It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hillary FINALLY responds to a hard question.

page: 20
55
<< 17  18  19    21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


Why can't you admit the NSD gave the NSA the power to write the rules for both military and civilians when it comes to what constitutes mishandling of classified information.

Of course a President issued the directive... that is kind of what Presidents do ya know.

Your deflecting now because you have been proven wrong.







edit on R162016-08-26T15:16:05-05:00k168Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R162016-08-26T15:16:51-05:00k168Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Gryphon66


Why can't you admit the NSD gave the NSA the power to write the rules for both military and civilians when it comes to what constitutes mishandling of classified information.

Of course a President issued the directive... that is kind of what President do ya know.

Your deflecting now because you have been proven wrong.


I'm not deflecting anything, Rick, because you're patently incorrect in what you're claiming.

1. The standards for classified information, including what, how, when, etc. is established by Executive Order, the latest being 13526 issued by Barack Obama in 2009.

2. You are blatantly in error when you say that this EO only covers "what information can be classified." It does that, but it also establishes the current standards for how information is marked classified, how it is safeguarded, etc. etc. ANYONE including you, can see this by clicking on the link I provided.

3. "National Security Directive 42" was issued by the President of the United States, not the NSA. This is also provided to you in my link.

Keep denying the obvious; you've bored me.



posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Gryphon66


Why can't you admit the NSD gave the NSA the power to write the rules for both military and civilians when it comes to what constitutes mishandling of classified information.

Of course a President issued the directive... that is kind of what President do ya know.

Your deflecting now because you have been proven wrong.


I'm not deflecting anything, Rick, because you're patently incorrect in what you're claiming.

1. The standards for classified information, including what, how, when, etc. is established by Executive Order, the latest being 13526 issued by Barack Obama in 2009.

2. You are blatantly in error when you say that this EO only covers "what information can be classified." It does that, but it also establishes the current standards for how information is marked classified, how it is safeguarded, etc. etc. ANYONE including you, can see this by clicking on the link I provided.

3. "National Security Directive 42" was issued by the President of the United States, not the NSA. This is also provided to you in my link.

Keep denying the obvious; you've bored me.








You really and truly have no clue what you are talking about... it is painfully obvious.

1. " The standards for classified information, including what, how, when, etc. is established by Executive Order, the latest being 13526 issued by Barack Obama in 2009." TRUE

2. You are blatantly in error when you say that this EO only covers "what information can be classified." It does that, but it also establishes the current standards for how information is marked classified, how it is safeguarded, etc. etc. ANYONE including you, can see this by clicking on the link I provided. Partially True, the EO does not address that proper safeguardng of classified information,, that is deferred to NSA.

Feel free to show anyone where it states in the EO what type of encryption must be used to transmit classified information?

Feel free to show me in the EO where it states how thick the walls must be for a SCIF

Feel free to show me in the EO what constitutes a place of proper custody pertaining to classified information storage

Feel free to show me in the EO that states there must be two people present during destruction of classified information?

Feel free to show me in the EO where it states what kind of safes can be used for the storage of classified material?

Feel free to show me in the EO where it says all computers housing classified information must be are gapped from the open internet and protected by type 1 encryption?

Feel free to show me in that EO where else I or anyone can get an authorized type 1 encryption key compatible with US systems?

None of that is in there.

It is in the guidelines set forth by the NSA for the safeguarding, transmittal and storage or classified information.


Bottom line... you get caught with classified information and it is not inside a NSA approved safe inside a NSA mandated SCIF...which is it's proper place of custody that is also mandated by NSA, then you are guilty of mishandling classified information based on the rules and guidlelines set forth by NSA.


I don't know why you are so hung up on a president issued NSD 42....who else was going to do it ? Punky Brewster?

Why do you keep ignoring the obvious fact the NSD 42 gives the NSA sole power over handling, storage, transmittal, etc of classified information.

You lose.... see you another day... no more time talking to a wall.

Have fun and keep spreading that dis-information.
edit on R462016-08-26T15:46:52-05:00k468Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R492016-08-26T15:49:06-05:00k498Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

So ... it is the President, not the NSA that determines and issues rules for classification?

TRUE? Wonderful. As I've said about 20 times now, in this thread alone.

As to the rest of that (which you would find is covered by EO 13526 should you care to read it), feel free to add to the discussion with links to the detailed matters that interest you.



Sec. 1.3. Classification Authority. (a) The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by: (1) the President and the Vice President; (2) agency heads and officials designated by the President; and (3) United States Government officials delegated this authority pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.




Sec. 1.8. Classification Challenges. (a) Authorized holders of information who, in good faith, believe that its classification status is improper are encouraged and expected to challenge the classification status of the information in accordance with agency procedures established under paragraph (b) of this section. (b) In accordance with implementing directives issued pursuant to this order, an agency head or senior agency official shall establish procedures under which authorized holders of information, including authorized holders outside the classifying agency, are encouraged and expected to challenge the classification of information that they believe is improperly classified or unclassified.


Guess where the Director of the NSA lands in that?

You guessed it, an "agency head or senior agency official."

For more examples, read EO 13526.

/finis


edit on 26-8-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You keep bringing a snow ball to a mud ball fight. Now you are confusing classifying information and how that information is safeguarded once it has been determined to be classified. Apples and Oranges.

For the last damn time:

National Security Directive 42 gave the National Security Agency to sole power to control the safeguarding, storage, transmittal etc of classified information. FACT.

To be found guilty of mishandling of classified information, you must break one of the rules or regulations put forth by NSA. You will then be charged with breaking numerous federal laws.

The Federal laws concerning classified information have been around a long long long time. NSA defines certain terms associated with those laws, such as "proper place of custody".


edit on R012016-08-26T16:01:31-05:00k018Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Alright, I have now considered more seriously what you guys are debating exactly and looked a bit at what has been reported about the submarine case.

To me, it seems that Hillary's investigation is not precedent for any federal criminal case because it was never heard by a Court. No findings of fact were established, and no legal issues were resolved. Therefore, using it as precedent would be purely speculative.

I was under the wrong impression that the case of the submarine guy was heard in a military court. I don't know why I just assumed that. It was heard in a federal court.

The NSA does make the rules but that's pursuant to Obama's Executive Order. Rules & Regulations are not law, so any violation of the Rules promulgated under the Executive Order is, in effect, a violation of the Executive Order.

On the other hand, the Court did consider the cases of two other shipmates who took selfies of the same submarine. However, the Court found those cases were substantially different in that they were not photos of the technology, per se, rather the technology was a background for a selfie-souvenir...proving to the Court that the *ahem* INTENT behind the taking of the photos was not similar enough to warrant a similar judgment/punishment.

Personally, I think a jury should be the decider of whether Hillary had intent, or not. But my understanding of how the justice system works says that Hillary's case is not suitable as a comparison or precedent because no facts were found and no issues were ever resolved in Court.

That's not meant to mediate your debate. My understanding is limited to researching for under one hour, but I am pretty sure I looked like an idiot earlier so I wanted a second chance to not look so ignorant. *snort*



posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Absolutely perfect commentary (again) MME.

You can mediate anytime. For the most part, as here, you reference facts and clear common knowledge.

You didn't look like an idiot. You will notice how the definitions keep morphing; I've been clear all along:

All matters dealing with classified material are controlled by directives of the President of the United States and those he (or soon, she) designates, as in the much-ballyhooed "National Security Directive 42" issued by President Bush (I).



posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Well said.




posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Absolutely perfect commentary (again) MME.

You can mediate anytime. For the most part, as here, you reference facts and clear common knowledge.

You didn't look like an idiot. You will notice how the definitions keep morphing; I've been clear all along:

All matters dealing with classified material are controlled by directives of the President of the United States and those he (or soon, she) designates, as in the much-ballyhooed "National Security Directive 42" issued by President Bush (I).



Good grief... so now you post this:

"All matters dealing with classified material are controlled by directives of the President of the United States"

But yet you claim "There are extraordinary differences between civilian and military laws, policies, requirements, et. al. in these matters."


Can you please point out in the EO where it directs that members of the armed forces will be subject different policies and requirements from their civilian counterparts....

Your claim is in direct conflict with "All matters dealing with classified material are controlled by directives of the President of the United States"

So which is it... are there different rules and regulations for enlisted personnel as opposed to civilian personnel... or is there ...wait for it:::

Just one set of rules for everybody as mandated by EO, which incorporates NSD 42?


I ask you one more time... is there a different set of rules concerning classsified information for military members as opposed to the rules for civilians which you claimed?
edit on R112016-08-26T16:11:36-05:00k118Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

You're done Rick; you like making up your own answers ... just keep on.




posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: RickinVa

You're done Rick; you like making up your own answers ... just keep on.



Your right I am done,, I just got another step closer to your level and my IQ dropped another 100 points..... have fun in that fantasy world of yours where there are different rules for military and civilians when it comes to mishandling classified information.
edit on R132016-08-26T16:13:54-05:00k138Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: RickinVa

You're done Rick; you like making up your own answers ... just keep on.



Your right I am done,, I just got another step closer to your level and my IQ dropped another 100 points..... have fun in that fantasy world of yours where there are different rules for military and civilians when it comes to mishandling classified information.


More ad hom ... tsk tsk.

One last time ... what are people convicted of? Breaking rules or breaking laws?

Are there two sets of laws, one for military and one for civilians?

Why yes, yes there are.

Toodles, Ricky. (Until you post again.)


edit on 26-8-2016 by Gryphon66 because: is--->are (couldn't stand it)



posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: RickinVa

You're done Rick; you like making up your own answers ... just keep on.



Your right I am done,, I just got another step closer to your level and my IQ dropped another 100 points..... have fun in that fantasy world of yours where there are different rules for military and civilians when it comes to mishandling classified information.


More ad hom ... tsk tsk.

One last time ... what are people convicted of? Breaking rules or breaking laws?

Are there two sets of laws, one for military and one for civilians?

Why yes, yes there is.

Toodles, Ricky. (Until you post again.)



Too tempting to pass up>>>>


1. One last time ... what are people convicted of? Breaking rules or breaking laws?

People are convicted of breaking the laws.

2. Are there two sets of laws, one for military and one for civilians?

Why yes there are!! But UCMJ is vastly different from normal laws and enlisted personnel do not have the same rights.

There are NO laws under UCMJ concerning classified information that are different from the laws quoted in the SF 312 which applies to EVERYBODY who has access to classified information.


Civilian or Military can be charged under:

These restrictions are consistent with and do not supersede, conflict with or otherwise alter the employee obligations, rights or liabilities created by Executive Order 12356; section 7211 of Title 5, United States Code (governing disclosures to Congress); section 1034 of Title 10,United States Code, as amended by the Military Whistleblower Protection Act (governing disclosure to Congress by members of the military); section 2302(b)(8) of Title 5, United States Code, as amended by the Whistleblower Protection Act (governing disclosures of illegality, waste, fraud, abuse or public health or safety threats); the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421 et seq.) (governing disclosures that could expose confidential Government agents), and the statutes which protect against disclosure that may compromise the national security, including Sections 641, 793, 794, 798, and 952 of Title 18, United States Code, and Section 4(b) of the Subversive Activities Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. Section 783(b)). The definitions, requirements, obligations, rights, sanctions and liabilities created by said Executive Order and listed statutes are incorporated into this Agreement and are controlling.


edit on R312016-08-26T16:31:26-05:00k318Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

And again, like clockwork ...

So, essentially, you admit I'm right again ... but I'm lying, stupid, etc.

We're making progress though. So, people are convicted of breaking the laws, and there are different laws for military personnel and civilians.

Good, good. Now, hang on ...

If Clinton were tried for supposed "gross negligence" ... where would she be tried? Military or Civilian court?

(Take a few deep breaths ... I know you're overwrought...)



posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: RickinVa

And again, like clockwork ...

So, essentially, you admit I'm right again ... but I'm lying, stupid, etc.

We're making progress though. So, people are convicted of breaking the laws, and there are different laws for military personnel and civilians.

Good, good. Now, hang on ...

If Clinton were tried for supposed "gross negligence" ... where would she be tried? Military or Civilian court?

(Take a few deep breaths ... I know you're overwrought...)



and there are different laws for military personnel and civilians.

quit cherry picking and give me time to reply.... the laws concerning classified information are the exact same for military and civilian personnel... there is no difference. Period.

Once again, there are NO laws specifically for military..... everybody gets charged under the same exact laws.

If you are enlisted, you are screwed under UCMJ because you do not have many basic rights.

If you are a civilian, you most likely get fired and lose your clearance,,, dependent on the severity of your transgression.


Same exact laws.... different circumstances.... you really can't compare UCMJ actions to civilians actions.
edit on R372016-08-26T16:37:05-05:00k378Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

But you said earlier that it is "easier to convict in military court" ... so which is it?

You noted that there are two sets of laws that govern the two spheres of jurisdiction ... but now they're the same?

I'm not sure how I'm "rushing you" ... but again, you do seem to be a bit addled, first I'm telling the truth, then I'm lying.

I'm right, then I'm stupid.

I don't want to rush you.

Take all the time you need.



posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: RickinVa

But you said earlier that it is "easier to convict in military court" ... so which is it?

You noted that there are two sets of laws that govern the two spheres of jurisdiction ... but now they're the same?

I'm not sure how I'm "rushing you" ... but again, you do seem to be a bit addled, first I'm telling the truth, then I'm lying.

I'm right, then I'm stupid.

I don't want to rush you.

Take all the time you need.



Simply put... there are no laws under UCMJ that concern classified information that are different from the laws applied to civilians.

Enlisted members are easily charged and convicted of the exact same crimes that their civilian counterparts would be fired for due to the nature of UCMJ.

There is no "higher burden of proof" for civilians because of this.... it is simply because enlisted people do not have the same rights as civilian.. they all sign a contract agreeing to that when you enlist which results in a much higher conviction rate for military members.

It is not that it is so hard to convict a civilian for mishandling classified information, but rather because it is so easy to convict an enlisted person that does the same thing.

The laws are exactly the same for both military and civilian... it is how they are prosecuted that makes the difference.
edit on R472016-08-26T16:47:30-05:00k478Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

SO you were mistaken before when you said the two law codes are different? Mistaken, confused, lying, ignorant?

I'm tempted to leave you in your confusion ... however ...

In regard to what military members are charged with ...



Article 92 – Failure to Obey Order or Regulation.

"“Any person subject to this chapter who—

(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;

(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or

(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”"


Article 92 UCMJ


Article 92 violations are the most commonly charged UCMJ offenses in classified information cases. It is often the only charge available in mishandling cases. Article 92 can also be charged in espionage and willful compromise cases as such conduct also violates the safeguarding and handling regulations.


James Madison Project

.. while on the civil side ...



(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information


18 US Code 798

So you're telling me that UCMJ 92 and 18 US Code 798 say exactly the same thing???
edit on 26-8-2016 by Gryphon66 because: officers----> members



posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You are so confused... Article 92 relies on the same NSA standards for conviction that civilian laws do.


I can not put this any clearer for the last time:


Before a SOLDIER or a CIVILIAN can be charged with mishandling of classified information, they must have broken one of the NSA rules for the safeguarding of classified information. The NSA rules and regulations are EXACTLY the same for civilian or military.

Breaking of one of the NSA regulations concerning classified information could result in you being charged with one of the numerous laws concerning mishandling of classified information.

Let us repeat this for all eternity:

NO ONE can be CHARGED with MISHANDLING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION unless they have violated one of the NSA regulations covering classified information storage, safeguarding, transmittal etc... that is what sets up the criminal charge... you have to break one of the regulations mandated by NSA regarding classified information before you can criminally charged. Period.
edit on R322016-08-26T17:32:24-05:00k328Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R332016-08-26T17:33:35-05:00k338Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

I'm not confused at all Ricky.

Here it is for you again:

The laws under which civilians are tried for mishandling of classified information are different from those under which military personnel are tried.

All rules regarding classified information are made by the President of the United States, or those to which he or she has ceded authority to in order to do so.

That's it. You keep arguing whatever it is you're arguing. Which seems to be that the only regulations that someone can break regarding handling of classified material are made by the NSA, which is, of course, patently ridiculous as shown here repeatedly.

Yes, the NSA establishes certain rules in their sphere. The DOD, State, etc. all establish certain rules. These are those "agencies" referenced earlier four or five times.

All of those rules are derived from Presidential directive and Executive Order, which I've said now too many times.



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 17  18  19    21 >>

log in

join