Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (132000)	5/7/2004 9:37:30 AM
From: jttmab	Respond to of 281500

>> The incidents were classified some time after the fact. That in itself is illegal. I don't think I would agree with that. I believe it is legal for a classificaton authority to classify items that were not subjected to a classification review. It becomes problematic. Can the classification authority put under control all items that were previously not controlled? It's a case by case basis, but generally the answer is no. Which is why some times you hear the statement, I can neither confirm or deny... Some Congressmen have said they want probe the abuse of the classification system to hide criminal wrongdoing.... Perhaps. But as I looked over the items in the Taguba [sp?]report with respect to their classification, I would say that the classifying authority's decisions were "bizarre". There were Unclassified items that were not substantially different in implication than other items that were marked Secret. I could have used the toss of a coin and come up with something that made as much sense. But the republican dominated house will of course not proceed with that. At least the Senate is holding hearings. And it's possible that the House will if it's a political liability to not hold hearings. jttmab