Posted on 01/02/2012 8:14:12 AM PST by jmaroneps37
Well, what's YOUR source that documents leaked were above SECRET?
It wouldn't surprise me that the NYT wrote the article that way implying NOFORN was a trifle to keep the argument going that Manning did little harm.
Anyway some SECRET//NOFORN are potentially more damaging then some documents labeled TS.
That wasn’t my source ! It was someones else!
My reply was meant in sarcasm.
I think it was all just SIPR (at least, that’s what was reported). Anyone who acts like Manning was handed the Golden Key of Knowledge that unlocked the “Raiders of the Lost Ark” warehouse of government secrets obviously doesn’t know much about how the Army uses SIPR.
No such thing exists. NOFORN can only be used with TOP SECRET, SECRET, or CONFIDENTIAL.
Only if they were misclassified. Classification markings are defined by the level of damage their release would do to national security. EO 12356 delineates their usage:
“some SECRET//NOFORN are potentially more damaging then some documents labeled TS.”
You really have no idea how the classification system works do you? Here’s a primer:
Having generic accounts is definitely prohibited on all military computers, especially the classified systems. There simply is no excuse for what occurred here. Manning should and will be doing some serious time. All his enablers should have their careers crushed and be kicked out of the military.
The main problem seems to be that Manning was one of many people who had access to this huge database of cables. The full database should only have been accessible to very few people. That is the same problem is many of the worst spying cases. For instance, in the Richard Hanssen case, just because Hanssen worked in counter-intelligence in the FBi, why should that grant him access to every one of our greatest secrets, which he had no need to know about?
The system for maintaining security over classified information should not be capable of being subverted by one weak link.
Ha !...Slate another unimpeachable source for information on US security procedures! (<— Now that is sarcasm!)
Let’s hear about your personal experiences & knowledge, instead of quoting MSM sources?
I can read COBOL2java’s link. Can you? Do yourself a favor - look over it and quit sounding off on a subject you’re obviously ignorant of.
Still waiting on your evidence indicating that Manning released higher than SECRET level data. Feel free to post it.
You really have no idea!
And COBOL2Java yes I know no such thing exists! “UNCLASSIFIED//NOFORN” was sarcasm!
The point I was making the NYT was implying that those 9000 NOFORN documents released was no big deal. In fact if you look at the sentence structure it would lead the uninitiated to believe that the bulk of them were in fact unclassified. Also we still don't know what WikiLeaks still has, so its premature to draw any conclusions. The breadth of the release is what's damaging and the loss of confidentiality with "partners" both the ones we are proud to be partnered with and the "slimy" ones we need. Remember you release enough unclassified but official documents on a certain topic or topics analysts can often reconstruct the missing " secrets".
I had a TS/SBI with SCI. Spent about 4 months on AFI at Keesler while the background check was being performed. I PCSed to an AutoDIN facility where I had to pass thru 3 cipher lock doors to go to work. That was late 80s. The Air Force took security VERY seriously. ANY odd incident would get your clearance pulled and an investigation. And yes, homosexuality voided a clearance. I was in the day room watching Family Of Spies, the mini series about the Walker spy case. There was a crypto trooper in there that mouthed off, correcting something said in the movie about KG-84s. He got his clearance pulled the next day...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.