2k17 /pol/

[Luke Cox]

Bottom post of the previous page:

If federal agencies are responsible for the declassification of intelligence, and the President has complete reign over all of the agencies involved in this process, it would stand to reason that the President has the authority to declassify shit whenever they goddamn please

[Super Aggro Crag]

I have access to classified information every day.

[Luke Cox]

Oh fuck Crag's with the CIA delete it all

[Super Aggro Crag]

Nah I work for the FBI im James comeys replacement

[starmute]

>President of the United States, the leader of the free world
>Shares classified information about terrorists with another government through official channels (literally talking to their official) that are working with us in the middle east to wipe out terrorism
>Comparable to someone sharing c+ information with their family / keeping c+ information on an easily accessible private server / literally spying for another government

You're stupid.

Sharing of information is done through agencies not individuals. Anything labeled top secret, secret, confidential or public trust must be vetted before released to another country. It has to go through a strict process typically. They weigh the pros and cons and then make a decision . Its not something done lightly as you can reveal your sources or how you got your information.

Also: If you name call I'm just going to ignore you Intigracy.

If federal agencies are responsible for the declassification of intelligence, and the President has complete reign over all of the agencies involved in this process, it would stand to reason that the President has the authority to declassify shit whenever they goddamn please

Intelligence agencies, counter intelligence agencies and the military, are apolitical. Even if you have top secret clearance you can't go giving away the troop locations of every American soldier on the ground in Syria. The president and several members of the senate and house intelligence committee are given clearance to the information but it is given in hopes that they can make decisions to help the American public.

[ColonicAcid]

Uhm.

Not to break your bubble here but the president of the US of A is completely entitled to share whatever state secrets he wants. What Trump did wasn't illegal, it was just stupid. He had 0 clue that it was given by a CI and also zero idea that giving it out would endanger said informant. That's the problem here, not that he did not have any right to state what he stated.

He's the Chief of State, the Chief Executive & the Chief Diplomat. He gets to divulge what is a state secret or not.

[XSI]

Intelligence agencies, counter intelligence agencies and the military, are apolitical.

Technically.
This is how it's supposed to be, but with both US internal and lots of external shit going on we know politics are involved

CIA backed revolutions/dictatorships being just the most obvious example

[starmute]

Uhm.

Not to break your bubble here but the president of the US of A is completely entitled to share whatever state secrets he wants. What Trump did wasn't illegal, it was just stupid. He had 0 clue that it was given by a CI and also zero idea that giving it out would endanger said informant. That's the problem here, not that he did not have any right to state what he stated.

He's the Chief of State, the Chief Executive & the Chief Diplomat. He gets to divulge what is a state secret or not.

Incorrect. Please re-read over the espionage act or cite laws or sources that state otherwise. Even the president has limits of what he can or can't do.

http://legisworks.org/sal/40/stats/STATUTE-40-Pg217.pdf

Intelligence agencies, counter intelligence agencies and the military, are apolitical.

Technically.
This is how it's supposed to be, but with both US internal and lots of external shit going on we know politics are involved

CIA backed revolutions/dictatorships being just the most obvious example

Typically those are to "further American interests". I'm not saying that is right but everyone plays that particular game.

[bandit]

Incorrect. Please re-read over the espionage act or cite laws or sources that state otherwise. Even the president has limits of what he can or can't do.

http://legisworks.org/sal/40/stats/STATUTE-40-Pg217.pdf

Via Jack Goldsmith (former Bush administration assistant attorney general, Harvard Law professor; did work with Comey, if that matters) here:

The President determines the system of designating classified information through Executive Order, and he is entitled to depart from it at will. Currently, Executive Order 13526 governs national security information.

The Supreme Court has stated in Department of the Navy v. Egan that “[the President’s] authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security ... flows primarily from this Constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant.” Because of his broad constitutional authority in this realm, the president can, at any time, either declassify information or decide whom to share it with.

as well as this bit of fun

If the President decided to write the nuclear codes on a sticky note on his desk and then took a photo of it and tweeted it, he would not technically have violated any criminal law–just as he hasn’t here.

none of this changes the fact that it's fucking stupid and/or thoughtless, but it isn't illegal

[Grazyn]

The POTUS can nuke a country and kill billions with the flick of a finger if he pleases, but he has to go through hoops when he wants to divulge classified information? I don't think so

[bandit]

Meanwhile, his FCC pick has gutted net neutrality regulations, but nobody seems to give a fuck about that. Can't interrupt the autistic Russia screeching.

https://www.google.com/webhp?oq=net+neu ... ty&tbm=nws

what did he mean by this

[lntigracy]

Incorrect. Please re-read over the espionage act or cite laws or sources that state otherwise. Even the president has limits of what he can or can't do.

http://legisworks.org/sal/40/stats/STATUTE-40-Pg217.pdf

Via Jack Goldsmith (former Bush administration assistant attorney general, Harvard Law professor; did work with Comey, if that matters) here:

The President determines the system of designating classified information through Executive Order, and he is entitled to depart from it at will. Currently, Executive Order 13526 governs national security information.

The Supreme Court has stated in Department of the Navy v. Egan that “[the President’s] authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security ... flows primarily from this Constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant.” Because of his broad constitutional authority in this realm, the president can, at any time, either declassify information or decide whom to share it with.

as well as this bit of fun

If the President decided to write the nuclear codes on a sticky note on his desk and then took a photo of it and tweeted it, he would not technically have violated any criminal law–just as he hasn’t here.

none of this changes the fact that it's fucking stupid and/or thoughtless, but it isn't illegal

From EO 13526

(2) Classified information originating in one agency may be disseminated by any other agency to which it has been made available to a foreign government in accordance with statute, this order, directives implementing this order, direction of the President, or with the consent of the originating agency. For the purposes of this section, ‘‘foreign government’’ includes any element of a foreign government, or an international organization of governments, or any element thereof.

[starmute]

Incorrect. Please re-read over the espionage act or cite laws or sources that state otherwise. Even the president has limits of what he can or can't do.

http://legisworks.org/sal/40/stats/STATUTE-40-Pg217.pdf

Via Jack Goldsmith (former Bush administration assistant attorney general, Harvard Law professor; did work with Comey, if that matters) here:

The President determines the system of designating classified information through Executive Order, and he is entitled to depart from it at will. Currently, Executive Order 13526 governs national security information.

The Supreme Court has stated in Department of the Navy v. Egan that “[the President’s] authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security ... flows primarily from this Constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant.” Because of his broad constitutional authority in this realm, the president can, at any time, either declassify information or decide whom to share it with.

as well as this bit of fun

If the President decided to write the nuclear codes on a sticky note on his desk and then took a photo of it and tweeted it, he would not technically have violated any criminal law–just as he hasn’t here.

none of this changes the fact that it's fucking stupid and/or thoughtless, but it isn't illegal

Regarding

lawfareblog.com/bombshell-initial-thoughts-washington-posts-game-changing-story

I actually enjoyed the article and it was well written. The one thing he does "take too far" is reading too much into Navy v. Egan. Navy v Egan talks about the presidents power to classify information, not about the ability to declassify information.

Additionally I'm reading executive order 13526 but I don't see the area where it talks about the president. I will concede though its a pretty hefty document and I might be overlooking it.
https://www.ise.gov/sites/default/files/EO13526.pdf (if you want to read it too)


What you omitted was the person who wrote the article made and advolcated for a case of impeachment vs trump

"Questions of criminality aside, we turn to the far more significant issues: If the President gave this information away through carelessness or neglect, he has arguably breached his oath of office. As Quinta and Ben have elaborated on in some detail, in taking the oath President Trump swore to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States” and to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” to the best of his ability. It’s very hard to argue that carelessly giving away highly sensitive material to an adversary foreign power constitutes a faithful execution of the office of President."

completing your "bit of fun"

If the President decided to write the nuclear codes on a sticky note on his desk and then took a photo of it and tweeted it, he would not technically have violated any criminal law–just as he hasn’t here. He has the constitutional authority to dictate that the safeguarding of nuclear materials shall be done through sticky notes in plain sight and tweeted, even the authority to declassify the codes outright. Yet, we would all understand this degree of negligence to be a gross violation of his oath of office.



Basically his argument is "This is severe and ground for impeachment".

Mine is "I don't know what happened but I'm pretty sure this is covered in criminal law". I might be wrong but frankly I've gotten the "don't talk to me about classified information" by family members for so long that it comes second hand.

From EO 13536

(2) Classified information originating in one agency may be disseminated by any other agency to which it has been made available to a foreign government in accordance with statute, this order, directives implementing this order, direction of the President, or with the consent of the originating agency. For the purposes of this section, ‘‘foreign government’’ includes any element of a foreign government, or an international organization of governments, or any element thereof.

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-cente ... /13536.pdf

EO 13536 was sanctions on people contributing to the conflict in Somalia. You're probably looking for 26. 13526. That wording you just game me is not in EO 13526 that I can see.

https://www.ise.gov/sites/default/files/EO13526.pdf

[lntigracy]

Page 721, (2)

I did mean 26

[starmute]

Page 721, (2)

I did mean 26

I see that. Good find it wasn't picking up the parenthesis. However it does talk about the agency distributing the information (under the directions of the president). Not the president distributing the information themselves. That being said the wording is vauge enough that either of us could be right.

" Classified information originating in one agency may be disseminated by any other agency to which it has been made available to a foreign government in accordance with statute,"

Probably means any classified information originating from a intelligence agency.

"directives implementing this order, direction of the President"

For me would involve a direct order from the President to a agency. However I can see how it could be interpreted as "the president can do whatever they want with the information". However this does come into conflict with the oath of office.

[XSI]

So from what I'm seeing here

The president has the power to decide to unclassify and give out information at will
And the president also does not have this power because he also has to go through the agencies

Hooray laws

[Luke Cox]

And unless Trump released classified information with malicious intent or gross negligence, the oath of office bit doesn't apply either

[starmute]

And unless Trump released classified information with malicious intent or gross negligence, the oath of office bit doesn't apply either

Giving intelligence about (well we don't really know what he gave since its classified) to Russia seems like gross negligence. Considering they have been our rivals and we both point nuclear weapons at each other. Well unless we can prove otherwise. From the post article it made him out to be boasting to the Russians.

[ShadowDimentio]

And unless Trump released classified information with malicious intent or gross negligence, the oath of office bit doesn't apply either

Giving intelligence about (well we don't really know what he gave since its classified) to Russia seems like gross negligence. Considering they have been our rivals and we both point nuclear weapons at each other. Well unless we can prove otherwise. From the post article it made him out to be boasting to the Russians.

They were our rivals /in the past/. They totally exhausted themselves after the Cold War and fell apart, the most important thing they're doing right now is helping us fight ISIS, which we're obviously in favor of. The info Trump shared was allegedly concerning counterterrorism, so there was pretty obviously not some malevolent purpose to be found.

[starmute]

And unless Trump released classified information with malicious intent or gross negligence, the oath of office bit doesn't apply either

Giving intelligence about (well we don't really know what he gave since its classified) to Russia seems like gross negligence. Considering they have been our rivals and we both point nuclear weapons at each other. Well unless we can prove otherwise. From the post article it made him out to be boasting to the Russians.

They were our rivals /in the past/. They totally exhausted themselves after the Cold War and fell apart, the most important thing they're doing right now is helping us fight ISIS, which we're obviously in favor of. The info Trump shared was allegedly concerning counterterrorism, so there was pretty obviously not some malevolent purpose to be found.

I'm pretty sure they are our rivals now. Perhaps the only time when we weren't was when Yelsin drank himself to death, additionally the US and Russia have different views on Syria and Bashar al-Assad considering we just ran a series of airstrikes on them so we're in conflicting spheres of interest to say the least.

The argument isn't that Trump was malevolent with classified information. It was that it was gross negligence. Like if you go to a workplace and cause the BP oil spill but did it because you didn't follow proper safety precautions versus malevolent reasons of creating the BP oil spill if you were some oil based super villain (I'm looking at you "the fracker"). The result however is the same, the Russians can potentially figure out how we got the intelligence, what our sources are and the method we gathered the information based on the information given to them, needless to say this can cause harm to national security.

That and the addition that what he did might not be legal causes issues. Not to mention he did this right after firing the director of the FBI..... yeah we're in for a wild ride this summer/early fall.

[Luke Cox]

Not really. It was a coordinated counter terrorism operation with Russia.

[starmute]

Not really. It was a coordinated counter terrorism operation with Russia.

Honk honk
no we're not buddy buddy about that.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/worl ... onvoy.html

Nor do we know what EXACTLY what was said other than it involved us talking about potential exploits ISIS can use against our airplanes.
(Exploits that now russia knows about as well)

[Luke Cox]

How much Russia actually like us is irrelevant

[starmute]

How much Russia actually like us is irrelevant

The problem is by all accounts it wasn't us "sharing information" which is done through official channels (through agencies). It was done by the president just blurting it out there like the clown with tourette's.

[Luke Cox]

Again, the question here isn't whether he should, it's whether he can. Legally, he can do whatever he pleases with it. Unless he acted with malice or gross ignorance, he has done nothing unlawful. It was a counter-terror operation, and the scope of the information shared was fairly limited and presumably premeditated. Working with Russia on counter-terror operations was even one of his bigger foreign policy campaign points.

[ShadowDimentio]

How much Russia actually like us is irrelevant

The problem is by all accounts it wasn't us "sharing information" which is done through official channels (through agencies). It was done by the president just blurting it out there like the clown with tourette's.

So? He's totally allowed to do it, and hell I'd say getting along well and sharing some info with Russia on this would be a solid step forwards in patching up relations with them and beating ISIS faster.

If Trump wants to play diplomat and isn't doing a bad job at it I say more power to him.

[starmute]

How much Russia actually like us is irrelevant

The problem is by all accounts it wasn't us "sharing information" which is done through official channels (through agencies). It was done by the president just blurting it out there like the clown with tourette's.

So? He's totally allowed to do it, and hell I'd say getting along well and sharing some info with Russia on this would be a solid step forwards in patching up relations with them and beating ISIS faster.

If Trump wants to play diplomat and isn't doing a bad job at it I say more power to him.

Except its not written into law that he is allowed to do this (it isn't even implied). Its a basic "no mans land" where nobody has ever considered a president would be so foolish as to reveal national secrets to a country where the consequences could kill armed service members, intelligence agents and their sources.

There is a way where agencies share information and usually its done through different channels.

However I think I'm barking up the wrong tree here in trying to convince you as I don't think you are willing to entertain the thought that trump might be in the wrong here. Were anyone else but the president of the united states have done this they would be fired or charged with treason. I mean if you can't understand that its a big deal then I don't know what to tell you other than get some perspective.

[ShadowDimentio]

The "anyone else would be in big trouble" argument rings extremely empty when we're talking about the president here, the big boss of the goverment and intelligence agencies. Explicitly allowed or not, he did it and it's fine.

[starmute]

The "anyone else would be in big trouble" argument rings extremely empty when we're talking about the president here, the big boss of the goverment and intelligence agencies. Explicitly allowed or not, he did it and it's fine.

Saying "and its fine" doesn't allow him to do that. We're literally talking about the espionage act. At the very best its gross negligence. At the very worst he's committed a criminal act.

[lntigracy]

It's not like he held a press conference and was like "isis, we're gonna bomb them. We're gonna bomb them the best. We're gonna be the best at bombing. That issue where [insert shared information here] isn't gonna be a problem. Nobody can bomb like us."

He went behind closed doors with a Russian diplomat and decided to share what he believed was pertinent in the fight against ISIS, and ended up just sharing something they already knew.

The fact that he's one of the explicitly mentioned people able to make something clarified, secret or top secret leads me to believe that when necessary he can share that information by not considering it enough of an issue to hide from someone helping us in the middle east.

This has nothing to do with who the president is, I actually hold a form of clearance and believe wholeheartedly that the president should be able to use judgement to share information, regardless of who that may be.

[bandit]

maybe this will make more sense via spessmens analogy

Urist McEagle and Urist McRed are suspected of metacomms. There is no actual proof that Urist McEagle and Urist McRed are metacommunicating, however, an admin believes there is enough evidence to put them both on a watchlist. Urist McEagle posts an unrelated admin complaint against the guy who put them on the watchlist and successfully gets him deadminned. When asked whether it's a coincidence he posts "now I'm not being investigated for metacomms anymore, that's why I made the complaint."

In the next round Urist McEagle is the warden and Urist McRed is an assistant, or a regular sec officer, or something. Urist McEagle gives Urist McRed a bunch of guns and shit from the armory. Nothing in the rules says that the warden isn't allowed to do what he wants with the contents of the armory, after all, it is his armory. Maybe Urist McRed might just use them to go validhunt all the traitors! But it looks really bad in context.

[starmute]

It's not like he held a press conference and was like "isis, we're gonna bomb them. We're gonna bomb them the best. We're gonna be the best at bombing. That issue where [insert shared information here] isn't gonna be a problem. Nobody can bomb like us."

He went behind closed doors with a Russian diplomat and decided to share what he believed was pertinent in the fight against ISIS, and ended up just sharing something they already knew.

The fact that he's one of the explicitly mentioned people able to make something clarified, secret or top secret leads me to believe that when necessary he can share that information by not considering it enough of an issue to hide from someone helping us in the middle east.

This has nothing to do with who the president is, I actually hold a form of clearance and believe wholeheartedly that the president should be able to use judgement to share information, regardless of who that may be.

Out of curiosity does this have to do with the national guard? I just remember talking to you a few years ago about the national guard.

Regarding the post
Russia isn't helping us and hasn't been our ally since... well world war 2 (and that's debatable as well). They are helping Syria's government, and while its a nice belief that Russia could be our ally we typically don't share information with our allies without vetting and going over the information before submitting it.

As far as "well I think that"; that's just a opinion. I believe that government officials should require mandatory civil/military service time for all government officials but that's just my opinion. The law is the law and despite my hopes and opinions, candidates for office rarely have any experience in having to deal with the branches they have to overlook (such as the intel community, forest service, army and navy.)

[Luke Cox]

Don't really see how either is applicable here. It doesn't matter if you think it was a good idea or not. It was legal, and it was not malicious or grossly negligent. Sharing intel involving a joint counter-terrorism operation is not grossly negligent.

Edit: Was looking at the last page by mistake

[starmute]

Don't really see how either is applicable here. It doesn't matter if you think it was a good idea or not. It was legal, and it was not malicious or grossly negligent. Sharing intel involving a joint counter-terrorism operation is not grossly negligent.

Edit: Was looking at the last page by mistake

There is no joint counter-terrorism operation. Literally Russia and the United States are sending money and arms to two different groups trying to take over Syria.

[Luke Cox]

You are aware of what the actual intel was, right? It involved an ISIS plan to manufacture IEDs out of laptops.

[starmute]

You are aware of what the actual intel was, right? It involved an ISIS plan to manufacture IEDs out of laptops.

That was "part" of the information involved. It also involved how the United States would counter it, the person embedded with ISIS ect. Additionally we don't know all the information.

You and I will NEVER know all of what the actual intel is. However if it has a classification as "secret" it literally means according to the state department that it would endanger national security if it was let out.

"--A document will be classified and marked "Secret" only when the information it contains is of such nature that its disclosure might endanger the national security, or cause serious injury to the interests or prestige of the Nation, an individual, or any governmental activity, or be of great advantage to a foreign nation."

AR 320-5
ANNEX N
4-9

[Luke Cox]

The state department can be pretty over-zealous when it comes to classifying things as "secret." If you've learned anything from the past 15 years or so it should be that the government has an insanely liberal definition of what constitutes "national security." I've heard conflicting things about the source itself, specifically that it was not revealed. From the sounds of it, Trump and the Russian ambassadors were discussing a planned terror attack from ISIS and how to prevent it. Literally the most benign shit I can imagine.

[Grazyn]

Does anyone seriously believe anything is gonna come out of this? Or is it just a meme like "here's how Sanders can still win"? The media have been blowing shit out of proportion (on both sides) since the campaign, Trump could literally go on a shooting spree in Times Square right now with live coverage and people would still say "Oh there's the media overreacting again"

[XSI]

Pretty much that

They cried wolf so hard and often that nobody is going to believe them on it if there actually is a wolf now

[Super Aggro Crag]

A more apt comparison would be scared of shadows spawning himself a gyroget gun

[starmute]

>Captain could go on a shooting spree and no-one would care
I'm pretty sure he'd be shot by the local sec officers or pneumatic cannon packing assistants? Or does he own the souls and minds of gun non-antag gear owners who will be willing to lay down before the Captain's dual wielded L6 SAWs?

Its more like a head admin who makes himself a immortal ash drake and calls it a "event" while he slaughters the crew.

[imblyings]

>someone disengages from pol thread last time after being btfo and says to continue discussing over pm's if anyone wants to
>comes back for some reason

on a slightly related note, why do we tolerate politics discussion? I know of a national and incredibly vast web forum that bans politics discussion and is none the worse for it. In fact, it's been successful for years. More to the point, a lot of politics nowadays is intentional radicalization and polarization, part of divide and conquer, which is nothing an internet community needs.

[Grazyn]

And who's doing the divide and conquering?

[lntigracy]

why do we tolerate politics discussion? I know of a national and incredibly vast web forum that bans politics discussion and is none the worse for it. In fact, it's been successful for years.

Waah stop discussing things I don't like

Which forum?

[imblyings]

thanks for being the one to reply with the 'don't discuss things i don't like' post, inti, someone had to. It's an australian one, and incredibly useful for things from pizza vouchers to advice on cars, though I never post there. It's essentially a worksafe 4chan for when I want to mindlessly read things but don't want to go on 4chan on public wifi or whatever

>who's doing the divide and conquering
anyone who stands to gain from it

[lntigracy]

You could always just not open the thread if you don't want to read political discussion

[InsaneHyena]

Sometimes I wonder if Starmute is actually a person at all. Maybe it's just an imperfect AI, parroting everything it's heard from CNN.

[XSI]

on a slightly related note, why do we tolerate politics discussion?

SS13 as a whole becomes political anyway. Better to have it in a single thread than to shit up the entire forum with it

[ColonicAcid]

Sometimes I wonder if Starmute is actually a person at all. Maybe it's just an imperfect AI, parroting everything it's heard from CNN.

lmao dont give me that shit boy

i can tell that the usual suspects get their news from fox & friends.

[Luke Cox]

"Usual suspects" being "everyone I disagree with"

Except maybe Shadow

[ColonicAcid]

no usual suspects because they say stupid shit regardless of what they're talking about