naraburns nihil supernum
1yr ago
(text post)
30264 thread views
Israel-Gaza Megathread #2
This is a refreshed megathread for any posts on the conflict between (so far, and so far as I know) Hamas and the Israeli government, as well as related geopolitics. Culture War thread rules apply.
So, I'm curious, when you say they were bullshit are you saying it didn't happen, or that it's the kind of thing that normally leads to few or no consequences?
The magnitude of the offense was both vastly overstated, and the offense as it actually happened would not have ordinarily resulted in any charges.
As a strategic level commander pretty much anything Patraeus thinks or does in relation to his job is going to classified on some level. He was charged with "unauthorized removal and retention of classified material" for keeping a hand-written journal and with "unauthorized disclosure" for letting his biographer/mistress read said journal while quietly glossing over the fact that Paula Broadwell had an active security clearance at the time.
Contrast this with Huma Abedin's alleged "nothing burger", where material specifically marked as not to be removed from the SCIF was removed from the SCIF, copied without authorization from the classifying authority, and then sent unencrypted over the internet to her husband's personal laptop. Even if said husband had an active clearance (which he didn't) you kind of have to assume that foreign intel services are going to be monitoring the communications of senior cabinet officials and their staff.
Depends, Collateral, NO-FORN, SCI, and SAP are generally marked separately and in addition to the more general FOUO, CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, and TOP SECRET Tags. As counter-intuitive as it sounds something can be both "SECRET" and approved for general distribution, things like authentication codes/word of the day being classic examples.
In any case, the point is the obvious double standard. There's no reasonable argument to be made that the former constituted a gross breach of security while the latter did not.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
You're acting like these things are unconnected.
That Patraeus was well-liked and respected is Why the Clintonistas had to drum up some bullshit charges to get him out of the way.
So, I'm curious, when you say they were bullshit are you saying it didn't happen, or that it's the kind of thing that normally leads to few or no consequences?
A mix of both.
The magnitude of the offense was both vastly overstated, and the offense as it actually happened would not have ordinarily resulted in any charges.
As a strategic level commander pretty much anything Patraeus thinks or does in relation to his job is going to classified on some level. He was charged with "unauthorized removal and retention of classified material" for keeping a hand-written journal and with "unauthorized disclosure" for letting his biographer/mistress read said journal while quietly glossing over the fact that Paula Broadwell had an active security clearance at the time.
Contrast this with Huma Abedin's alleged "nothing burger", where material specifically marked as not to be removed from the SCIF was removed from the SCIF, copied without authorization from the classifying authority, and then sent unencrypted over the internet to her husband's personal laptop. Even if said husband had an active clearance (which he didn't) you kind of have to assume that foreign intel services are going to be monitoring the communications of senior cabinet officials and their staff.
Isn't access to classified information subject to both security clearance requirements AND need-to-know requirements?
Depends, Collateral, NO-FORN, SCI, and SAP are generally marked separately and in addition to the more general FOUO, CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET, and TOP SECRET Tags. As counter-intuitive as it sounds something can be both "SECRET" and approved for general distribution, things like authentication codes/word of the day being classic examples.
In any case, the point is the obvious double standard. There's no reasonable argument to be made that the former constituted a gross breach of security while the latter did not.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link