Not the keenest on following a point then?
Why especially to "us across the pond?"
Given the very imprecise but emotive hundreds of thousands figures tossed around for Iraqi civilian deaths (most caused by insurgents and not US/Coalition actions, but that's a digression that doesn't play well), what's 1,600-ish? Not meaning to be callous, but why would one cause angst and not the other?
I would agree with your second point.
Someone in the Lt Col's chain of command decided the information was classified.
You are unable to answer any of your posed questions including, especially, the two quoted above.
Perhaps the Lt Col's seniors actually do know better then he and thee? Perhaps not, but it was not his or your place to make that judgement. I'm pretty sure it says something like that in the fine print of an enlistment or commissioning oath.
Selective leaking of classified by a military member is not an option I would think.
pba, while I would agree (What would be the odds of finding something nice in Afghanistan?) that it is one of the oldest tricks in the book, no pun intended, does it matter if it was malicious or not?
He, apparently, knowingly divulged classified information
Do you not hold a military officer to a higher standard than a politician?
I think it's common on both sides of the Atlantic that we hold the latter in disdain due to their many failings, including that of keeping state secrets.
I would have thought it different for the former.
4 Feb 09 13:30
For the US military, it is the same.
If it says anything other than "Unclassified" on the top and bottom, it's the start of a very bad day for the individual divulging the material, intentionally or otherwise. Similarly, it is NOT up to the individual to decide if something is or is not classifed according to his whims.
"Due process?" By all means, but even then, the US military rules (UCMJ) are different than in the civilian code.
In the case of this British Lt Col, I would think that only if the officers are in either his direct chain of command or on his court martial proceedings would be 'predjudicial (sp?)' to the defendant.
Again, if interesting, your argument about the 'embarrassment' factor or 'keeping in with the Americans' is moot. The officer either did or did not divulge classified information to one not authorized to have that information.
The FOIA, whether the information should be classified at all, etc, etc, is fine for discussion, but at the time the officer divulged the information, it was. That seems to be the merits of the incident.
Does the phrase/concept of "Bingo!" translate in the UK?
Was the information classified? Yes/no. If yes, proceed.[/font]
Was the Lt Col authorized to release the information to the woman? Yes/no. If no, proceed.
Did the Lt Col violate the law/British military law? Yes/no. If yes, proceed to court martial.
All the bashing, all the drama over whether the information should or should not be classified are completely unrelated to the basic questions listed above.
Why is that concept so hard to fathom?
Which is exactly the point. The military individual does not have the right/luxury/certain knowledge that 'it's alright to talk about it' what he knows is classified (whether it should be or not) as a matter of personal discretion.
Unless, of course, one is a politician:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair has appointed controversial former CIA Director John Deutch to serve on an advisory panel reviewing the intelligence community's technical capabilities.
Ex-CIA director John Deutch lost his security clearance in the mid-1990s for mishandling top secret documents.
Deutch, who was President Clinton's CIA director for a year and a half in the mid-1990s, lost his security clearance for mishandling classified information.
At the time Deutch left the agency in late 1996, CIA security officials discovered top secret documents on Deutch's home computer, which was a violation of strict CIA policy.
The 74 classified documents included memos to the president and other cabinet officials as well as classified material from the time Deutch served as deputy defense secretary.
CIA Director George Tenet suspended Deutch's security clearance, the toughest action he could take against the former official. Deutch voluntarily gave up his Pentagon clearance.
Deutch had reached an agreement with the Justice Department to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge and pay a fine, but before the case was filed, President Clinton pardoned him.
6 Feb 09 09:50
Did the officer have either the authorization to release the classified information or did he have the authority to make that determination?
If the answer is yes to either of the above, then he's got no worries, I would think.
If the answer is no, then I would think it's time for one of those ultimate "hat on, no coffee chats" y'all refer to them as with several court martial board members.
I'm not arguing the merits on overclassification, whether the material was embarrassing to the US or not, or any other side issue.
Was the information classified? Did the officer divulge it to someone not cleared to possess that information?
Central point I would think. I admit I am surprised by the number of posters in the military aircrew forum defending or rationalizing his alleged actions.
edited to add: Absolutely, it is up to whatever the British military legal procedure is to determine guilt or innocence and, if the former, severity of punishment.
Actually, our positions are very similar. If the officer either had permission or the proper authority to decide that he could release the information, then we agree.
If your position is that he could decide on his own without having said permission or being granted authority to make such determinations, then we disagree.
Regarding the civil investigation and legal proceedings, very interesting. Thanks.
Why is that? Is there not a British UCMJ (Uniformed Code of Military Justice - military law/system) equivalent?
Teeth fixing comment? From a Brit?[/font]
Well, it is undoubtedly true, isn't it. We and you did.
Integrity is a personal quality, and personal qualities are absent from this generation of political and military leaders.
I'll give you that regarding politicians.
Regarding British or American military members, I believe you are wrong.
Divulging classified without the proper authority is a bad thing.
One of those black and white issues for me.
As the officer in question is British, I'll leave you to him.
But with the "well, it's ok because he thought the info deserved to be out there" attitude, is troubling.
10 Feb 09 19:08
One surefire "anti-spam" mechanism is to disclose shared classified information, and even worse, to condone that behavior.[/font]
I would have thought that even the very meanest of intelligence could follow the train of thought in the British Lt Col leaking classified information.
Apparently not.
Must be a driving on the opposite side of the road thing.