7 ms·

so a sailor stationed on a US Navy nuclear submarine is facing four to five years in prison (and a dishonorable discharge) for taking six photos from inside the

so a sailor stationed on a US Navy nuclear submarine is facing four to five years in prison (and a dishonorable discharge) for taking six photos from inside the submarine. The subject of the photos--the propulsion system--seems alarming until you read a little later how "uninteresting" the photos actually are--ie, the US Navy classified each of the six as either "confidential" or "restricted". i reviewed thousands of classified documents during time in the service--ts/sci and everything below it. So first, i should think anyone who has handled classified information quickly realizes the strong inflation in security designation--makes sense though because no one wants to under-classify a document, better to be conservative. Second, "confidential" is the lowest category of classified information and very few documents/messages in that category ever seemed to me not already general public knowledge. Third, while some of the six photos were classified "confidential"--the lowest classification; others (we aren't told how many) were deemed "restricted". "Restricted" is not a classified category--it's about the same as "for official use only". Once more, this is the US Navy's own security designation of those photos. (By contrast, Clinton's email server contained eight email chains classified top secret, while many chains having a lower security designation, were found. That said, if i were a sailor on board a nuclear submarine i can't imagine i would ever point a camera anywhere near the propulsion system; but if i did, i would expect little mercy even if i photographed nothing whatever classified. The Captain has sufficient authority in an instance like that to bust the sailor down to E-1, fine him six months pay, and throw him in the brig for a month or two--just for being reckless, again, even if there is no breach of classified information.

kafkaesq 10y ago
It certainly wasn't a very smart thing to do. But I think the main point of the article was "different rules for them than for us."
- x0x0 10y ago
  Yes, but the article is deceptive. The sailor: 1 - took photos of classified materiel; 2 - admitted he knew that they were classified and that he wasn't authorized to possess them; 3 - after being confronted by law enforcement, destroyed evidence Clinton 1 - at worst only accidentally had classified material; 2 - the state department disagrees with the cia/nsa over whether the 110 documents that were unmarked yet classified at the time of sending/receipt should have been so classified; 3 - did not destroy evidence. A far better comparison is General Petraeus. He [1] * was a 4-star general; * knowingly gave classified information to someone not authorized to possess it; * lied to the fbi (a felony all on its own, even if what you lied about wasn't a crime! Never ever talk to the fbi without your lawyer. For any reason.) * committed adultery Petraeus got probation, a $100k fine, and to keep his rank (which controls retirement benefits.) The differences, as the fbi director pointed out when discussing Clinton, revolve around knowingly taking classified material and lying/destroying evidence. One has to conclude the lawyer used Clinton to be sensational rather than as a genuine comparison. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/02/24/why-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-petraeus-leak-are-not-really-alike/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/02/...
  - the_trapper 10y ago
    > 3 - did not destroy evidence. Like with a cloth? Let me correct that for you, Clinton attempted to destroy evidence but was incompetent at it.
    - x0x0 10y ago
      She was not under investigation at the time, and none of the emails she deleted ended up being responsive. It's in no way the same as destroying documents or digital storage after the police/fbi talk to you. Even according to Comey, there is no evidence the emails were deleted in an attempt to conceal information [1]. [1] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/19/politifact-sheet-hillary-clintons-email-controvers/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/19/...
      - the_trapper 10y ago
        Let's be honest with ourselves here. Director Comey isn't exactly impartial here. His boss (President Obama) has a vested interest in a positive outcome for Hillary, and therefore, so does he. For the record, I'm not saying that he did anything improper regarding this investigation, I'm just saying that he is hardly a neutral third party in this.
        x0x0 10y ago
        Feel free to revisit Comey's interactions with George Bush re: nsa wiretapping to see if Obama could intimidate him. If he said Obama didn't interfere, we should take him at his word.
  - x1798DE 10y ago
    Your point stands regardless, but who cares if he committed adultery? It's completely irrelevant to the question at hand and not illegal.
    - the_trapper 10y ago
Grishnakh 10y ago
I think they should let him go with no penalties other than a stern lecture, and the same should go for anyone who accidentally mishandles classified information. Yes, this would be bad for our national security. But it's the morally right thing to do if we're going to let Hillary off the hook. It's wrong to hold people to totally different standards; if she gets leniency, everyone in trouble for the same thing should get the same leniency.

kafkaesq 10y ago

It certainly wasn't a very smart thing to do. But I think the main point of the article was "different rules for them than for us."

x0x0 10y ago
Yes, but the article is deceptive. The sailor: 1 - took photos of classified materiel; 2 - admitted he knew that they were classified and that he wasn't authorized to possess them; 3 - after being confronted by law enforcement, destroyed evidence Clinton 1 - at worst only accidentally had classified material; 2 - the state department disagrees with the cia/nsa over whether the 110 documents that were unmarked yet classified at the time of sending/receipt should have been so classified; 3 - did not destroy evidence. A far better comparison is General Petraeus. He [1] * was a 4-star general; * knowingly gave classified information to someone not authorized to possess it; * lied to the fbi (a felony all on its own, even if what you lied about wasn't a crime! Never ever talk to the fbi without your lawyer. For any reason.) * committed adultery Petraeus got probation, a $100k fine, and to keep his rank (which controls retirement benefits.) The differences, as the fbi director pointed out when discussing Clinton, revolve around knowingly taking classified material and lying/destroying evidence. One has to conclude the lawyer used Clinton to be sensational rather than as a genuine comparison. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/02/24/why-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-petraeus-leak-are-not-really-alike/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/02/...
- the_trapper 10y ago
  > 3 - did not destroy evidence. Like with a cloth? Let me correct that for you, Clinton attempted to destroy evidence but was incompetent at it.
  - x0x0 10y ago
    She was not under investigation at the time, and none of the emails she deleted ended up being responsive. It's in no way the same as destroying documents or digital storage after the police/fbi talk to you. Even according to Comey, there is no evidence the emails were deleted in an attempt to conceal information [1]. [1] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/19/politifact-sheet-hillary-clintons-email-controvers/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/19/...
    - the_trapper 10y ago
      Let's be honest with ourselves here. Director Comey isn't exactly impartial here. His boss (President Obama) has a vested interest in a positive outcome for Hillary, and therefore, so does he. For the record, I'm not saying that he did anything improper regarding this investigation, I'm just saying that he is hardly a neutral third party in this.
      - x0x0 10y ago
        Feel free to revisit Comey's interactions with George Bush re: nsa wiretapping to see if Obama could intimidate him. If he said Obama didn't interfere, we should take him at his word.
- x1798DE 10y ago
  Your point stands regardless, but who cares if he committed adultery? It's completely irrelevant to the question at hand and not illegal.
  - the_trapper 10y ago

Grishnakh 10y ago

I think they should let him go with no penalties other than a stern lecture, and the same should go for anyone who accidentally mishandles classified information. Yes, this would be bad for our national security. But it's the morally right thing to do if we're going to let Hillary off the hook. It's wrong to hold people to totally different standards; if she gets leniency, everyone in trouble for the same thing should get the same leniency.