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.

 

Feds: Navy intel specialist jailed on classified info allegations

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Feds: Navy intel specialist jailed on classified info allegations


www.cnn.com

An espionage sting at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, has put a 22-year-old Navy Reserve intelligence specialist behind bars, according to federal authorities.
Agents of the Navy Criminal Investigative Service and the FBI took Navy Reserve Intelligence Specialist 3rd Class Bryan Minkyu Martin into custody Wednesday on suspicion of selling classified information.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.washingtonpost.com
www.google.com




posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 06:22 AM
link   
The suspect worked at Joint Special Operations Command in Fort Bragg NC, and was caught selling classified info to an undercover FBI agent the report states.

He is currently in custody at the Navy brig in Norfolk, Va.

The case is being reviewed before charges are filed, I guess the Feds are going to make sure that the sting was above board prior to proceeding?



www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 


If I had to guess the sting is above board based on the fact its dealing with military, and not civilians. Standards are different, and even possessing classified information, even if you have access, is illegal if you have no reason for accessing it (compartmentalized, need to know etvc). Turning around and trying to sell it is the other half of the problem. Sale of calassified info pretty juch guarantees any argument for "whistle blowing" cant be made here.

They are most likely looking to:
A - See if he acted alone
B - Was anyone else involved
C - Was this the first time he has done this
D - If not who else, what country etc etc

Lots of factors to consider before filing charges. If this goes beyond just this guy, then the focus will most likely change from nailing this guy to the wall, to offering him a reduced charge or even immunity by assisting in the FEd investigation into others.

Should we not make attempts to crack down on the illegal release of classified information?

While people are fighting over the wikileaks debacle, I have noticed an intresting argument taking shape from people. People are calling for any US person involved, like Hhillary Clinton, to be charged for spying?

What I dont understand is where these people think the US is the only country who spies. I dont know if its just because of a view towards the US, or if people really are that naive about how the world of james bond works.
edit on 7-12-2010 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-12-2010 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-12-2010 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I do not believe that people think that only the US spies on people. We know this is not the case, since two people have been arrested / deported on spying charges here in Britain, and the accusation is that the spies were working for the Russians.
However, there is , and I believe quite rightly , a suspicion amongst people that often times the UK and US do not use intelligence gathered in a moraly acceptable way, and that since these are both democracies, that any action taken based on intelligence must reflect the moral fibre of the nation which aquired the intel. I would support that. I live in a nation where there are so many civillian controled surveillance operations occuring, that you cannot walk down a whole street without falling under the watchful gaze of some uniformed spotty faced dillweed, noting down your every move and breath for the greater good.
With that in mind, I think it is utterly imperative that the people have more control over what thier governments intelligence arms are and are not allowed to do, how they are allowed to go about what they do , and finaly , who they are and are not allowed to point a camera, dictaphone, phone tap, email hack and so on at.
A small example for you. Police who suspected a man of paedophile related offences raided his home on the evidence of ONE image that he had stumbled across on the internet. They remotely examined his harddrive, found this single image, and then formed a raiding party and stormed the place.
Turns out the man was innocent of any crime, and so ashamed was he that the police had even THOUGHT about him as they did, and so upset was he at the way they had treated him during the raid, he locked himself in his garage and gassed himself. The police were tipped off about this gentlemans stumble through the interweb by a foreign task force from somewhere in Europe proper, and acted without any further information than this single image on a hard drive.
Imagine then what monsterous miscarriage of justice and decency can occur when big players get gung ho? It doesnt bare thinking about . Thats why I disagree with the way our secret service works. It in short, should only be secret to everyone OUTSIDE the UK . Citizens of this fair Isle ought however, to be able to see thier tax pound at work if they should feel the need to .



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


That makes complete sense


I can also envision JSOC reviewing their security SOP to see how the suspect was able to secure and transport the sensitive documents outside of their chain of custody...



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 08:00 AM
link   
We USED to have an effective method of dealing with traitors. Since he's in the Navy, I think I'd like to make him walk the plank, or have him hung from the highest yardarm after a keelhauling.

Seriously, betraying your country for money? If he's guilty, IMO he deserves to die.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


You make some valid points, however trying to keep items secret from other countries, while informing your own citizens kind of undermines the intent does it not? The problem I can see has already happened.

Pvt. Manning had access to classified material, is a US citizen, and part of the armed forces. Due to several factors Pvt. Manning was having with the US Government as well as the Army, he decided to release classified information. In addition to that example you will always have citizens whose view will run counter to the conventional thinking at the time.

My reference to the US being singaled out is in response to peoples reactions to date. People argue they have a right to have access to this information. How do we balance security vs. the peoples right to know? Releasing information about spying on other countries has a very real and dangerous outcome.

If we have a spy in China who is providing the US with military information, and that info is then leaked to the people, all China has to do is read the news account and review who had access to that information. Even thought the Chinese military is massive by comparison, its still possible for only a few people to have access to certain information, and we just signed their death warrants.

Generally speaking the intent behind intelligence services it to keep track of potential enemy goals, economics, military, government members etc. The goal is to have the information in hopes of staving of a war or armed conflict, and god forbid should war break out, it gives an advantage on the battle field.

As far as the pedophile story goes all I can say is we are all human, and as such mistakes will be made. I honestly dont know how else to answer that story. A foreign service thought a "pedophile" was downloading illegal images. They reported the information to the proper authorities. Where the breakdown came from was the Police not doing their own followup investigation to coroborate the report.

I mean where does one draw the line on operational security vs transparecny in government and the citizens right to know?

So the US Ambassador to France thinks Sarkozy has issues. I fail to understand how that is even relevant to people as a need to know.That is just one example out of many where I don't see a need for the citizens to have that information. People were outraged over comments like that, however when the leader of a South American country calls one of our leaders satan nothing happens.

Dont get me wrong I think at times there is too much information kept secret in certain areas. I just think at times people dont think all the way through to the end of the equation in terms of what disclosure of this type of information will do.

It exposes methods to gather and retreive, contacts / sources, while at the same time cutting off the source of the information and possibly getting people killed. In addition to that once the network goes down, we are back to being in the dark, which opens the possibilities of missing actions of a foreign government and being unable to head it off at the pass.

If someone has a problem (Pvt. Manning for example) there are methods in place to review the situation and take appropriate action to correct it. Simply dumping hundres of thousand of documents onto the internet will not solve the issue at all. If anything, it will create more headaches because now the government has to defend their actions while not being able to release other classifed information that would put the releases into context.

Also, I have seen people call for prosecution of people because of the wikielaks release. Again what they fail to understand is because the information was stolen, illegally transfered to a non national, then released, the evidence gleaned from it would never see the light of day in a courtroom - Fruit of the Poisonous tree.

In the zeal to expose the US Government, they actually underminded their intended goal because the information can no longer be used in court.

So the ultimate qestion we come back to is how do we balance the right to know vs. the right to protect national security?



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   
I wonder who approached him to get him started down this path? Could this have been a set up all along to cover for leaked secrets now made public by wikileaks?



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


That makes complete sense


I can also envision JSOC reviewing their security SOP to see how the suspect was able to secure and transport the sensitive documents outside of their chain of custody...


I haave seen a few articles from foreign media talking about the Pvt. Manning issue. Mr. Lamo said wikileaks provided technical assistance, supplying encryption software that can be used to circumvent the security system in place for emaill. It disguised the info to fool the system and allowed the info to be emailed.

Security procedures are constantly reviewed to take into account new abilities by our enemies, as well as friends and allies. I still find it unusal manning had access to the number of files he was able to get. The only other theory is he did not act alone, and some new theories coming out make this suggestion as well.

Either way I think because of Mannings actions, we are going to see a lot more fallout in terms of Americans being arrested for disclosing classified information. The other thing to note about military classified information is if the US shares intelligence information with say Britain, and we have classified it as Top Secret, under NATO charter it will be given the same classification (British equivelant).

I think we have seen the tip of the iceberg...



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldCorp
We USED to have an effective method of dealing with traitors. Since he's in the Navy, I think I'd like to make him walk the plank, or have him hung from the highest yardarm after a keelhauling.

Seriously, betraying your country for money? If he's guilty, IMO he deserves to die.


I can see more treason charges coming.. Releasing classified info during a time of war...



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by antar
I wonder who approached him to get him started down this path? Could this have been a set up all along to cover for leaked secrets now made public by wikileaks?


Certainly possible.. However I dont beleive an "entrapment" argument will work under the UCMJ.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 


I think it's good that they caught him, and it seem they are trying to clean house a little.

But shouldn't they also go after the one who gave him a top secret clearance, maybe there are a few more he let through.

It seems like they are letting people through that can't be trusted with anything, unless that was their intention.

And maybe they should check out his supervisor, its a sad thing to say but when you find one there's a good chance you'll find more.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


The way I see it , there should be a certain degree of non governmental civillian oversight of the NSA , CIA, and all the other alphabet agencies in the US and the same here for MI6 and MI5.
The people must decide what constitutes a matter of national security. For instance, nothing that comes from , happens in, or relates to space should ever be a matter of national security . Also , there must never be any ass covering. If mistakes are made, then they must be admitted to , and reparations made immediately without fail or excuse. Too many people over the years have fallen victim to intelligence actions over the years, who had nothing to do with the matter being dealt with at the time. This creates hate against us, and is not helpful, and besides anything else shows our western nations up , makes us look bad. We arent.
There should be methods that your average Joe can use to suggest rules for the services. Things that would prevent our intelligence agencies from behaving in a way that would cast us in a bad light. For instance, matter of law, the intelligence services must not have anything to do with resource aquisition, management, defense of foreign resources , and must have no presence in any NATION which does not pose a threat as a nation , to us, unless there is a clear and present target person in that nation who does pose an immediate and gamma bomb like threat to our citizenry.
Another thing. The intelligence services of both countries must swear oaths to the people of their respective countries, not the parliments or leaders of the same. The reason for this , certainly here in Britain at any rate, is that our parliment, and certainly our leader, are not representative of most of our people. David Cameron for instance does NOT represent the majority of Britons, and, unless I have misread whats happening in the states these days, Obama, sad though it is to say , does not represent the majority of Americans. Therefore it is retarded that either man gets to order around the most powerful and dangerous segment of either of our nations. That should be left to the citizens, not people who take orders from the like of David " Dave " Cameron. Only WE know what orders to give for our peace of mind, for our moral stability. All he knows how to do is dig us deeper holes to lie in.....

These holes , these yawning gulfs between how it is , and how it always should have been are just not acceptable. Either control of these groups and the data they hold must be wrested from parliment and given to the people , to operate by refurendum, OR our leaders must be held to MUCH higher standards of success and moral direction... In either case, MASSIVE change is needed, else we might as well shoot stab and rape our selves to death all at once and end the human race right here, because life , for most of us here in Britain is NOTHING without moral fibre and self respect, and I know many of us are sick to the guts of not being able to respect our government , and its agencies because of the vomit they are up to their necks in.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by irgust
 


Perhaps the security around the facilities that hold the highly classified materials & data should employ the TSA style full body scanners and independent guards/inspectors to use as these folks arrive to and leave from the facility? No exemptions... wouldn't that at least improve the physical security.. then they can focus on the other potential avenues of security breaches.

If it's good enough to use on the flying public, why not do the same to all who are responsible for the security of the classified information?





edit on Tue, 07 Dec 2010 15:05:21 -0600 by JacKatMtn because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Well no and he will be under the strictest of court systems too, no public trial most likely. If he was used it will never be proven.



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by JacKatMtn


That makes complete sense


I can also envision JSOC reviewing their security SOP to see how the suspect was able to secure and transport the sensitive documents outside of their chain of custody...


I haave seen a few articles from foreign media talking about the Pvt. Manning issue. Mr. Lamo said wikileaks provided technical assistance, supplying encryption software that can be used to circumvent the security system in place for emaill. It disguised the info to fool the system and allowed the info to be emailed.


If wikileaks provided any technical help to Prt manning that is stepping over the line from just getting information from a whistleblower to conspiracy to commit espionage.

It also could get someone at Wikileaks arrested including the head of Wikileaks.

They would not want the US government knowing they work for Wikileaks or want to travel to or through the US.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by irgust
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 


I think it's good that they caught him, and it seem they are trying to clean house a little.

But shouldn't they also go after the one who gave him a top secret clearance, maybe there are a few more he let through.

It seems like they are letting people through that can't be trusted with anything, unless that was their intention.

And maybe they should check out his supervisor, its a sad thing to say but when you find one there's a good chance you'll find more.


Certainly an intresting idea but it opens up Pandoras box. Should the Department of Motor vehicles OIfficer who passed a driver to get his drivers license be charged because the driver they passed got drunk, drove, and killed someone?

TO me this comes down to nothing more than personal responsibility. The thought process is we trust our troops until we have a reason not to trust them. Going after a person who confirmed a top secret clearance is a bit unfair because most people do not join the military knwoing they are going to spy (it happens, but its rare and usually they are caught).

Whether or not someone is going to betray and talk is an X Factor. Its one that is looked at, and it comes back to the same argument, are we going to punish someone we dont have any solid evidence on?



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


Some worthwhile Ideas and goals.. The head of our Government, the President, is elected by the people (elctoral college to those who want to split hairs) and is the civilian leader of the Government, the Armed Forces and all agencies underneath, including the CIA, NSA, FBI, NRO etc etc..

Even each branch of the military has a civilian head (SecNav etc).

I agree whole heartedly when speaking about Space. I do not feel any information at all should ever be classified.

As far as the people essentially running the agenda for the CIA etc I cant ever see that happening. You will have people who take the vew that we are all citizens of the world, and not act on information, or release it because they feel their ause is noble.

That being said, its not going to stop, say China, from exploiting that weakness and running their own game plan. We have not yet hit the stage where we are all cozy friends on this blue marble floating through space, and there are governments who still look for global domination.

How about an entity who decides theuir religious view is the only view, and everyone else either submits or dies?

HOw about an entity that feels democarcy is a failure and outlaws it, and any country who uses it, is a rogue nation.

As I said, noble goals to work towards, and hopefully sonner rather than later, but going down that road and only holding ourselves to a standard that others can easily exploit, where does that put us?

Running an intelligence organization via Command by Committee is jsut as dangerous as elaking classified information. What happens if 55% of the people support an action, and the other half does not? The half that was shouted down, are they required to sit their quietly? Are they allowed to use the information they had access to as citizens, release it to the country its geared towards to undermine the majority who wanted a specific action?

The last thing to keep in mind, with the way we handle our secrete information now, its restricted to a few people.

Putting in place your idea we run into the issue of foreign governments no longer needing to infiltrate US instalations. All they would need to do is kidnap mom and daughter and tell dad give us the information or your mom and daughter will be raped and die a horriblely slow death.




edit on 8-12-2010 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 


Out of curiosity have you ever been in the US Armed forces, or been subject to Military authority while on one of their installations? Going through a TSA glow and grope is more preferable that going through the same with military police.

The TSA looks like girlscouts compared to MP's.. At least in my oopinion.



posted on Dec, 8 2010 @ 05:32 AM
link   
reply to post by antar
 


Oh I dunno.. If its held in military court then there is the possibility of it being a closed venue do to the information presented. Hell even civilian trials are restriced in the sense the Defense / prosecution can invoke whats called "The rule". Any person that is subpoenaed to testify cannot be in the court room until after they testify, and only after they are cleared from the witness list.

If its an area that deals with information (national security) the trial can be restrietced, and in some instances its held in judges chambers to limit the number of people who would have access to the information.

The question we always come back to when dealing with National Security breaches is this:

* - "How can justice thats served in secret be justice"

A good question if ever there was one, and after 300 years I dont think we have ever found a good answer to it.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join