http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email...
Do you not believe that things are "overly" classified, and are liberally and retroactively labelled as such?
And your feelings regarding over-classification is not irrelevant to whether something is "wrong". Wrong is not the same as legal, which is why there is discretion.
That pretty clearly implicated previous people and my beliefs/feelings, no?
I feel like you're trolling me here.
I chose your response because you seemed more balanced than some of the other people who are way out on one side of the debate or the other.
So I wondered why you, evidently relatively moderate in your view, fell where you did.
In my eyes, the fact the key issue was the accepted actions of the predecessors. (I may have this wrong, though, based on another response I received in this thread, but that response was somewhat unclear.)
So, I wonder if you accept that her predecessors did the same thing (which, I assume, is accepted fact that they did, so nothing to do with emotions), you feel the way you do about her.
I don't see that anything was "hand waved" other than it stopped short of prosecution. So, to my ears, that is what he was espousing.
I guess I would expect something specific:
1. Yes, prosecute the previous people as well!
2. Ah, I see. Well I don't believe all SoS since the invention of email should be prosecuted, so in order to be fair, I guess I don't believe she should be as well.
3. I don't believe it was as bad
4. I don't know?
But that is why the question was asked.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Should failure to prosecute prior crimes mean that charges for the same crimes in the future be dropped?
"Do you not believe that things are "overly" classified, and are liberally and retroactively labelled as such?"
The regulations for declassification of classified material are quite clear about who is authorized to do it and when. Whether material is overclassified or not is as irrelevant as arguing that the quality of the diamond in a stolen ring should determine whether or not theft charges are filed against a suspect.
Edit: I cannot reply to @projectramo in the thread, who asked "Well, you can still go back and prosecute them now. Is that what you propose? That we also prosecute Rice and Powell?" My answer: yes, if the statute of limitations (if one exists in such a case) has not expired.
The law MUST be applied equally for all, or it is tyranny.
You're supporting corruption at that point, right?
Here is a law intended to keep vital secrets out of the hands of enemies who might do harm to the national interest. And you want to apply it, broadly, to government officials who are trying to do their job.
I don't think Rice or Powell intended to do any harm, or wanted to give any secrets out to any enemy. I also think the likelihood that their use of non-government servers on a tiny number of emails really caused such an issue.
Yet you are advocating to end their careers, put them behind bars, subject them to years of trouble.
Doesn't something seem off here?
(I am putting aside Hillary for now because she is just such an emotionally supercharged example at the moment that it is hard to talk about her and just discuss the facts, so I am using the other two as examples).
"It seems it would be just as tyrannical to apply the law as it is written and not as it is intended."
I don't know if there is a difference here. The laws and regulations surrounding the handling, storage and transmission of classified information essentially boil down to: "Protect classified material from disclosure to unauthorized individuals, follow established procedures, and in the event you wish to stray from those keep in mind you're likely not authorized to make that final decision so consult with your security officer and ensure your bases are covered."
Let's assume that I, as a soldier or contractor, started using my private email server for work purposes that on occasion involved classified material. Maybe I didn't know what exactly was classified (or how high), but that doing so was definitely something I was advised against doing during my in-briefing and my annual security refresher training. Perhaps even explicitly told that such a thing was not authorized.
I am, at this point, negligent in my duty to protect said material and I have violated an agreement I have signed with the United States government. If one or more unauthorized parties (whether contractors I hired to set up the server or somebody else) accessed my server and saw that material, I have broken the law even if I didn't pull a Manning or Snowden or intentionally give material to a foreign intelligence service.
You can bet that my career would be in jeopardy and I would be put behind bars and subjected to "years of trouble". Hell, I would likely be held in custody during the investigation over concern of being a flight risk.
There's a reason why people who have had clearances are generally up in arms about this: mishandling and negligence is something they are repeatedly warned about and fearful of. To see the same rules and regulations that governed our activity (and in some cases really made our jobs difficult) so casually ignored and allowed to go without so much as a wrist-slap is infuriating.
It's not about a witch hunt. It's not a political thing. It's about seeing other people being treated differently in the eyes of the law. It's far from being the first time in America, but it's as disgusting and discouraging as any bit of fraud one hears about in the worst third-world countries, and for it to be given a free pass at such a high level (and be dismissed by so many for political reasons) I think indicates the poor state of health our democracy is in.
I understand most folks are concerned about the classified information but it seems the other two issues are forgotten.
In particular, I am curious about "extra regulations were passed."
Did Congress pass new laws because of Colin Powell?
p.s. what article?
The State Department can't pass laws for which you can be jailed. It can only pass internal rules which it can use to fire you etc. It also cannot produce interpretations or clarifications of laws since only judges do that.
Only congress can pass laws, and so illegal is a strong term reserved for violations of those laws.
There is a case for violating those laws, of course, which is whatever the relevant statutes are for handling secret information under which spies etc are prosecuted.
So while these are internal rules she may have violated, they are not the same as laws, and those laws apply equally to her predecessors, and therefore I feel justified in continuing to make the argument.
The law is the law. It should be held against all of them. This is akin to saying, 'well that robber got away with it in the past, why do you hold it against this gentlemen for stealing?'
>Do you not believe that things are "overly" classified, and are liberally and retroactively labelled as such?
What do this have to do with the mishandling of classified info? If it's classified, it's classified; that it might have been classified erroneously or too liberally has nothing to do with the fact that it is currently classified and should be treated as such.
Such as?
I didn't think that was the distinction you were focused on.
1. Government server - whatever the gov sets up
2. Private server - a service like hotmail or gmail
3. Personal server - something on a box you hire someone to set up for you
We agree that the violation is setting up a non #1 type server, but you are saying it matters if it was #2 or #3?
If that is what you are saying, please elaborate on why you think so. (I don't see that it matters much, but am curious about your argument).
1. Government server - whatever the gov sets up. Chief attribute(s): security
2. Private sector email provider - a service like hotmail or gmail. Chief attribute(s): convenience and security.
3. Personal homebrew server - something on a box you hire someone to set up for you. Chief attribute(s): control and convenience.
A public servant who would use #2 for testing purposes so that they can execute the duties of their jobs is one thing. A public servant who would go to the lengths needed to secure #3, thereby placing their complete archive beyond the reach of the public but well within the reach of intruders, has in my view used their public office for private gain at the potential cost of national security. Their motives and judgment are entirely dubious.
So let me first sort out a number of motives:
1. They may think that a private sector service is puts government documents in private hands which they might consider to be bad.
2. She may not be acquainted with the security differences between the homebrew server and yahoo mail. (I am not. I would assume that a competent technical person with off the shelf software could make it fairly secure.)
I don't know if we must impute nefarious motives from a personal homebrew server.