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: jttmab who wrote (132131)	5/8/2004 1:50:10 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Horsehockey. It's NOT my problem if you want to DELIBERATELY ignore the statute I listed for you.. I can show you where the "water", but there's no I can make you "drink" (for the fountain of knowledge).. The statute CLEARLY states that: Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative..... It makes NO limitation to only cleared personnel. It means EVERYONE. It is not my understanding that the photos were taken with a government camera. Eveything I've read indicates they were taken by personal cameras. But the confiscated CDs, ONCE CLASSIFIED, are the property of the United States. That is absolutely false. Any paragraph within the Tabuga report that is marked {U} is unclassified. Those paragraphs can be extracted and published. But you can't have access to that report unless you have a Secret/NoForn clearance, and A NEED TO KNOW or possess that information.. It matters not if there is unclassified information contained within. The ENTIRE REPORT has to undergo a declassification procedure (which it CLEARLY did not). Face it jttmab.. Every classified report has UNCLASSIFIED information in it, if only just the name of the person making the report. If what you state were true, then you'd have to classify every dot, conjunction, noun, verb, and clause.. And besides.. the report on the MSNBC website CLEARLY CONTAINS classified information that was NOT extracted before being released. That means whoever provided it to them is ABSOLUTELY GUILTY of violating 18 Chap 37, Sec 793... But MSNBC, being a news organization and protected by Freedom of the Press, cannot be charged (unless they stole it). Don't question me on this jtmab.. I know what I'm talking about. And if you don't believe me, I suggest you contact the Defense Security Service and pose the questions to them. Hawk