8 ms·
> MR PRICE: It is intelligence information that we have declassified. > QUESTION: Well, where is it? Where is the declassified information? > MR PRICE: I just
by h2odragon 5y ago
> MR PRICE: It is intelligence information that we have declassified.
> QUESTION: Well, where is it? Where is the declassified information?
> MR PRICE: I just delivered it.
Epic exchange.
- kspacewalk2 5y agoHow do you imagine this going down otherwise? Do you want them to declassify the name of the source, or just the department where he works?
- aunty_helen 5y agoIf you're going to declassify something, I would expect at least a document on official letter head, with any level of restricted clearance being crossed out and a declassified stamp over top. Then to give substance, they would need to add the title of this hn post "Russia to use crisis actors to stage a flag annd start was in days" as the content of that document.
- hashimotonomora 5y agoIn essence it’s the same. You just seem to respect written documents more.
- aunty_helen 5y agoSo does the Associated Press it seems, as per the exchange during the press conference. But yes, I would probably want some form of intelligence briefing being declassified in paper form before pointing the finger at a nuclear adversary. That ol' extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence thing. Or do you think that some spy in Russia, telephoned a guy in the pentagon, that telephoned a guy in the whitehouse, that setup a press conference and then telephoned a guy to brief him about something he should say, that may or may not help to provoke a war? Seems a bit far fetched.
- SantalBlush 5y agoNo, the reporter explicity said, "It's not the format, it's the content." They were looking for evidence, they didn't care whether it was written or not.
- r721 5y agoWhy did you bring up HN post title? It's not in the briefing, seems to be OP's (quite exaggerated) summary. Price's words: "We don’t know if Russia will necessarily use this or another option in the coming days."
- aunty_helen 5y agoOk from the first paragraph of the press briefing then, I would expect a document with at least the following: >Russia is planning to stage fabricated attacks by Ukrainian military or intelligence forces as a pretext for a further invasion of Ukraine.
- jacksonkmarley 5y agoSounded like the guy had just heard so much stuff he considered pure bullshit, that he just ran out of suspension of disbelief. As far as really important stuff (perhaps this isn't a good example?), they could actually just reveal everything, after all having an informed public seems pretty important in a democratic society. Does that ever happen? Get all the secret agents out and just blow the lid? It would have to be going-to-war level stuff though.
- rich_sasha 5y agoReminds me of this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DZA4J1f_NFw https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DZA4J1f_NFw
- j4yav 5y agoReminded me of this as well: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM, with the back and forth talking past each other.
- keltex 5y agoHere's the video. Definitely worth watching: https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1489336004637044746 https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1489336004637044746
- j4yav 5y agoThe whole thing is an incredible read. The evidence is that we said it, so you don’t need evidence.
- maxerickson 5y agoThe government person doesn't characterize it as evidence, only information. So they are sharing the information vs sharing the evidence. Which isn't very satisfying, but it is at least coherent.
- bostonsre 5y agoThe speaker probably could have articulated it a little better and not played so coy about the line of questioning.
- j4yav 5y agoIt’s a fair point. They were sort of talking past each other about information and evidence.
- burrows 5y agoWhat definitions of evidence and information are you using?
- j4yav 5y agoI am referring to the specific words in the transcript that they were using as they talked past each other, not trying to (re)define anything. The member of the press seemed to be under the impression that information should be associated with evidence, while the speaker did not.
- bryant 5y agoIn fairness, if the actual data (classified) or information (classified) can be merged with context known only by the adversary, the disclosure of such data jeopardizes sources and methods (https://www.thecipherbrief.com/column_article/why-protecting-sources-and-methods-really-matters https://www.thecipherbrief.com/column_article/why-protecting...), giving the adversary an opportunity to either detect sources or alter their own methods to avoid further disclosure. That's why what you're seeing disclosed is essentially only the knowledge. tl;dr: disclosing data could tell the adversary how we found out, leading to changes by the adversary or deaths of spies crucial to how we learned what we learned.
- ampgt 5y agoThe reporters are asking tough (but correct) questions. The government is also doing its diligence to protect sources and methods. The thing to remember, though, the point of releasing this information is probably to prevent Russia from using this method. It would be pretty ironic if the US government releases this information.. and then a few days later such a video is released. Time will tell.
- mc32 5y agoNo. The government is saying “believe us” with no supporting or corroborating evidence. None. On the other hand Ukraine itself is saying it’s not a crisis…
- axiosgunnar 5y agoWhat did you expect him to say? "Sure, here is a high resolution video allowing everyone to figure out the locations of your spy cameras, and btw we got the hint from Ivan Snitchovsky, a double agent aged 35, he lives here and this is a picture of him. Oops, he's probably dead by now and a valuable source of intelligence is gone!"
- mc32 5y agoMaybe they shouldn’t have pulled all the stops on the “yellovske” from Niger for Saddam nonsense and they’d have credibility. I mean goddam it the gov of Ukraine is saying hold up, we don’t see the same alarm you do.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- kadoban 5y ago> Maybe they shouldn’t have pulled all the stops on the “yellovske” from Niger for Saddam nonsense and they’d have credibility. That was two decades ago and totally different people and political party. Be skeptical, but don't just be blindly anti. > I mean goddam it the gov of Ukraine is saying hold up, we don’t see the same alarm you do. Odds are pretty good that they see it the same way, they just don't want their economy to crater while waiting.
- axiosgunnar 5y agoWhat did you expect him to say? "Sure, here is a high resolution video allowing everyone to figure out the locations of your spy cameras, and btw we got the hint from Ivan Snitchovsky, a double agent aged 35, he lives here and this is a picture of him."
- beepbooptheory 5y agoPlease don't spam like this, you just gotta pick a thread to reply to and stick with it.
- mc32 5y agoIsn’t this the packaging that as used as an excuse to invade Iraq? Unfortunately for them, their previous lies have caught up to them so we will need more believable sources than “because we said so”.
- xtracto 5y ago>Unfortunately for them, their previous lies have caught up to them so ... The sad thing is that they dont need anything. The USA is going to go pick up a fight with Russia, exercise their war muscle to both reactivate that side of the economy and the sense of nationalism that the government needs from its citizens and which has been slowly eroding in the last 20 years or so. Wag the dog indeed.
- stelonix 5y agoSomething a bit different from what Powell did at the UN in 2003? "Trust us" is the biggest bullshit the national security apparatus has pulled on the US population and frankly it's disgusting there hasn't been a single law to outlaw bullshit "declassified" press conferences without a single piece of evidence. 19 years later there's people defending vague ideas like "we can't show you or they'll know!!!!1". No, you have such evidence, you take your agent out and you publish it in order for the world to know and to drive Russia away from doing it. Spouting things with no evidence is the real false flag campaign.
- csee 5y ago
- keewee7 5y agoRussia and Putin have a recent history of using false-flag attacks. The 1999 Russian apartment bombings are universally considered false-flag attacks by Russian journalists and historians who are not on the Kremlin payroll.
- hnthrowaway0315 5y agoLast time at least they showed some white powder. My hunch is Ukraine is preparing to launch an offensive against the rebels (low intensity fights have been since the separation) and Russia will step in whatsoever. I don't expect Russian to launch a full scale offensive because it just doesn't make sense.
- burrows 5y agoI liked this as well. > MR PRICE: Matt, there’s a second point. This is derived from intelligence, intelligence in which we have confidence — > QUESTION: Well — > MR PRICE: — in which we have confidence, otherwise — > QUESTION: The same confidence you had in WMD in Iraq? I mean, what — > MR PRICE: Otherwise – otherwise – otherwise we would not be making it public in the way we are. But here’s the other point: Intelligence and evidence, these are two separate things. It is no — What does he mean, “Intelligence and evidence are two separate things”? Is he saying that claims and evidence are different things?
- ivan_gammel 5y agoTo me it looks like it is the way to shift responsibility from intelligence community to a political figure. If intelligence community presents some evidence, they bear responsibility if that evidence is wrong. If they have only some intelligence, they are not 100% sure and Administration must take responsibility for any actions based on it. When Administration says they have confidence, they basically say, ok, we think that this data is correct and we take political responsibility for believing in it. Whether I’m right or not, I do not know for sure. But look at WMD „evidence“ presented by Colin Powell, and it starts looking the same.
- yucky 5y agoTrust The Government™