US Intelligence Community Has Lost Credibility Due To Leaks (bloomberg.com) 339
Two anonymous readers and Mi share an article: U.K. police investigating the Manchester terror attack say they have stopped sharing information with the U.S. after a series of leaks that have so angered the British government that Prime Minister Therese May wants to discuss them with President Donald Trump during a North Atlantic Treaty Organization meeting in Brussels. What can Trump tell her, though? The leaks drive him nuts, too. Since the beginning of this century, the U.S. intelligence services and their clients have acted as if they wanted the world to know they couldn't guarantee the confidentiality of any information that falls into their hands. At this point, the culture of leaks is not just a menace to intelligence-sharing allies. It's a threat to the intelligence community's credibility. [...] If this history has taught the U.S. intelligence community anything, it's that leaking classified information isn't particularly dangerous and those who do it largely enjoy impunity. Manning spent seven years in prison (though she'd been sentenced to 35), but Snowden, Assange, Petraeus, the unknown Chinese mole, the people who stole the hacking tools and the army of recent anonymous leakers, many of whom probably still work for U.S. intelligence agencies, have escaped any kind of meaningful punishment. President Donald Trump has just now announced that the administration would "get to the bottom" of leaks. In a statement, he said: "The alleged leaks coming out of government agencies are deeply troubling. These leaks have been going on for a long time and my Administration will get to the bottom of this. The leaks of sensitive information pose a grave threat to our national security. I am asking the Department of Justice and other relevant agencies to launch a complete review of this matter, and if appropriate, the culprit should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. There is no relationship we cherish more than the Special Relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom.
'Escaped any meaningful punishment' (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You know, apart from exile or being confined to a single building for multiple years on end. I mean apart from that nothing too serious.
There was a time when execution was a very real possibility for treason. I believe that Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were the last people to be put to death (officially at least) in 1953. I would guess that Julian Assange gets much better food, treatment, visitation and access to communications compared to what he would in a federal prison. Snowden as well.
Does anyone remember post 2000 when NSA stood for No Such Agency? It was actually before that. But it seems like they've almost become a bad joke since a
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Considering Julian Assange is not a US citizen, getting him from Treason in the US should be categorically blocked.
Snowden maybe, but if the official channels are blocked and you're asked to do unconstitutional things... what do you do?
Re:'Escaped any meaningful punishment' (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, none of the people mentioned were actually convicted of treason, so how is this relevant? There was a time when you could be stoned for witchcraft, and none of them were stoned either....
Re: (Score:2)
Step right up folks, what we have here is AAA deterrence porn. It always follows the same model. You know, no matter how your life has suffered, the real punishment is the next degradation. If complete loss of freedom isn't hitting you where it hurts, just wait until we serve you wormy food. Suck on them apples, shit bag.
Life is pretty soft. Assange p
Re: (Score:2)
You know, apart from exile
Yeah not a punishment. Not in this world. Hell given where he has been exiled from it would actually be a bonus.
or being confined to a single building for multiple years on end. I mean apart from that nothing too serious.
That was a situation of the person's own making. I mean it's not like Snowden is hauled in a building somewhere, and he has far more to fear from the government than the guy who no one is quite sure if he can be even charged with anything is.
Intelligence agencies have lost credibility (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's be honest though: there has never been a time in history when the CIA or FBI were particularly competent.
Re: (Score:2)
there has never been a time in history when the CIA or FBI were particularly competent
Sure they're competent. They stop and catch terrorists from burning this country to the ground every single day! It's barbarians at the gates out there! They won't prove that to you and there's no evidence of it beyond the use of the phrase "credible threat", but as long as we keep shoveling tax dollars (and our rights and freedoms) in their direction, they'll stay vigilant keeping us safe. Why, this very post is being cat
Re: (Score:3)
Let's be honest though: there has never been a time in history when the CIA or FBI were particularly competent.
Competent compared to whom? Only their failures make headlines.
Morality and Patriotism of some Employees (Score:3)
The organizations have ZERO ability to self correct and probably less ability to institutionalize ALL their employees (increased privatization greatly undermines this as well as lowering morale.)
Their poor actual credibility is why their employees are forced to the extreme of leaking their evil deeds or even to the point of creating disgruntled employees who just dump out their secret tools because Snowden proved that even responsible leaking has changed nothing (other than more lies about the tiny reforms
Re: (Score:2)
Let's be honest though: there has never been a time in history when the CIA or FBI were particularly competent.
So, repeal the Espionage Act of 1917 and be done with this colossal waste of money, both directly and in terms of blowback.
The US survived without it for 128 years, it can survive without it again. But it probably can't be Team America without it.
Re: (Score:2)
There in lies the problem. There are those who do not want a "Team America".
also at the top (Score:3, Insightful)
With Trump blurting out "I'm not saying we got our intelligence from Israel, but: Israel" and "Oh and we got some nuke subs over there, look how tough I am", there are leaks at the top as well.
Re:It's still confidential and classified. (Score:5, Informative)
He's the President. He's the highest level classification authority in the U.S. It even says in the Executive Order [archives.gov] (possibly an old one):
(a) Top Secret. The authority to classify information originally as Top Secret may be exercised only by:
(1) the President;
Then for Secret and Confidential it's folks appointed by the Pres.
In Section 3.4 it even states that the President is exempt from the declassification process. The real argument is would any sane person give away that kind of information to a country that has been an antagonist for decades.
Re:It's still confidential and classified. (Score:5, Insightful)
He's the President. He's the highest level classification authority in the U.S.
That just means his leaks are legal. It doesn't mean they're good, or that Americans shouldn't be upset about them.
One of the deepest principles of intelligence handling is that however valuable the intelligence itself is, the sources and methods are even more important. Except in very, very rare circumstances, any intelligence shared with anyone not an extremely close ally (and even them, generally) should be very carefully edited to ensure that it does not disclose sources and methods. This is especially important when the sources and methods belong to an ally, because if those are burned, the ally may well decide to stop providing any intel.
Sharing information with the Russians about a common enemy is a perfectly good thing for the president to do. However, a president who is not a narcissistic, insecure idiot would do this by directing his staff to provide intelligence appreciations. Said staff contains professional intelligence officers who are very good at identifying and excising details that might expose sources and methods, and would be perfectly capable of delivering the information, including solid estimates of its reliability that Russian intelligence professionals would correctly understand, without endangering intelligence gathering operations or alliances.
So, yeah, Trump was perfectly within his legal rights to leak this information to the Russians. But it's still perfectly correct to call it a leak, because he screwed it up so badly and in the process revealed more information than he intended.
We have to hope that the intelligence agencies have schooled Trump on the issue and that it won't happen again.
Oh, wait...
Re:It's still confidential and classified. (Score:4, Interesting)
I suspect that's the policy going forward. As it stands, the UK has already now decided it will not be doing any free information sharing over the Manchester suicide attack, and so far as I'm aware, that's the first time that such a suspension between these two allies has ever happened, or at least has ever been publicly acknowledged. This is the damage the leaky Trump administration is doing, so my assumption going forward is that the three letter agencies, to maintain critical intelligence links with close allies like Britain and Israel, will now know longer be making such information readily available to the President. In other words, the process of sidelining President Trump has begun. Within a few months, impeachment will likely be irrelevant, as he'll be left with little real power, and he'll be like Ronald Reagan and Woodrow Wilson were in the final years in the presidency; figureheads while subordinates take on the role of the functional presidency.
We are suck (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You can belittle my analogy between nation-states and dog society all you like, but it is nonetheless an apt analogy.
Re: (Score:2)
By the way, addiction wasn't created by evolution. Man created addiction by creating industry and excessive goods.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole "red in tooth and claw" crowd never really understood that Spencer himself to some extent misunderstood how nature works. Nature certainly has its share of violence and bloodshed, but it also has a considerable amount of cooperation. Canids, like Hominoids, are social creatures where competition is balanced by an extraordinary amount of cooperation and coordination.
Re: (Score:2)
Cooperation in attacking other species and having them for dinner.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes there is a hierarchy, and it's a bit stricter among canids, or at lest wolves, where you have a breeding pair and everyone else is subordinate. But the same applies to most Hominoids (orangutans are a bit different as they are a more solitary member of the family), where you do have a hierarchy, but it's not as if every moment of every day for a chimpanzee or a gorilla is taking up with trying to beat the shit out of each other for dominance. The Spencerian notion of nature, which is so often adopted by
Re:We are suck (Score:4, Insightful)
Attention of the Public Being Misdirected (Score:5, Insightful)
U.S. citizens should be far more concerned about what was leaked than the fact that there were leaks. The leaks clearly show our government is out of control, spying on us citizens without cause.
No, this spying did not start with either Trump or Obama. It might have started with one of the Bushes, or it might have started even earlier. Whenever it started, it should stop.
However, Trump want this spying to continue. That is the real reason for his focus on ending the leaks.
Re:Attention of the Public Being Misdirected (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a big difference between blowing the whistle on wholesale survelliance and abuse of legal limits vs. compromising a live investigation for the sake of a little kudos and a scoop, but it can also be an awfully fine line between the two and it's pretty clear those involved in the leaks and reporting them either have no idea - or simply don't care - which is which. This is absolutely the latter and it's a damning indictment of both the leaker(s) *and* the media that published it sense of responsibilty and intelligence - government is far from the only agency that is out of control.
The ship of state (Score:2)
Is the only ship that leaks from the top.
It's all BS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's all BS (Score:5, Insightful)
To some extent that's true, but generally the US intelligence does its best to keep the secrets that it gains from its allies under wraps. The free exchange of intelligence between Britain and the US has been a cornerstone of the Atlantic Alliance since WWII, and Britain has every right to be furious that classified information it exchanged with partnering agencies in the US ended up on the front page of newspapers on both sides of the Atlantic.
This wasn't strategic leaking of information. This wasn't some scheme to use classified information to gain some advantage. It was just the big mouths that currently run the Administration spouting off because they're a band of irresponsible children. Like Trump blabbing off about Israeli intelligence, this is going to have ramifications, both for information sharing between the US and its allies, and likely between the White House and the three letter agencies. It's becoming crystal clear that the current Administration cannot be trusted with classified information, and Congress and the three letter agencies are probably simply going to start withholding information, both to preserve active operations, and to preserve critical foreign alliances that the Trump Administration is putting at risk.
Re: (Score:2)
This wasn't strategic leaking of information. This wasn't some scheme to use classified information to gain some advantage. It was just the big mouths that currently run the Administration spouting off because they're a band of irresponsible children.
Well, no. They don't even have to tell Trump this stuff. They can just lie to him. He's a dumbshit, they will never know. If they're telling Trump things it's because they want them leaked.
Re:It's all BS (Score:5, Insightful)
I think up until recently most people in the intelligence agencies still assumed they were working for a rational human being capable of reflection, reason and self-control. Now that everyone both in the US intelligence services and overseas understands that they're dealing with an arrogant halfwit, they will simply route everything around him. And that's the irony of it all, that Trump's attempt to look like the Big Man, the ultimate Alpha Male, is actually going to render him impotent. Congress, the three letter agencies, foreign allies, everyone is basically going to do what they can to either get around him or undermine him. He is going to become one of the most useless and isolated Presidents in US history. It wouldn't surprise me that even without impeachment and removal, the US will end up with a Pence presidency in all but name; a sort of replay of the last couple of years of the Wilson Administration.
Re: (Score:2)
Leaks are an essential part of how the US government works
No, not all of them. Plenty of leaks are legal. Specifically, those which are protected as whistle blowing and those which are authorized. Illegal leaks are, by definition, not part of the normal functioning of the government.
Now they've lost credibility (Score:4, Insightful)
So, if I have this right, when they were leaking information about the executive branch on a daily basis to the press, that was cool... but now that they're leaking information to the press about terrorism, that's bad.
Howabout we call it all bad. That's not how bureaucrats should pay back the government they work for.
Also, how is it that the federal government can monitor its citizenry ala The Patriot Act, but it can't even figure out who's leaking classified information to the press?
Every admin in living memory leaked like a seive; (Score:5, Interesting)
... and yet leaking is almost never punished, much less prosecuted.
If you want to see why, look at one of the few cases of leaking that *was* prosecuted: Scooter Libby's leaking of the fact Valerie Plame was an active CIA agent. Note that his sentence was commuted by the president he served.
That's because despite leaking being characterized as disloyal, often it's the exact opposite. I'm not just talking about planted information, I'm talking about leaks that arise out of internal differences in strategy and policy. The insiders who do this aren't trying to sabotage the administration, they're trying to steer it using public pressure. And while embarrassment is often part of that pressure, leaks by insiders are usually carefully measured to limit damage. And given the infrequency with which they are punished I have to assume that insider are also careful about choosing their battles.
What's coming out of the Trump Administration feels different, more disloyal, and gratuitously embarrassing. It smacks of people out to personally undermine their colleagues.
Surprise surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
When you prioritize people who enjoy shoving their head up your ass over people who know how to do their jobs, then this is the result.
If Trump actually manages to hang on for the full four years, I think the US will be completely unrecognizable by the end. And not in a good way.
Re: (Score:2)
I voted for no one, because I am not American.
And I am not acting "passed over Einstein,The Dalai Lama, and Mother Teresa to elect him.".
The fact of the matter is, despite her own obvious faults, Hillary would *still* have been a better choice than Trump. Trump is absolutely and categorically unfit to be president. Hell, he's unfit to run *anything*, for reasons to numerous to bother stating here. A couple of google searches can easily show how bad of a business man he actually is.
Hillary is a manipulati
Bottom or top? (Score:3)
"President Donald Trump has just now announced that the administration would 'get to the bottom' of leaks."
Because we already know where it happens at the top.
the only nations that should share with trump.... (Score:2)
The ship of state leaks from the top (Score:2)
As Sir Humphries most capably put it, "the Ship of State is the only ship that leaks from the top." Be it the White house or the appointed heads of the intelligent organizations. Leaks happen when they are beneficial politically to the leaker usually.
Drivel (Score:3)
1. Story presents no new information
2. Fails to provide any statistically significant context to the reader
3. Cherry picks very different incidents then lumps them all into the same context.
4. Invokes good old fashioned FUD (e.g. "What if we're spreading lies, and what if we're putting people in danger by publishing what these anonymous sources tell us?" )
5. Is a bit ridiculous on it's face. US Intelligence community lost its credibility for years to come on Feb 5th of 2003 when Colin Powell squandered his in front of the world.
Saying US intelligence has lost credibility due to "leaks" is like saying Trump lost credibility because he lost the popular vote. Both true statements and both completely irrelevant.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
LOL, due to "leaks"? (Score:5, Insightful)
How about loosing their cyber weapon arsenal to hackers?
How about having hired Snowden as a contractor?
How about missing every single terror attack?
How about missing the Russian infiltration of Crimea or move into Syria?
How about rendition, secret torture camps, public exposure of torture?
How about perpetually killing civilians with drone strikes based on their "intelligence"?
How about missing the fact that Bin Ladin was living around the corner in an allied country for 10 YEARS?
How about not finding WMD?
And they are losing credibility due to leaks? Please.
Re: (Score:2)
Obama's fault (Score:2)
They lost all credibility in 2007... (Score:2)
...with the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear ambitions.
How the worm turns (Score:3)
This is, of course, simply a turnabout of how the system worked in the 1950s and 60s, when the British services were so totally infiltrated by the Soviets that the US couldn't trust them with anything at all.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"
Re:Good (Score:5, Funny)
Well, Obama promised more government transparency. These leaks delivered quite a bit of that, though I doubt it was what he had in mind...
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Obama promised more government transparency. These leaks delivered quite a bit of that, though I doubt it was what he had in mind...
No, I think it WAS what he had in mind.. At least in part.. ;)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, Obama promised more government transparency. These leaks delivered quite a bit of that, though I doubt it was what he had in mind...
On a more serious note, I think the leakers delivered it precisely because Obama didn't. I'm not pointing the finger solely at Obama, I mean the system as a whole, though he may have increased the likelihood of leaks by raising hopes of transparency and then failing to deliver. The system is too secretive, too closed, and too uncontrolled, and people like Manning and Snowden (not so much Petraeus) do what they do in order to fix that problem. It's not a very good fix, for obvious reasons, but since the system seems incapable of correcting itself, it seems the only option we have.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They've outed the leaker in chief [macleans.ca]. "This was unconfirmed officially until Trump himself seemingly let it slip [theguardian.com] while speaking in Israel on Monday, ironically while attempting to defend himself on the issue to the media."
Israel’s moves to restrict intelligence could be the shape of things to come in other corners of the globe. On the issue of intelligence-sharing, the Trump administration has proven erratic and unreliable [thinkprogress.org]—something that is increasingly alarming for U.S. allies.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
There are leaks and there are leaks. Trump will leak when it's convenient for him to leak - or when he just can't control his impulse to brag about what he knows. But the only leaks he really cares about are the ones from inside the White House, apparently from staffers that can't believe the sheer stupidity of this Administration and feel the country has a need to know.
Manning and Snowden are a whole other leaky ball of wax. They obviously believed the country had a need to know the stuff they were leaking, and they weren't members of the Administration or even the agencies they were working for. They may have done us a service - and they may also have done some real damage. But what they've pointed out more than anything else is that it's practically impossible to use modern digital technology and reliably maintain the levels of secrecy that the government seems to want to maintain...
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not just his cover stories about his various scandals. Trump lies about everything. And then he puts out a budget that blatantly double-counts stuff - and there's no point even lying about it, because nobody believes a word that comes out of this administration any more. Trump's budget guy even admits to double-counting the savings from their magical 'growth' machine - because it doesn't matter. The whole damn budget is a bunch of lies, and they know it, and the media know it, and the public knows
Re: (Score:3)
they were corrupt and lawless under Obama, and they are corrupt and lawless under Trump, i doubt much has changed
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"
They have been corrupt and lawless since way before Obama and Trump, to use a meaningless buzz-word, it's in their DNA...
Depends on WHO spreads the intel (Score:3, Informative)
they were corrupt and lawless under Obama, and they are corrupt and lawless under Trump, i doubt much has changed "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"
It's not that. They are a bureaucratic power unto themselves, completely unelected, but who believe that they have to do what's best for the country, elections be damned. Hence them accusing Russia of trying to influence the elections, despite there being no evidence to back that up.
A week ago, people were all over Trump for having 'leaked' something to the 2 Sergeis, except that Trump was just discussing w/ them something that was already common knowledge in the West: laptops rigged to be bombs. Israe
Re:Good (Score:5, Funny)
"I get good intelligence photos - great photos. They're the best intelligence photos in the world. I just saw some last night of the bomb remnants from Manchester... here, they're on my phone, I'll send them to you."
source of the leaks (Score:5, Interesting)
The White House Staff wouldn't know the name of the Libyan suicide bomber: that had to come from one of the TLA agencies. The White House staff leaks have been about each other - Jared about Bannon, Priebus about Jared & so on
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's coming from employees who have been there since before Trump was inaugurated. Or did you forget those leaks in January?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, STFU already.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The intelligence services were politicized under Obama. Their ranks are filled with Partisan Hacks who operate by the credo, The Ends justifies the Means.
Just look at all the domestic spying that has been uncovered, admitted to, and simply resumed without anything being done about it.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Oh, fuck off. Twice stationed at Ft Meade, worked for other 3 letters over my career. They've been politicized for far longer than that. They had that nonsense through Clinton and Bush (particularly egregious through this one, however) as well, so let's not pretend this was as "Obama problem".
Why the fuck do you gaggots keep treating this shit like it's a fucking team sport?
Re: (Score:2)
Trump at least SAYS he's going to try.... One can hope he does because this garbage has got to stop.
He also said nobody was going to lose medical coverage with his amazing tremendous health care repeal. Not exactly going to take him at his word on anything. Also, they all SAY that they want to bring the country together and reform the system, blah blah blah. And then they find a way to screw the "other team". These guys [brandnewcongress.org] are trying something completely different.
Re: (Score:3)
Fine, just as long as you realize that the "other team" is lying though their teeth too...
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
You mean the domestic spying which got its real start when Bush forced telecom companies to install equipment which allowed the government to listen in on every phone call without a warrant? That he admitted to signing the executive orders [cnn.com] and which were subsequently found to be illegal [nytimes.com]? Who then went and expanded the program [nytimes.com]?
You mean those hacks who kept saying over and over it's for our protection, that the right to privacy no longer exists?
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there something specific you are attributing to Obama? Those programs go back decades. We just found out about them under Obama. I'd prefer to blame Bush Jr, but really he was just signing-off on justifications for programs that already existed back before 9/11/2001. This is what happens when you have a secret government watchdog.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
However this is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
We need good intelligence, and some of it needs to be kept secret. However the trend is to classify stuff that shouldn't need to be classified, just because it is easier to classify then have it public.
With the leaks, what bothers me more isn't the stuff that got leaked out, most of it is fairly common knowledge, it just confirms what we already know. The real problem is why is such mundane stuff classified?
The answers are obvious. (Score:5, Insightful)
The leadership of the intelligence community has been using their authorized secrecy to do terrible, evil things, and cover it all up.
The low-level functionaries that must facilitate this evil are mostly ordinary people with something of a moral backbone. They aren't paid nearly enough to sell their souls, and feel an obligation to protect the people whom they purportedly serve from all the evil that their bosses are perpetuating.
So, the culture of evil leadership has created the culture of perfidious employees.
If they want the leaks to stop, the must either:
1) cut all their employees in for a much large slice of the pie (everyone who touches anything secret gets a 0.5 million dollar a year salary, to start). Buy their silence.
2) Clean up their act, so people stop feeling morally obligated to leak information.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
What mundane stuff? The subs? The whole point of a sub is that it's hidden. Otherwise there's no point in having them.
Now of course everybody knows in rough terms how many the US has, and roughly where they're probably found. But if you tell the world that there are precisely two in a given place at a given time, that's a big deal. This is because there's a bunch of countries watching sensors, satellites, and so on, where there might be traces of those two. And by telling them exactly how many, where and when, you're giving them a fantastic way to calibrate their detection. Now they know if they detected them all, if they missed something, and can confirm things like that the uncertain data they logged is actually a sign of a sub in the area.
Re: (Score:3)
The real problem is why is such mundane stuff classified?
Even the most mundane thing can be very important to keep secret in an ongoing investigation. Being classified isn't a problem. A problem would be that it is never declassified.
Re: (Score:3)
With the leaks, what bothers me more isn't the stuff that got leaked out, most of it is fairly common knowledge, it just confirms what we already know. The real problem is why is such mundane stuff classified?
From the point of view of an honest gov't joe, the incentives are such that just stamping stuff secret and letting it be someone else's problem down the road is less than making the effort to fight for properly releasing most information and while keeping a very few select items secret.
Obviously sometimes these things are kept secret with clear less than noble intentions. But really it is the habit that makes such volumes and volumes of secrets easy without anyone batting an eyelash.
If we actually want dif
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
However this is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
We need good intelligence, and some of it needs to be kept secret. However the trend is to classify stuff that shouldn't need to be classified, just because it is easier to classify then have it public.
With the leaks, what bothers me more isn't the stuff that got leaked out, most of it is fairly common knowledge, it just confirms what we already know. The real problem is why is such mundane stuff classified?
Have you ever disclosed your real identity on /.?
Now assume I go through your posting history and read every comment, and that I start searching the Internet for other comments made under the same username, or people using the same phrases on other forums.
How confident are you that I couldn't uncover your real identity?
Give an intelligence agency a bunch of mundane stuff and some confirmed rumours and they'll figure out a lot of things they weren't supposed to know.
Re: (Score:3)
That would be tough with me, Irarely missspel thinks the same way twise.
What has the intelligence ever done for us? (Score:2)
I know, right? What has breaking of Enigma ever done for us?
Re:Good (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the POTUS also responsible for some of these leaks, based on recent news?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also lets tell apart whistle blowers and traitors. Shedding light on unlawful practices of government agencies isn't treason. The unlawful practices themselves are the crime.
Re:Let's tell the fools from traitors here (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm inclined to cut Snowden some slack for two reasons. First, he took pains to release the information in as responsible a way as possible. Second, what he exposed was a pile of crimes against the American people (whether technically legal or not). It has been a long time since I studied the Manning incident, but my recollection is that he was trying to hurt America by casting wartime battlefield events as if they should be held to peaceful homeland standards.
If I were President, I'd offer Snowden a deal where he can return home and serve 13 months under house arrest for stealing secrets in exchange for a pardon of everything else.
If I were Emperor, or had an agreeable Congress, I'd also make it a capital offense to abuse government against the American people as a whole or American citizens individually - including spying, IRS bullshit, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Ya, and what did el Presidente Tweetie do it for? Yucks? Payoff the Russians for services rendered? Stupidity?
Re: (Score:2)
But Manning, who harmed his country to impress a boyfriend [nymag.com], and Snowden, who did it for some "greater good" (which never materialized [circa.com]), were traitors. The sooner we stop glorifying the two assholes, the sooner the healing will begin.
What about that fellow who leaked classified intel to the Kremlin just to impress his Russian pals [theguardian.com]? I guess it's as Richard Nixon liked to say, if the president does it, that means it’s not illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
The news is a business, and "shocking new details!!!!" is how that business makes money. Blaming the media for publishing the leaked information is essentially trying to pass the buck. The US's allies freely share intelligence with US police and intelligence agencies with the understanding that the information is to remain confidential, and if some fuckwad somewhere who has access to that information decides for profit or kudos to phone up a newspaper and say "Guess what I got!" then that IS a US Government
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's all good once he doesn't do the leaking through an unclassified email server. Email security is serious business.
Re:Does this include Agent Orange... (Score:5, Insightful)
Keeping his mouth shut when entertaining the Russians in the Oval Office?
You do realize that ANYTHING Trump decides to discuss, classified or not, is legal right? It's under HIS authority that stuff is classified in the first place and he can declassify anything he wants anytime he wants.
Re: (Score:2)
How DARE you bring logic and fact into this? Don't you know this is an online anti-Trump rally?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry... How un-PC of me... I forget that I'm supposed to just sit down and shut up and accept that I'm part of the stupid uneducated uncaring radical right deplorables.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think that a President just showing off to the Russians by freely releasing Israeli intelligence is somehow a righteous act, then all I can say is "if the shoe fits..."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The President does have the right to reveal classified information yes, but through proper channels and with oversight. He does not have the legal right to spout it out off in a random conversation.
Re: (Score:3)
It is not illegal for a president to do such a thing, no, it is merely breaking a solemn promise to an ally. But once we are in the game of breaking promises because we so happen to feel like it, it is difficult to care about the technical issues of the law. The low level leaker can properly assert a strong argument for "justice" as being their motivation, which is more likely to prove admirable under examination than what the president did.
It does not matter what is "right", the president gets away with
Re: (Score:2)
The president may very well have the right to declassify secret information and reveal it to anyone he wants, but that doesn't mean he should do that. It might be like the fact that people in the US, with some exceptions, have the right to own guns but their use is not unlimited - you can't use them in any way you want to without getting into big trouble with law enforcement.
"The president may very well have the right to declassify secret information and reveal it to anyone he wants"
You're kind of contradicting yourself then. That sounds pretty much like carte blanche.
Besides that whole issue reeking of the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy theory for which there is still no evidence.
Re:Does this include Agent Orange... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it may have been ill-advised for Trump to do, but the analogy given was to use a gun illegally, not ill-advisedly. There aren't likely to be any actual legal ramifications or trouble from law enforcement regarding Trump's converstation, because as stated, he can legally do that, as POTUS. Political ramifications maybe, but not legal.
Re:Does this include Agent Orange... (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides that whole issue reeking of the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy theory for which there is still no evidence.
The fact that there are so many overt signs of dishonestly and incompetence bubbling up so early in the term is a problem owned by the Administration, not its detractors. A bit of speculation on the part of the detractors does not invalidate specific named criticisms that can be backed by concrete evidence.
Personally, I doubt actual collusion on the part of Trump himself, but I will keep an open mind to real evidence. But a proper investigation is very likely to throw mud on a lot of his friends and people in the Administration, and possibly a couple indictments to boot; it is right and proper and necessary to purse such an investigation, given just what is known in the public record.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Flynn already got tied up in that, certainly. But I'd say it's a whole lot more than just a bit of speculation at this point, it's 24/7 accusations, detractors looking zealously for any way to get trump out of office but where so far any actual evidence is minuscule and most of it seems based on hearsay and rumor So far. If they're going to come up with some hard evidence, they're going to need to do it soon. I suspect much of it is political revenge for the Bhengazi hearings. US politics is lik
Re: (Score:2)
Or for Manning.... Who Obama pardoned...
If you want to stop the leaks, we have to actually punish the leakers in some meaningful way...
Re: (Score:2)
Right... IF either major party puts forth a less than 35 year old as their candidate or someone not a natural born US citizen, you can bet I'd not vote for them...
The ONLY requirements in the Constitution is that a president be a natural born citizen who is 35 years old. That's it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because what they intend to do once you hire them is COMPLETELY irrelevant.
Re: (Score:3)
The use of "she" recognizes Manning's gender dysphoria, which acknowledges her problems. Also, what do you mean by rejecting as opposed to catering to mental illness? Are you saying we shouldn't allow the mentally ill to get treatment? Manning is getting treatment for her problem. Personally, I never intended to have sexual relations with that person, so I don't really care what pronoun gets used. What's your problem with it?
The biological situation is also a lot more complicated than you realize.