Whether this leak was semi-intentional or the result of the reckless arrogance of this administration’s officials, the actual detailed information is most definitely in the public interest. I am more inclined to find value in reports of civilians being killed in these operations than their lack of proper security procedure. Innocent people died in these operations, not because they were in the targeted area, but because their homes were targeted because the “enemy” was more easily killed when they were in these civilian areas. (This is not any different than the pager program Israel deployed on Hezbollah back in September. Numerous women and children were killed or critically wounded.) These are war crimes, and what the U.S. would label a terrorist attack if perpetrated by an adversary . This U.S foreign policy tactic did not start with this administration, but I am glad to see the curtain pulled back further revealing the awful things my government does to the rest of the world. I am just waiting for more people to start caring.
..."Whenever journalism inserts itself as a middleman in that process and prioritizes the supposed national security interest above the public interest, the press is basically saying it doesn’t work for the public."
I have to admit I was duped by the frightening National Security implications of releasing
"classified" information. I think many, if not most of us, have believed that classified information is such for good reasons. I feel foolish and gullible--but now better informed, thanks to you, Ken. This is like taking off the blindfold in Pin the Tail on the Donkey, and seeing where it actually is.
I agree about media deference to government is an outrage. Goldberg is one of the worst practitioners of the practice. He will rot in the 9th circle of hell, the sooner, the better.
But maybe the real scandal should be, that the US government is bombing a country we are not at war with, one of the poorest countries in the world, and destroying residential buildings with their civilians inside. And they are doing it with glee. That the only issue seems to be how they decided to chat it up, and with whom, says a lot about just who the people running the US government are.
Democrats in Congress puff up their chests to decry A Violation of National Security, but I haven’t heard one of them complain about a violation of the War Powers Act.
I cancel my monthly subscription cause I'm so fucking broke and then you drop this? How can I not support your voice? I'm signing back up and thank you.
Even more pathetic is that the only reason no one got fired over this is because Trump hates Goldberg and doesn't want to seem like he is giving him a win. Not a single person involved in this has any integrity or is good at their job. Band of idiots across the board.
While we are all distracted by the "signals" coming from the seemingly imbecile WH, the House passed that tax cut bill for the wealthy. Whether or not Goldberg knew or didn't that his belated report would dominate the news cycle, it did, and much to the satusfaction of the Trump admin, I'm sure, as it covered up another Grand Theft Citizen tax break. I keep reminding people to avoid letting Trump's daily plan of media chaos prevent us from watching the legislators. Besides the horrendous violence he carries out with the stroke of a pen, a 1000 executive orders that get overturned by the courts doesn't match one hard piece of Klepto-legislation.
Unfortunately, this “Secrecy” another word for classified occurs in everything not just government. It exists in Corporations, Manufacturing, Union Leadership, Institutions and religious hierarchy, just to name a few. It is the way of the World, USA is just another country in this respect who follows the same set of rules. AMONG the worst, of course, if you are being honest, is China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. Nothing at all is released in those countries among others. The difference here in the USA is that independent journalist aren’t killed for revealing the “secrets”, maybe their careers are damaged but they aren’t literally murdered. Which is a better way of handling revelations. Many times I think it’s just me when I see why things, certain things, that may seem trivial are kept secret for a better reason than we know. Our problem is that the people who come forward to lead this Country are not trusted nor believed to the extent they should be, and that is where the issues become larger than life. Newer generations believe they are supposed to know everything and perhaps it’s better they know only just so much so they can be protected from life’s horrors. Of course, I am ridiculed for thinking this way, but life is often easier when it’s done with that in mind. No generation, including my own, need know every secret there is to know. We elect people to handle those dark places for us. If we elected the wrong people or hired the wrong people that’s on us not them for being who they are. FOR EXAMPLE: If a teacher doesn’t know how to teach they are still permitted to teach according to the rules we all live by. If they are “caught” doing abusive things they are “removed” from the classrooms but not fired. This is the way it consistently works throughout all systems worldwide. Unless of course the person is murdered instead. That becomes a different way to “handle” the issues. Mostly the beheading occurs in places where there is no freedom of speech, the press or religion. So yes I think “secrets or classified info” are necessary to maintain freedoms or else the entire free world leaders would be beheaded. Un classifying or revealing secrets is up to the discretion of the person we, the public, put in charge of the “job”. The public or aka shareholders or aka students are really the ones who keep the system running not the leaders or bosses or teachers, they are just held accountable for our acceptance because they accepted the positions within the systems. Guess I may be the only one who still sees this world this way. Secrets are necessary whether we like it or not if we wish to keep our lives going forward.
Hmm...that wasn't very helpful. That article references how to create hardened environments for secure communications but nothing about secure messaging, aka 'channels'. Are feds given special, secure devices to use for secure communications outside of these hardened sites?
Sorry for being pedantic, but when someone says 'secure channels' my inner USAF radio troop takes over. A channel implies a communication technology, not a security measure. Is there secure comm technology for high-level feds? If not, why shouldn't they use Signal?
Is the ultimate claim that government policy should only be enacted in-person and no digital communication is allowed? I haven't seen anyone say that, but maybe I missed it? Is there a law or rule-set defining this? I get the signal thing was embarrassing, but was it wrong? Call me naive, but I presume every administration since Bush has been doing this anyway.
You're right to assume that all sorts of officials use unsecure systems for convenience (e.g. the Clinton email server). But that doesn't make it good! And re SCIFs, for top officials they will often install ones in their homes. John Bolton recently described having a SCIF put into his basement.
I paid for a monthly subscription just so I could respond to this comment because it seemed so obtuse. You say your "inner USAF radio troop takes over", which implies you have some knowledge of this anyway, but then you asked "was it wrong?" which implies you don't. So here's the bouncing ball:
1) The government grants access to classified materials at different levels based on two things: a need to know, and a vetting process. Depending on the sensitivity of the clearance being applied for, the vetting process will be more or less stringent i.e. interviewing close contacts, psychological assessments, employment history checks etc.
2) The information being discussed in the Signal chat would have been classified AT LEAST Secret, as it involved precise timings and locations of a military strike that if leaked may have caused the strike to fail. More likely, it would have been Top Secret. There are no ifs or buts about this. I base that statement on long experience with security clearances and classifications.
3) The "positive vetting" process for Top Secret includes an interview with an assessor who will determine your suitability for holding classified information. The interview will include your positive acknowledgement that you will guard the secrets you have been cleared to access, including the use of the appropriate communications methods to discuss it.
4) The government provides facilities and communications networks that are cleared to various levels. Signal (and personal mobile phones in general) are NOT cleared to any level above "Official Use Only".
To answer your questions:
"Is the ultimate claim that government policy should only be enacted in-person and no digital communication is allowed?"
No. The ultimate claim is that Top Secret information should only be discussed using means of communications cleared to Top Secret, as everybody who holds a Top Secret clearance is briefed. There are digital communications methods provided for clearance holders. They are less convenient than civilian smartphones and applications. They are MEANT TO BE.
"Is there a law of rule-set defining this?"
In fact, there are several.
"...was it wrong?"
Yes. Extremely and blatantly. No ifs, no buts. At an absolute minimum, every single person who participated in that chat who holds a security clearance should have that clearance revoked while a re-assessment is conducted of their suitability to hold the clearance. This is 100% what would occur to any uniformed person or contractor. Following that assessment, depending on the severity of the breach, there is the potential for jail time.
"For the past year, I have been sharing the complete contents of documents I’ve obtained with the public. Signalgate illustrates better than anything in recent memory why that practice is important. Whenever journalism inserts itself as a middleman in that process and prioritizes the supposed national security interest above the public interest, the press is basically saying it doesn’t work for the public. "
Bingo. Selective leaking also allows inferences to be made that what was done was worse than it actually was. It's all in the service of driving an agenda and/or a narrative, not acting in the public interest
Great example was when the Steele Dossier was circulating among journalists and being reported on while being withheld from the public until Buzzfeed published it, which allowed the contents to be directly examined and subsequently debunked.
Whether this leak was semi-intentional or the result of the reckless arrogance of this administration’s officials, the actual detailed information is most definitely in the public interest. I am more inclined to find value in reports of civilians being killed in these operations than their lack of proper security procedure. Innocent people died in these operations, not because they were in the targeted area, but because their homes were targeted because the “enemy” was more easily killed when they were in these civilian areas. (This is not any different than the pager program Israel deployed on Hezbollah back in September. Numerous women and children were killed or critically wounded.) These are war crimes, and what the U.S. would label a terrorist attack if perpetrated by an adversary . This U.S foreign policy tactic did not start with this administration, but I am glad to see the curtain pulled back further revealing the awful things my government does to the rest of the world. I am just waiting for more people to start caring.
..."Whenever journalism inserts itself as a middleman in that process and prioritizes the supposed national security interest above the public interest, the press is basically saying it doesn’t work for the public."
I have to admit I was duped by the frightening National Security implications of releasing
"classified" information. I think many, if not most of us, have believed that classified information is such for good reasons. I feel foolish and gullible--but now better informed, thanks to you, Ken. This is like taking off the blindfold in Pin the Tail on the Donkey, and seeing where it actually is.
People’s concerns come from a good place! I blame the media for not explaining these issues better
Welcome in, Kate. It doesn’t matter when you get here.
Good for you. This has been going on for years.
I agree about media deference to government is an outrage. Goldberg is one of the worst practitioners of the practice. He will rot in the 9th circle of hell, the sooner, the better.
it was bizarre watching the media lionize this clown
"This is how our democracy dies: in deference."
Well, it _is_ a bourgeois democracy: deference is baked in.
But maybe the real scandal should be, that the US government is bombing a country we are not at war with, one of the poorest countries in the world, and destroying residential buildings with their civilians inside. And they are doing it with glee. That the only issue seems to be how they decided to chat it up, and with whom, says a lot about just who the people running the US government are.
Democrats in Congress puff up their chests to decry A Violation of National Security, but I haven’t heard one of them complain about a violation of the War Powers Act.
Great piece I love you line This is how our democracy dies: in deference. Perfect
Thanks, Lois!
I cancel my monthly subscription cause I'm so fucking broke and then you drop this? How can I not support your voice? I'm signing back up and thank you.
:)
Even more pathetic is that the only reason no one got fired over this is because Trump hates Goldberg and doesn't want to seem like he is giving him a win. Not a single person involved in this has any integrity or is good at their job. Band of idiots across the board.
Thank you for all of this! I can't take any media's coverage on this matter, from Fox News to MSDNC, it's a clown pageant.
In a 'nutshell.' American people have lived in fear for last few years. WHY? You are Oceans away from the REAL wars that you simply ignore!.
When this so-called Signal shit came up: Do Americans think this was not going on before?
While we are all distracted by the "signals" coming from the seemingly imbecile WH, the House passed that tax cut bill for the wealthy. Whether or not Goldberg knew or didn't that his belated report would dominate the news cycle, it did, and much to the satusfaction of the Trump admin, I'm sure, as it covered up another Grand Theft Citizen tax break. I keep reminding people to avoid letting Trump's daily plan of media chaos prevent us from watching the legislators. Besides the horrendous violence he carries out with the stroke of a pen, a 1000 executive orders that get overturned by the courts doesn't match one hard piece of Klepto-legislation.
Unfortunately, this “Secrecy” another word for classified occurs in everything not just government. It exists in Corporations, Manufacturing, Union Leadership, Institutions and religious hierarchy, just to name a few. It is the way of the World, USA is just another country in this respect who follows the same set of rules. AMONG the worst, of course, if you are being honest, is China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. Nothing at all is released in those countries among others. The difference here in the USA is that independent journalist aren’t killed for revealing the “secrets”, maybe their careers are damaged but they aren’t literally murdered. Which is a better way of handling revelations. Many times I think it’s just me when I see why things, certain things, that may seem trivial are kept secret for a better reason than we know. Our problem is that the people who come forward to lead this Country are not trusted nor believed to the extent they should be, and that is where the issues become larger than life. Newer generations believe they are supposed to know everything and perhaps it’s better they know only just so much so they can be protected from life’s horrors. Of course, I am ridiculed for thinking this way, but life is often easier when it’s done with that in mind. No generation, including my own, need know every secret there is to know. We elect people to handle those dark places for us. If we elected the wrong people or hired the wrong people that’s on us not them for being who they are. FOR EXAMPLE: If a teacher doesn’t know how to teach they are still permitted to teach according to the rules we all live by. If they are “caught” doing abusive things they are “removed” from the classrooms but not fired. This is the way it consistently works throughout all systems worldwide. Unless of course the person is murdered instead. That becomes a different way to “handle” the issues. Mostly the beheading occurs in places where there is no freedom of speech, the press or religion. So yes I think “secrets or classified info” are necessary to maintain freedoms or else the entire free world leaders would be beheaded. Un classifying or revealing secrets is up to the discretion of the person we, the public, put in charge of the “job”. The public or aka shareholders or aka students are really the ones who keep the system running not the leaders or bosses or teachers, they are just held accountable for our acceptance because they accepted the positions within the systems. Guess I may be the only one who still sees this world this way. Secrets are necessary whether we like it or not if we wish to keep our lives going forward.
Um . . . what?
"...outside of the secure channels that taxpayers shelled out billions to set up. "
Can you elaborate please? What system are you referring to?
Stuff like this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitive_compartmented_information_facility
Hmm...that wasn't very helpful. That article references how to create hardened environments for secure communications but nothing about secure messaging, aka 'channels'. Are feds given special, secure devices to use for secure communications outside of these hardened sites?
Sorry for being pedantic, but when someone says 'secure channels' my inner USAF radio troop takes over. A channel implies a communication technology, not a security measure. Is there secure comm technology for high-level feds? If not, why shouldn't they use Signal?
Is the ultimate claim that government policy should only be enacted in-person and no digital communication is allowed? I haven't seen anyone say that, but maybe I missed it? Is there a law or rule-set defining this? I get the signal thing was embarrassing, but was it wrong? Call me naive, but I presume every administration since Bush has been doing this anyway.
You're right to assume that all sorts of officials use unsecure systems for convenience (e.g. the Clinton email server). But that doesn't make it good! And re SCIFs, for top officials they will often install ones in their homes. John Bolton recently described having a SCIF put into his basement.
I paid for a monthly subscription just so I could respond to this comment because it seemed so obtuse. You say your "inner USAF radio troop takes over", which implies you have some knowledge of this anyway, but then you asked "was it wrong?" which implies you don't. So here's the bouncing ball:
1) The government grants access to classified materials at different levels based on two things: a need to know, and a vetting process. Depending on the sensitivity of the clearance being applied for, the vetting process will be more or less stringent i.e. interviewing close contacts, psychological assessments, employment history checks etc.
2) The information being discussed in the Signal chat would have been classified AT LEAST Secret, as it involved precise timings and locations of a military strike that if leaked may have caused the strike to fail. More likely, it would have been Top Secret. There are no ifs or buts about this. I base that statement on long experience with security clearances and classifications.
3) The "positive vetting" process for Top Secret includes an interview with an assessor who will determine your suitability for holding classified information. The interview will include your positive acknowledgement that you will guard the secrets you have been cleared to access, including the use of the appropriate communications methods to discuss it.
4) The government provides facilities and communications networks that are cleared to various levels. Signal (and personal mobile phones in general) are NOT cleared to any level above "Official Use Only".
To answer your questions:
"Is the ultimate claim that government policy should only be enacted in-person and no digital communication is allowed?"
No. The ultimate claim is that Top Secret information should only be discussed using means of communications cleared to Top Secret, as everybody who holds a Top Secret clearance is briefed. There are digital communications methods provided for clearance holders. They are less convenient than civilian smartphones and applications. They are MEANT TO BE.
"Is there a law of rule-set defining this?"
In fact, there are several.
"...was it wrong?"
Yes. Extremely and blatantly. No ifs, no buts. At an absolute minimum, every single person who participated in that chat who holds a security clearance should have that clearance revoked while a re-assessment is conducted of their suitability to hold the clearance. This is 100% what would occur to any uniformed person or contractor. Following that assessment, depending on the severity of the breach, there is the potential for jail time.
"For the past year, I have been sharing the complete contents of documents I’ve obtained with the public. Signalgate illustrates better than anything in recent memory why that practice is important. Whenever journalism inserts itself as a middleman in that process and prioritizes the supposed national security interest above the public interest, the press is basically saying it doesn’t work for the public. "
Bingo. Selective leaking also allows inferences to be made that what was done was worse than it actually was. It's all in the service of driving an agenda and/or a narrative, not acting in the public interest
Great example was when the Steele Dossier was circulating among journalists and being reported on while being withheld from the public until Buzzfeed published it, which allowed the contents to be directly examined and subsequently debunked.