Quote:
Originally Posted by 70Ford
Take a look at where I'm writing this from. The only thing I ever mention is the heat.Any thing else is pretty much covered by OPSEC. You sign a document saying you will abide by the contract and keep your durn mouth shut about National matters. Plus, they can put you in jail for life. WHen I worked at NORAD, I signed a document that said I could not say anything about my job, or related to NORAD for 75 years.
Punishment by life imprisonment or DEATH.
You have a chain of command. You have options. You have the right to bring up something you see as being wrong. I have. I sent a guy to prison for fraud, waste and abuse before. Well, >> I << didnt' send him to prison. He sent himself to prison. I just reported him. Our tax dollars pay for our military. He was stealing your money and mine. That's not fair, and it certainly doesn't show "true military values."
THis fellow who shared national secrets with a complete stranger disregarded all of that.
Operations security - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Operations security ( OPSEC) is a process that identifies critical information to determine if friendly actions can be observed by adversary intelligence systems, determines if information obtained by adversaries could be interpreted to be useful to them, and then executes selected measures that eliminate or reduce adversary exploitation of friendly critical information. |
Hello, yes I see where you are posting from. My son went over in 2007 and something was said about the security issues and his ability to phone home. I did find unclassified documents (fas.org) as to the rule that was being placed on our soldiers and communications. It's been long time since I read and thought about it, but I believe it is the 1st sergeant who is to grant or deny phone privileges and Internet usage.
While I thought that sucked, I also knew that there are those who, would not know what a secret is or isn't in these times. Many would trust in their family members and what does it matter if I tell, maybe their reasoning.
I heard about this story late night on LPB, "Need to Know" program.
Need To Know | PBS
Quote:
|
Jon Meacham speaks with blogger and military analyst Joshua Foust about the eternal tension between transparency and security
|
Apparently I wasn't wrong in my assumptions about what some would or could understand that should be kept private and secure.
The documents that were sent were raw data of meetings and names. Even if the names had been removed the danger in the knowing where the meetings are held, the routes they take to get to these meetings, all of that falling into the wrong hands puts people's life at risk.
That would be like me asking you for the internal architecture design of NORAD and you providing me with that information. One I should never ask you and two you should never give it out; reasons being common sense on both our parts.
Damage control...they're going to need some.
Something was said about this instance being compared to the release of the pentagon papers during the Vietnam war. I'd have to brush up on my history in order to make a comment. However, I do not believe this situation isn't any where near a 'whistle blowing' incident. One the pentagon were more about the efficiency of our government; what this young man did was, he gave out ground movement of troops within time of war.
This young man is not covering the backs of those with him. This is so wrong on so many levels by all parties involved, it makes me angry.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
