Thursday, October 06, 2016

Marines would have court martialed the Hutt if she were (just the thought makes me vomit in my mouth) a Marine

During the VP debate there was a very short exchange - and like everything in the debate involved cross talk – where Mike Pence told Timmy let me interrupt you Kaine that had either of their sons (both Marines) done what Shrillda the Hutt had done with state secrets on her unsecure private server they would be court martialed.  Timmy the cross talking bore flatly said “that’s absolutely false”. 

Of the many steaming piles of BS Timmy I can’t stop talking left on the debate stage that was one of the bigger more steamy piles.  First off in congressional testimony Jimmy the fixer Comey said other government employees should not try what the Hutt actually did.  Second there was recently a Navy sailor sentenced to a year in the cooler for taking pictures of a Navy sub to "share with his grandson some day" and then tryed getting rid of the phone that contained them.  Third any “grossly negligent” action by a Marine dealing with national security most certainly would be a Courts Martial offence.  Last, how is what the NSA contractor just arrested for stealing a highly classified computer code any different from what the Hutt did? 

Jimmy the fixer hangs his hat for not recommending an indictment against the Hutt on the fact that the Hutt had “no intent” to compromise national security.  I’m pretty sure in the Marine Corps the “gross negligence” part of the crime in handling national security is as big a crime as the compromise of that information.  I was once lectured at length and had to sign a “re-education form” when I left a piece of classified material on my desk in a room that was cleared for open storage.  In other words there was no violation of any security rules and zero chance of a compromise as the “violation” occurred behind what we called the “hard line”.  No one got behind the hard line, unless they were cleared for the level of the highest classified material contained therein. 

Okay I’m not as innocent as I make it out.  One, I knew the rules and mistakenly violated them.  Second, clearance does not equal a “need to know”.  In other words not only do you have to have the requisite clearance to the material you have to have a need to know the material.  By leaving the material out and available to anyone walking by, the second part of the security test was compromised.

The need to know was the perplexing thing about the Bradly Manning case.  Why did an E-nothing have such broad access to so much classified material?  He clearly had no need to know much of it.  He may have worked in the vault where much the material was logged and stored.  I don’t know.

But the point of this long winded meandering word spaghetti is that security of classified material was taken very seriously by the Marine Corps.  Had I been “grossly negligent”, say put the material in a brief case, actively subverted measures to prevent unauthorized removal of the material across the hard line and took the material home or on a trip to work on it, akin to what the Hutt did and what drug dealers refer to as "smuggling", I most certainly would have been court martialed.  Intent may have played into the sentencing phase of the trial, it certainly would not have played any part in the guilt or innocence phase.

With regard to the sailor going to jail.  I do not what his “intent” was.  It doesn’t matter.  He may have been clandestinely passing the info to a mole somewhere.  Who knows?  That’s why the sailor had to be rung up.  That’s why Shrillda the Hutt and partners in crime should have been rung up by the FBI.  Instead the FBI became a facilitator of the crime and then, when it destroyed the evidence of the crime, an accomplice.

Like so many other things during the VP debate, Timmy motor mouth Kaine was full of $h!t about the Marines not court martialing those who actively subvert the rules for the security of classified material. 

No comments: