Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat

[Ban Hammer 13,347]

i find it most distressing that there are a few in vj (and our newpapers) who are willing to compromise national security to further their political beliefs/agenda/POV.

To make official what everyone knows has NOTHING to do with national security and EVERYTHING to do with catching a dishonest government blatantly lying to the public. A free press is the single most important asset of a free society. Take that away and there is no free society anymore.

National Security my patoot. Geez, you sound like Rove.

i'm sure you would have thought the same thing had i leaked german national intelligence, which i had access to, in the late 80's

fact is, et, whether you like it or not, some things are classified due to the impact it will have on national security if such was released. this is primarily due to the collection methods used (imagry, intercepts, etc) or perhaps even man on the ground (called humint).

it's amazing how so many were all up in arms about the plame affair yet this passes by without notice. in both instances, those who leaked it, and the newspaper that published it knowing full well it was classified, should be prosecuted.

Edited September 24, 2006 by charlesandnessa

[one...two...tree 2,762]

i find it most distressing that there are a few in vj (and our newpapers) who are willing to compromise national security to further their political beliefs/agenda/POV.

To make official what everyone knows has NOTHING to do with national security and EVERYTHING to do with catching a dishonest government blatantly lying to the public. A free press is the single most important asset of a free society. Take that away and there is no free society anymore.

National Security my patoot. Geez, you sound like Rove.

i'm sure you would have thought the same thing had i leaked german national intelligence, which i had access to, in the late 80's

fact is, et, whether you like it or not, some things are classified due to the impact it will have on national security if such was released. this is primarily due to the collection methods used (imagry, intercepts, etc) or perhaps even man on the ground (called humint).

it's amazing how so many were all up in arms about the plame affair yet this passes by without notice. in both instances, those who leaked it, and the newspaper that published it knowing full well it was classified, should be prosecuted.

You're comparing apples to oranges.

Don't we have a time limit on classified material and hasn't the freedom of information act revealed rather consistently how the government has classified material to avoid public scrutiny? Who gets to classify material? If you believe that priviledge rests entirely on the shoulders of the President then you're making the presidency more important than the Constitution. One could argue that some material made classified is in fact unconstitutional.

[garya505 2]

So if the war has made the "overall terrorism problem worse" then where are all the attacks in the US?

[Ban Hammer 13,347]

i find it most distressing that there are a few in vj (and our newpapers) who are willing to compromise national security to further their political beliefs/agenda/POV.

To make official what everyone knows has NOTHING to do with national security and EVERYTHING to do with catching a dishonest government blatantly lying to the public. A free press is the single most important asset of a free society. Take that away and there is no free society anymore.

National Security my patoot. Geez, you sound like Rove.

i'm sure you would have thought the same thing had i leaked german national intelligence, which i had access to, in the late 80's

fact is, et, whether you like it or not, some things are classified due to the impact it will have on national security if such was released. this is primarily due to the collection methods used (imagry, intercepts, etc) or perhaps even man on the ground (called humint).

it's amazing how so many were all up in arms about the plame affair yet this passes by without notice. in both instances, those who leaked it, and the newspaper that published it knowing full well it was classified, should be prosecuted.

You're comparing apples to oranges.

Don't we have a time limit on classified material and hasn't the freedom of information act revealed rather consistently how the government has classified material to avoid public scrutiny? Who gets to classify material? If you believe that priviledge rests entirely on the shoulders of the President then you're making the presidency more important than the Constitution. One could argue that some material made classified is in fact unconstitutional.

not apples and oranges steven. in both cases it's a breach of national security. it's time such comes to a screetching halt.

a time limit does exist on some documents. not all. some are declassified down one level after a preset amount of time. others are just reviewed and possibly kept at the same level of classification or then downgraded with specific instructions on declassification on a certain date or again, a review on date.

the freedom of information act has nothing to do with national security. you can try to obtain classified under it and you'll be laughed at.

as for who gets to classify documents, i'll presume you mean original classification authority, which is based on position rather than rank. and each level has the authority to classify things at a certain level. it should be noted that there is also derivative classification authority, but there's no need to cover that is there?

and no, i never said nor will say the president has sole responsibility for classification as that is just plain wrong. that is delegated out. your argument that some material being made classified is unconstitutional is undoubtably laughable at best.

here's a few definitions that might help you be more informed. important parts bolded by me:

The classification Top Secret is limited to defense information or material that requires the highest degree of protection. The Top Secret classification is applied only to information or material that is paramount to national security and the unauthorized disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.

Material classified as Secret is limited to defense information or material. The unauthorized disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to cause serious damage to the national security.

Use of the classification Confidential is limited to national defense information or material, the unauthorized disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to cause damage to national security.

****although that last definition (for confidential) is questionable, last time i read ar 380-5 it stated "identifiable damage" in place of "damage"

[one...two...tree 2,762]

i find it most distressing that there are a few in vj (and our newpapers) who are willing to compromise national security to further their political beliefs/agenda/POV.

To make official what everyone knows has NOTHING to do with national security and EVERYTHING to do with catching a dishonest government blatantly lying to the public. A free press is the single most important asset of a free society. Take that away and there is no free society anymore.

National Security my patoot. Geez, you sound like Rove.

i'm sure you would have thought the same thing had i leaked german national intelligence, which i had access to, in the late 80's

fact is, et, whether you like it or not, some things are classified due to the impact it will have on national security if such was released. this is primarily due to the collection methods used (imagry, intercepts, etc) or perhaps even man on the ground (called humint).

it's amazing how so many were all up in arms about the plame affair yet this passes by without notice. in both instances, those who leaked it, and the newspaper that published it knowing full well it was classified, should be prosecuted.

You're comparing apples to oranges.

Don't we have a time limit on classified material and hasn't the freedom of information act revealed rather consistently how the government has classified material to avoid public scrutiny? Who gets to classify material? If you believe that priviledge rests entirely on the shoulders of the President then you're making the presidency more important than the Constitution. One could argue that some material made classified is in fact unconstitutional.

not apples and oranges steven. in both cases it's a breach of national security. it's time such comes to a screetching halt.

a time limit does exist on some documents. not all. some are declassified down one level after a preset amount of time. others are just reviewed and possibly kept at the same level of classification or then downgraded with specific instructions on declassification on a certain date or again, a review on date.

the freedom of information act has nothing to do with national security. you can try to obtain classified under it and you'll be laughed at.

as for who gets to classify documents, i'll presume you mean original classification authority, which is based on position rather than rank. and each level has the authority to classify things at a certain level. it should be noted that there is also derivative classification authority, but there's no need to cover that is there?

and no, i never said nor will say the president has sole responsibility for classification as that is just plain wrong. that is delegated out. your argument that some material being made classified is unconstitutional is undoubtably laughable at best.

here's a few definitions that might help you be more informed. important parts bolded by me:

The classification Top Secret is limited to defense information or material that requires the highest degree of protection. The Top Secret classification is applied only to information or material that is paramount to national security and the unauthorized disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.

Material classified as Secret is limited to defense information or material. The unauthorized disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to cause serious damage to the national security.

Use of the classification Confidential is limited to national defense information or material, the unauthorized disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to cause damage to national security.

****although that last definition (for confidential) is questionable, last time i read ar 380-5 it stated "identifiable damage" in place of "damage"

That's incredibly vague, don't you agree? Isn't it possible for someone to authorize material to be classified that actually shouldn't be? Don't you see the potential for abuse?

[Ban Hammer 13,347]

That's incredibly vague, don't you agree? Isn't it possible for someone to authorize material to be classified that actually shouldn't be? Don't you see the potential for abuse?

no, no, and very unlikely to occur as over and under classification can be challenged. you're just too busy trying to see a conspiracy here.

[Marc and Olga 0]

That's incredibly vague, don't you agree? Isn't it possible for someone to authorize material to be classified that actually shouldn't be? Don't you see the potential for abuse?

no, no, and very unlikely to occur as over and under classification can be challenged. you're just too busy trying to see a conspiracy here.

Seems there is.

People who have read a classified report (I don't recall reading that they printed the ACTUAL report) gave a brief explanation of the report (no specifics which would be covered under the "classified") which says the "terrorist" threat worsens.

President Bush (presumably read the same report) and stated that everything is better. The SAME President Bush that at one point in time stated that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction (Hmmm) and that Iraq/Saddam was directly linked to AQ. Both of the later facts have been admitted as "wrong" information...

Who should we trust, a president that has, in the past, followed "wrong" evidence or a bunch of people who remain unamed?

I'm going with the unnamed people based on the credibility of the source...

EDIT: yes a bunch of unnamed people ARE more credible in my perception then Bush, BASED on his history.

Edited September 24, 2006 by Marc and Olga

[Ban Hammer 13,347]

That's incredibly vague, don't you agree? Isn't it possible for someone to authorize material to be classified that actually shouldn't be? Don't you see the potential for abuse?

no, no, and very unlikely to occur as over and under classification can be challenged. you're just too busy trying to see a conspiracy here.

Seems there is.

-------------------snip----------------------------

.

the above has absolutely nothing to do with what i was talking about.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

i find it most distressing that there are a few in vj (and our newpapers) who are willing to compromise national security to further their political beliefs/agenda/POV.

To make official what everyone knows has NOTHING to do with national security and EVERYTHING to do with catching a dishonest government blatantly lying to the public. A free press is the single most important asset of a free society. Take that away and there is no free society anymore.

National Security my patoot. Geez, you sound like Rove.

fact is, et, whether you like it or not, some things are classified due to the impact it will have on national security if such was released. this is primarily due to the collection methods used (imagry, intercepts, etc) or perhaps even man on the ground (called humint).

What particular part of what has been released to the public, in your opinion, compromises national security? That the President and his team has, yet again, been caught lying to the public?

[Marc and Olga 0]

That's incredibly vague, don't you agree? Isn't it possible for someone to authorize material to be classified that actually shouldn't be? Don't you see the potential for abuse?

no, no, and very unlikely to occur as over and under classification can be challenged. you're just too busy trying to see a conspiracy here.

Seems there is.

-------------------snip----------------------------

.

the above has absolutely nothing to do with what i was talking about.

Actually, it does, you are stating that classified information has "leaked" and I am saying NOWHERE does there appear to be any actual "classified information" in the article...only some people who have read it that are commenting on the report. Unless you are claiming these people are ALSO classified or are telling classified information, again though there is no evidence here of that...like the evidence of WMDs in Iraq or the direct or indirect link between Iraq and "terrorism".

i find it most distressing that there are a few in vj (and our newpapers) who are willing to compromise national security to further their political beliefs/agenda/POV.

To make official what everyone knows has NOTHING to do with national security and EVERYTHING to do with catching a dishonest government blatantly lying to the public. A free press is the single most important asset of a free society. Take that away and there is no free society anymore.

National Security my patoot. Geez, you sound like Rove.

fact is, et, whether you like it or not, some things are classified due to the impact it will have on national security if such was released. this is primarily due to the collection methods used (imagry, intercepts, etc) or perhaps even man on the ground (called humint).

What particular part of what has been released to the public, in your opinion, compromises national security? That the President and his team has, yet again, been caught lying to the public?

color me surprised...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What particular part of what has been released to the public, in your opinion, compromises national security? That the President and his team has, yet again, been caught lying to the public?

Exactly. NOTHING has been released to the public. Someone has paraphrased the general findings of an internal report - which is a FAR cry from revealing the location, troop numbers, weaponry of military personnel - or.... revealing someone's identity in such a way that it could compromise other personnel (which is what separates the Plame affair from this).

It was not in the public interest to reveal her identity. It certainly is in the public interest that the opinions of intelligence experts differ from that of the president, who is on record for saying that everything is fine and dandy. After all, this report could just as easily have said that "things are safer". But it hasn't - Bush has said that and defined the discourse in his own (political) terms. Clearly someone is being economical with the truth...

So if the war has made the "overall terrorism problem worse" then where are all the attacks in the US?

Point is - they were relatively few and far between BEFORE 9/11.

Edited September 24, 2006 by erekose

[Ban Hammer 13,347]

That's incredibly vague, don't you agree? Isn't it possible for someone to authorize material to be classified that actually shouldn't be? Don't you see the potential for abuse?

no, no, and very unlikely to occur as over and under classification can be challenged. you're just too busy trying to see a conspiracy here.

Seems there is.

-------------------snip----------------------------

.

the above has absolutely nothing to do with what i was talking about.

Actually, it does, you are stating that classified information has "leaked" and I am saying NOWHERE does there appear to be any actual "classified information" in the article...only some people who have read it that are commenting on the report. Unless you are claiming these people are ALSO classified or are telling classified information, again though there is no evidence here of that...like the evidence of WMDs in Iraq or the direct or indirect link between Iraq and "terrorism".

again, the reply to steven has nothing to do with what you are trying to make it out to be. it was replying strictly to steven's question.

as for what is classified in that report, neither you nor i would know as it obviously does not have paragraph markings. the statement that people are classified is ludicrous. they should, however, know better than discuss such information with the press in any form. that's what public affairs personnel are for.

i find it most distressing that there are a few in vj (and our newpapers) who are willing to compromise national security to further their political beliefs/agenda/POV.

To make official what everyone knows has NOTHING to do with national security and EVERYTHING to do with catching a dishonest government blatantly lying to the public. A free press is the single most important asset of a free society. Take that away and there is no free society anymore.

National Security my patoot. Geez, you sound like Rove.

fact is, et, whether you like it or not, some things are classified due to the impact it will have on national security if such was released. this is primarily due to the collection methods used (imagry, intercepts, etc) or perhaps even man on the ground (called humint).

What particular part of what has been released to the public, in your opinion, compromises national security? That the President and his team has, yet again, been caught lying to the public?

you missed the boat....swim back to it and try again. you're trying to make this into a political issue and it's not. odds are, those who classified said document don't even work in the white house.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

you missed the boat....swim back to it and try again. you're trying to make this into a political issue and it's not. odds are, those who classified said document don't even work in the white house.

Charles, let me ask you then about when a government official comments on classified information. Turn back the clock to Clinton being in office. He tells the public that he has classified information that Canada has a nuclear missile pointing right at the White House and he tells the public we need to move swiftly to counter the possible attack. Then some unidentified government sources who have also seen the classified information go to the NYT and claim that report is inconclusive. Are you saying that Clinton has the right to comment to the public but if the NYT publishes a counter claim by an unnamed source it it treason?

[Ban Hammer 13,347]

you missed the boat....swim back to it and try again. you're trying to make this into a political issue and it's not. odds are, those who classified said document don't even work in the white house.

Charles, let me ask you then about when a government official comments on classified information. Turn back the clock to Clinton being in office. He tells the public that he has classified information that Canada has a nuclear missile pointing right at the White House and he tells the public we need to move swiftly to counter the possible attack. Then some unidentified government sources who have also seen the classified information go to the NYT and claim that report is inconclusive. Are you saying that Clinton has the right to comment to the public but if the NYT publishes a counter claim by an unnamed source it it treason?

clinton, along with every other president, has the authority to declassify said report ergo, no crime committed eh? (yeah i know, feel fre to have a heart attack, me defending clinton's actions there)

the question is, those who leaked this report to the times - do they have authority to declassify such? and did they do such for political purposes? and lastly, what about the responsibility of the times? keeping the public informed does have a limit when it gets into classified

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

you missed the boat....swim back to it and try again. you're trying to make this into a political issue and it's not. odds are, those who classified said document don't even work in the white house.

Charles, let me ask you then about when a government official comments on classified information. Turn back the clock to Clinton being in office. He tells the public that he has classified information that Canada has a nuclear missile pointing right at the White House and he tells the public we need to move swiftly to counter the possible attack. Then some unidentified government sources who have also seen the classified information go to the NYT and claim that report is inconclusive. Are you saying that Clinton has the right to comment to the public but if the NYT publishes a counter claim by an unnamed source it it treason?

clinton, along with every other president, has the authority to declassify said report ergo, no crime committed eh? (yeah i know, feel fre to have a heart attack, me defending clinton's actions there)

the question is, those who leaked this report to the times - do they have authority to declassify such? and did they do such for political purposes? and lastly, what about the responsibility of the times? keeping the public informed does have a limit when it gets into classified

...but nothing classified was actually published....