
Citing Clinton, sailor seeks leniency in submarine photos case - kafkaesq
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/08/sailor-seeks-leniency-in-submarine-photos-case-by-citing-clinton-226995
======
doug1001
so a sailor stationed on a US Navy nuclear submarine is facing four to five
years in prison (and a dishonorable discharge) for taking six photos from
inside the submarine. The subject of the photos--the propulsion system--seems
alarming until you read a little later how "uninteresting" the photos actually
are--ie, the US Navy classified each of the six as either "confidential" or
"restricted".

i reviewed thousands of classified documents during time in the service--
ts/sci and everything below it. So first, i should think anyone who has
handled classified information quickly realizes the strong inflation in
security designation--makes sense though because no one wants to under-
classify a document, better to be conservative. Second, "confidential" is the
lowest category of classified information and very few documents/messages in
that category ever seemed to me not already general public knowledge. Third,
while some of the six photos were classified "confidential"\--the lowest
classification; others (we aren't told how many) were deemed "restricted".
"Restricted" is not a classified category--it's about the same as "for
official use only". Once more, this is the US Navy's own security designation
of those photos. (By contrast, Clinton's email server contained _eight_ email
chains classified top secret, while many chains having a lower security
designation, were found.

That said, if i were a sailor on board a nuclear submarine i can't imagine i
would ever point a camera anywhere near the propulsion system; but if i did, i
would expect little mercy even if i photographed nothing whatever classified.
The Captain has sufficient authority in an instance like that to bust the
sailor down to E-1, fine him six months pay, and throw him in the brig for a
month or two--just for being reckless, again, even if there is no breach of
classified information.

~~~
kafkaesq
It certainly wasn't a very smart thing to do.

But I think the main point of the article was "different rules for them than
for us."

~~~
x0x0
Yes, but the article is deceptive. The sailor:

1 - took photos of classified materiel;

2 - admitted he knew that they were classified and that he wasn't authorized
to possess them;

3 - after being confronted by law enforcement, destroyed evidence

Clinton

1 - at worst only accidentally had classified material;

2 - the state department disagrees with the cia/nsa over whether the 110
documents that were unmarked yet classified at the time of sending/receipt
should have been so classified;

3 - did not destroy evidence.

A far better comparison is General Petraeus. He [1]

* was a 4-star general;

* knowingly gave classified information to someone not authorized to possess it;

* lied to the fbi (a felony all on its own, even if what you lied about wasn't a crime! Never ever talk to the fbi without your lawyer. For any reason.)

* committed adultery

Petraeus got probation, a $100k fine, and to keep his rank (which controls
retirement benefits.)

The differences, as the fbi director pointed out when discussing Clinton,
revolve around knowingly taking classified material and lying/destroying
evidence. One has to conclude the lawyer used Clinton to be sensational rather
than as a genuine comparison.

[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-
checker/wp/2016/02/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-
checker/wp/2016/02/24/why-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-petraeus-leak-are-not-
really-alike/)

~~~
the_trapper
> 3 - did not destroy evidence.

Like with a cloth?

Let me correct that for you, Clinton attempted to destroy evidence but was
incompetent at it.

~~~
x0x0
She was not under investigation at the time, and none of the emails she
deleted ended up being responsive. It's in no way the same as destroying
documents or digital storage after the police/fbi talk to you. Even according
to Comey, there is no evidence the emails were deleted in an attempt to
conceal information [1].

[1] [http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-
meter/article/2016/jul/19/...](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-
meter/article/2016/jul/19/politifact-sheet-hillary-clintons-email-controvers/)

~~~
the_trapper
Let's be honest with ourselves here. Director Comey isn't exactly impartial
here. His boss (President Obama) has a vested interest in a positive outcome
for Hillary, and therefore, so does he.

For the record, I'm not saying that he did anything improper regarding this
investigation, I'm just saying that he is hardly a neutral third party in
this.

~~~
x0x0
Feel free to revisit Comey's interactions with George Bush re: nsa wiretapping
to see if Obama could intimidate him. If he said Obama didn't interfere, we
should take him at his word.

------
tomcam
It is perfectly logical, an unintended consequence of Secretary Clinton's
actions. When you downvote, please tell me why I'm wrong.

~~~
aaron695
Downvoted because you shouldn't complain about downvoting, read guidelines.

Personally I find it a particular bad form of karma whoring. You are saying it
to get karma.

By implying people will downvote you, you are implying people disagree without
any evidence at all.

But inexperienced people take this as a given and will upvote you even if they
only partially agree with you because you have fooled them into thinking most
people totally disagree with you, it's a clever scam that works. Hence I
believe the guidelines.

~~~
tomcam
Thank you! Did not know about the perfectly logical prohibition on such
complaints. I shall avoid it in the future. Was definitely not karma whoring,
FWIW-- I fully expected an avalanche of downvotes. Appreciate the education,
though not the assumption of guilt. I upvoted your comment and would have
downvoted my own if I could.

