Classified Documents

Classified Documents

Col. Mike Walker, USMC (retired)

All,

Read a nonsensical AP story fobbing off some silliness that determining whether a document is classified routinely defaults to a "judgement call" for those using the classified information.

Well, only when you cavalierly or intentionally violate the law. Otherwise, it is a very straightforward process.

If there is no classification on an original official document then -- yes -- you can treat it as unclassified. There is also a category "For Official Use Only" information but the permissions are very broad making them virtually unclassified.

For the rest, classifications range from "Confidential" to "Top Secret" and require considerable care for anyone using the information.

The mere fact that the information is transmitted on a secure system makes the need for care explicit and obvious. 

You CANNOT transfer that information to a non-secure system without going through a number of procedural step approved by the appropriate Special Security Officer each and every time. 

And even then, the odds are that the request will be denied.

In case of written documents, the information is clearly marked and if there are different levels of classification in one document then the classification is designated down to each paragraph or sentence as necessary.

Again, there is no ambiguity or possibility for a "judgement call" by the person gaining access to the information.

Cutting and pasting or retransmitting or rewording/paraphrasing the information taken from a classified document and entering into the unclassified flow of information is a felony that can end in imprisonment of not more than ten years for each offense (18 US Code 798).

It is a serious business.

Again, as for the alleged "judgement calls," there is no "shortcut"/"let me see"/"gee, I deem this unclassified" permissions. 

Probably over 90% of the people who work with classified information never deal with the actual process of classifying or changing a classification or declassifying information.

It has a very structured and detailed process that generates a paper trail. 

No one gets to read classified information and then, "poof," decide that they will change or remove the classification in an informal "judgement call" process and then carry on as usual.

Those with that authority must ensure that proper procedures are followed, documented and those actions entered/recorded.

Mike

THE ASTONISHING WEAKNESS OF HILLARY CLINTON

THE ASTONISHING WEAKNESS OF HILLARY CLINTON
John Hinderraker, Powerline

At The Week, Michael Dougherty makes, powerfully, a point that I have also tried to make more than once, in a piece called “The astonishing weakness of Hillary Clinton.” The original contains links, which I have omitted:

The entirety of Clinton’s campaign has alternated between distancing herself from the legacy of her family name, and stonewalling reporters investigating one scandal or another. In the first category, she has repudiated the tough-on-crime policies of her husband. She has strongly embraced gay marriage even though her previous support for traditional marriage was, according to Clinton, rooted in timeless religious principles. She has joined the new gender politics, despite her own history of slut-shaming her husband’s mistresses. …

Hillary Clinton has never won a competitive election. This can’t be repeated enough. She beat Republican Rep. Rick Lazio for her Senate seat in 2000. And she defeated a mayor from Yonkers in 2006. In her first competitive race, the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, she began as a heavy favorite and she lost. …

She has high name-recognition. Until she started campaigning she was polling well even with Republicans.

Hillary has always coasted on the favorability she acquired as First Lady (which was weak by First Lady standards, but very high by politician standards). And along the way, she got a reputation for being smart, which isn’t particularly true.

She has the Obama coalition, and an electoral map where Republicans need significant pickups. But boy, it all seems underwhelming. What is the task for Democrats in the post-Obama era? Why is Clinton the one to take on this mission?

An excellent question! I think one reason why Democrats obsessively and often absurdly demonize Republicans, in lieu of any other sort of political discourse, is that they have no idea where to go next.

After achieving a policy almost approximating universal health care, the dream of Democrats since Harry Truman, what are the Democrats to do? Are they pro-globalization? Do they have ideas for integrating the great wave of immigration to America that has occurred over the past 50 years? Do they have anything to offer the dying white working class? Are they for reforming any of America’s major institutions?
Clinton just seems like a mismatch for the party and the moment. The center-left darling of Wall Street talking up issues of inequality. The former Walmart board member posing as savior of American jobs. The “Smart Power” leader whose achievement at state was wrecking a nation and turning it over to Sunni terrorists faster than George W. Bush. A champion of women who pretended the leader of the free world was the victim of his intern. The wife of a man who flies on the “Lolita Express” with a porn star that was booked for “massages.” The vanquisher of a Yonkers mayor.

And yet, weak though she may be, Hillary is, as Dougherty concludes, the best the Democrats have to offer. The Democrats’ consternation will only grow between now and November 2016.

The Evil that is the Islamic Republic

The Evil that is the Islamic Republic

All,

Seeking a better relationship with the leaders of the Islamic Republic’s government is as immoral and unethical as those Americans who sought to have a better relationship with Adolf Hitler’s Nationalist Socialist government in the 1930s. 

There is not one iota of difference.

It is at the very least dishonorable and at worst and in light of the hundreds of American soldiers killed or maimed by Iran’s agents in Iraq, treasonous.

Those Americans are despicable and unworthy of our respect.

Semper Fidel,

Michael M. Walker

Three Lessons from Athens for Washington

Three Lessons from Athens for Washington

Col Mike Walker, USMC (retired)

All

Lesson 1: A government can only run up so much debt. 

At some unpredictable moment during a dramatic rise in the cost of borrowing, a government will hit a tipping point where it cannot borrow money will be forced in a helter-skelter fashion to live within its means. 

As we are seening in Greece, that transition is painful and creates great hardship on those who rely on government spending.

Lesson 2: The combined efforts of the European Commission, European Central Bank and International Monetary Fund only managed to keep the Greek Government above water for five (5) years.

That was for a country with a population of about 11 million and a per capita GDP – below that of Mississippi, the poorest state in America. If the United States were in the same position as Greece is today, there is no earthly combination of financial institutions that could keep the U.S. Government above water for even a few weeks. 

Like the ghosts’ warning in Dickens’ A Christmas Carol, unless we change our ways in America, what we are seeing in Greece is a harbinger for what we are likely to see in our future.

Lesson 3: The United States is NOT Greece. 

Unlike Greece that embraced a large number of statist socialist forms of governance, the United States economy is not dominated by a central government. In Greece, government expenditures account for over 58% of the national GDP. In the United States, its is about 39% with just over 20% originating in Washington D.C. while State governments spend about 8% and local governments around 11%.

This is why America will fare far better than a Greece if and when a crash comes. 

In Greece, as goes the government in Athens so goes the entire economy. In the United States, the private sector safeguards our economic strength. 

Further, some state and many local government agencies are well run and on firm financial foundations. In tandem with the private sector, they serve as firewalls to contain the contagion of a collapse in Federal Government’s ability to borrow.

Nonetheless, for the millions dependent on Uncle Sam, the transition will be harsh. 

How harsh?

Let us create a very (overly) simplistic model for demonstration purposes. In 2014, Washington spent about 14% more than it took in. An immediate 14% cut would be painful for all save those whose financial wellbeing is not tied to Federal expenditures. 

A rapid 14% cut to Federal salaries and benefits would hurt tens of millions of Americans and while many would argue that a major cut to Government spending is needed for “bad” programs, it is equally true that many Federal programs to good and they would suffer as well. The economic disruption would massive but uneven and its duration unknown.

The wild card would be the number of people who lose their heads and panic. If that number is large, the damage will expand almost exponentially. If the large majority remains calm then the pain would remain for tens of millions but at a mitigated level.

The bottom line is that save a cowardly panic (especially on the part of those in Washington), the United States would re-emerge as an economic powerhouse, only with a diminished Federal Government.

Mike