A lot of folks here at Balloon Juice, just as a lot of folks everywhere, seem to have a lot of interest in the unauthorized release of classified information and briefings these days. This seems to be due to the current presidential election cycle. Since there are so many questions, I figured it was easier just to point everyone in the right directions.
Lets start with what, exactly, is classified information as defined by the US government. Executive Order 13526/Classified National Security Information defines the terms:
Sec. 1.4. Classification Categories. Information shall not be considered for classification unless its unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause identifiable or describable damage to the national security in accordance with section 1.2 of this order, and it pertains to one or more of the following:
(a) military plans, weapons systems, or operations;
(b) foreign government information;
(c) intelligence activities (including covert action), intelligence sources or methods, or cryptology;
(d) foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources;
(e) scientific, technological, or economic matters relating to the national security;
(f) United States Government programs for safeguarding nuclear materials or facilities;
(g) vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations, infrastructures, projects, plans, or protection services relating to the national security; or
(h) the development, production, or use of weapons of mass destruction.
And the actual classification levels are:
Sec. 1.2. Classification Levels. (a) Information may be classified at one of the following three levels:
(1) “Top Secret” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.
(2) “Secret” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.
(3) “Confidential” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.
(b) Except as otherwise provided by statute, no other terms shall be used to identify United States classified information.
(c) If there is significant doubt about the appropriate level of classification, it shall be classified at the lower level.
The people authorized to classify are:
Sec. 1.3. Classification Authority. (a) The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:
(1) the President and the Vice President;
(2) agency heads and officials designated by the President; and
(3) United States Government officials delegated this authority pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) Officials authorized to classify information at a specified level are also authorized to classify information at a lower level.
(c) Delegation of original classification authority.
(1) Delegations of original classification authority shall be limited to the minimum required to administer this order. Agency heads are responsible for ensuring that designated subordinate officials have a demonstrable and continuing need to exercise this authority.
(2) “Top Secret” original classification authority may be delegated only by the President, the Vice President, or an agency head or official designated pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(3) “Secret” or “Confidential” original classification authority may be delegated only by the President, the Vice President, an agency head or official designated pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section, or the senior agency official designated under section 5.4(d) of this order, provided that official has been delegated “Top Secret” original classification authority by the agency head.
(4) Each delegation of original classification authority shall be in writing and the authority shall not be redelegated except as provided in this order. Each delegation shall identify the official by name or position.
(5) Delegations of original classification authority shall be reported or made available by name or position to the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office.
(d) All original classification authorities must receive training in proper classification (including the avoidance of over-classification) and declassification as provided in this order and its implementing directives at least once a calendar year. Such training must include instruction on the proper safeguarding of classified information and on the sanctions in section 5.5 of this order that may be brought against an individual who fails to classify information properly or protect classified information from unauthorized disclosure. Original classification authorities who do not receive such mandatory training at least once within a calendar year shall have their classification authority suspended by the agency head or the senior agency official designated under section 5.4(d) of this order until such training has taken place. A waiver may be granted by the agency head, the deputy agency head, or the senior agency official if an individual is unable to receive such training due to unavoidable circumstances. Whenever a waiver is granted, the individual shall receive such training as soon as practicable.
(e) Exceptional cases. When an employee, government contractor, licensee, certificate holder, or grantee of an agency who does not have original classification authority originates information believed by that person to require classification, the information shall be protected in a manner consistent with this order and its implementing directives. The information shall be transmitted promptly as provided under this order or its implementing directives to the agency that has appropriate subject matter interest and classification authority with respect to this information. That agency shall decide within 30 days whether to classify this information.
So that’s the basic terminology, but if you really want to understand this, then you need to click on across and read the whole policy statement.
What a lot of the questions I’ve been getting are actually about is what happens if something is reported on that’s classified and then someone with a clearance remarks on it. Given news reporting on US governmental activities, it is often possible to find classified information in newspapers, online news and commentary sites, and on TV and radio news broadcasts. The DOD and other government agencies put out warnings to their employees when this happens. For instance:
“Classified information, whether or not already posted on public websites, disclosed to the media, or otherwise in the public domain remains classified and must be treated as such until it is declassified by an appropriate U.S. government authority,” wrote Timothy A. Davis, Director of Security in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Intelligence), in a June 7 memorandum.
“DoD employees and contractors shall not, while accessing the web on unclassified government systems, access or download documents that are known or suspected to contain classified information.”
“DoD employees or contractors who seek out classified information in the public domain, acknowledge its accuracy or existence, or proliferate the information in any way will be subject to sanctions,” the memorandum said.
Finally, we have spillage of classified information. Spillage, in this context, is defined as:
Classified (or sensitive) data spills occur when classified data is introduced onto an unclassified information system, to an information system with a lower level of classification, or to a system not accredited to process data of that restrictive category, according to DoD Manual 5200.01-v3, Protection of Classified Information. Although it is possible that no actual unauthorized disclosure occurred, classified data spills are considered and handled as a possible compromise of classified information involving information systems, networks and computer equipment until the inquiry determines whether an unauthorized disclosure did or did not occur.
If you want a more comprehensive understanding of classification and how the US government deals with it, here’s some unclassified links for you all.
Department of Defense Manual 5200.01/Marking of Classified Material
Department of State Classification Guide/DSCG 11-01 (Declassified After Review per FOIA Request)
US Government Publication Office Publishing Guidelines Pertaining to Classified Information
The FAA’s Procedure for Dealing with Spillage of Classified Information onto Unclassified Systems
The Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy
The Center for Development of Security Excellence’s Primer on Original Classification Authority
Update at 2:35 PM EDT
Here’s the link to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s page containing the Intelligence Community’s Directives. You’ll find anything and everything you can think you might be interested in regarding this stuff there.
redshirt
So if I say it’s not a secret but when I tell you I also ask that you not tell anyone else, what level is that?
schrodinger's cat
This is way too complicated for a simple soul like me.
redshirt
Also too, “data spillage” sounds like something that happens when consuming too much Olestra.
bl
@redshirt: gossip
Miss Bianca
Wow, this is as comprehensive a “so there, dillweeds!” as ever I’ve seen…nicely done, Doctor. ; )
@redshirt: I’m thinking of news reports on “data spillage” covering it like oil tanker spills…”there was a massive data spillage from multiple sources on the Internet today…”
Snarki, child of Loki
I’m sorry, I’m not allowed to comment on this post until the paperclip audit is completed.
Bill E Pilgrim
If I ask my friend to ask someone who’s friends with someone else who she likes, and the friend I asked to ask is in a different grade, can her friend who asked her tell their other friend who’s in the same grade as her or only pass the note directly to the friend I asked?
Complicated? Sure, but we mastered systems easily as Byzantine as that in Junior High.
Comrade Scrutinizer
Adam, thanks for your presence on this blog. I’m always learning from you.
MattF
@redshirt: You don’t have classification authority, so, a priori, its level is undetermined. If the facts in question are classified (at some level) and you don’t have the requisite clearance at that level, than someone’s made a boo-boo. If you do have the requisite clearance and I don’t, then you’ve made a boo-boo. If you and I both have the requisite clearance level and I have a need to know, then it’s Okey Dokey. Them’s the rules.
redshirt
@MattF: So is Stacy a slut or what?
MattF
@redshirt: Only her hairdresser knows for sure.
Adam L Silverman
@Miss Bianca: I don’t mind the questions, just right before bed is a bit much…
Schlemazel Khan
@Bill E Pilgrim:
Speak for yourself, I never got the hang of junior high
Villago Delenda Est
It is complicated, in an effort to be precise, which frankly is next to impossible. Basically, if it’s marked as classified (top and bottom of document says “Double Secret Probation” or words to that effect) the whole thing is a secret. Individual paragraphs within the document are marked with their level of classification…that is, in a “Secret” overall document, a lot of stuff might be “Confidential” while only one particular snippet is “Secret”, which makes the whole shebang, taken collectively, “Secret”.
Then there are additional “handling instructions” and the entire Byzantine world of “compartmentalization” that can drive you batshit insane if you let it.
The silliness that something that is classified that is out there is still classified if you happen to hold a clearance is the most bizarre aspect of this. Then there’s stuff that is retroactively classified…it wasn’t classified before, but it is now, because someone with classification authority says it is, and we’re into the zone of Orwellian nightmares.
Ghayduke
Can I just make fun of @RealDonaldTrump now?
Cheryl Rofer
Adam: I’ll just note that nuclear weapons information is classified in somewhat different ways. That’s mostly not relevant to current issues, but how people with clearances have to treat classified material that has been published is the same.
Villago Delenda Est
BTW, If I write about the classified shit I used to handle every day for years, I’ll have to kill you. So I won’t.
lamh36
Geez…Ya asks one simple question.. ? :-)
All kidding aside, thx for this info Adam..
I’m still too tired to dig into it right now but I’ve def bookmarked it doe later reading
Schlemazel Khan
The bit I find interesting in all of that is the bit about uncovering classified information via the media. I understand the CIA had (and may very well still have) smart people whose whole job is to read newspapers and magazines along with academic papers, listen to TV and radio broadcasts with the whole goal of piecing together disparate bits of noise to learn secrets
JPL
@Ghayduke: Trump mentioned the base in Saudi Arablia, so it should be okay.
This is OT.. When Trump says rosy dorey, what the heck is he talking about, or is that classified? ..
Bill E Pilgrim
@Schlemazel Khan: Well don’t misunderstand, by “mastered” I only meant in the sense of having grasped the rules. Navigating them successfully is a different story, certainly in my case.
redshirt
@MattF: Does she have proper clearance?
Redshift
@Villago Delenda Est:
Well, the one part of it that makes sense to me is prohibiting those with clearances from confirming classified information that’s out there. Confirmation is actually additional information, so it makes sense that you’re not allowed to give that out.
Retroactive classification, where it’s already been legitimately confirmed because there was no prohibition against it, is truly nuts.
Miss Bianca
@Adam L Silverman: Nah, it’s because, slightly to misquote that great American musical “Oklahoma!”, you’re just a boy who can’t say no… “must!answer!…must!answer!”
But that’s what makes you so invaluable. Anybody else would blow it off at that hour.
guachi
I do not envy Mr. Silverman answering questions about classification.
I have a clearance. The rules are long. I would have a difficult time while I’m sitting at home remembering what bits of the classification rules are something other than unclassified.
In general, a big reason do much is classified the way it is is because of “sources and methods”. The content may be banal, but how it was collected explains its classification.
chopper
@Ghayduke:
as long as you do it secretly.
MattF
@redshirt: Concentrate and ask again.
lamh36
Saturdays are my Kindle book reading day, and very little to no internet surfing but wanted to share this series of tweets from Jamil Smith:
.
Trump, in response to Khizr Khan’s speech at the #DemConvention, said, “I’d like to hear his wife say something.”
Well, @realDonaldTrump, if you wanted to hear Capt. Khan’s mother talk, here you go.
Frankensteinbeck
@redshirt:
‘Double dog dare.’
jeffreyw
@Schlemazel Khan: That’s true! I saw it in a movie once.
Baud
@lamh36: That was an amazing and raw interview.
Redshift
One of the things that bugs me about the “classified information on Hillary’s server” BS is that:
a) The Secretary of State is the classification authority for the State Department
and
b) W defended his administration’s leaks by claiming that he could declassify stuff even without telling anyone, and was upheld! (IIRC)
Now I understand why Hillary wouldn’t want to claim that defense, because it’s a really bad precedent and she didn’t leak classified information. But it still bugs me.
(Also, if I understand correctly, that authority would allow her to declassify stuff classified by the State Department, but not stuff classified by other agencies. Can you confirm that, Adam?)
Mai.naem.mobile
Okay, Adam but.I can.ask.you at 1AM right? Also too, is the Donalds hairdo structure classified? Can I get the specs with a FOIA request?
Miss Bianca
@guachi: Just for the record, it happens to be Dr. Silverman.
Ian
This is appaling. What is the difference between exceptionally grave, serious, and just danger? This is legislation by ad hoc.
lollipopguild
Thanks Adam but My Eyes Glaze Over.
Baud
@Ian: Do you have a bright-line alternative to propose?
MattF
@lollipopguild: And that’s the point. That bureaucrat over there now has your number.
Tokyokie
Years ago, I had to get a background check in order to work as a security guard at a defense contractor, and, at the same time, as a seasonal IRS employee coding tax returns. The background check for marking up 1040As was much more extensive. And that has always colored my appreciation of information classification, as I figure it’s more for show and ass-covering than anything else.
Schlemazel Khan
@jeffreyw:
I had forgotten that movie. I wonder how well it would play these days when the oil problem mentioned at the end is reality
guachi
@Ian: it’s why most people use derivative classification.
Though there are manuals that give general use cases. For example, the mere names of a classified computer program are not classified.
Ian
@Villago Delenda Est:
Now now, we have always been at war with East Asia.
mdblanche
Three can keep a secret, if two are dead.
MattF
George Fucking Will has posted a take-no-prisoners column about Trump’s Russian involvement. I won’t link to it, just because, but I’ll note that there’s no mention at all of Hillary.
Baud
@mdblanche: That’s the correct answer.
Baud
@MattF: i’ll always hate Trump for making me root for odious conservatives.
redshirt
@MattF: Heh. “George Fucking Will”.
Hkedi [Kang T. Q.]
It gets even better, that is just the classification system for the DoD. The Department of Energy (DoE) has a separate classification system (They’re the ones that make the nukes). Q, which is basically Top Secret, L, which is Secret, and a bunch of special codes that can be tacked to a Q clearance.
Also, on the subject of information spillage, from the point of a civilian researcher, it can be a nightmare. My first graduate project was on a DITRA grant (DITRA is kinda like DARPA, but more focused on engineering projects rather than pure research). I had been working on my project for 6 months, and the security people discovered that some export-controlled information was given to us in the kick-off presentation. Poof! all of the research was contaminated, and had to be locked up. 6 months of research up in smoke, and they couldn’t even tell us where they fucked up. ><
Ian
@Redshift:
I hate to defend the W, but shouldn’t the CIC have that power?
lamh36
ugh…this mofo….betting his campaign folks wish they were anywhere else?
Trump to Father of Fallen Soldier: ‘I?ve Made a Lot of Sacrifices’ – ABC News – via @ABC
singfoom
@Ian:
You can’t see where that might be problematic? The idea of the CIC declassifying documents, ok. But not telling anyone? No oversight, no review? Imagine Drumpf as CIC. He doesn’t like another country’s leader and he decides that he’s going to declassify damaging information we have on that leader because he can and he’s in a fit of pique.
That’s one of a ton of possible scenarios where that’s bad.
Ian
@Baud:
I lernz to spel 1 day
Baud
@Ian: Did you mean to say “appealing” rather than “appalling”?
Baud
@singfoom: Also, process is important for trust and legitimacy. We’re forced to allow the government to keep at least some things classified, but that’s no reason to condone the arbitrary exercise of that power.
singfoom
@lamh36: “I’ve made sacrifices! You see this column over here? The one that’s not gilded? Well, they ran out of gold to wrap around the marble. I mean, look, it ruins the room but we put this table in front of it to make it look better. I see that column every day and it’s an eyesore. Imagine dealing with that every day. Most days I don’t think about it, but sometimes I do. We’re looking into whether we can get more gold. It’s SAD!”
singfoom
@Baud: Right. I’m all for letting POTUS declassify things and classify things as they are needed, but there should be some record somewhere that says what where why. Now maybe specific entries in that list themselves are classified because the very title is revealing, but ok, there’s gotta be a process to deal with that too.
Helen
@lamh36: OK this shit is making my blood boil. “maybe she wasn’t allowed to talk.” Trump says.
Yeah let’s bring wives into it. Melania just took down her website because she lied about her college degree. Huh. Did she lie on her visa application to get permanent residency? Did she say she had a college degree to get into this country? Josh Marshall tried to get a copy but couldn’t because of privacy laws.
RELEASE THE VISA APPLICATION, MELANIA.
Ian
@singfoom:
Who do you think will serve on this oversight board? Will it hold teeth? I think we both would like it to, but I think the past 16 years has proved us both to be fools on this.
Redshift
@Ian:
I think they should have the power to declassify anything, and if they deem it necessary, even do it without review (though I can’t think of any scenario outside of a fictional thriller where that would be necessary.) But not tell anyone? That’s the part that was transparently BS. It was obvious that what was really going on was that they wanted to leak damaging information, didn’t care that it was classified, and when the appropriate authorities started looking into it, they said “oh, no, that wasn’t a crime because we had already declassified it, really.”
MattF
@singfoom: Trump actually replied that he’d made sacrifices because he’d ‘worked very hard’.
Josie
@lamh36: OMFG! I just wish I could meet him some day so that I could slap him up side of the head. I have lived over 70 years and have never known such an ugly ignoramus.
? Martin
@singfoom: Right. The CIC having that power is okay so long as there is a process for declassification that starts with the CIC. I got the sense that Bush’s approach there was ‘Oh, that information leaked? Let’s just declassify it’. That’s not acceptable.
MomSense
@lamh36:
The Khans got under his thin, orange skin. LOD tweeted der Trump a link to his interview. Mrs. Khan spoke like a grieving mom. If you have a heart you cannot watch that interview without a piece of it breaking for her.
Steve in the ATL
Good lord. This post requires a lot more thinking than I feel like doing on a summer Saturday afternoon.
dmsilev
@lamh36: Holy Pathological Narcissism, Batman!
Renie
@JPL: I read about this. How do we know if its true there is a base there, if its classified? Wouldn’t penalizing him because of this be an admission it is true and then jeopardize the intelligence?
singfoom
@Ian: I care less about the oversight and more about the fact that the act is recorded in some way.
bemused
@lamh36:
There is truly no bottom to how low he can go.
Timurid
@singfoom:
That’s actually a meme propagated by many rich and famous people to justify their status:
“Hard work is the ultimate sacrifice, and I’ve worked harder than anyone else! Mere mortals like soldiers, cops, firefighters, etc. cannot even begin to comprehend the depth of my sacrifice!”
It’s become a rite of passage for successful musicians to compose and perform a song all about “how hard my life is and how you don’t understand.” Of course Trump had to put in much less work to get ahead than the typical sports or entertainment celebrity…
scav
For a rich white guy like the big D, having to work is as big a sacrifice as the rabbles deaths in uniform. I mean, come on.
[ETA: See how obvious it is?]
Adam L Silverman
@Cheryl Rofer: Tracking. I couldn’t find any recent, as in more recent that 12 years ago, explaining this. So I decided not to put up a link to it.
guachi
Wow. Donald’s response to Khan is just amazing.
Ian
@singfoom:
Caesar’s takeover, murder, and the following civil wars were all recorded. It is not knowing a thing, it is acting on it.
redshirt
@dmsilev: Every time you think you’ve reached the bottom, you find there are still depths to be dug.
And so on.
Adam L Silverman
@guachi: Hence all the links!
I generally try to work on the Sergeant Schultz principle: “I hear nothing, I see nothing, I know nothing!”
rikyrah
uh huh
uh huh
MSNBC unearths three-year-old interview with Trump in Moscow: ‘I do have a relationship’ with Putin
Bethania Palma Markus
29 JUL 2016 AT 12:49 ET
GOP nominee Donald Trump has been facing scrutiny recently for his alleged ties to Russian president Vladimir Putin.
Earlier this week, Trump came under fire for suggesting that Russian hackers should “find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” In the same press conference, given in Florida on Wednesday, Trump said, “I never met Putin, I don’t know who Putin is. He said one nice thing about me. He said I’m a genius.”
Trump also said he hopes Putin “likes me” if elected.
But MSNBC unearthed an interview from three years ago that suggests Trump not only knows Putin, but also was aware Putin was monitoring him in some fashion. The interview was conducted by MSNBC anchor Thomas Roberts in Moscow, ahead of a Miss Universe pageant.
lamh36
Ghazala Khan has explained why she didn’t speak, because she “can’t even be in the same room” as her son’s picture without choking up.
Villago Delenda Est
@guachi: This is very true. Which is one of the inexcusable things Dick Cheney did when he outed Valerie Plame. He also compromised her entire covert network in Iran in one fell swoop, a network that took years to put together.
MomSense
@Steve in the ATL:
I was thinking the same thing.
guachi
@Adam L Silverman: LOL.
If I ever get asked about how the US handles spying on Americans I just link (or tell them to Google) EO12333 and USSID 18. Let the govt. redact USSID 18 for me.
Pogonip
@Mai.naem.mobile: It wasn’t me. I asked him at THREE a.m.
Villago Delenda Est
@lamh36: You could tell, every moment she was on the stage, and when she was sitting on her living room couch with her husband, how deep her grief is at the loss of her son, to this very day. This, combined with the abuse the Khans are not doubt getting from the mouth breathers, would challenge the composure of anyone.
It’s obvious where Humayun Khan got the guts to do what he did…sacrifice his own life for those of his soldiers…from his parents.
smedley the uncertain
@Tokyokie: No it isn’t. For you maybe…
Amaranthine RBG
Mr. SIlverman
If the ones you listed are the only classification levels, where does the “compartmentalized program” and other designations allegedly above top secret come from?
Villago Delenda Est
@Helen: Long form, please. With raised seal.
MazeDancer
ABC has posted vid clip of Trump’s repulsive response to the Khans.
Watching it brings involuntary OMG, OMG, OMG over and over. Almost like watching sick monster Trump want to punch the Khans. And all of us who were so moved by these loyal American’s grace, patriotism, and sacrifice.
Must also add deep thanks to Adam for sharing his invaluable knowledge. Long may it continue.
hueyplong
Many years ago, when I worked at a casino as a dealer, the pit bosses said not to worry about any individual point but instead just to keep the dice rolling, because the greater the number of rolls, the more you trend toward odds that are in the house’s favor.
I kind of see an analogy to Trump’s constant ad libs, either live or on twitter. Don’t worry about whether any one individual tweet or statement makes things worse for Trump, just keep him tweeting and talking, because the greater the number of these things, the more likely it is that he’ll spew out that one that does him in for good with everyone but the 27% crowd, and 27% ain’t gonna win no national election.
Kahn, the four star general, and Sen. Prof. Warren need to keep the dice rolling by goading him into responses 24/7.
And we could have a contest to see what, if anything, can make Paul Ryan and/or Mitch McConnell say enough is enough and condemn Trump’s candidacy.
Villago Delenda Est
@lamh36: Drumpf is beneath contempt. Perhaps he has to experience the loss of a son to feel any empathy?
hueyplong
Many years ago, when I worked at a [place of business that cannot here be named] as a dealer, the pit bosses said not to worry about any individual point but instead just to keep the dice rolling, because the greater the number of rolls, the more you trend toward odds that are in the house’s favor.
I kind of see an analogy to Trump’s constant ad libs, either live or on twitter. Don’t worry about whether any one individual tweet or statement makes things worse for Trump, just keep him tweeting and talking, because the greater the number of these things, the more likely it is that he’ll spew out that one that does him in for good with everyone but the 27% crowd, and 27% ain’t gonna win no national election.
Khan, the four star general, and Sen. Prof. Warren need to keep the dice rolling by goading him into responses 24/7.
And we could have a contest to see what, if anything, can make Paul Ryan and/or Mitch McConnell say enough is enough and condemn Trump’s candidacy.
[p.s. Now I know what moderation is.]
Villago Delenda Est
@Amaranthine RBG: It’s all based on a “need to know”. Even though I held a TS clearance, I’ve never seen a TS document, because I never had a need to know.
bemused
I assume that there are Trump idolators who are serving, veterans and families who had loved ones who also sacrificed their lives. One would imagine this would deeply offend a lot of those folks and they would finally reject Trump but I have my doubts.
dmsilev
@Villago Delenda Est: As if any of his sons (or daughters) would sully themselves by deigning to join the military.
dmsilev
@bemused: Scrolling through the Twitter responses to those clips is depressing. Yes, a lot of people are slamming him as a sociopathic narcissist, but there are quite a few defending him. Not on the merits in this particular case, but on the grounds that George Stephanopolous is a Clinton stooge, because Benghazi, etc.
Mnemosyne
@lamh36:
Donald is such an asshole. It was very clear that Mr. Khan was speaking for both of them and that they were a team. I was impressed at how perfectly color-coordinated they were.
And did they have a professional speechwriter’s assistance? DUH! I guarantee you that all of the “ordinary” people who spoke had professional assistance to help them say what they wanted to say in the clearest way possible. A good speechwriter helps you say what you want to say in your own words, but the best possible version of your own words.
Cheryl Rofer
@Adam L Silverman: I’m not sure it’s necessary to add. What you’ve got is complicated enough. My general sense is that Restricted Data (the name for the nuclear weapons classification system) is stricter than National Security Information, which you’ve summarized up top. So Confidential RD = Secret NSI and so on in terms of danger to country and required protection. The first time I ran into the difference, I was shocked at what seemed to me to be the casualness of the military.
Josie
@Mnemosyne: From what I read, Mr. Khan did not have a speech written out and there was nothing on the teleprompter.
singfoom
@Ian: You can’t act on a thing if its not known.
dmsilev
@Mnemosyne: According to Politico (I think), the Clinton campaign offered Mr. Khan the services of a speechwriter and he opted to turn them down and did it himself.
Mnemosyne
@Josie:
@dmsilev:
Dang! I didn’t think I could be even more impressed, but I am.
My point is more that it’s not shameful if a non-professional needs some writing assistance for a TV appearance. Not everyone is a great writer or a great public speaker.
? Martin
@hueyplong: He’s spewed out at least 100 things that would have immediately sunk Clinton. The resilience of GOP voters to his bullshit is really astonishing.
Villago Delenda Est
@? Martin: White nationalism is a very powerful drug.
hueyplong
@? Martin: I agree. The things I think would get Trump down to 27% would put Hillary to zero.
Adam L Silverman
@Redshift: I’d have to go and read the IG report on this to properly answer. This is hard as the State Department IG suspended their review at DOJ’s request until the DOJ completed their investigation. So its just resumed and won’t be complete for a while. There is also no DOJ/FBI report because of the Privacy Act of 1974, which, in regard to this, means that if the DOJ is not going to present the material in court, then they can’t say anything about this (technically Director Comey’s Press Conference was a violation of the pertinent Privacy Act of 1974 provisions on this stuff).
My understanding of what happened, from the news reporting, with Secretary Clinton’s emails – this is separate from having/using a separate server stuff – is the following:
1) This became an issue because of FOIA requests. Specifically from Larry Klayman and Judicial Watch who are convinced that when Secretary Clinton has Alpha-Bits cereal for breakfast the letter shaped pieces of cereal form themselves into sentences detailing the strategy for the Clinton’s next act of perfidy.
2) This then became conflated, purposefully and for political purposes, as Congressman McCarthy inadvertently revealed when he was trying to become Speaker of the House, with the then 7 House of Representatives’ Benghazi investigations; specifically helping to give birth to Congressman Gowdy’s Ad Hoc Special Investigative Committee – the 8th House of Representative’s investigation into Benghazi. The thinking here, such as I understand it, was that if emails were missing it (as in they were intentionally disappeared) might have been an intentional attempt to cover up that the Obama Administration and Secretary Clinton new this was a terrorist attack not related to the demonstration and violence against Embassy Cairo as a result of the publicity about the anti-Islam movie that was in the news at the time. This, of course, ignored that the heartburn and outrage on this was caused by Ambassador Rice going on a Sunday news talk show and providing the Interagency approved official US position as of that moment in time. Also, providing the news media with inaccurate information is not a crime.
3) Regardless of item 2 above, the FOIA requests triggered a FOIA classification review. This is standard. The idea is that the documents requested are reviewed in order to determine if they can be declassified, in whole or in part, so they can be released if they are classified or, to ensure that any information that might be released is classified at the proper level today, regardless of whether it was, or at what level it was, originally classified. Having fights between government agencies, especially between the originating agencies and one or more of the Intel agencies over whether something should be given a higher classification (up classified is the technical term) today, regardless of original classification, is commonplace. In this, as in most cases, the DOJ was asked to adjudicate this dispute.
4) Further complicating this, some of the material that the Intel community (IC) wanted to up classify was in emails sent to Secretary Clinton from people that had access to her from out of government. This is where the Sidney Blumenthal idiocy comes in. Apparently, he sent her emails with material copied and pasted from major newspapers (NY Times, WaPo, etc) on specific events he saw, with his comments to her on these news reports. Someone in the IC review decided that these news reports, when bundled together, should raise the information to classified. This now falls into the arcana and minutiae that two or more pieces of information may individually be unclassified, but when combined together they need to be classified. And yes, I know this sounds bizarre, especially when applied to a paragraph from a NY Times article copied and pasted with one from WaPo, but these are the rules.
5) During the review and adjudication and subsequent FBI led DOJ investigation it was found that some people within the State Department sent Secretary Clinton classified information in one of several ways. In one case they’d tried, but failed, to remove the specific unclassified information (this would be marked with a (U) at the front of the paragraph from a classified document (the classified paragraphs/sections would be preceded with other markings within parentheses indicating the level of classification of the information in those paragraphs/sections, and send her just the unclassified stuff. Apparently they sent her stuff marked Confidential. My understanding is that it is not unheard of to do this, but it has to be done properly. As in you have to excerpt the actual unclassified information, not the classified stuff…
In another case an Ambassador/Chief of Mission, away from her workstation for the Christmas holidays, sent an unclassified email to Secretary Clinton referencing a well discussed in the news media, but still officially classified Intel activity, because the activity was causing issues in relations with the host country and she wanted Secretary Clinton to know right away. These are examples of spillage and not an indicator that Secretary Clinton herself did anything wrong.
5) There are several emails where it appears that Secretary Clinton provided instructions to subordinates to send her material from classified documents. This has been interpreted to mean that she was instructing them to break the law and violate classification. After reading the news reports on this, but without seeing the IG review, which is not complete, my understanding is she was instructing them to do what they screwed up as I detailed in item 4 above. She wanted them to take the unclassified information out and send that to her.
Here is where we get into the meat of your question, so I apologize for the above, but it was necessary. As the classifying authority for the State Department because she was the Secretary of State, she had the authority to declassify any classified information that originated within/from the Department of State. She did not have the authority to order the declassification of material classified by other agencies. The heads of those agencies do. The only one that has the authority to declassify whatever he wants, whenever he wants it, is the President.
Adam L Silverman
@Mai.naem.mobile: If I’m awake and you see me here commenting. I have no idea. You can try.
Adam L Silverman
@Miss Bianca: Adam is fine.
Feathers
Adam – thanks so much for these posts! Late in the thread, but I’d like to add an oldie to folks reading list – Sissela Bok’s Secrets: On the Ethics of Concealment and Revelation. It was written during the Reagan years, but still vital. She is a philosopher, and the question being explored is how does secrecy interact with morality. The Reagan Administration really did begin the clamping down on information being made public (not that the door had been open for long), because they understood how much can be denied if the “receipts” cannot be found.
Looking at Amazon, she has a newer book Mayhem: Violence as Public Entertainment, which I am going to have to track down.
Adam L Silverman
@Ian: If you click through on some of the links it should be explained in the glossaries of those documents that have them.
Adam L Silverman
@Hkedi [Kang T. Q.]: Actually I posted links to DOD and State and a few other agencies as well.
amygdala
You da man, Adam. Thanks for this.
Adam L Silverman
@Hkedi [Kang T. Q.]: I saw that movie. Your real name is Jane Foster, right? You were doing research in New Mexico and this blonde guy fell onto your van during a thunderstorm.
Adam L Silverman
@Helen: Privacy Act of 1974. We don’t want to violate that for this or anything else.
NeutronFlux
@Villago Delenda Est: Having been in the Nuclear Navy and served on a nuclear powered submarine, imagine my surprise when I read The Hunt for Red October by Tom Clancy.
HRA
@Mnemosyne:
Mr. Kahn said he refused help for his speech. “I had been an attorney for 40 years. I know how to speak and I used my own words” This was last night on LOD’s show.
Adam L Silverman
@guachi: That’ll do it!
bemused
@hueyplong:
I agree. The more he gets bombarded to explain himself on multiple issues, the greater the odds he will blurt out even more offensive statements.
Villago Delenda Est
@NeutronFlux: My understanding is that Clancy pulled all that info together from unclassified sources. One big package of stuff that the Navy would consider to be pretty darn sensitive.
To clarify something I said earlier, the fact that you hold a security clearance just means you might, in the course of your official duties, have a need to know at some time in the future. If one has anything to do with nuclear secrets, for example, you have to hold the right clearance even if you never actually are in any contact with the actual secrets. So a clearance, by itself, is only about potential knowledge, not actual knowledge. That’s always on a “need to know” basis. I can’t talk shop with Neutron Flux because my shop is not his shop even though it’s all nuclear something.
Adam L Silverman
@Amaranthine RBG: Here you go:
https://www.dni.gov/index.php/intelligence-community/ic-policies-reports/intelligence-community-directives
I’ll update up top
Villago Delenda Est
@bemused: Not to mention something classified from one of his briefings. He apparently only considers his tax returns to be “secret”; everything else is wabbit season, duck season, or Elmer season.
Adam L Silverman
@Cheryl Rofer: Yeah, the systems don’t always play well with others from agency to agency.
bemused
@Villago Delenda Est:
He thinks he’s teflon and will never suffer any consequences for what he says or does.
Adam L Silverman
@Mnemosyne: Actually the Khans did not provide any advance copy to the Clinton campaign team and/or DNC. There was nothing loaded into the teleprompter because Mr. Khan did the whole thing from memory.
NeutronFlux
@Villago Delenda Est: Correct. We all had Secret clearance. I could know basic knowledge of how torpedo’s work, and the non-nukes could have basic knowledge of how the power plant worked because you needed to know that to qualify submarines. The detailed stuff about MK -48 torpedo’s, none of my business or in terms of the system, no need to know.
Mnemosyne
@HRA:
Many lawyers are frustrated writers. ?
Hkedi [Kang T. Q.]
@Adam L Silverman: Nope, Just a teacher out in Hawaii now. New mexico was a good guess, did my grad work at the University of New Mexico, in Albuquerque. Lots of Governmental/Academic programs going on with the college and Sandia military base.
I remember going through the 40-something page Q clearance application form and getting a laugh at some of the questions at the end. “Have you ever tried to, or been part of a group that has attempted to overthrow the US government” I smiled at thinking about some insurrectionist going “well, dang, now I can’t overthrow the government from within…..”.
Villago Delenda Est
@Adam L Silverman: I’m not so sure it was from memory (well, yes, it was, of course), but it was definitely from his heart. And it was devastating. The man is as much a hero as his son. Like I said…Humayun’s guts came from his parents. REAL Americans!
Technocrat
@singfoom:
I’m going to push back on that a little bit. From the “outside” it seems like the goal would be to have completely secure information flows with rigorous review processes. And that is A goal. But from the inside, you’re trying to do work – often important work – and every bureaucratic process you add slows that down. It’s hard to really grasp how much process is already involved with high-security work unless you’ve seen it from the inside. I’ve seen it take six weeks and five signatures to get approval to install a free Microsoft utility on a classified network. Not some shady developer in China – Microsoft. The more controls you put in place, the more time you spend implementing your security, as opposed to doing your work.
The goal isn’t to have a perfectly secure process, but to find the right tradeoff of efficiency, security and oversight. If there are no security holes in your system, and every reviewer’s work is reviewed by reviewers who are also reviewed, you’re probably not doing much of the stuff that produces classified information in the first place.
All that to say, that I’d certainly consider the President’s word “good enough”, without veering off into levels of review that approach the absurd. But that’s just like, my opinion, man.
Adam L Silverman
@Hkedi [Kang T. Q.]: I was making a reference to the first Thor movie.
I used to be a part time New Mexican. And I’m very familiar with the security application form.
Hkedi [Kang T. Q.]
Cool! Albuquerque or elsewhere?
Ruckus
@rikyrah:
My operational premise about drumpf is
Until proven otherwise.
It saves time and energy.
James E Powell
@bemused:
So far, he’s right. I probably shouldn’t watch MSNBC, but I did this morning. They were, more or less, expressing amazement and admiration that Trump’s campaign could accomplish so much without spending ad money. Are they really so dense as to not understand that they and the other “news” sources have been working as Trump’s campaign since he launched? Do they really not know what they are doing?
Villago Delenda Est
@James E Powell: They are very well paid not to be aware of all those things.
Ruckus
@Villago Delenda Est:
That’s the clearance that I held as well. The ship I was on needed someone of my rate to be able to repair equipment in a TS space. I never once saw any classified documents and never once entered the space that held classified weaponry. The part that got me was how fast the clearance came after the ship requested it. This was in the days before computers so if in fact someone went to the bother to look up a file somewhere…….. But I understand that I now had an active FBI file. Wonder if that’s still true 45 yrs later.
Adam L Silverman
@Hkedi [Kang T. Q.]: Penderies, which is north and west of Las Vegas. We had a big, log house up in the mountains. My Dad built it as a retirement place. Because he was chronically ill, and we had similar schedules as I was, at the time first a doctoral candidate and then a post-doc and he was a professor, I’d go with him during summer and winter as someone needed to be out there with him just in case as it was a good 30 minute drive into town. We did spend a decent amount of time in Santa Fe and Taos and Las Vegas and some other places. He still liked to hike, though he couldn’t go far.
Ruckus
@Mnemosyne:
Mr. Khan is a lawyer in DC so he may quite be able on his own to write that speech. He delivered it so well that I’d bet it was his own words. Someone may have helped him with delivery prep but he knows the subject, and he doesn’t seem to have a problem in front of crowds, I’m giving him full credit until he says otherwise.
Adam L Silverman
@Ruckus: Did you get an email from OPM offering you free ID theft protection and management for life? If yes, then you do. If no, then its either been shredded because it was so old no one wanted to save the paper or its in a box, on a shelf, in the same warehouse as the ark of the covenant.
Ruckus
@Adam L Silverman:
It’s possible I did. But I learned from my clearance days. Shredding is your friend. Today, deleting without opening is your friend. Or at least as close to a friend as you can have by yourself. I’d bet shredded as there should have been no other entries in the last 4 decades other than the opening page.
SC54HI
When I worked for the Army a million years ago (early 90s), we were also told that any documents stamped with “For Official Use Only” were technically classified as well since their distribution or dissemination in any way could only be done officially. Thus, a lot of technical reports that might otherwise seem unrelated to national security could legitimately be withheld from a FOIA request.
Steve in the ATL
@Mnemosyne:
Many? I would say most!
J R in WV
@redshirt:
Wherever Trump is, there is the very gruesome bottom, down past which no one may go, but Trump. New depths of despicable.
Trump is still digging, and no one is willing to take away his shovel. He DID establish a new low speaking about Mrs. Khan.
To compare his life of “sacrifice” to the Khan sacrifice is to make himself a gruesome clown. Like medieval clowns with skull faces…
We can hope that he creates a new low in popular and electoral votes as well.
scottinnj
For the first time in recorded history, I agree with bill kristol on something (from his twitter feed – my bad too inept to embed a Tweet)
“To @realDonaldTrump: Please remove that American flag lapel pin. You don’t deserve to wear it.”
scottinnj
@J R in WV:
I’ve sometimes wondered if Trump really wants to be running for President, and might welcome handing the nomination. Serious question – if that was his strategy, what, if anything, would he be doing differently than what he is doing. I can’t think of anything else.
Can I also add that on Monday morning…time to start dialing your congressional offices. Simple question – do you still endorse Trump?
Martha from Augusta
@Adam L Silverman: Thanks for the comment at 103, Adam. It concisely sums up a number of issues that I’ve been discussing with some of my friends, a number of whom really should know better. I’ll probably point them to it when it comes up again.
Adam L Silverman
@Martha from Augusta: You’re welcome. Please remember I have no inside info, this is all going off of what’s been reported so far in the news.
The Other Chuck
@MattF:
If George Fucking Will has come to his senses, even temporarily, that sounds like something worthy of giving him views. Of course now that FYWP has made pasting raw URLs a ticket into moderation-land, it’s kind of pain to link anything anyway.
trnc
@Ian:
If he didn’t have to tell anyone, everyone else still thinks it’s classified. That greatly hampers the defense of the target of the leak. There needs to be an official record of the declassification, not just the unofficial record (the leak itself).
lihtox
I think it’s interesting that the Vice-President is specifically given the power to classify documents by this statute. If I understand it right, the VP is the only government official with classification powers that the President can’t take away.