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
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Newly released FBI documents shows Petraeus disclosures less damaging than Clinton emails [View all]leveymg
(36,418 posts)123. That is entirely about Sec. 1924, which requires intent, but in Sec. 793 "gross negligence" applies
You're comparing apples to potato chips. In the 2000 report about the violations of law by former Director John Deutch, the CIA Inspector General found that both statutes applied. Note the statement about the "gross negligence" standard applies under Sec. 793 (f), and how that differs from the explicit "intent to retain" requirement written into Sec. 1924: https://fas.org/irp/cia/product/ig_deutch.html
WHAT LAWS, REGULATIONS, AGREEMENTS, AND POLICIES HAVE POTENTIAL APPLICATION?
109. (U) Title 18 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 793, "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information" specifies in paragraph (f):
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing,... or information, relating to national defense ... through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
110. (U) Title 18 U.S.C. § 798, "Disclosure of classified information" specifies in part:
Whoever, knowingly and willfully ... uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States ... any classified information ... obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
111. (U) Title 18 U.S.C. § 1924, "Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material" specifies:
Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
112. (U) The National Security Act of 1947, CIA Act of 1949, and Executive Order (E.O.) 12333 establish the legal duty and responsibility of the DCI, as head of the United States intelligence community and primary advisor to the President and the National Security Council on national foreign intelligence, to protect intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure.
113. (U) Director of Central Intelligence Directive (DCID) 1/ 16, effective July 19, 1988, "Security Policy for Uniform Protection of Intelligence Processed in Automated Information Systems and Networks," reiterates the statutory authority and responsibilities assigned to the DCI for the protection of intelligence sources and methods in Section 102 of the National Security Act of 1947, E.O.s 12333 and 12356, and National Security Decision Directive 145 and cites these authorities as the basis for the security of classified intelligence, communicated or stored in automated information systems and networks.
114. (U) DCID 1/21, effective July 29, 1994, "Physical Security Standards for Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIFs) specifies in paragraph 2:
All must be stored within accredited SCIFs. Accreditaticn is the formal affirmation that the proposed facility meets physical security standards imposed by the DCI in the physical security standards manual that supplements this directive.
115. (U/ /FOUO) Headquarters Regulation (HR) 10-23, Storage of Classified Information or Materials. Section C (1)specifies:
Individual employees are responsible for securing classified information or material in their possession in designated equipment and areas when not being maintained under immediate personal control in approved work areas.
116. (U/ /FOUO) HR 10-24, "Accountability and Handling of Collateral Classified Material," prescribes the policies, procedures, and responsibilities associated with the accountability and handling of collateral classified material. The section concerning individual employee responsibilities states:
Agency personnel are responsible for ensuring that all classified material is handled in a secure manner and that unauthorized persons are not afforded access to such material.
117. (U/ /FOUO) HR 10-25, "Accountability and Handling of Classified Material Requiring Special Control," sets forth policy, responsibilities, and procedures that govern the transmission, control, and storage of Restricted Data, treaty organization information, cryptographic materials, and Sensitive Compartmented Information. The section states:
Individuals authorized access to special control materials are responsible for observing the security requirements that govern the transmission, control, and storage of said materials. Further, they are responsible for ensuring that only persons having appropriate clearances or access approvals are permitted access to such materials or to the equipment and facilities in which they are stored.
109. (U) Title 18 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 793, "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information" specifies in paragraph (f):
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing,... or information, relating to national defense ... through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
110. (U) Title 18 U.S.C. § 798, "Disclosure of classified information" specifies in part:
Whoever, knowingly and willfully ... uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States ... any classified information ... obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
111. (U) Title 18 U.S.C. § 1924, "Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material" specifies:
Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
112. (U) The National Security Act of 1947, CIA Act of 1949, and Executive Order (E.O.) 12333 establish the legal duty and responsibility of the DCI, as head of the United States intelligence community and primary advisor to the President and the National Security Council on national foreign intelligence, to protect intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure.
113. (U) Director of Central Intelligence Directive (DCID) 1/ 16, effective July 19, 1988, "Security Policy for Uniform Protection of Intelligence Processed in Automated Information Systems and Networks," reiterates the statutory authority and responsibilities assigned to the DCI for the protection of intelligence sources and methods in Section 102 of the National Security Act of 1947, E.O.s 12333 and 12356, and National Security Decision Directive 145 and cites these authorities as the basis for the security of classified intelligence, communicated or stored in automated information systems and networks.
114. (U) DCID 1/21, effective July 29, 1994, "Physical Security Standards for Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIFs) specifies in paragraph 2:
All must be stored within accredited SCIFs. Accreditaticn is the formal affirmation that the proposed facility meets physical security standards imposed by the DCI in the physical security standards manual that supplements this directive.
115. (U/ /FOUO) Headquarters Regulation (HR) 10-23, Storage of Classified Information or Materials. Section C (1)specifies:
Individual employees are responsible for securing classified information or material in their possession in designated equipment and areas when not being maintained under immediate personal control in approved work areas.
116. (U/ /FOUO) HR 10-24, "Accountability and Handling of Collateral Classified Material," prescribes the policies, procedures, and responsibilities associated with the accountability and handling of collateral classified material. The section concerning individual employee responsibilities states:
Agency personnel are responsible for ensuring that all classified material is handled in a secure manner and that unauthorized persons are not afforded access to such material.
117. (U/ /FOUO) HR 10-25, "Accountability and Handling of Classified Material Requiring Special Control," sets forth policy, responsibilities, and procedures that govern the transmission, control, and storage of Restricted Data, treaty organization information, cryptographic materials, and Sensitive Compartmented Information. The section states:
Individuals authorized access to special control materials are responsible for observing the security requirements that govern the transmission, control, and storage of said materials. Further, they are responsible for ensuring that only persons having appropriate clearances or access approvals are permitted access to such materials or to the equipment and facilities in which they are stored.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
168 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Newly released FBI documents shows Petraeus disclosures less damaging than Clinton emails [View all]
leveymg
Jun 2016
OP
It worked for Richard Bruce Cheney et. al. and now you embrace it too-how sickening.
bobthedrummer
Jun 2016
#121
It is sickening that people , wittingly or unwittingly, enable Trump.
DemocratSinceBirth
Jun 2016
#131
To some extent .. but if someone is posting negative article after negative article
SFnomad
Jun 2016
#30
No, this is the speculation of a layperson who does not understand the legal concepts
Gothmog
Jun 2016
#66
No I specifically left the definition of layperson in my previous reply to you.
Separation
Jun 2016
#140
One poster who has been beating beating this dead horse has already been flagged.
DemocratSinceBirth
Jun 2016
#33
She can't be "exonerated." The State Dept has already found she broke dozens of regulations. The
leveymg
Jun 2016
#67
I started to compile a list when the IG report came out, but didn't get even half way through.
leveymg
Jun 2016
#134
This has nothing to do with Sanders...it has everything to do with the Dem Party...
tex-wyo-dem
Jun 2016
#71
Still a lot of bitter sore losers ... guess it will take a while to get over it n/t
SFnomad
Jun 2016
#159
With 2,200 classified emails over an uncertified server, including 22 TS-SAP, that is not damaging?
leveymg
Jun 2016
#7
It was released by unauthorized people in emails to her. It was a felony for HRC to not report them.
leveymg
Jun 2016
#13
Yup! Hillary had a legal obligation to fill out spillage reports on quite a few emails
NWCorona
Jun 2016
#17
We've been through this before, you can site code section over & over, doesn't make it a violation.
Hoyt
Jun 2016
#18
Please ask your interlocutor why he won't accept my "loser leaves DU" wager.
DemocratSinceBirth
Jun 2016
#26
The acts fit the statute cited. The facts are well-known. She violated the law.
leveymg
Jun 2016
#29
You guys' interpretation of law and circumstances are wrong. I get how badly you want it to be true.
Hoyt
Jun 2016
#49
So how are those "guys'" interpretations wrong? Maybe you could be more specific...nt
tex-wyo-dem
Jun 2016
#54
Read law, but not looking for a way to pin something on Clinton. My guess, Obama would not endorse
Hoyt
Jun 2016
#111
You just keep getting wilder with BS. Read what poster told you below -- No Intent, No Indictment.
Hoyt
Jun 2016
#115
I've said for a long time that I don't expect DOJ to actually indict her. I do believe the FBI
leveymg
Jun 2016
#93
"Some Or All" Of Clinton Emails Designated SAP Referenced Public Information About U.S. Drone Strike
Gothmog
Jun 2016
#104
Actually, if you read the FBI warrant application, she had a security clearance, and she was author-
leveymg
Jun 2016
#23
I read the issue with providing classified information to his lover (security clearance or not)
DCBob
Jun 2016
#27
It doesn't really matter if either of you guys stay or go. The larger questions are:
jonno99
Jun 2016
#52
His AG, Loretta Lynch, will not indict now, even if the FBI recommends it to her.
amandabeech
Jun 2016
#96
I'm not sure if the President can pardon absent a trial or even an indictment.
amandabeech
Jun 2016
#107
The Presidential power of pardon is part of his Article II powers. He can pardon anyone, some argue
leveymg
Jun 2016
#112
1) your headline is FAKE 2) and as usual your "spin" doesn't match the article.
emulatorloo
Jun 2016
#39
This isn't LBN. It's analysis of a news article and a document. I didn't "fake" anything.
leveymg
Jun 2016
#73
Of course this isn't LBN. Doesn't make your headline any less fake. Nor does it make
emulatorloo
Jun 2016
#89
We already know a vast number of facts the FBI will confirm because the State Dept, CIA and NSA have
leveymg
Jun 2016
#95
The stuff under the *** doesn't appear in the article at all...interesting.
sharp_stick
Jun 2016
#61
Pathetic. Why is it that you can't point to a single factual assertion that is any way in error?
leveymg
Jun 2016
#83
honestly, projecting "reading comprehension issues" on to others is not a winner for you.
emulatorloo
Jun 2016
#101
As I continue to say, if you have a problem with facts, correct me. Since you don't, that's telling
leveymg
Jun 2016
#108
Your article guts and disproves your amusing theory on the need for culpable mental state
Gothmog
Jun 2016
#68
Well, I guess I'm safe then. The FBI report certainly won't "clear her of any illegal
leveymg
Jun 2016
#98
Your analysis is totally wrong yet again-this article guts your theory that no mens rea is required
Gothmog
Jun 2016
#53
Petraeus was convicted of violating Sec. 1924, which requires specific intent. He was charged w/793
leveymg
Jun 2016
#77
The Libertarian candidate for vice president and former director of the criminal division of ...
DemocratSinceBirth
Jun 2016
#78
When all you have is an animus toward Hillary Clinton and a failed candidate the whole world....
DemocratSinceBirth
Jun 2016
#90
The Espionage Act is not a strict liability law and so no indictment will be forthcoming
Gothmog
Jun 2016
#97
That is entirely about Sec. 1924, which requires intent, but in Sec. 793 "gross negligence" applies
leveymg
Jun 2016
#123
Again, the officials who actually decide these issues disagree with your vox.com "expert"
leveymg
Jun 2016
#129
I'll repeat what I said to a couple people above. This isn't LBN, it's analysis of an FBI document
leveymg
Jun 2016
#79
so did that woman who slept with Petraeus steal the recording? Article says he recorded it and it wa
Sunlei
Jun 2016
#63
Wall street crimes are a boogeyman, single payer is a unicorn, & FBI investigations involve a fairy.
think
Jun 2016
#106
+1 I'm never buying into that NEW DEMOCRAT/Clinton cult again, Voice for Peace
bobthedrummer
Jun 2016
#120
No actual damage isn't a defense under the Espionage Act. Those who raised it were convicted.
leveymg
Jun 2016
#133
I understand your point on the DUI. That's true, it's against the law to drive under the influence.
napi21
Jun 2016
#139
It is against the law, however, to place classified information on an uncertified server.
leveymg
Jun 2016
#158
I've been here a decade longer than you, and fully intend to remain for another decade. Delete yours
leveymg
Jun 2016
#138
Welcome to the Brave New World of blogging. No ink-stained wretches, just greasy keys,
leveymg
Jun 2016
#147
So you think the emails about drone strikes were the only ones on her server?
pdsimdars
Jun 2016
#165