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: Hawkmoon who wrote (132009)	5/7/2004 10:17:01 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Now come on Jttmab... You should know by now that you'd better have your ducks in a row before you decide to take me on in a public debate like this...;0) Hardly. You either didn't read what I said, or you're ignoring what I said. At the time the pictures were taken, they were not classified. They were not under any control. By law, they are unclassifed. If a copy [or copies] under control by the government become classified, only those copies and their subsequent dissemination can be classified. There is no legal basis for other copies, not under control to be declared classified. The government will likely attempt to obtain those copies and at that time can classify them. But until then there is no legal basis for claiming that the dissemination of those uncontrolled items is in violation of any law. If the photos given to CBS, the New Yorker or the Washington Post were marked classified that would be a violation of law. If the photos that were given to those organization were directly derived from the actual copies that were held by the government that would be a violation of the law. If they came from other copies that were never under classified control of the government, there is no basis for any legal prosecution. You don't understand classification or the law governing it. jttmab

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (132009)	5/7/2004 11:32:04 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to 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