Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Igel

(35,270 posts)
9. Here's something to consider.
Sun May 21, 2017, 04:36 PM
May 2017

The US and Russia have an exchange of information system set up in Syria and Afghanistan to keep from attacking each other's forces.

Is the operational information--when missions are going to be conducted, where they'll be conducted, what their purposes and extent are--classified or not?

If not, then publishing what the sorties the US will fly over the next week and where their operatives on the ground will be should be published in the NYT, in the interest of the public's right to know.

If it is classified, how dare we share this information with Russia?

Publishing the information is contrary to US interests; it would get US citizens killed. Not sharing the information is contrary to US interests; it would get US citizens killed. Those are apparently the only two moral choices, and both end in ideologically straitjacketed deaths. You may consider this an example of "reduction to the absurd." The classification system and the loopholes in it are old, very old, and both the system and loopholes exist for good reasons.

Now, this particular op-sharing system isn't Trump's. It was set up under President Obama's tenure. Which really means, Do we think that Obama set up a routine system to commit treason or not? Those, again, are the two choices you have, boiling down to, "Obama should have let US soldiers die or he's a traitor." More silliness.


We'll leave aside that there are different levels of classification and that all executive power originates, for good or for bad, with the president (at least until we change the Constitution or redefine "president" in some way that momentarily suits us).

As for passing info to the Russians, it's something FDR did. Routinely. In spite of the fact that Stalin's attitude to the US really hadn't changed. It suited FDR and his goals for US policy to cooperate with the Soviets who, even as the war was being conducted in Europe, had spies in the US to steal secrets, information that FDR didn't authorize sharing with them, and possibly be a position to resume hostilities against us after the Nazis had been defeated.

Now, Trump's bragging was unseemly. It's a sucky reason, if it's really the reason, for sharing information. Yet it's what he is.

And as for Russia's being our adversary, sorry. I rued the day Putin was elected, and did so on the very day he was elected. That was a long, long time ago, and the only time DU didn't allow near admiration for Putin was when Bush II said favorable things about him. DUers' attitudes to Putin are, overall, more based on who's in the White House than anything outside the US, which is sad. I also thought it ridiculous when Romney was ridiculed for calling Russia a "foe" and DU was in an uproar because President Obama was still busy trying his "reset". It was a stupid, idiotic strategy at the time but to say so was not proper politics. The only thing that's changed between then and now is that a lot of there are a lot of johnny-come-lately folk who are anti-Putin not because of new information but because what Russia did finally hurt them domestically. And the only real action they can come up with is to sow dissent and contempt for the US political process and play with discrediting domestic politics (which as the security agencies themselves said in the report whose first page is regularly reported as "...", is their first goal).

Twain said it's easier to trick people than to convince them they've been tricked. Russia's been successful enough that the rumor is they're even concerned about the chaos in US politics. They want to win, but they also value stability. "Win" means "have the US be isolationist and leave Russia to do what they want where they want it." They want to be #1 in a stable world, not #1 in a chaotic world, so it's not a completely implausible rumor. (And, yes, attributing our definition to them is foolishness; in psychology, a reward isn't what the experimenter or boss or teacher says it is, it's what the subject says it is. "I offered them a reward and they turned it down" means "I offered them something they didn't value but I did, why can't they be like me!?&quot

republican Draft-Dodger-in-Chief* pisses all over America's security Achilleaze May 2017 #1
Indeed he does. ElementaryPenguin May 2017 #3
Speaking as an outsider.... physioex May 2017 #2
There's a whole procedure that wasn't followed... ElementaryPenguin May 2017 #4
Indeed, you don't declassify by spilling the beans. You follow a defined process. L. Coyote May 2017 #38
Uh, no. WinkyDink May 2017 #25
Uh, yes ... what the poster said is generally 'how stuff goes down' ... in a normal scenario ... mr_lebowski May 2017 #32
Unprecedented. ElementaryPenguin May 2017 #33
Yes! He passed ANOTHER country's secrets on to a foreign adversary!!! Madam45for2923 May 2017 #5
Right. Which made it even worse. ElementaryPenguin May 2017 #6
republican Draft Dodger also be endangering our troops Achilleaze May 2017 #23
He's endangered with several actions already, ElementaryPenguin May 2017 #31
Don't hold your breath waiting for legal action based on the disclosure onenote May 2017 #7
Thanks for the info. But the defense the GOP members kept making ElementaryPenguin May 2017 #8
Great point Penguin! Have not heard anyone pointing this out!!! Akamai May 2017 #24
Here's something to consider. Igel May 2017 #9
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed ElementaryPenguin May 2017 #10
FDR is irrelevant. Russia became our ally DURING WWII, and our enemy POST-WWII. The latter status WinkyDink May 2017 #26
Winky, I think you're missing my point about FDR. ElementaryPenguin May 2017 #30
Your thread title says truth precisely & accurately. Next up: the Israel he betrayed. . . nt Bernardo de La Paz May 2017 #11
That's going to be interesting - and extremely awkward. ElementaryPenguin May 2017 #12
Israel is a democracy. To call Netanyahu a dictator is not only crass; it is not correct. WinkyDink May 2017 #28
I believe Netanyahu stole the last election, but... ElementaryPenguin May 2017 #29
Exactly. Afterwards, the Shart House told the press not to print the info Shitler gave the Ruskies. SunSeeker May 2017 #13
I know. Why isn't more being made of this?? ElementaryPenguin May 2017 #14
Maybe he just gave them the pertinent clearance. bluedigger May 2017 #15
To drumpf - you and I don't need to know ANYTHING! ElementaryPenguin May 2017 #17
Exactly, he just blurted it out like the total shit he is. BSdetect May 2017 #16
Lock. ElementaryPenguin May 2017 #19
Excellent point! kentuck May 2017 #18
Precisely, Kentuck... ElementaryPenguin May 2017 #20
kick for visibility triron May 2017 #21
Good point treestar May 2017 #22
...but we can't. ElementaryPenguin May 2017 #27
k&r BSdetect May 2017 #34
So he declassified what he told the Russians but we can't know what it was because it's classified. Towlie May 2017 #35
Gentlemen, there's no fighting in here NewJeffCT May 2017 #36
Trumpeteers accept this without questioning... ElementaryPenguin May 2017 #39
K&R. dchill May 2017 #37
Trump probably reclassified the secrets Progressive dog May 2017 #40
That would magnify the crime, actually. ElementaryPenguin May 2017 #41
Per his spokespeople Progressive dog May 2017 #44
Hence tiptonic May 2017 #42
Benedict Donald! ElementaryPenguin May 2017 #43
knr LaydeeBug May 2017 #45
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Trump DIDN'T DECLASSIFY! ...»Reply #9