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.
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.
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 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.
