SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Hawkmoon who wrote (132009)5/7/2004 11:32:04 AM
From: jttmab  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
My previous reply was one duck...there are more ducks.

Antoher duck, is that you don't know who released those photos to CBS [the particular transaction you cited].

If that person was uncleared, then they can disseminate those photos even if they are classified. They could be stamped TS/SCI/NOFORN/LIMDIS/EYES ONLY and an uncleared person can disseminate those photos at their own pleasure without any possibility of prosecution.

Another Duck: In the world of classified information, ignorance is an excuse for the law. If those photos were not marked and the person were cleared but had no access to any classification guidance that would indicate they were classified, their is no legally prosecutable crime. If you want to cite the Taguba report as your source of classication, then only those people with access to the report would have knowledge that those photos are classified. If those photos were not released by someone that had access to the report [or any classification guidance document that would indicate those photos were classified] then they are legally free to disseminate those photos in the absence of any classification markings.

Another duck: "Extremely sensitive" does not equate to classified, even within a classified paragraph. The report specifically states why they are extremely sensitive, because they are part of an ongoing investigation. If you want to hang your hat on that section that you bolded, you'll lose your ass in court.

I'll let you pursue another duck...look through the report and you'll see a number of abuses that were marked (U). It would be a difficult argument that a photo of an event that was described in text as (U) would be classified. That duck applies only if the source of the disclosure was someone within the investigation.

jttmab
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News