8 ms·

If anything, I'm a bit surprised that Jeff Goldberg burned this source. If anything, I'd suspect that he'd keep the channel open as long as he could. Or, he's

If anything, I'm a bit surprised that Jeff Goldberg burned this source. If anything, I'd suspect that he'd keep the channel open as long as he could. Or, he's got other channels that work better. All the same, I mean, wow. These guys are just morons here, there's really no other way around it. I'm trying to think of a charitable way to spin this and I've got nothing. Like, very clearly, these people are going to get service-members killed due to their idiocy

anigbrowl 2y ago
My theory is that he had to balance the journalistic scoop of the century with the risk of being arrested for illegally accessing/storing classified information. If they had noticed before he published the story then he could have been vanned and the public told that he had infiltrated a secure channel, and who would be able to say otherwise? MAGA people would cheerfully call for his execution.
- nradov 2y ago
  Under US federal law it is generally not a crime for a person without a security clearance to receive or store classified information. The legal problems come in when they solicit it or take some other action to obtain it.
  - anigbrowl 2y ago
    Would you trust the current DOJ to handle this fairly if it landed in your lap?
  - zeven7 2y ago
    Laws matter less than they used to. When the President regularly uses the term "retribution" to describe his mode of operation, I don't blame someone for taking a more careful approach in a case like this. It shouldn't be that way, for a journalist. But a lot of things shouldn't be the way they are today.
mostafah 2y ago
My guess is that he was consulting their lawyers during this. IANAL but it might have been a crime if he did not leave the group as soon as he was sure it was real. He keeps mentioning that he was not certain this is real until the first attacks. After the first attack, he could not continue this argument.
bayarearefugee 2y ago
He was probably worried about the legal ramifications of not doing so, though these days he may be more likely to get sent off to some El Salvadoran prison for writing the article and exposing their staggering incompetence than he would be for continuing to knowingly listen in on the chat.
namaria 2y ago
Knowingly keeping sensitive US national security data on a personal phone would be a very bad idea.
- reverius42 2y ago
  So, like the other 18 people in the chat?
  - namaria 2y ago
    Yes. But we haven't heard from them what they did with it.
tptacek 2y ago
As soon as he realizes (or a reasonable person would realize) that the group chat is not a hoax, and that he is getting confidential military information over that channel, his continued membership in the channel demonstrates intent to receive the information, which makes anything he writes about it in the future legally problematic. It's complicated and it's not like just receiving classified information from a source is intrinsically criminal, but it'll be the entire fact pattern he'd be confronted with by prosecutors.
- overfeed 2y ago
  The fourt cases related to Watergate established that receiving classified information is not illegal, and affirmed 1A rights. I'd argue it's a exactly the same as a journalist overhearing this motley crew discussing the war plan in the halls of the White House without being aware there's a journalist nearby. I wouldn't bank on the current supreme court to uphold precedence, or the current administration persecuting the journalist for "hacking" into a "secure" government chat group - which is what they'll allege without evidence. I suspect the journalist cares more about national security than the cowboys in the chat group, and is acutely aware that they are a target for hacking by nation-states, which would leak classified information.
  - chimeracoder 2y ago
    > I would bank in the current supreme court to uphold precedence Counting on SCOTUS to respect precedent at this point is either extremely optimistic or extremely naive.
    - overfeed 2y ago
      Oh, that was a typo. I do not trust the current supreme court to uphold precedence over naked partisanship.
  - milesrout 2y ago
    The US Supreme Court hews close to precedent. The only two significant overturned decisions in the last decade are Roe v Wade, which regardless of your views on abortion was a poorly reasoned decision, which was really judicial legislation, that had to be essentially amended several times (whether abortion should be permitted is a separate question from whether Roe was good law, which it obviously wasn't) and Chevron, which was contrary to the most fundamental principles of the rule of law (that is, that the interpretation of the law is a fundamentally judicial function). Neither were really political decisions. The SCOTUS doesn't split along ideological or party lines all the time. It often splits in different ways, and often makes decisions on very politically heated topics unanimously. You should have more confidence in it. It is the least bad of your three major institutions of government by far. To go back to Chevron, you have to look beyond the US and understand that for anyone else anywhere else in the world, the idea of the courts deferring in their interpretation of the law to executive agencies is just ridiculous. It never made any sense. Its result was inevitable: a new government was elected and suddenly the law changed overnight because government departments all published their new "interpretations" of the law. That is just silly, it makes a mockery of the principles of the rule of law, and it gives too much power to the government. Law should be made by parliament (which you call congress, for some reason) and rulemaking powers should be explicitly delegated to executive agencies where appropriate. Vagueness in the law should be interpreted and resolved by the courts, not by the executive in a way that is subject to political whimsy.
sharpshadow 2y ago
Sounds like he received the message purposefully and pretends it was an mistake? 2h is a lot but also not that much time, everything is prepared already it’s more a countdown I would say. What would be a usual timeframe to inform the people you want to inform about an immediate event which is going to happen?
- Jtsummers 2y ago
  > Sounds like he received the message purposefully and pretends it was an mistake? Why would he have been added to the group? For what purpose would the current National Security Advisor have to bring in an outsider to discussions that ended up involving almost certainly classified data? > 2h is a lot but not that much time He was added to the group two days (13 March) before the strikes (15 March), not two hours.
  - iszomer 2y ago
    My guess is as a honeypot: see who would publish this alleged "leak" and give the administration justification to "open an investigation" on them.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - Jtsummers 2y ago
      That would make a lot more sense if the information hadn't been accurate. You don't leak real operational data deliberately to try and catch someone who might publish it. Because if they do, you've compromised your real mission (the attacks on the Houthis in this case).
      - iszomer 2y ago
        I meant it from the common assumption for mass media propagation: get it out there as fast as possible and correct later if needed. On a related note, how often do consumers of news go back to read on retractions, if any?
herzigma 2y ago
Jeff Goldberg loves his country more than he cares about a "source."
- weebull 2y ago
  He might serves his country better by waiting for them to incriminate themselves more.
  - freejazz 2y ago
    By what, sending another message to him?
malshe 2y ago
One lawyer I follow on Bluesky mentioned the longer he stayed on more exposed he became to legal ramifications. Also, this involves national security which courts may treat differently than other issues. I am more surprised that he did not save this incident for a future book
- cocacola1 2y ago
  Might boost their subs. This legit got me to resubscribe to the Atlantic.
  - malshe 2y ago
    I think that's a fair assessment. Goldberg seems to have strong journalistic ethics too. Again, from Bluesky, David Graham asks Jeffrey Goldberg about possible retaliation Jeffrey: It's not my role to care about the possibility of threats or retaliation. We just have to come to work and do our jobs to the best of our ability. Unfortunately, in our society today—-we see this across corporate journalism and law firms and other industries--there's too much preemptive obeying for my taste. All we can do is just go do our jobs.
    - throw0101c 2y ago
      > there's too much preemptive obeying for my taste. From historian Timothy Snyder's book On Tyranny, chapter/lesson number one: > Do not obey in advance. * https://www.penguinrandomhouse.ca/books/558051/on-tyranny-by-timothy-snyder/9780804190114/excerpt https://www.penguinrandomhouse.ca/books/558051/on-tyranny-by... * https://timothysnyder.org/on-tyranny/ https://timothysnyder.org/on-tyranny/
- refurb 2y ago
  What legal ramifications? Are you saying it's a crime for someone else to accidentally add you to their chat?
  - dragonwriter 2y ago
itbeho 2y ago
He did the right thing. He's obviously of a certain political bent, but recognized this kind of leak could lead to the loss of American service member lives. He didn't share everything from the chat. I respect him for what he did. And I agree with your assessment. Morons...
- ty6853 2y ago
  Hard to say. Sharing it may have lead to saving of servicemen lives since it may cause an abort. Not like it is a self defense mission, attacks on Houthi is totally optional meddling that likely breeds more 'terrorists'.
  - 9dev 2y ago
    Trying to assess the consequences of publishing highly classified information on military operations is a ridiculously reckless idea. None of us have enough data about the full picture to even try to guess correctly here. The only sane thing to do is to maintain confidentiality and leave it to the involved agencies to draw consequences as they see fit.
    - ty6853 2y ago
      A group of idiots who share battle plans with journalists under commander in chief Trump have clearly displayed their incompetence in drawing consequences. That the idiots who illegally sent it know best was not even on my radar of possibilities and is a ridiculously reckless idea imo. It is not even clear to me that preserving serviceman is one of the goals of these agencies, given they've marched them off to die in several needless wars. Sure maybe the agencies might have more information, that doesn't mean they're more likely to make decisions that preserve life. Deference to 'experts' in government has lead to much bloodshed.
      - 9dev 2y ago
        Ah, I didn’t phrase this properly; I was referring to the broader military organisation orchestrating the actual long-Running operations, not the clowns in charge. They probably know best which information should be classified to protect deployed soldiers, and I would find it questionable to assume you know better than them about what may endanger individual servicemen abroad.
educasean 2y ago
Imagine if he stays and obtains some critical information that later happens to get leaked. You're now a prime suspect for the leak, possibly facing charges of something like treason. I think leaving was the wise choice.
lapcat 2y ago
> If anything, I'm a bit surprised that Jeff Goldberg burned this source. > If anything, I'd suspect that he'd keep the channel open as long as he could. > Or, he's got other channels that work better. The Signal chat group was called the “Houthi PC small group.” It appeared to be a short-term, mission-specific group rather than a long-term, open-ended group. Thus, it's unlikely that much more information would be gained in the future. Goldberg's inclusion in the chat was the main story here, not the specific details revealed to Goldberg, many of which he kept confidential.
- mercurywells 2y ago
  They've been bombing the Houthis for quite a few days now
protocolture 2y ago
Agreed. Very similar to this case in Australia. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/feb/02/abc-agrees-to-return-secret-documents-found-in-old-filing-cabinets https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/feb/02/abc-agrees-to-... The ABC had a public interest duty to publicise everything, instead they left 99% unread and returned the contents to the government. Pathetic.
fatbird 2y ago
I'm betting that Goldberg realized, once it was confirmed real, that his only feasible defense was exiting the chat and going public immediately. Otherwise, someone notices he's there, and he's arrested by ICE and disappeared to El Salvador, or worse. In many ways, being a public enemy of the Trump Admin is the safest enemy to be.
evantbyrne 2y ago
The Atlantic is not a typical publication. It is run by serious people.
seatac76 2y ago
He could have continued for weeks, imho he did the good citizen and responsible journalist thing here. Made the public aware before it really got out of hand.
jzb 2y ago
"If anything, I'd suspect that he'd keep the channel open as long as he could." The real story is that he was added to the channel, so it doesn't surprise me that he didn't try to lurk indefinitely. I'm guessing these things are also ad-hoc, so perhaps the well was already dry after the attack? But this is some truly amateur-hour shit. I've seen better communications discipline from volunteer open source projects than this.
- matwood 2y ago
  > I've seen better communications discipline from volunteer open source projects than this. Because those people are likely competent. The problem with hiring mostly yes-men/women is competence is secondary.
Zak 2y ago
I thought that at first, but the group was clearly temporary, intended for this particular military action. There was likely little value to staying, and as other comments note, a nonzero risk of (likely unsuccessful) prosecution.
garfield_light 2y ago
This is the type of thing that can get you on jail or even (quietly) killed during a normal US administration. I'm not surprised Goldberg GTFO intermediately.
GoblinSlayer 2y ago
Dunno, I was surprised how digitally literate these old dudes are to the point of writing long autistic messages in Signal, so long that the author can quote them only as "wrote a lengthy message". Even normie programmers of all people can communicate only with meat sounds. Who complained here that email can't be replaced by messengers, because you can't write long messages there? Here's a counterexample.
- spacechild1 2y ago
  Maybe they used the desktop client?

anigbrowl 2y ago

My theory is that he had to balance the journalistic scoop of the century with the risk of being arrested for illegally accessing/storing classified information. If they had noticed before he published the story then he could have been vanned and the public told that he had infiltrated a secure channel, and who would be able to say otherwise? MAGA people would cheerfully call for his execution.

nradov 2y ago
Under US federal law it is generally not a crime for a person without a security clearance to receive or store classified information. The legal problems come in when they solicit it or take some other action to obtain it.
- anigbrowl 2y ago
  Would you trust the current DOJ to handle this fairly if it landed in your lap?
- zeven7 2y ago
  Laws matter less than they used to. When the President regularly uses the term "retribution" to describe his mode of operation, I don't blame someone for taking a more careful approach in a case like this. It shouldn't be that way, for a journalist. But a lot of things shouldn't be the way they are today.

mostafah 2y ago

My guess is that he was consulting their lawyers during this. IANAL but it might have been a crime if he did not leave the group as soon as he was sure it was real. He keeps mentioning that he was not certain this is real until the first attacks. After the first attack, he could not continue this argument.

bayarearefugee 2y ago

He was probably worried about the legal ramifications of not doing so, though these days he may be more likely to get sent off to some El Salvadoran prison for writing the article and exposing their staggering incompetence than he would be for continuing to knowingly listen in on the chat.

namaria 2y ago

Knowingly keeping sensitive US national security data on a personal phone would be a very bad idea.

reverius42 2y ago
So, like the other 18 people in the chat?
- namaria 2y ago
  Yes. But we haven't heard from them what they did with it.

tptacek 2y ago

As soon as he realizes (or a reasonable person would realize) that the group chat is not a hoax, and that he is getting confidential military information over that channel, his continued membership in the channel demonstrates intent to receive the information, which makes anything he writes about it in the future legally problematic. It's complicated and it's not like just receiving classified information from a source is intrinsically criminal, but it'll be the entire fact pattern he'd be confronted with by prosecutors.

overfeed 2y ago
The fourt cases related to Watergate established that receiving classified information is not illegal, and affirmed 1A rights. I'd argue it's a exactly the same as a journalist overhearing this motley crew discussing the war plan in the halls of the White House without being aware there's a journalist nearby. I wouldn't bank on the current supreme court to uphold precedence, or the current administration persecuting the journalist for "hacking" into a "secure" government chat group - which is what they'll allege without evidence. I suspect the journalist cares more about national security than the cowboys in the chat group, and is acutely aware that they are a target for hacking by nation-states, which would leak classified information.
- chimeracoder 2y ago
  > I would bank in the current supreme court to uphold precedence Counting on SCOTUS to respect precedent at this point is either extremely optimistic or extremely naive.
  - overfeed 2y ago
    Oh, that was a typo. I do not trust the current supreme court to uphold precedence over naked partisanship.
- milesrout 2y ago
  The US Supreme Court hews close to precedent. The only two significant overturned decisions in the last decade are Roe v Wade, which regardless of your views on abortion was a poorly reasoned decision, which was really judicial legislation, that had to be essentially amended several times (whether abortion should be permitted is a separate question from whether Roe was good law, which it obviously wasn't) and Chevron, which was contrary to the most fundamental principles of the rule of law (that is, that the interpretation of the law is a fundamentally judicial function). Neither were really political decisions. The SCOTUS doesn't split along ideological or party lines all the time. It often splits in different ways, and often makes decisions on very politically heated topics unanimously. You should have more confidence in it. It is the least bad of your three major institutions of government by far. To go back to Chevron, you have to look beyond the US and understand that for anyone else anywhere else in the world, the idea of the courts deferring in their interpretation of the law to executive agencies is just ridiculous. It never made any sense. Its result was inevitable: a new government was elected and suddenly the law changed overnight because government departments all published their new "interpretations" of the law. That is just silly, it makes a mockery of the principles of the rule of law, and it gives too much power to the government. Law should be made by parliament (which you call congress, for some reason) and rulemaking powers should be explicitly delegated to executive agencies where appropriate. Vagueness in the law should be interpreted and resolved by the courts, not by the executive in a way that is subject to political whimsy.

sharpshadow 2y ago

Sounds like he received the message purposefully and pretends it was an mistake? 2h is a lot but also not that much time, everything is prepared already it’s more a countdown I would say. What would be a usual timeframe to inform the people you want to inform about an immediate event which is going to happen?

Jtsummers 2y ago
> Sounds like he received the message purposefully and pretends it was an mistake? Why would he have been added to the group? For what purpose would the current National Security Advisor have to bring in an outsider to discussions that ended up involving almost certainly classified data? > 2h is a lot but not that much time He was added to the group two days (13 March) before the strikes (15 March), not two hours.
- iszomer 2y ago
  My guess is as a honeypot: see who would publish this alleged "leak" and give the administration justification to "open an investigation" on them.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - Jtsummers 2y ago
    That would make a lot more sense if the information hadn't been accurate. You don't leak real operational data deliberately to try and catch someone who might publish it. Because if they do, you've compromised your real mission (the attacks on the Houthis in this case).
    - iszomer 2y ago
      I meant it from the common assumption for mass media propagation: get it out there as fast as possible and correct later if needed. On a related note, how often do consumers of news go back to read on retractions, if any?

herzigma 2y ago

Jeff Goldberg loves his country more than he cares about a "source."

weebull 2y ago
He might serves his country better by waiting for them to incriminate themselves more.
- freejazz 2y ago
  By what, sending another message to him?

malshe 2y ago

One lawyer I follow on Bluesky mentioned the longer he stayed on more exposed he became to legal ramifications. Also, this involves national security which courts may treat differently than other issues. I am more surprised that he did not save this incident for a future book

cocacola1 2y ago
Might boost their subs. This legit got me to resubscribe to the Atlantic.
- malshe 2y ago
  I think that's a fair assessment. Goldberg seems to have strong journalistic ethics too. Again, from Bluesky, David Graham asks Jeffrey Goldberg about possible retaliation Jeffrey: It's not my role to care about the possibility of threats or retaliation. We just have to come to work and do our jobs to the best of our ability. Unfortunately, in our society today—-we see this across corporate journalism and law firms and other industries--there's too much preemptive obeying for my taste. All we can do is just go do our jobs.
  - throw0101c 2y ago
    > there's too much preemptive obeying for my taste. From historian Timothy Snyder's book On Tyranny, chapter/lesson number one: > Do not obey in advance. * https://www.penguinrandomhouse.ca/books/558051/on-tyranny-by-timothy-snyder/9780804190114/excerpt https://www.penguinrandomhouse.ca/books/558051/on-tyranny-by... * https://timothysnyder.org/on-tyranny/ https://timothysnyder.org/on-tyranny/
refurb 2y ago
What legal ramifications? Are you saying it's a crime for someone else to accidentally add you to their chat?
- dragonwriter 2y ago

itbeho 2y ago

He did the right thing. He's obviously of a certain political bent, but recognized this kind of leak could lead to the loss of American service member lives. He didn't share everything from the chat. I respect him for what he did. And I agree with your assessment. Morons...

ty6853 2y ago
Hard to say. Sharing it may have lead to saving of servicemen lives since it may cause an abort. Not like it is a self defense mission, attacks on Houthi is totally optional meddling that likely breeds more 'terrorists'.
- 9dev 2y ago
  Trying to assess the consequences of publishing highly classified information on military operations is a ridiculously reckless idea. None of us have enough data about the full picture to even try to guess correctly here. The only sane thing to do is to maintain confidentiality and leave it to the involved agencies to draw consequences as they see fit.
  - ty6853 2y ago
    A group of idiots who share battle plans with journalists under commander in chief Trump have clearly displayed their incompetence in drawing consequences. That the idiots who illegally sent it know best was not even on my radar of possibilities and is a ridiculously reckless idea imo. It is not even clear to me that preserving serviceman is one of the goals of these agencies, given they've marched them off to die in several needless wars. Sure maybe the agencies might have more information, that doesn't mean they're more likely to make decisions that preserve life. Deference to 'experts' in government has lead to much bloodshed.
    - 9dev 2y ago
      Ah, I didn’t phrase this properly; I was referring to the broader military organisation orchestrating the actual long-Running operations, not the clowns in charge. They probably know best which information should be classified to protect deployed soldiers, and I would find it questionable to assume you know better than them about what may endanger individual servicemen abroad.

educasean 2y ago

Imagine if he stays and obtains some critical information that later happens to get leaked. You're now a prime suspect for the leak, possibly facing charges of something like treason. I think leaving was the wise choice.

lapcat 2y ago

> If anything, I'm a bit surprised that Jeff Goldberg burned this source. > If anything, I'd suspect that he'd keep the channel open as long as he could. > Or, he's got other channels that work better. The Signal chat group was called the “Houthi PC small group.” It appeared to be a short-term, mission-specific group rather than a long-term, open-ended group. Thus, it's unlikely that much more information would be gained in the future. Goldberg's inclusion in the chat was the main story here, not the specific details revealed to Goldberg, many of which he kept confidential.

mercurywells 2y ago
They've been bombing the Houthis for quite a few days now

protocolture 2y ago

Agreed. Very similar to this case in Australia. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/feb/02/abc-agrees-to-return-secret-documents-found-in-old-filing-cabinets https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/feb/02/abc-agrees-to-... The ABC had a public interest duty to publicise everything, instead they left 99% unread and returned the contents to the government. Pathetic.

fatbird 2y ago

I'm betting that Goldberg realized, once it was confirmed real, that his only feasible defense was exiting the chat and going public immediately. Otherwise, someone notices he's there, and he's arrested by ICE and disappeared to El Salvador, or worse. In many ways, being a public enemy of the Trump Admin is the safest enemy to be.

evantbyrne 2y ago

The Atlantic is not a typical publication. It is run by serious people.

seatac76 2y ago

He could have continued for weeks, imho he did the good citizen and responsible journalist thing here. Made the public aware before it really got out of hand.

jzb 2y ago

"If anything, I'd suspect that he'd keep the channel open as long as he could." The real story is that he was added to the channel, so it doesn't surprise me that he didn't try to lurk indefinitely. I'm guessing these things are also ad-hoc, so perhaps the well was already dry after the attack? But this is some truly amateur-hour shit. I've seen better communications discipline from volunteer open source projects than this.

matwood 2y ago
> I've seen better communications discipline from volunteer open source projects than this. Because those people are likely competent. The problem with hiring mostly yes-men/women is competence is secondary.

Zak 2y ago

I thought that at first, but the group was clearly temporary, intended for this particular military action. There was likely little value to staying, and as other comments note, a nonzero risk of (likely unsuccessful) prosecution.

garfield_light 2y ago

This is the type of thing that can get you on jail or even (quietly) killed during a normal US administration. I'm not surprised Goldberg GTFO intermediately.

GoblinSlayer 2y ago

Dunno, I was surprised how digitally literate these old dudes are to the point of writing long autistic messages in Signal, so long that the author can quote them only as "wrote a lengthy message". Even normie programmers of all people can communicate only with meat sounds. Who complained here that email can't be replaced by messengers, because you can't write long messages there? Here's a counterexample.

spacechild1 2y ago
Maybe they used the desktop client?