SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
A former US Navy Seal who wrote a bestseller about his role in the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden is to pay nearly $7m (£5m) to the government for violating non-disclosure agreements.
Matt Bissonette failed to get clearance from the Pentagon before the book No Easy Day was published in 2012.
He has agreed to forfeit all profits and royalties, as well as film rights and speaking fees.
In exchange, the government will dismiss other liability claims.
Source: BBC News
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Bin Laden Raid Bestseller's Author to Pay $7m for Violating NDA
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 43 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
The last time I saw him he was walking down Lover's Lane holding his own hand.
-- Fred Allen
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 22 2016, @02:52PM
There are several instances in which Hillary and/or her immediate cohorts directed people to remove markings. I'm not doing the searches, sorry. "I can't send that to an unsecured account because it's secret." "Well, just remove the secret stamp from it!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @03:12PM
>>> the State Department doesn't have the authority to arbitrarily remove classifications.
>
> There are several instances in which Hillary and/or her immediate cohorts directed people to remove markings.
That's factually true, but deliberately misleading.
The important word you used is arbitrary.
Those directions were not arbitrary. Removing classified markings is a standard part of the santization process. [wikipedia.org] As a subject matter expert I did it myself on a regular basis.
So now we are at the point where you have been presented with facts.
Will you change your mind because you are rational?
Or will you retrench even more strongly in your false beliefs? [youarenotsosmart.com]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 22 2016, @03:21PM
The authority to "sanitize" a secret document lies with the originating agency, right? The State Department didn't generate those documents. No authority to "sanitize" or otherwise alter the secret documents.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @03:28PM
> The authority to "sanitize" a secret document lies with the originating agency, right?
No. You are confusing sanitization with declassification. But its also irrelevant because...
> The State Department didn't generate those documents.
That's incorrect too.
Are you now through trying to retrench and ready to accept the facts?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 22 2016, @05:55PM
No, I'm not retrenching - it's you who has decided that Hillary has done no wrong. Those documents DID NOT all belong to State.
And, why are you even nitpicking? No INDIVIDUAL PERSON has the right to decide what is classified, and what is not. It's a department thing. There are procedures to follow. Protocols must be followed, or you have exactly what Hillary generated - chaos.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @06:08PM
> No INDIVIDUAL PERSON has the right to decide what is classified, and what is not.
That's why prepared classified documents usually include internal (C) markers on each classified item.
But more broadly you don't know what you are talking about. You've clearly never sanitized a classified document in your life. Probably never even handled one.
Absolutely none of the evidence supports your beliefs, but the backlash effect is operating on all cylinders.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 23 2016, @12:52AM
crickets...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @03:18PM
"I can't send that to an unsecured account because it's secret." "Well, just remove the secret stamp from it!"
If you are referring to the "make it a nonpaper" email that several news (mainly conservative) agencies keep quoting... you do realize that making something a non-paper is one of the legitimate ways of making classified information unclassified, right?
It is unusual to use such a technique for internal working documents rather than correspondence with foreign governments, but it isn't per say improper handling of classified information.
It's also a moot point in that the documents in question were never actually sent via unclassified channels so at worst there was only mens res in that case and no actual res. Are we in favor of thought crime now?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @05:04PM
salve. "per se" et "mens rea," quod est totum.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @06:04PM
turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure [wikileaks.org]
Nope, the only reason to state this in such a manner is if classified information was being sent (illegally) over a non-secured channel. If the data sent was unclassified, there's no reason not to just send it via unclassified channels, and it would have no "identifying heading" e.g. classified markings.
Of course, we should just give Hillary the benefit of the doubt - after all, she's been so rigorously honest, particularly over the past four years or so... (/sarcasm)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @06:18PM
Here's the thing about your (and runaway's) line of reasoning —
If your understanding of events were correct, that would be the smoking gun that the FBI would need for an indictment. That would be proof of the willful lawbreaking that the FBI explicitly said they did not find. Not carelessness, deliberate law-breaking.
They looked at exactly the same documents you are looking at. And they did not see what you are seeing.
You, with no experience handling classified information, are able to recognize something that the FBI investigators, whose daily work involves handling classified documents, can not recognize.
And that's plausible?
No. Its witch-hunt logic. You know that bitch is guilty so you latch onto anything you think fits that narrative. And when it turns it doesn't mean what you need it to mean, all you can do is double down on it. Because the alternative is admitting that is bitch is not guilty. So maybe she's not a bitch...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @06:30PM
There are at least two avenues in this matter for indicting Hillary Clinton on criminal charges:
1. "extremely careless [youtube.com]" is synonymous with "gross negligence [cornell.edu]", which when it comes to the handling of classified data by clearance holders, is a federal crime.
2. Falure to report the mishandling of classified data is a federal crime for clearance holders. [cornell.edu]
Assuming Comey isn't a crook himself, he presumably didn't want to end up like Vince Foster: "killed himself" with two shots to the neck/head without a gun being anywhere around the site where his body was found.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @06:36PM
> Vince Foster
I think that's all the confirmation anyone needs that you are operating under witch-hunt logic.
And I can't argue with that logic!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @06:41PM
Naturally you can't argue with facts and the truth - the truth wins out over lies when both are exposed to scrutiny and the lies break down.
Of course, what difference at this point does it make?