rudder, we don't want to spin"?

 

[COFlyBoy]

Dated Dec 2009 - that's after my access ended. Obviously there is some level of common sense and logic somewhere to realize the multiple schemes were silly.

Hm, they managed to create a common classification scheme, but they didn't manage to make it easy to transfer clearances between organizations/departments. We've had to wait months for another department to accept a clearance from another organization even though it was at the same level.

I've seen security pamphlets at work that say that most espionage is done for ideological reasons, not money. I wonder what motivated this guy.

And, I wonder what motivates Wikileaks. I don't think anyone benefits from the release of this information, but there is definitely the possibility of harm.

 

[Palmpilot]

I've been wondering if Wikileaks encouraged Pvt Manning to breach the confidentiality and/or secrecy of the documents. If so, maybe that counts as conspiracy to commit espionage.

 

[Ghery]

Civilians signed the same. And it's good for life no matter what.

What's that great movie line, "If I tell you, I have to kill you".

Nope, in reality, it's "If I tell you, I go to jail for the rest of my life".

Actually, back when I had a clearance, it was 10 years and $10,000. And I don't ever recall being told that I could talk about the stuff I encountered, either. So, 30 years later my lips are still zipped.

 

[mikea]

Newt Gingrich said that Assange is a traitor, which might be up for consideration if Asange was an American.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Newt Gingrich said that Assange is a traitor, which might be up for consideration if Asange was an American.

There'd be a better case for it, but I still very much doubt it.

Treason is the only constitutionally-defined crime:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court

He's obviously not levying war, so that only leaves the second option. To be convicted, gov't has to prove: 1) adhering to an enemy; and 2) giving the enemy adhered to aid and comfort. Note that it's not "or" - you have to have both (the latter is usually the natural consequence of the former, but you've still got to prove it; the reverse isn't necessarily true, though).

At least from what's known right now, it sure doesn't look like either one of those can be proven. If there's a video of Assange palling around with, I don't know, The Zombie Tojo, maybe.

Not to mention the two witness requirement. There have to be two witnesses to whatever the treasonous act was - mere evidence isn't enough.

 

[ScottM]

There'd be a better case for it, but I still very much doubt it.

Treason is the only constitutionally-defined crime:



He's obviously not levying war, so that only leaves the second option. To be convicted, gov't has to prove: 1) adhering to an enemy; and 2) giving the enemy adhered to aid and comfort. Note that it's not "or" - you have to have both (the latter is usually the natural consequence of the former, but you've still got to prove it; the reverse isn't necessarily true, though).

At least from what's known right now, it sure doesn't look like either one of those can be proven. If there's a video of Assange palling around with, I don't know, The Zombie Tojo, maybe.

Not to mention the two witness requirement. There have to be two witnesses to whatever the treasonous act was - mere evidence isn't enough.

That a former congressman who was speaker of the house does not know what is written in the US Constitution is really disappointing.

 

[Pi1otguy]

Congratulations! If you've read descriptions or conversed about the contents of WikiLeaks you are now a criminal per the Espionage Act of 1917. The black helo will arrive shortly.

http://blogs.computerworld.com/17521/espionage_act_makes_felons_of_us_all

Dear Americans: If you are not "authorized" personnel, but you have read, written about, commented upon, tweeted, spread links by "liking" on Facebook, shared by email, or otherwise discussed "classified" information disclosed from WikiLeaks, you could be implicated for crimes under the U.S. Espionage Act -- or so warns a legal expert who said the U.S. Espionage Act could make "felons of us all."

Title 18, Part I, Chapter 37, Sec 793, (e)

Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, [snip], or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

Since WikiLeaks is accessible to virtually everyone via the internet then that makes nearly all of us criminals.