4 ms·

Many topics so let’s break them one by one. “ I see nothing in there specifically binding an acting Secretary of State, …” Section 3.1 from EO 13526 describes

by lsh123 5y ago

Many topics so let’s break them one by one. “ I see nothing in there specifically binding an acting Secretary of State, …” Section 3.1 from EO 13526 describes the rules for declassification for US government. There are no exclusions for Cabinet or Secretary of State (notice that NDI has a subsection in the EO to cover expanded authority to declassify the information). “… and since none have been prosecuted” This is going back to “other people did it” argument. “You have to also factor in the National Security Act of 1947” I can’t find anything specific for this discussion. Which section are you referring to? “At the level of Cabinet, mishandling of classified information is a political question, not a legal one.” This is not the law. EO 13526 doesn’t make exceptions for Cabinet. It might be current political practice but I hope you agree this is not the right way to have high placed government official above the law (to be clear, I have no problem if the law or EO are changed to say that Cabinet or Secretary of State can declassify anything). “… secretary Clinton authorized secretary Clinton (and her IT staff)“ Could you please provide a pointer for such an authorization? I am sure there is a form one needs to fill in. BTW, I haven’t seen the argument yet that server in the basement was authorized to handle classified information. I would love to see the form that explains why it is not a problem. Should be a fun read. “… I suppose the secretary could have been held accountable if classified information was leaked from the server“ Notice that NSA employee was charged with retention of NDI in addition to sharing it with unauthorized recipient. The “leaking” of information to unauthorized party is not required for the prosecution.

shadowgovt 5y ago
> This is not the law. EO 13526 doesn’t make exceptions for Cabinet They aren't necessary given that the underlying statute is predicated on the idea that the person accessing the classified information was unauthorized. > retention of NDI It's always hard from the reporting to find exactly what someone is being charged with, but I assume it's https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924. ... and we're back to the authorization issue. The relevant proviso in the law is "without authority." The Secretary of State has authority to authorize and authorizes herself, obviously. > I am sure there is a form one needs to fill in. There really isn't for a Cabinet secretary. You have to remember the underlying purpose of state secrets: to allow the executive to do its job in a world where secrets are necessary for that to be done. Whether the job is being done ultimately rests on the decision of the President (and, by delegation, the Cabinet). Here's a minimum viable authorization. "Hey Hillary, sounds like your IT guy might be privy to state secrets. Is he authorized to view them?" "Yes Mr. President." "Okay then." One could make the argument that violates his EO because it doesn't follow the formal, documented protocol... Except it's his EO. Whether it's violated rests with the judgement of the President. On this topic specifically, it really is up to the President whether the Secretary of State has mishandled classified information. The back-stop to that is impeachment of said President and the judgment of the American people (the People were, apparently, dissatisfied with Clinton's behavior on this subject, and she was not elected President. Justice done).
- lsh123 5y ago
  “ The Secretary of State has authority to authorize and authorizes herself, obviously.” I agree that according to EO quoted above this is true for declassifying information originally classified by the State Department. I would appreciate if you can point me to the laws/EO/… that authorizes Secretary of State to declassify the information originally classified by another government agency (e.g. CIA). “ Here's a minimum viable authorization.” Could you please provide pointers that confirm that some kind of authorization by Mr President took place? I would accept pointers to verbal quotes from either Mr President or Hillary. Bonus point - have this authorization happen before classified information was leaked to unauthorized personnel or systems.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    All of the things you're asking for hold the whole process to a higher standard than the standard. That's kind of the point of the disagreement in the electorate: some people think there's a rigid framework of rules, the rest understand this was a Cold War infrastructure designed around the ability to wage clandestine warfare (and the President, and his advisors, are the final arbiters on whether it's working). ... it's not designed to tie the hands of the President or his advisors on the question of how to preserve state secrets.
    - lsh123 5y ago
      This is somewhat a change of the arguments from your side I think. But let’s discuss this topic as well. US system is not an absolute monarchy and we have checks and balances in place “to tie the hands of the President or his advisors” not only on the question on how to preserve state secrets, but also on many if not all other questions as well. You can check out links at the bottom of this Wikipedia page for good explanations of why it is important: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_under_the... Going back to the question of state secrets, the President had the following options: 1) Expand EO to allow Secretary of State to handle confidential information any way she wants; 2) Authorize Secretary of State to handle confidential information any way she wants using President’s authorization (something like you described above); 3) Pardon Secretary of State for misuse of classified information. What President and his Administration can not do is to say “nothing to see here, move along”. The President and Administration are not above the laws even if they have powers to enact laws themselves (through EO, regulations, etc). I hope you remember the Watergate. Edit: forgot to say that I am fine with any of the 3 options above applied to the NSA employee from the parent post. I am not asking for “higher” standards —- I am asking for “the same” standards.

by lsh123 5y ago

shadowgovt 5y ago

> This is not the law. EO 13526 doesn’t make exceptions for Cabinet They aren't necessary given that the underlying statute is predicated on the idea that the person accessing the classified information was unauthorized. > retention of NDI It's always hard from the reporting to find exactly what someone is being charged with, but I assume it's https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924. ... and we're back to the authorization issue. The relevant proviso in the law is "without authority." The Secretary of State has authority to authorize and authorizes herself, obviously. > I am sure there is a form one needs to fill in. There really isn't for a Cabinet secretary. You have to remember the underlying purpose of state secrets: to allow the executive to do its job in a world where secrets are necessary for that to be done. Whether the job is being done ultimately rests on the decision of the President (and, by delegation, the Cabinet). Here's a minimum viable authorization. "Hey Hillary, sounds like your IT guy might be privy to state secrets. Is he authorized to view them?" "Yes Mr. President." "Okay then." One could make the argument that violates his EO because it doesn't follow the formal, documented protocol... Except it's his EO. Whether it's violated rests with the judgement of the President. On this topic specifically, it really is up to the President whether the Secretary of State has mishandled classified information. The back-stop to that is impeachment of said President and the judgment of the American people (the People were, apparently, dissatisfied with Clinton's behavior on this subject, and she was not elected President. Justice done).

lsh123 5y ago
“ The Secretary of State has authority to authorize and authorizes herself, obviously.” I agree that according to EO quoted above this is true for declassifying information originally classified by the State Department. I would appreciate if you can point me to the laws/EO/… that authorizes Secretary of State to declassify the information originally classified by another government agency (e.g. CIA). “ Here's a minimum viable authorization.” Could you please provide pointers that confirm that some kind of authorization by Mr President took place? I would accept pointers to verbal quotes from either Mr President or Hillary. Bonus point - have this authorization happen before classified information was leaked to unauthorized personnel or systems.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  All of the things you're asking for hold the whole process to a higher standard than the standard. That's kind of the point of the disagreement in the electorate: some people think there's a rigid framework of rules, the rest understand this was a Cold War infrastructure designed around the ability to wage clandestine warfare (and the President, and his advisors, are the final arbiters on whether it's working). ... it's not designed to tie the hands of the President or his advisors on the question of how to preserve state secrets.
  - lsh123 5y ago
    This is somewhat a change of the arguments from your side I think. But let’s discuss this topic as well. US system is not an absolute monarchy and we have checks and balances in place “to tie the hands of the President or his advisors” not only on the question on how to preserve state secrets, but also on many if not all other questions as well. You can check out links at the bottom of this Wikipedia page for good explanations of why it is important: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_under_the... Going back to the question of state secrets, the President had the following options: 1) Expand EO to allow Secretary of State to handle confidential information any way she wants; 2) Authorize Secretary of State to handle confidential information any way she wants using President’s authorization (something like you described above); 3) Pardon Secretary of State for misuse of classified information. What President and his Administration can not do is to say “nothing to see here, move along”. The President and Administration are not above the laws even if they have powers to enact laws themselves (through EO, regulations, etc). I hope you remember the Watergate. Edit: forgot to say that I am fine with any of the 3 options above applied to the NSA employee from the parent post. I am not asking for “higher” standards —- I am asking for “the same” standards.