I find it highly ironic that people (conservatives) are spewing false indignation of the security of Secretary Clinton's emails. They claim that they were not secure and that she violated national security in using a private server. They demand to know what is in some 33,000 emails.
Well, I say if those emails were and are SOOOOOO insecure, why can't they get them? Seems to me that they are about the most secure emails in email history.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
OK. I will respond because I think this can make for a good discussion on whether or not one can be held accountable for the potential of possible harm.
To start, I think that the email fuss is really reaching on the part of conservatives, who just want to spread doubt towards Hillary and her efficacy as POTUS. But to play the devil's advocate I will attempt to bring as much valid criticism as I can muster on this issue, which is a tall order to be sure.
From what I understand on the criticisms offered by conservatives and privacy advocates, the issue is that she used a public server to view and respond to classified documents that would get anyone else in serious trouble, but to not only offer my limited understanding as valid criticism I will bring someone with more credibility than I do the discussion, in an interview with Al-Jeezra Edward Snowden said:
“This is a problem,” Snowden said, “because anyone who has the clearances that the secretary of state has, or the director of any top-level agency has, knows how classified information should be handled.”
He added: “If an ordinary worker at the State Department or the CIA … were sending details about the security of embassies, which is alleged to be in her email, meetings with private government officials, foreign government officials and the statements that were made to them in confidence over unclassified email systems, they would not only lose their jobs and lose their clearance, they would very likely face prosecution for it.”
Asked if Clinton “intentionally endangered US international security by being so careless with her email”, Snowden said it was not his place to say.
He did comment on Clinton’s choice of email server, Platte River Networks.
“When the unclassified systems of the United States government, which has a full-time information security staff, regularly gets hacked, the idea that someone keeping a private server in the renovated bathroom of a server farm in Colorado is more secure is completely ridiculous,” he said.
(AL) Ok so this is me talking. I guess the question is, should Hillary Clinton be held accountable for carelessness concerning national security? Would we feel comfortable letting anyone else slide if they did the same thing? Like Paul Ryan for example?
An excerpt from Reason Magazine that address this question reads:
When the feds decided not to prosecute Hillary Clinton for her email scandal, the double standard was obvious: Whistleblowers such as Thomas Drake and Edward Snowden are hounded for how they handle classified information, while powerful people like Clinton skate. The difference isn't just that Clinton has a lot more clout than Drake or Snowden. It's that they were bringing some sunlight to secret activities that their higher-ups did not want exposed. Clinton was not doing anything of the kind, and indeed may have been using a private server precisely to avoid public scrutiny.
So on one hand, Washington can react to events like the WikiLeaks affair with a full-fledged Leak Scare, prosecuting more people and instructing employees to watch their coworkers for such supposedly suspicious behavior as "sleeping at the desk" and "expression of bizarre thoughts." Meanwhile, some of the same officials encouraging that crackdown will quietly take a leak into the press sometimes themselves. The targeted transmission of secret information is now a central if unofficial part of the political system, and it has been for a long time; it's been more than half a century since Marshall McLuhan wrote about "government by news leak," that alchemy by which "the magic flexibility of the controlled news leak" can transform a secret into a trial balloon. In the age of overclassification, some of those "controlled" leaks will be technically illegal, but whether they're treated as such will depend on who leaks them and why. "It is now almost routine," the Moynihan Secrecy Commission noted in 1997, "for American officials of unquestioned loyalty to reveal classified information as part of ongoing policy disputes—with one camp 'leaking' information in support of a particular view, or to the detriment of another—or in support of settled administration policy."
Hillary Clinton wasn't leaking anything in her emails—not on purpose, anyway—but she was operating in an environment where how classified information is handled is ultimately less important than who is handling it. When FBI Director James Comey recommended that Clinton not be prosecuted, he declared that "this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences." That may be the most cuttingly accurate assessment of the current political order that you'll hear from any American official this year.
(AL) Me again. So as we see from the statement of FBI Director James Comey, it appears that at least the FBI would not be comfortable with anyone else doing what Hillary did, so this forces us to ask the question; Is only those with no political power at all responsible for their mistakes and the unintended consequences that may or may not come about from them? Because it seems to me that is the case; and are we as Americans ok with this double standard?
@AlphaLogica
I took time before I was ready to address your post on this subject. Given the fact that you are a stickler for definitions.
One, I would like to point out that I think Snowden was courageous in pointing out the crimes of the government spying without probable cause. I would also like to point out that he failed to actually cause a change in the practice. He will forever be exiled by the threat of prosecution. He had options and he should have used them. I don't consider him a traitor, but he should have used the correct channels to reveal his concerns. There is a little-known law that protects whistleblowers. No one in the government has to obey an unlawful order. Snowden could have refused to obey a command to break the law. He should have secured council and then refused to obey an unlawful order. Next he could have gone directly to his congress person or any congress person and gave them this information. Instead, he broke the law himself. In some cases it is necessary to break the law to effect change. I don't think he needed to in this case.
Now as it relates to Secy. Clinton and her emails. Yes, she used an unsecured private server. We will never know if she exposed secret material. Therefore even if indited she would most likely not be convicted by a fair trial. Her undisclosed emails are nothing more than a political football, because the republicans can't nail her on a damned thing, and haven't for 30+ years.
I don't see the double standard. I see both cases as completely different. Snowden can't say what the government would have done, only what it has done. When the head of the FBI, a long time loyal republican, can see no reason to indite, then there must not be sufficient evidence for a conviction.
While I'm mostly unbiased in this situation, I have to ask a few questions about your OP. How do we know that conservatives are spreading false information regarding the security of Clintons emails? Also, wouldn't it be reasonable to believe that Hillary covered up most of her emails, considering the immense amount of media coverage it is getting? And, if she did, wouldn't it also be a fair assumption that at least one of those emails contained sensitive information regarding the American Government?
@Seenyab4
I didn't say that the conservatives are spreading false "information. I said that they are spewing false INDIGNATION.
As far as assumptions go, NO it isn't fair to assume anything.
As a person that has dealt with classified information, I know that determining what is classified and not classified is a very impossible thing.
1) What classification? There are several levels.
2) A whole document carries thousands of paragraphs in which many individual paragraphs are classified differently.
3) The need to know or the receiver of the message has a degree of classification as well as the sender. Many times a general's aide sends a message to a colonel that doesn't share the same clearance, BUT they have the need to know.
To make assumptions is ambiguous at best, and definitely not fair.
If you want to bring down Clinton over this you should have definite facts. Plus you could arrest the entire government, Fed, State, County, and municipal because message traffic security violations occur daily by every department and every level.
You have to prove that Secy Clinton knowingly SENT an Email through an unsecure channel that she KNEW was classified and or secret. You can't assume it at all.
But my OP was poking fun at conservatives that are hot and bothered that Hillary sent emails that anyone could get their hands on, yet they can't produce those emails. Ironic don't you think?
Haha, I do think it is quite ironic. I agree about the proving Clinton guilty part, it is very difficult thing to catch her for if at all. However, I do still believe she was very negligent with the emails. While I don't doubt your claim of handling sensitive information before, you have to remember it's not on the same level as Clintons. She has a much higher job and I don't think they would put her there without telling her what should be considered classified. Even if they didn't, wouldn't just be best to use a secure email for all emails?
These are just thoughts on my end, I'm not trying to argue the point of the OP or anything. As I have said I'm pretty indifferent on this topic. I personally believe Trump is just as bad as Hillary, and both of them should be sent adrift at sea without a paddle.
I beg to differ. Trump is a train wreck. As far as emails go, all people in government use private emails and official emails. Hillary has never ever been indited for anything. Sure she has been accused of all sorts of things to include murdering Foster ( a conservative conspiracy), but there has never ever been anything to any of the conspiracy theory accusations.
Now Trump has been indited several times and sued over 3500 times.
It seems outrageous to me to even compare Hilary Clinton to Trump. The former is at least a well-intentioned and apparently relatively honest politician. Essentially, she's a good person, whether one agrees with her politics or not and whether one regards her as competent or not. Few people find either character likable, but there is an important difference: Donald Trump is an egotist with little regard for anyone but himself.
I would worry about someone who didn't know who to trust between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Hillary is obviously far brighter than Trump too, but it seems that may count against her with nearly half the US electorate.
JMHO
My view from across the Atlantic is of awe that anybody can seriously be considering voting for the buffoon that is Donald Trump. He would just be a laughing stock if his 'policies' weren’t so a) off the wall and b) scary.
Having an irrational, sabre-rattling, paranoid Russian president on our borders, I’m alarmed at his suggestion that America wouldn’t come to NATO’s European allies’ aid. I’m in England; Latvia must be shitting themselves.
On a lighter note:
191 Things Donald Trump Has Said and Done That Make Him Unfit to Be President
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/07/dona...
For Hillary I think it's the 'perception' of corruption. There have been so many allegations thrown her way that it's now a 'if there's smoke there's fire' scenario. As for the email debacle if she had handed them over without being forced to, and had not deleted 30,000 'personal' emails then it wouldn't have been blown out of proportion. So what if her emails were appointments for enemas, no one would give a shit (pun intended). On a personal note there's something about her that I just don't like. I couldn’t name it, it's just there.
"Having an irrational, sabre-rattling, paranoid Russian president on our borders, "
After all I've done for my country and president, I can't help but be offended by that.
I completely agree, the fact she deleted the emails paints her as guilty in my mind. Whether she is or not I can't say with any actual proof, but in my personal opinion she is hiding something, after all all politicians have SOMETHING to hide. I also feel the same as you do as far as personal feeling, there's just something about her.
@Xavier
No personal offence intended. I said the same thing about George Bush and look at his legacy - 100,000 dead and the Middle East in flames. Tony Blair is the most hated man in Britain.
"After all I've done for my country and president, I can't help but be offended by that."
Americans say the same thing about US solders giving their lives in service of their country and freedoms. How is killing thousands of Iraqi citizens serving either?
Are you still in Russia? The view of Putin in Europe is very different from the propaganda issued forth from Russia Today. I used to regard RT as a credible news source until the land grab of Crimea. One of their anchors resigned on-air.
Not a lot nothing needs to be said about the invasion and occupation of the Ukraine.
Putin has instigated a major crackdown on protests. From BBC News:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37173820?intlink_from_url=http://...
----------------------------
The east European missile defence issue, from Reuters: “The United States switched on an $800 million missile shield in Romania on Thursday that it sees as vital to defend itself and Europe from so-called rogue states but the Kremlin says is aimed at blunting its own nuclear arsenal.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-shield-idUSKCN0Y30JX
“The Kremlin says the shield's aim is to neutralize Moscow's nuclear arsenal long enough for the United States to strike Russia in the event of war.” “In response, Russia is reinforcing its western and southern flanks with three new divisions.”
----------------------------
Russian submarines, from The New York Times:
“Russian attack submarines, the most in two decades, are prowling the coastlines of Scandinavia and Scotland, the Mediterranean Sea and the North Atlantic in what Western military officials say is a significantly increased presence aimed at contesting American and NATO undersea dominance.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/21/world/europe/russia-bolsters-submarine...
“Adm. Mark Ferguson, the United States Navy’s top commander in Europe, said last fall that the intensity of Russian submarine patrols had risen by almost 50 percent over the past year.”
That has allowed for a rapid Russian resurgence, Western and American officials say, partly in response to what they say is Russia’s fear of being hemmed in.
“I don’t think many people understand the visceral way Russia views NATO and the European Union as an existential threat,” Admiral Ferguson said in an interview.”
----------------------------
Russian jets, from British newspaper The Telegraph:
“RAF jets were last week scrambled for the seventh time this year to intercept Russian bombers near the UK.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11861425/russian...
“Flight numbers have [...] risen sharply over the Baltic and Eastern Europe since the Ukraine crisis began, prompting Britain and its Nato allies to send fighters to patrol Baltic airspace.”
----------------------------
Finland and Nato, from Reuters:
“President Vladimir Putin suggested on Friday Russia could move its troops closer to the Finnish-Russian border if Finland joins NATO [...]”
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-finland-nato-putin-idUSKCN0ZH5IV
“NATO perhaps would gladly fight with Russia until the last Finnish soldier," Putin said.
----------------------------
I could spend all day quoting news sources. In my opinion Russia’s future is in Nato not against it. Western sanctions, oil prices, military build up and internal political strife are pauperising your country.
I'm not saying I agree with everything my country says or does. And yes, I know our news stations are basically propaganda machines. But then what is Americas FOX News?
As for your other question, no, I do not reside in Russia any more. I moved to America for the purpose of being closer to the remainder of my family.
@mykcob4
Sorry, I seem to have inadvertently hijacked your thread.
@mislm
Hijack away. That is what it is for....discussion. You won't hurt my feelings one bit.
@Xavier
I don’t agree with most of what my government does. To me, all three major parties (one of which committed suicide) are unelectable, especially the current Conservatives.
I’m not overly familiar with FOX News, only what I see online and what people have to say about it. I do know that it doesn’t deserve the ‘News’ in its name. Its own CEO has admitted it’s an entertainment program. News Corpse says - “a roster of rabidly partisan hosts broadcasting provable lies.”
Do you agree that Putin might be a tad paranoid? I can understand being worried about Nato - he was a KGB man and the USSR and Nato were cold war enemies for a long time. Being worried about the EU is pushing it. The European Union is such a mess they couldn’t organise a farting competition without 28 different countries trying to work out who has the loudest fart and what would be in it for the quietest farters. And I voted to stay in it :)
I’m totally support Russia being in Syria, they were invited in by the legitimate government. The western powers should pull out, they’re only there to support the rebels and oust Al-Assad.
@mykcob4
Being a military man I’m surprised you didn’t have anything to say about my comments regarding Americans serving their country.
Anyway, to try and pull this thread back on track, I think that Trump has been somewhat treasonous asking a foreign country (Russia or any other) to hack the emails of a fellow presidential candidate. (I don’t know if it’s possible to be ‘somewhat treasonous'.) As the OP asks - if they are so insecure, why ask Russia to do what they can't?
Yes. I can agree that he is paranoid. Yes, I can agree that the EU part of said paranoia is undue. I just wish he was more concerned with the gaping holes in the air defence line near North Korea.
@mislam
I didn't comment on it because I just didn't get around to read it.
As a 22 year veteran, I have been many places and told I was fighting for my country. The truth is that seldom does anyone fight FOR their country directly. Mostly one fights for the interest or political interest of their country. In WWI and WWII in Korea, The USA fought for their country. After that, there has seldom been a battle or war that was a direct action to fight for one's country. Now in almost every instance I have fought for the general ideology of my nation, and for humanity.
I disagree that Syria is a legitimate government or that Russia should be there, or that the US should not be involved. If you leave things up to tyrants and dictators you destroy human rights. I think the US should be far more engaged, should force Russia out of Syria and the Crimea, and dismantle the Syrian government. I think that there should be an American occupation force in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan for at least 20 years. This will allow a generation to be educated in the ways of peace and self-government and equal rights. We can draw on experiences from the Marshall Plan to do it correctly. You can't just create a vacuum and then expect the best outcome.
As much as the patriot in me wants to disagree, I have to say I agree with forcing Russia out of Syria........you have no idea how hard admitting that was for me.
@mykcob4
I agree with forcing Russia out of Crimea (and Ukraine while we’re at it.) It’s obvious that there are many reasons why Russia is in Syria - Mediterranean bases and ports being one of them. I’ve just read up about al-Assad’s father - I didn’t realise he had taken power in a coup. So yes I agree he’s not the legit leader, which means Russia needs to go.
@Xavier
Can I ask what your reasoning is?
@mykcob4
I also agree with leaving occupation forces in Iraq and Afghanistan for the reasons stated, but isn’t it a case of ‘cleaning up our own mess’. As for Syria, at what point do we stop ‘regime changing’ and ‘nation building’? We did that with Libya only we left out the ‘nation building’ part and look at the mess we left there - competing governments, civil war and an ISIS presence. As you said - you can't just create a vacuum and then expect the best outcome.
Reasoning for what?
@mislam
Long ago FDR realized that the USA would not only win the war but would be left with a mess. As early as 1942 he began initializing programs that would rebuild not only the liberated nations but also the conquered ones. His insight was taken from the mistakes of WW I which left conquered nations abandoned and therefore a future threat to peace.
We can do this again with the same respect to the people of those lands. Thus building strong nations that would be assets to the world and strong allies, as Germany and Japan are.