U.S. Security Clearances

[Gunslinger]

It probably would surprise some how many here hold or have held a clearance and at what levels. They just don't talk about it. But, that's kinda the point!

That's exactly the point.

 

[TechnoWeenie]

I was taught a very simple phrase, from .. well... I was taught a very simple phrase.


"those that know, don't say. Those that say, don't know"

Keep that in mind

 

[Nevada carrier]

Just because you have one level of clearance, doesn't mean you get access to everything that requires the level of clearance you have. You still must have a "need to know."

Please correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the "Whistle Blower Protection Act" protect people bound by confidentiality agreements when they are disclosing classified activity that is also unlawful activity? If your commander gives you an op-order brief and begins by announcing that "what he is about to tell you is classified top secret," then goes on to tell you that you are to break up into teams and begin going house to house confiscating weapons from lawfully armed civilians in the united states, I doubt you can be disciplined for blowing the whistle as the orders you were given were not lawful orders.

 

[marshaul]

"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society."
--John F. Kennedy

Our government has no business keeping secrets.

 

[carracer]

For the answer to all secrets, go to "Area 51". Just wait by the gate and someone will be along to tell you everything you need to know.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Our government has no business keeping secrets.

I would respectfully disagree.
Should we tell our enemies our exact troop strength and dispositions?
Should we tell our enemies what advanced research projects we are working on?
Should we tell our enemies what agents of theirs we are aware of?
Should we tell our enemies what agents of ours they are not aware of?
Should we tell our enemies exactly what is being tested and developed at Area 51, or any other location?

One may make the argument that the government shouldn't keep secret from it's own people any of the above information, but releasing such information to our own people would be exactly the same.

Governments have secrets for the same reasons individuals, businesses and corporations do.

 

[marshaul]

I would respectfully disagree.
Should we tell our enemies our exact troop strength and dispositions?
Should we tell our enemies what advanced research projects we are working on?
Should we tell our enemies what agents of theirs we are aware of?
Should we tell our enemies what agents of ours they are not aware of?
Should we tell our enemies exactly what is being tested and developed at Area 51, or any other location?

You're right, releasing things to the citizenry is the same as releasing them to the enemy. With that in mind, I ask, why should we not do any of these things?

 

[eye95]

I would respectfully disagree.
Should we tell our enemies our exact troop strength and dispositions?
Should we tell our enemies what advanced research projects we are working on?
Should we tell our enemies what agents of theirs we are aware of?
Should we tell our enemies what agents of ours they are not aware of?
Should we tell our enemies exactly what is being tested and developed at Area 51, or any other location?

One may make the argument that the government shouldn't keep secret from it's own people any of the above information, but releasing such information to our own people would be exactly the same.

Governments have secrets for the same reasons individuals, businesses and corporations do.

Wisdom.

Blanket statements against secrecy are foolishness disguised as profundity.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP (entire post ending: "The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society."
--John F. Kennedy

How can a man be contractually bound for 50 years to keep those secrets harmful to himself and his fellow human beings?

Its nuts. The signer perhaps does not realize the door he is closing by signing. Then, no matter the weight on his conscience of any misdeeds he knows about, he may not tell until it is too late to correct them and the perpetrators are beyond justice.

I'm thinking such a contract cannot be morally, ethically binding. As a fellow citizen--a member of "the people" with who the signer is contracted--I certainly would not hold a signer to such a contract if he had information the non-disclosure of which was harmful to us.

 

[Tomas]

How can a man be contractually bound for 50 years to keep those secrets harmful to himself and his fellow human beings?

Its nuts. The signer perhaps does not realize the door he is closing by signing. Then, no matter the weight on his conscience of any misdeeds he knows about, he may not tell until it is too late to correct them and the perpetrators are beyond justice.

I'm thinking such a contract cannot be morally, ethically binding. As a fellow citizen--a member of "the people" with who the signer is contracted--I certainly would not hold a signer to such a contract if he had information the non-disclosure of which was harmful to us.

While I can understand (theoretically) where you are coming with that, Citizen, the choice to keep secrets comes before any of the secrets are given.

I (and the others here) took a solemn oath to do so. That is when the choice is made. First the oath to protect the Constitution and our country when we were sworn into service, secondly when we promised again to keep the secrets we were about to be given.

When I give my word, I keep it. It is that simple. If I did not plan on keepint the promise, I would hot have made the promise.

When I was in 'Nam, much of what I saw as part of my duties was classified, as a fair portion of my job was Bomb Strike Damage Assessment (BSDA). Also as part of my job I had the ability to determine that some of what I was first to view was unclassified, and I so marked it (some was automatically classified unless marked that it was not).

Other than knowing from my job where and what we had been and were going to attack, and the amount of damage done to targets at specific locations, I really didn't know much else that was classified, other than technical details of some of our sensor systems.

I have no problem keeping those secrets.

I took an oath to do so.

 

[Gunslinger]

While I can understand (theoretically) where you are coming with that, Citizen, the choice to keep secrets comes before any of the secrets are given.

I (and the others here) took a solemn oath to do so. That is when the choice is made. First the oath to protect the Constitution and our country when we were sworn into service, secondly when we promised again to keep the secrets we were about to be given.

When I give my word, I keep it. It is that simple. If I did not plan on keepint the promise, I would hot have made the promise.

When I was in 'Nam, much of what I saw as part of my duties was classified, as a fair portion of my job was Bomb Strike Damage Assessment (BSDA). Also as part of my job I had the ability to determine that some of what I was first to view was unclassified, and I so marked it (some was automatically classified unless marked that it was not).

Other than knowing from my job where and what we had been and were going to attack, and the amount of damage done to targets at specific locations, I really didn't know much else that was classified, other than technical details of some of our sensor systems.

I have no problem keeping those secrets.

I took an oath to do so.

The PIs (Photo Interpreters) used to like us to go over the gun tapes for BDA with them, as the quality was crappy compared to sat ISR today. Even the Recce RF-4 guys' cameras weren't that good. Then there was the Baker-Nunn from the Blackbirds. That was all TS because we didn't want how high they went and how good the pics were coming out unless need to know. All strictly No-Forn, as well. Used to piss the Israelies off that we flew SR-71 missions over them and there was nothing they could do about it. All of this has long since been declassified. (25 year cycle) The real factor in VN was whether or not we needed another Frag for the target. Going back a second time was never good. Laser guided bombs (Pave-Nail/Spike) solved a lot of that being needed, but before it was the PIs that forced the situation.

 

[Tomas]

The PIs (Photo Interpreters) used to like us to go over the gun tapes for BDA with them, as the quality was crappy compared to sat ISR today. Even the Recce RF-4 guys' cameras weren't that good. Then there was the Baker-Nunn from the Blackbirds. That was all TS because we didn't want how high they went and how good the pics were coming out unless need to know. All strictly No-Forn, as well. Used to piss the Israelies off that we flew SR-71 missions over them and there was nothing they could do about it. All of this has long since been declassified. (25 year cycle) The real factor in VN was whether or not we needed another Frag for the target. Going back a second time was never good. Laser guided bombs (Pave-Nail/Spike) solved a lot of that being needed, but before it was the PIs that forced the situation.

Yup! It was always better to go over the images with someone who had actually been there, 'cause their 'eyeball, human, mark 1' had often seen things that would take hours to dig out of those images without their input.

(I only ever got to fiddle with an SR-71 once, even though I was trained on their sensor systems. That one came into Carswell AFB for an emergency landing from somewhere half way 'round the world, and somebody with a lot of bulge wanted the information from that flight NOW!)

From back in the day.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

I would respectfully disagree.
Should we tell our enemies our exact troop strength and dispositions?
Should we tell our enemies what advanced research projects we are working on?
Should we tell our enemies what agents of theirs we are aware of?
Should we tell our enemies what agents of ours they are not aware of?
Should we tell our enemies exactly what is being tested and developed at Area 51, or any other location?

One may make the argument that the government shouldn't keep secret from it's own people any of the above information, but releasing such information to our own people would be exactly the same.

Governments have secrets for the same reasons individuals, businesses and corporations do.

You're right, releasing things to the citizenry is the same as releasing them to the enemy. With that in mind, I ask, why should we not do any of these things?

I'm not sure I understand your question as you seem to have provided the answer most profoundly in the previous sentence. Are you advocating the position that releasing national secrets to sworn enemies of the United States is a commendable thing to do, or, are you saying that our national security would be increased by releasing national secrets to our enemies?

If you are taking the position that releasing secret information to the citizenry is Not the same as releasing the information to our enemies, I'd certainly be interested in learning how you would propose to keep that information out of foreign hands once it's been released to the public.

 

[VetteFreakC5]

Just because you have one level of clearance, doesn't mean you get access to everything that requires the level of clearance you have. You still must have a "need to know."

Please correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the "Whistle Blower Protection Act" protect people bound by confidentiality agreements when they are disclosing classified activity that is also unlawful activity? If your commander gives you an op-order brief and begins by announcing that "what he is about to tell you is classified top secret," then goes on to tell you that you are to break up into teams and begin going house to house confiscating weapons from lawfully armed civilians in the united states, I doubt you can be disciplined for blowing the whistle as the orders you were given were not lawful orders.

The Military Whistleblower Protection Act protects the right of members of the armed services to communicate with any member of Congress (even if copies of the communication are sent to others).

Even military mebmers are bound by NDA's (Non-disclosure agreements).
Yes you can be prosecuted for disobeying a lawful order.

 

[marshaul]

I'm not sure I understand your question as you seem to have provided the answer most profoundly in the previous sentence. Are you advocating the position that releasing national secrets to sworn enemies of the United States is a commendable thing to do, or, are you saying that our national security would be increased by releasing national secrets to our enemies?

If you are taking the position that releasing secret information to the citizenry is Not the same as releasing the information to our enemies, I'd certainly be interested in learning how you would propose to keep that information out of foreign hands once it's been released to the public.

I'm saying none of those things.

I'm saying that, if to reveal secrets to the people means revealing them to the enemy, then so be it.

I would make an allowance for temporary secrecy: say, 6 months. Keep troop dispositions secret until such intelligence is essentially obsolete; keep the latest gadgets secret for a few months while our enemies build their own versions, etc. Anything more than that is intolerable.

I'm saying America has no enemies which justify the degree of paranoid secrecy, and lack of transparency and accountability, that our government currently demonstrates. And, furthermore, that these things enable a slew of government excesses and abuses which are a much graver danger to our future than are any of our real or potential enemies.

 

[END_THE_FED]

..........And, furthermore, that these things enable a slew of government excesses and abuses which are a much graver danger to our future than are any of our real or potential enemies.

Very true.

 

[KansasMustang]

One who truly honors the confidences bestowed upon him as a result of the level of trust his clearance grants him does not announce, "I know something you don't know."

Why is it, when that one makes a thread, this one always has to make some wiseass crack? is there some reason Eye95 you don't have anything good to say when Since9 says something? For the life of me I just can't understand. If I were you I'd find a life. Rant complete.

Having said that I'll say this about that. I had a way high clearence,,and guess what? I know lots of things that you don't know too,

COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Personal attack and inappropriate

 

[1245A Defender]

well,,,

Having said that I'll say this about that. I had a way high clearence,,and guess what? I know lots of things that you don't know too,,.

Way too prove the point of the eye95 quote!
did you even read it? did you understand it?

ive read your posts, im not impressed.
but i dont have to brag about what secrets i might know,

those that say, dont know.
those that know, dont say.

 

[Gunslinger]

Level of classification refers to potential harm to the security of the US and/or our allies could suffer if revealed. It's as simple as that. Classifier's tend to go overboard on the level, but I have no problem with that. SAP, Special Access Programs, are above SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information) which is above TS. These designations limit the viewers--despite other clearances they may have, to only those with the most need to know. Those are the two aspects of classification. I find nothing wrong with either. If I were going to fly a strike against Iran, I would prefer it come as a surprise to them. No one, including US citizens, needs to know the strike codes for a missile site unless they are in the CoC loop. No one, including you and me, needs to know where our Boomers are at a given time unless they are in the CoC loop. There are aspects of our security that rise above free and open communications, period.

 

[eye95]

...

Compare my post with yours. I did not single out a person and insult him. I [strike]criticized an action[/strike] [see edit note] as opposed to insulting a person.

I stand by what I posted. And I will repeat it.

One who truly honors the confidences bestowed upon him as a result of the level of trust his clearance grants him does not announce, "I know something you don't know."

Moving on.

On edit: I didn't even directly criticize anything. I described behavior that I hold up as honorable. If someone feels insulted by that, it would be because he thinks he is behaving in a way other than what I would call honorable. That's on him.