Silly state of US classified documents?

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, sync said:

...Your original posting suggests the banning of "extremist views,"...

No, I didn't. You didn't read my posting carefully. 

[+ sync]

1 hour ago, Unicorn said:

No, I didn't. You didn't read my posting carefully. 

I gleaned my understanding from the verbiage in your post:

"Maybe there should be some people whose job it is to look at social media posts of people who've been granted security clearances, and recommend revoking of the clearances of those who post extremist views?"

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, sync said:

I gleaned my understanding from the verbiage in your post:

"Maybe there should be some people whose job it is to look at social media posts of people who've been granted security clearances, and recommend revoking of the clearances of those who post extremist views?"

I'm afraid you don't understand the concept of free speech. Free speech doesn't mean you can say anything you want, anywhere, anytime without consequences. What one says and writes can have significant repercussions. Almost all employed people do understand, though. Someone with a top-secret security clearance should especially understand this concept. Americans are free to have off-kilter views and even to express those views. As our your airman clearly demonstrated, expressing off-kilter views can easily be a sign of someone who can't be trusted with national secrets. 

[+ sync]

18 minutes ago, Unicorn said:

I'm afraid you don't understand the concept of free speech. Free speech doesn't mean you can say anything you want, anywhere, anytime without consequences. What one says and writes can have significant repercussions. Almost all employed people do understand, though. Someone with a top-secret security clearance should especially understand this concept. Americans are free to have off-kilter views and even to express those views. As our your airman clearly demonstrated, expressing off-kilter views can easily be a sign of someone who can't be trusted with national secrets. 

I'm not sure you understand the scope of what "our your airman clearly demonstrated," he not only expressed off-kilter views, he posted top-secret government documents into a social media outlet.

[TonyDown]

Without a "need to know" it doesn't matter what your clearance.  You don't receive permission.

So the OP made a valid point, how this guy accessed a wide variety of critical top secret classified information.  Seems silly. 

Can his security officer that controls access justify this kid's "need" too see what he took?

[Rudynate]

10 hours ago, TonyDown said:

Without a "need to know" it doesn't matter what your clearance.  You don't receive permission.

So the OP made a valid point, how this guy accessed a wide variety of critical top secret classified information.  Seems silly. 

Can his security officer that controls access justify this kid's "need" too see what he took?

True enough - but the scope of a person's need to know could vary depending on his/her duties  - very narrow to very broad.

[Rudynate]

15 hours ago, sync said:

Precisely my point "one can certainly write whatever opinion one wishes to share."

From where did your relating the First Amendment to security clearances come?

Your original posting suggests the banning of "extremist views," which are different from security clearances/national secrets, and are protected by the First Amendment.

Th First Amendment applies differently to members of the military.  Speech that is protected in the civilian community may not be protected in the military setting. 

Edited April 15, 2023 by Rudynate

[+ Pensant]

The massive militaristic arrest shows of force in these media spectacles is something that in the past was relegated to autocratic regimes or military juntas. These alphabet agencies love to cosplay.

[Rudynate]

13 hours ago, Unicorn said:

I'm afraid you don't understand the concept of free speech. Free speech doesn't mean you can say anything you want, anywhere, anytime without consequences. What one says and writes can have significant repercussions. Almost all employed people do understand, though. Someone with a top-secret security clearance should especially understand this concept. Americans are free to have off-kilter views and even to express those views. As our your airman clearly demonstrated, expressing off-kilter views can easily be a sign of someone who can't be trusted with national secrets. 

People generally don't understand that the First Amendment isn't as broad as they may think.  The First Amendment only protects speech from state action - attempts by the government to curtail speech.  There is little to no First Amendment protection from actions by private employers.
 

[Rudynate]

17 minutes ago, Pensant said:

The massive militaristic arrest shows of force in these media spectacles is something that in the past was relegated to autocratic regimes or military juntas. These alphabet agencies love to cosplay.

As you say, though, they are "media spectacles," caused, a least in part, by (1) improved communications technology and (2) mass media that have lost any sense of propriety. 

[+ Lucky]

The WJS today takes a look at the chat groups that Airman Jack participated in:

"The people in the online spaces where Airman First Class Jack Teixeira spent his time and allegedly leaked highly classified documents had many things in common. In obscure game forums and private online chat rooms, his friends posted slurs against minority communities, Ukrainians and pretty much everyone else. 

Everyone, that is, except Russians.

Members of that small community, hosted on the social-media app Discord, admired President Vladimir Putin’s regime and its war on Ukraine. ..

...Handles associated with Airman Teixeira also had accounts on websites dedicated to collecting weapons and swapping tactical gear. From a young age, he nursed a fascination with history, especially the minutiae of weapons and armaments used in famous battles, a classmate recalled.

“He was just really into the whole, like, gun and war thing, more than, like, normal people were,” said Brooke Cleathero, 21, who said she attended history class with Airman Teixeira at Dighton-Rehoboth Regional High School. “He just wore a lot of camo.”

...

The original Discord channel inside Thug Shaker Central where Airman Teixeira allegedly leaked hundreds of classified documents was called “Bears vs Pigs,” a name that echoes Russian memes that depict Ukrainians as hapless pigs mauled by the mighty Russian bear.

 

Airman Teixeira appears to have scrubbed his social media clean in the anticipation of his arrest. 

The affinity for Mr. Putin, displayed by members of Airman Teixeira’s community, echoes the sympathies for Russia sometimes found in the populist strain of American conservatism, where Mr. Teixeira is now being viewed with sympathy. 

In full: https://www.wsj.com/articles/airman-arrested-for-leaks-chatted-in-groups-fascinated-by-weapons-and-war-68a9503a

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Rudynate said:

Th First Amendment applies differently to members of the military.  Speech that is protected in the civilian community may not be protected in the military setting. 

Not just that, but, as you later said, similar constraints are imposed by almost any employer. Obviously, the constraints should be tougher for people with access to our nation's top secrets. It's evident that someone with stated sympathies to one of our greatest adversaries shouldn't have had the access he had. 

[wsc]

6 hours ago, Rudynate said:

The First Amendment applies differently to members of the military.  Speech that is protected in the civilian community may not be protected in the military setting. 

"The First Amendment applies differently to members of the military." To see this in action, consider the consequences to a soldier of offering a different view of a superior officer's order instead of obeying it. The First Amendment will not be his shield at the court-martial.

As the sub captain in Crimson Tide (played by Gene Hackman) said. "We're here to protect democracy, not practice it."

And from the old adage, Military justice is to justice as military music is to music. It marches to its own tune.

[Rudynate]

38 minutes ago, wsc said:

"The First Amendment applies differently to members of the military." To see this in action, consider the consequences to a soldier of offering a different view of a superior officer's order instead of obeying it. The First Amendment will not be his shield at the court-martial.

As the sub captain in Crimson Tide (played by Gene Hackman) said. "We're here to protect democracy, not practice it."

And from the old adage, Military justice is to justice as military music is to music. It marches to its own tune.

I don't see a First Amendment issue here.  A soldier has a durty to disobey an lawful order.  Orders to perform a military duty are presumed to be lawful, so the soldier has the burden of convincing the court that the disobeyed order was unlawful. 

[wsc]

If a sailor on liberty in New York City commits a robbery, assault, or murder, he will be charged with a violation of the New York Criminal Code and stand trial in a New York courtroom where all his constitutional rights will be in effect and protected.

If, on the other hand, the sailor mouths off to an officer on base or aboard ship, he will be charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the legal code applied to all US armed forces, and under which constitutional rights are generally not applicable. The UCMJ was approved by Congress pursuant to constitutional provisions empowering congress to make rules for regulating the "land and naval forces of the United States," and recognizing the need for a greater degree of discipline and cohesion in the services as opposed to the general society.

In a middle case, if the sailor kills a shipmate on base or aboard ship, he will be charged under the UCMJ and prosecuted under its rules.  Courts have consistently ruled that the UCMJ, although doing so differently, provides the accused with all the applicable protections of the constitution. There are mixed opinions as to the accuracy of that assertion.

How a service member's constitutional rights are addressed depends on who is charging him and under what system he is charged, state or federal penal codes, or the UCMJ.

Hence, military justice is to justice as military music is to music.

[Rudynate]

13 minutes ago, wsc said:

If a sailor on liberty in New York City commits a robbery, assault, or murder, he will be charged with a violation of the New York Criminal Code and stand trial in a New York courtroom where all his constitutional rights will be in effect and protected.

If, on the other hand, the sailor mouths off to an officer on base or aboard ship, he will be charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the legal code applied to all US armed forces, and under which constitutional rights are generally not applicable. The UCMJ was approved by Congress pursuant to constitutional provisions empowering congress to make rules for regulating the "land and naval forces of the United States," and recognizing the need for a greater degree of discipline and cohesion in the services as opposed to the general society.

In a middle case, if the sailor kills a shipmate on base or aboard ship, he will be charged under the UCMJ and prosecuted under its rules.  Courts have consistently ruled that the UCMJ, although doing so differently, provides the accused with all the applicable protections of the constitution. There are mixed opinions as to the accuracy of that assertion.

How a service member's constitutional rights are addressed depends on who is charging him and under what system he is charged, state or federal penal codes, or the UCMJ.

Hence, military justice is to justice as military music is to music.

I don't think that's correct.  A soldier can be prosecuted for crimes committed on or off-base under the UCMJ.  So he/she could be prosecuted under the UCMJ in your first case.  The military may cede jurisdiction to the civilian authority, but only because they decide to do so. I don't know how the military and the civil authority work out questions of jurisdiction though.

  I do know that when crimes occur off-base in a foreign country, the military typically retains jurisdiction.  Nonetheless, the military works closely with civilian authority of the host country because, as a matter of diplomacy, the host country has to be satisfied that justice was served.  

[mike carey]

22 minutes ago, Rudynate said:

I do know that when crimes occur off-base in a foreign country, the military typically retains jurisdiction.  Nonetheless, the military works closely with civilian authority of the host country because, as a matter of diplomacy, the host country has to be satisfied that justice was served.

If I'm not mistaken, for the US military to retain jurisdiction there needs to be a status of forces agreement between the US and the other country, otherwise the host country is entitled to retain it. A SOFA could specify that the US retains jurisdiction for all alleged offences or cede primacy to the other country for some. I think I recall murder cases in Okinawa were although the US was entitled to retain jurisdiction, diplomatic considerations led to a trial in a Japanese court.

[TorontoDrew]

Back to the original point.  The US Military, and likely most others, need to do a thorough review of how many people can have access to these documents and do a better job of vetting.  While these leaks will always happen, there needs to be more done to keep it from occurring.

[Rudynate]

27 minutes ago, mike carey said:

If I'm not mistaken, for the US military to retain jurisdiction there needs to be a status of forces agreement between the US and the other country, otherwise the host country is entitled to retain it. A SOFA could specify that the US retains jurisdiction for all alleged offences or cede primacy to the other country for some. I think I recall murder cases in Okinawa were although the US was entitled to retain jurisdiction, diplomatic considerations led to a trial in a Japanese court.

Yes, I think that's right. As a matter of fact, I think I remember at least one murder case in Okinawa where that was the case.

Edited April 15, 2023 by Rudynate

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Rudynate said:

...  A soldier has a durty to disobey an lawful order....

Did you mean to say that a soldier has a duty to disobey an unlawful order?

[Rudynate]

38 minutes ago, Unicorn said:

Did you mean to say that a soldier has a duty to disobey an unlawful order?

yes

[+ tassojunior]

The rapid descent from when Daniel Ellsberg successfully exposed the Pentagon Papers showing government dishonesty and Julian Assange and Edward Snowden exposed much worse unlawfulness of the government is the period when the first amendment died the fastest in the US (Julian Assange is a journalist).  As a 40-yr security-clearanced fed attorney who went through three or four section shakedowns to find and hide embarrassing papers the intent is clear. It's not to protect the state but the government. 

The notion of government or state secrecy is just silly in DC where everyone knows everything from friends and spouses, etc. The whole concept is the American public must not know. That's why putting journalists in prison for life for making public government unlawfulness is a thing. And in the digital age the population must be closely surveilled to rapidly find embarrassing information reaching the public and silence it's source.

The thinking is the US cannot compete against China with it's monolithic dogmatic society and public surveillance with the US having dividing opinions here and embarrassing disclosures of unlawfulness of government. The "secrecy" is not from anyone eager to find out but from the general public. .