Originally posted by Mountain Man
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Mike Pompeo 'Regularly' Used Personal Email While Director of CIA
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostTransmitting classified information via non-classified networks is illegal.
Comment
-
Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
Just a friendly reminder.....This is wrong.
There were paragraphs marked with paragraph markings (c) (s) (ts) that identified those paragraphs as classified.
Also, the paragraph markings don't identify paragraphs as classified unless the document is classified, as identified at the top and bottom of each page.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Stoic View Post
I used to think that was true, but it isn't. It turns out that knowingly introducing classified information to an unclassified network is a security violation, not a crime.
Last edited by Mountain Man; 10-22-2020, 01:52 PM.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostAnd aren't certain communications considered classified by default even without explicit markings?That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Stoic View Post
I used to think that was true, but it isn't. It turns out that knowingly introducing classified information to an unclassified network is a security violation, not a crime.
That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by Stoic View Post
My understanding is that the paragraphs with those markings were not classified at the time the emails were sent (though the information had earlier been temporarily classified). (And there was no (s) or (ts), just (c)s.)
Also, the paragraph markings don't identify paragraphs as classified unless the document is classified, as identified at the top and bottom of each page.
The overall document has a classification. This is at the top of the page/on the cover sheet.
Then, individual paragraphs are classified based on the information the paragraph contains. So, for example, a document might be classified TS, with individual paragraphs marked (U), (C), (S), or (TS) based on the data within. So if the paragraph has a (C) in it, it's not a post-hoc classification, it means that this paragraph contained information classified at the confidential level. (confidential, secret, top secret).
There is no post-hoc, that is the classification at the time it was sent. This means that the paragraph was replied to or copy/pasted from one that was classified.
Comment
-
Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
Having spent 12 years working with classified documents, you are wrong.
The overall document has a classification. This is at the top of the page/on the cover sheet.
Then, individual paragraphs are classified based on the information the paragraph contains. So, for example, a document might be classified TS, with individual paragraphs marked (U), (C), (S), or (TS) based on the data within. So if the paragraph has a (C) in it, it's not a post-hoc classification, it means that this paragraph contained information classified at the confidential level. (confidential, secret, top secret).
There is no post-hoc, that is the classification at the time it was sent. This means that the paragraph was replied to or copy/pasted from one that was classified.That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostSen Grassley is correct in that there is a violation.
However, they are still illegal and carry punishments with their commission. 18 U.S. Code § 1924 says " Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both."
ln the case of DoS employees, valid violations are referred to the Conduct, Suitability, and Discipline Division of the Bureau of Human Resources (HR/ER/CSD) and to DS's Office of Personnel Security and Suitability (DS/SI/PSS). If the individual is a former Department of State employee, the violation is referred to DS/SI/PSS only. While every violation is referred, individual infractions are not, but accrued infractions over time will trigger referral if the infraction represents a third or subsequent incident in a 36-month period.
Perhaps you know of case law that would indicate that the State Department has it wrong, and that they should be bringing charges against these people.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostAt the very, VERY least, she should have had her clearance revoked when all of this came up.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Stoic View PostIt's actually a State Department document. Sen. Grassley just had a conveniently located copy.
An incident is categorized as a violation when it is "a knowing, willful, or negligent action that could reasonably be expected to result in the unauthorized disclosure of classified information." An incident is categorized as an infraction when it represents a failure to safeguard classified information but could not reasonably be expected to result in an unauthorized disclosure of classified information. Any introduction of classified material to an unclassified information system or network that results in its transmission outside DoS control is categorized as a violation.
The State Department obviously doesn't think that 18 U.S. Code § 1924 applies to "the introduction of classified material to an un_classified information system or network that results in its transmission outside DoS control." From the same document I linked before:
ln the case of DoS employees, valid violations are referred to the Conduct, Suitability, and Discipline Division of the Bureau of Human Resources (HR/ER/CSD) and to DS's Office of Personnel Security and Suitability (DS/SI/PSS). If the individual is a former Department of State employee, the violation is referred to DS/SI/PSS only. While every violation is referred, individual infractions are not, but accrued infractions over time will trigger referral if the infraction represents a third or subsequent incident in a 36-month period.
Perhaps you know of case law that would indicate that the State Department has it wrong, and that they should be bringing charges against these people.
In 2012, Bryan Nishimura, a Naval Reserve Commander, was “fined $7500, placed on probation, forced to give up his security clearance and barred from applying for security clearance in the future” for bringing home classified documents and storing them on an unsecured server. He was charged under statute 18 U.S.C. § 1924(a) of The Espionage Act, captioned “Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material,” the same statute Clinton could have been charged under.
In 2012 again, Thomas Andrews Drake, former Senior Executive of the NSA, was indicted on five counts of “Willful Retention of National Defense Information” under statute 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) of the Espionage Act, entitled “Gathering, Transmitting or Losing Defense Information,” another statute under which Clinton could have been charged for her error.That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostEither way, yes it is correct. Security incidents, both class and unclass, are called violations, which is the worse of the 2 categories:
An incident is categorized as a violation when it is "a knowing, willful, or negligent action that could reasonably be expected to result in the unauthorized disclosure of classified information." An incident is categorized as an infraction when it represents a failure to safeguard classified information but could not reasonably be expected to result in an unauthorized disclosure of classified information. Any introduction of classified material to an unclassified information system or network that results in its transmission outside DoS control is categorized as a violation.
State Department policies do not overrule US law. That the APD determined "There was no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information." should have been immaterial to 18 U.S. Code § 1924. The Code does not address volume or intent. Comey just whiffed on applying it.
Around the time of Sec. Clinton's server issue:
In 2012, Bryan Nishimura, a Naval Reserve Commander, was “fined $7500, placed on probation, forced to give up his security clearance and barred from applying for security clearance in the future” for bringing home classified documents and storing them on an unsecured server. He was charged under statute 18 U.S.C. § 1924(a) of The Espionage Act, captioned “Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material,” the same statute Clinton could have been charged under.
In 2012 again, Thomas Andrews Drake, former Senior Executive of the NSA, was indicted on five counts of “Willful Retention of National Defense Information” under statute 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) of the Espionage Act, entitled “Gathering, Transmitting or Losing Defense Information,” another statute under which Clinton could have been charged for her error.
(I'm not arguing that this is an acceptable practice, but I haven't seen any evidence that it's the sort of thing anyone has ever been criminally charged for.)
Comment
-
Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
Having spent 12 years working with classified documents, you are wrong.
The overall document has a classification. This is at the top of the page/on the cover sheet.
Then, individual paragraphs are classified based on the information the paragraph contains. So, for example, a document might be classified TS, with individual paragraphs marked (U), (C), (S), or (TS) based on the data within. So if the paragraph has a (C) in it, it's not a post-hoc classification, it means that this paragraph contained information classified at the confidential level. (confidential, secret, top secret).
There is no post-hoc, that is the classification at the time it was sent. This means that the paragraph was replied to or copy/pasted from one that was classified.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 09:58 AM
|
5 responses
19 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 10:54 AM
|
||
Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
|
16 responses
197 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
Yesterday, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
53 responses
422 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Yesterday, 11:32 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
25 responses
114 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 08:36 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
33 responses
198 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Yesterday, 07:43 AM
|
Comment