nonombre wrote on Dec 13
th, 2005 at 2:08am:
Uh uh, wrong answer there, Mr Maschke,
The correct answer was:
"As a loyal American citizen, and as a former member of the U.S. intelligence community, I would never, ever, under any circumstances, give away classified information that came into my possession."
You would continue by saying:
"Especially as a former intelligence officer, I realize that the disclosure of classified information potentially reveals U.S. sources, methods, and operations, and therefore would endanger us all. I will go to my grave protecting it. I don't care how I came upon it, I would protect it. The cost of not doing so is to great."
But you did not say that Mr. Maschke. Instead you decided that you would administer your own "test." "Compelling public interest" I believe you called it.
I am not in the government Mr. Maschke, but I do know there are rules concerning the public release of classified information. Please don't hide behind the "Private Citizen" arguement. You, far more than most of us, know better. You KNOW BETTER.
But alas, it seems you don't care about any of that, for you have made up your own rules.
Yes, Mr. Maschke. That was indeed the wrong answer. Why don't you give this some more thought and get back with us.
Nonombre
Nonombre-
From interactions in the past, you seem to be a pretty reasonable fellow. Please don't base your assumptions on how classified information is or should be protected, or how it came to be classified in the first place off of experiences watching some James Bond movie or episode of 24.
A private citizen (w/o a clearance) is under no legal obligation to protect classified info. One could make an argument that one would be under a moral obligation to do so, but that would depend on the information invovled, whether it was properly classified, and if a greater public good is served by publishing it.
Information can be classified simply because that info could be embarrasing to an organization. Would it be wrong for a whistleblower to leak it to the press? Would the reporter be ethically bound to not pursue it? (my answer to this question: the leaker could and should get in trouble; the reporter should report the story). A bit of a dichotomy, but that is how the system works.
Look at the situation with Scooter (got to love that name) leaking the name of the CIA gal. Scooter is in deep doo doo. The reporters who published it have no worries. The only reporter that got in trouble here was in trouble not becuase they published her name, but because she was in contempt of court for not revealing a source.
You are right, there are rules concerning the release of classified info, and those who break those rules should be punished, but those who receive classified information without a clearance are breaking no laws and under no legal obligation to keep it under seal (but if it truly hurt the national security, I think morally they should keep it secret).
And FWIW. on a side note, I think the deep-throat leaker from the Watergate era should be prosecuted for breaking the law (even if he's lost his mind). But I also thinkg Bob Woodward et al deserve credit and recognition for the work they've done.
So please, again, how is publishing an unclassified org chart showing the name of civil servants (practicing a despicable career path) some how damaging to the defense and security of our country?