The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg says ‘public interest’ served by full Signal chat release
-
I think it’s because your average person doesn’t know the difference between classified and sensitive information.
Classified or not is mostly a moot point to me. It’s still extremely sensitive information and I’ve seen servicemembers get fucked over for much more minor infractions, like posting on Facebook when they’re going to be deployed or leave port.
While i know nothing about military intelligence Security Classification Guides,i know a thing about some others. The general idea is, even at a Confidential Classification, release of the information/data could reasonable cause damage to the USA/national security/etc. The different levels of classification (confidential, secret, top secret) only vary based on the severity of the damage cause to the united states.
Everything in me tells me this operation was classified and we're lucky that it only leaked to 1 person in the US while it was still time sensitive. Also, these things dont immediately unclassify as soon as their done. They security guide holds them classified for a certain period of time after the event. So dont be surprised when they come after the Editor for leaking classified information
-
The Atlantic editors redacted things from the chat that they felt were likely dangerous, even after the dipshits in government went “lol you got nothing” and subsequently switched their story to “nothing’s important in there” (and there clearly was). That’s a level of journalistic integrity that makes me want to give them a subscription, honestly.
-
The Daily Show did a pretty good segment yesterday highlighting the absurdity of their response about how this data didn't count as being "war plans":
It's absolute insanity that they're trying to spin this as not being classified or even sensitive info.
Not to mention the staggeringly comical and insane double standard.
-
Not to mention the staggeringly comical and insane double standard.
Someone just told me they're trying to spin it as not being as incompetent as the Afghanistan pullout.
I swear to God, Republicans are incapable of going "my bad, that was my mistake." Instead they just spin spin spin and attack attack attack.
-
Also it's all fake anyway
And if it’s not fake, the president can declassify it just by thinking it.
-
Someone just told me they're trying to spin it as not being as incompetent as the Afghanistan pullout.
I swear to God, Republicans are incapable of going "my bad, that was my mistake." Instead they just spin spin spin and attack attack attack.
“I’m sorry you were offended by what I said”
It’s the Republican mentality: I do whatever the fuck I want, and if you don’t like it, you’re the problem.
-
The Atlantic editors redacted things from the chat that they felt were likely dangerous, even after the dipshits in government went “lol you got nothing” and subsequently switched their story to “nothing’s important in there” (and there clearly was). That’s a level of journalistic integrity that makes me want to give them a subscription, honestly.
They produce solid content, especially long form journalism but their subscription cost is fairly high.
-
While i know nothing about military intelligence Security Classification Guides,i know a thing about some others. The general idea is, even at a Confidential Classification, release of the information/data could reasonable cause damage to the USA/national security/etc. The different levels of classification (confidential, secret, top secret) only vary based on the severity of the damage cause to the united states.
Everything in me tells me this operation was classified and we're lucky that it only leaked to 1 person in the US while it was still time sensitive. Also, these things dont immediately unclassify as soon as their done. They security guide holds them classified for a certain period of time after the event. So dont be surprised when they come after the Editor for leaking classified information
What I’m trying to say is they’re going to use pedantic definitions of what’s classified, or what is “war plans”, to distract from the issue. You can make a case for these people needing to be severely reprimanded even if the leaks were completely unclassified. I’ve seen people get fucked up for way less with unclassified information.
-
We clearly have different rules for different levels of government.
Hate on Hilary all you want: storing classified material on a personal server would have gotten any other government civilian thrown in jail. Using one personal phone for government work would have also gotten you thrown in jail.
Same with Trump and Biden.
It doesn't help things that these assholes knew full well what they were doing and didn't want to follow existing procedures. And they likely won't get charged or punished for it.
Exactly. Because how can you really punish people at that level? You're not throwing them into federal lockup or something right? Lol
But at the same time, it's ridiculous how much an unknown intel officer would be absolutely ruined by some of these mistakes, but an elected official can do whatever they want and it pretty much comes down to
"Oh, whoopsie. Even if I did admit to any of that...good thing I have all this clout!"
I remember being told once that we don't court marshal / jail high ranking officials like that because it would be "embarrassing to the country", and that never made sense to me. Wouldn't a fair application of the law signal to the world that we don't take shit and we're reasonably civilized instead of some corrupt crumbling empire? (Yes, I'm being rhetorical lol...)
-
They produce solid content, especially long form journalism but their subscription cost is fairly high.
So share a subscription.
-
He who saves his Country does not violate any Law
is a two way chariot track
I mean, First Amendment protections. The chatlog weren't illegally obtained. The journalist did not violate any laws.
-
For the longest I've been critical of the democrats because I was pissed at how bad they lost. I complained that they don't fight hard enough or understand the voters. I change my mind. Maybe they don't need to do shit and just let the train wreak happen.
-
They produce solid content, especially long form journalism but their subscription cost is fairly high.
It’s 7.99 a month as far as I can tell
-
He's going to be harassed for "sharing classified information". Might even get the Assange treatment.
I'm glad someone is doing something brave in this world.
-
Whats the issue? The president already said that there was no classified info on the chat. So go for it.
-
I mean, First Amendment protections. The chatlog weren't illegally obtained. The journalist did not violate any laws.
And the people in the chat who have the authority to declassify information declared it to be a declassified chat, so IDK what more permission he needed to share what was freely given to him
-
He's going to be harassed for "sharing classified information". Might even get the Assange treatment.
I'm glad someone is doing something brave in this world.
Look, this is fake news, but even so it was just a silly mistake! Also, they would never put classified information on Signal, so obviously whatever was shared there was declassified already.
-
Whats the issue? The president already said that there was no classified info on the chat. So go for it.
I guess we should look forward to the daily updates on when fighter jets are scrambled and where the bombs are going to be dropped.
-
Look, this is fake news, but even so it was just a silly mistake! Also, they would never put classified information on Signal, so obviously whatever was shared there was declassified already.
/s !!
Did someone not realize you were using sarcasm? Why the downvote? Why so quickly after you post, as if they were stalking you.
Anyway...
They'd probably claim that the reporter was Cleared and is sharing classified information, and that it was meant to be treated with a policy of "neither confirm nor deny existence" to explain the inconsistency.
That would be a lie, but they would make that claim.
