Well, you know when something isn't classified, it's is just another State Department communication. It can easily end up on anyone's server. Doesn't really take a special effort. The best thing for you to do, it would seem, is not vote for Hillary. You seem to be letting this Hillary stuff get to you. Why not just take a Valium and chill out ? You'll feel better in the morning.
Emails are just like Benghazi
- Thread starter ETcallhome
- Start date
Here is a better explanation. If it is marked or when it is marked, is irrelevant.
A few excerpts from article below.
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-deba...cret-security-clearance-knows-or-should-know/
In the world of handling America’s secrets, words – classified, secure, retroactive – have special meanings. I held a Top Secret clearance at the State Department for 24 years and was regularly trained in protecting information as part of that privilege. Here is what some of those words mean in the context of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails.
----
What matters in the world of secrets is the information itself, which may or may not be marked “classified.” Employees at the highest levels of access are expected to apply the highest levels of judgment, based on the standards in Executive Order 13526. The government’s basicnondisclosure agreement makes clear the rule is “marked or unmarked classified information.”
In addition, the use of retroactive classification has been tested and approved by the courts, and employees are regularly held accountable for releasing information that was unclassified when they released it, but classified retroactively.
For example, if an employee were to be handed information sourced from an NSA intercept of a foreign government leader, somehow not marked as classified, she would be expected to recognize the sensitivity of the material itself and treat it as classified. In other cases, an employee might hear something sensitive and be expected to treat the information as classified. The emphasis throughout the classification system is not on strict legalities and coded markings, but on judgment. In essence, employees are required to know right from wrong. It is a duty, however subjective in appearance, one takes on in return for a security clearance.
“Not knowing” would be an unexpected defense from a person with years of government experience.
In addition to information sourced from intelligence, Clinton’s email may contain some back-and-forth discussions among trusted advisors. Such emails are among the most sensitive information inside State, and are otherwise always considered highly classified. Adversaries would very much like to know America’s bargaining strategy. The value of such information is why, for example, the NSA electronically monitored heads of state in Japan and Germany. The Freedom of Information Act recognizes the sensitivity of internal deliberation, and includes a specific exemption for such messages, blocking their release, even years after a decision occurred. If emails discussing policy or decisions were traded on an open network, that would be a serious concern.
The problem for Clinton may be particularly damaging. Every email sent within the State Department’s own systems contains a classification; an employee technically cannot hit “send” without one being applied. Just because Clinton chose to use her own hardware does not relieve her or her staff of this requirement.
Some may say even if Clinton committed security violations, there is no evidence the material got into the wrong hands – no blood, no foul. Legally that is irrelevant. Failing to safeguard information is the issue. It is not necessary to prove the information reached an adversary, or that an adversary did anything harmful with the information for a crime to have occurred. See the cases of Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, Jeff Sterling, Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou or even David Petraeus. The standard is “failure to protect” by itself.
None of these laws, rules, regulations or standards fall under the rubric of obscure legalities; they are drilled into persons holding a security clearance via formal training (mandatory yearly for State Department employees), and are common knowledge for the men and women who handle America’s most sensitive information. For those who use government computer systems, electronic tools enforce compliance and security personnel are quick to zero in on violations.
Actually, the truth is almost anyone can determine whether something should be classified. That's the point I tried to make. Anyone! That's of course why there are thousands of government documents that are classified that don't need to be. It is also why there could easily have been something sent to Hillary's server that should have been classified that wasn't -- i.e., nobody bothered. Documents that are classified are stamped, identifying their level of classification. (The popular ink color is 'red'.) If they are not stamped, they are not classified. That may seem primitive, but that's government life for you. I wouldn't lose sleep over this if I were you. It appears at this point that there were no classified documents sent to the Secretary's personal server, merely some that maybe should have been. Some were apparently classified later. I know how difficult it will be for you to accept this. But it does not look at this point that she broke any laws. Sadly, we are still, though some dispute it, a nation of laws. Bummer. What that means is that no matter how naughty and horrible you have behaved you're not likely to get indicted unless a law can be identified that you actually broke. I sincerely hope I haven't ruined your life by telling you this.
You are referring mostly too rules rather than statutes. I'll change my mind, of course, if you can site a single case were there was a conviction involving "the use of retroactive classification" . Good luck!
Last edited:
You just are getting. Forget about any emails that were sent to her.
Pretty much every email that Hillary would have type besides get me coffee would have been classified because she was the Secretary of State. She had to mark it. She didn't and moreover she typed emails and sent them through a private server. Not safeguarding information is illegal. Has nothing to do with markings.
"What matters in the world of secrets is the information itself, which may or may not be marked “classified.” Employees at the highest levels of access are expected to apply the highest levels of judgment, based on the standards in Executive Order 13526. The government’s basic nondisclosure agreement makes clear the rule is “marked or unmarked classified information.”
"The problem for Clinton may be particularly damaging. Every email sent within the State Department’s own systems contains a classification; an employee technically cannot hit “send” without one being applied. Just because Clinton chose to use her own hardware does not relieve her or her staff of this requirement."
"For example, if an employee were to be handed information sourced from an NSA intercept of a foreign government leader, somehow not marked as classified, she would be expected to recognize the sensitivity of the material itself and treat it as classified. In other cases, an employee might hear something sensitive and be expected to treat the information as classified. The emphasis throughout the classification system is not on strict legalities and coded markings, but on judgment. In essence, employees are required to know right from wrong. It is a duty, however subjective in appearance, one takes on in return for a security clearance."
I guess her defense can be she is so fucking stupid that she is incapable of using her own judgment to ascertain what is or isn't sensitive information. That includes information with no markings whatsoever.
Don't you find that odd? I mean that the Secretary of State of the United States would have no State Department email account.
For example, if you worked for the US government and just so happened to be walking down the hall at the UN and overheard officials from another country say something that is sensitive, the onus would be on you to make a judgment if it is sensitive information. If yes, you have to keep it top secret. No way to "MARK" verbal communication.
Piezoe goes to great lengths to cast himself as an impartial, objective observer on all topics related to politics or the central banks...He'll even label himself a "libertarian" (I know, try not to laugh)...but then he'll come out with this twisted, tortured logic to try and defend Hillary's e-mail snafu...The irony is that I heard this exact line of defense from one of Hillary's biggest campaign donors (who happens to run a PR firm)...