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This discussion has been archived.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.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 22 2016, @11:53AM
I thought the deal really sucked. But, he's lucky he wasn't prosecuted for exposing classified information.
Now, if the government would only go after Hillary. Just take away her damned foundation, and make a deal with her to withdraw from public life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlB4hY71nI4 [youtube.com]
Tell your mama, tell your pa
I'm gonna send you back to Arkansas
Oh yes, ma'm, you don't do right, don't do right
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @12:25PM
> he's lucky he wasn't prosecuted for exposing classified information.
> Now, if the government would only go after Hillary. Just take away her damned foundation, and make a deal with her to withdraw from public life.
You are right, it is totally the same thing. 3 email messages that contained lines from her own phone schedule, at least two of which were improperly still marked with a "(C)" despite having been declassified, is the entire basis of the clinton foundation. That bitch! Lock her up!!!
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @01:42PM
... among ~107 other known-classified-when-sent emails, along with seven email chains containing Special Access Program information.
If you disagree with this, you're not disagreeing with me, but with James Comey's public statements [youtube.com].
Hillary Clinton and pals were "extremely careless [youtube.com]" (aka grossly negligent) in their handling of classified information, appear to have broken federal law [cornell.edu] on the matter (18 USC 793 (f)), and now serve as examples that the Rule of Law is well and truly dead as any working-class peon in the same circumstances would already be rotting in federal prison.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @01:49PM
> among ~107 other known-classified-when-sent emails, along with seven email chains containing Special Access Program information.
Yes classified-when-sent-to-her
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 22 2016, @02:08PM
Right - and the State Department doesn't have the authority to arbitrarily remove classifications. That is, Hillary had no authority to remove classifications, and/or classified markings.
Couple that with the fact that the Clinton Foundation benefitted from a few gentle words here and there from the shrew herself, and only a blind person or a fool can fail to see corruption in office.
Remember, the world had largely forgotten about Bill until Hillary was appointed to office. Then, he became valuable, because he could tell Hillary what to say to whom, to be rewarded with astounding bribery sums.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @02:36PM
> Right - and the State Department doesn't have the authority to arbitrarily remove classifications.
No one is saying she did.
Well, it seems you are saying that she did.
But no one in a position to know is saying that.
The people who sent her unmarked classified material didn't even have security clearances. Who gave it to them?
(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?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @03:17PM
So what you're saying is that since somebody can't control what somebody else sends to them, it's probably a good idea to maintain a clear separation between work and personal and do all work stuff on authorized systems. It would also be prudent, I would think, but not having a security clearance myself somebody feel free to correct me, if classified information is received on the personal account to follow the policies and procedures to report that.
I don't know. Like I said, I don't have a security clearance. So I'm probably just an idiot spouting off crap on the internet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @03:24PM
Whether uncleared people send you classified material at your office email server or your own email server makes no practical difference. Both systems are unclassified, and in both cases the email was sent to you unencrypted over the public internet.
So nope, that's not what I am saying at all.
> So I'm probably just an idiot spouting off crap on the internet.
I am definitely saying that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @05:14PM
GP here. Ah ok. My next question is then, are there procedures in place for receiving classified information? Were they followed?
As a crypto-nerd, it does generally frustrate me that people continue to send sensitive information over email without encryption.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @05:43PM
> My next question is then, are there procedures in place for receiving classified information? Were they followed?
When classified information is discovered on an unclassified system there is a full-blown process for tracing its distribution and scrubbing (if not out-right destroying) any contaminated systems.
However, and this is key, that requires recognition of the information's classified status. If its unmarked, as was the case with all of the email that clinton received, it is unrealistic to expect her to recognize it as classified. That's especially true of the stuff sourced from signals intelligence because it is often classified to avoid revealing sources, not the content irself. For example, information collected on a wiretap may not be sensitive at all, but the wiretap itself is top secret. If you just see the information without mention of the wiretap you won't know its classified - only the people whose conversation was tapped would recognize the existence of the wiretap from disclosure of the information discussed in the tapped conversation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @06:35PM
Dead wrong. The very existence of the information produced from a wiretap could be used to discover the wiretap, which is why information from/about HUMINT sources is classified so highly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @06:09PM
Not just prudent - failure for a clearance-holder to report mishandled classified info even if they're the one to receive it via an improper channel is a federal crime
from 18 USC 793 (f) [cornell.edu]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @05:55PM
Irrelevant. When classified information is moved outside of proper, secured areas, it is the duty of clearance holders to report the mishandled classified data immediately - failure to do so is a federal crime.
I already posted the link and cited the section in the grandparent, but since you ignored it the first time, here it is again: 18 USC 793 (f) [cornell.edu]
I'm ready for Hillary's ten years!
(Score: 2) by gidds on Wednesday August 24 2016, @12:29PM
Could anyone explain to this non-American what all the fuss is over these supposed emails?
From the outside, it looks like the sort of pointless criticism they fall back on when they can't find anything substantial.
I could see why people might disagree with Hillary's politics, with the people she chooses to appoint, with her potential conflicts of interest, with what she's likely to do if she gets into power, and especially with what the practical effects might be on ordinary people (which is really what people should be basing their vote on). But to concentrate on something so apparently petty and inconsequential seems little more than childish name-calling.
In fact, it seems directly comparable to all the claims that Obama's ineligible for President because of where he was born (or some such). (The main difference being that, AIUI, those claims have been disproved many times, while the email issue seems less clear-cut.)
Do people seriously think that by harping on about these emails, that fewer people will vote for her? Or is it just an (ineffectual) way of venting their frustrations with her party affiliation or other qualities?
[sig redacted]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 23 2016, @09:02AM
Have you even looked through the 15k new emails that were discovered?
We're really really super sure this time that we gave over all the documents the court asked for, promise.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Monday August 22 2016, @02:42PM
Ray Charles! I had no idea where Mike Lange had got that line from.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Monday August 22 2016, @03:06PM
Well, I still think it sucks. Would he really of gotten fines\jail time worse than $7m if they charged him based on the damage he did, instead of taking away all his profits?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 22 2016, @03:25PM
Depends on how much he values his freedom. Threatened with a month in jail, I'd go to jail before surrendering millions of dollars. Threatened with a year or two in Club Fed, I may well opt for the vacation time. Threatened with a decade in a maximum security prison, rubbing shoulders with violent criminals, I'd probably let the government have my money.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @12:15PM
Yep, you just can't contest rule 34.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by digitalaudiorock on Monday August 22 2016, @01:51PM
Maybe he'd have stayed out of trouble if he just told a bunch of lies like the ones the CIA fed to the makers of Zero Dark Thirty [pbs.org] instead?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bradley13 on Monday August 22 2016, @02:08PM
He neglected to submit his book to the government, so that they could flag any inappropriate information. As far as I can tell, no one ever asserted that the book did contain classified information, only that he failed to submit it for review. Indeed, the fact that the prosecutors "ultimately agreed it wasn't criminal" [washingtonpost.com] tends to indicate that there was no problem with classified information.
So it comes down to a civil liability due to his violation of the NDA. I wonder: is it usual, in such a case, for the aggrieved party to claim the entire proceeds? According to a knowledgeable-sounding entry on reddit [soylentnews.org]:
For an NDA, only the actual and, depending on the nature of the information, speculative damages caused by the breach are generally enforceable. Courts won't enforce punitive damages on non-disclosures unless the conduct constituting the breach is extreme (malicious and done for personal gain) and falls under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
It's hard to imagine what $7 million of monetary damages the government could claim. It seems more likely that this was a case of blackmail: "accept this settlement, or we'll bankrupt you with legal fees".
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @02:28PM
It's either gross negligence or gross incompetence on both the author and the publisher for not submitting the book. That is SOP and has been for decades. As a Special OPs guy, he should have known better, and the publisher really should have known better. Particularly after that whole Special OPs video game thing that happened not too long before.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @02:44PM
Maybe he got some hot chicks out of it. Lots of loudmouth guys in the bar claim they were SEALs and whatnot.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @04:29PM
So it comes down to a civil liability due to his violation of the NDA. I wonder: is it usual, in such a case, for the aggrieved party to claim the entire proceeds?
That's the wrong question to ask. The correct question is "what was the NDA which was signed"?
The answer is this one. It says:
5. I hereby assign to the United States Government all royalties, remunerations, and emoluments that have resulted, will result or may result from any disclosure, publication, or revelation of classified information not consistent with the terms of this Agreement.
That seems fairly clear to me.
Just because a Reddit link sounds knowledgeable (I can't tell, your link seems to be broken) doesn't mean it is either knowledgably or correct. Such a statement could equally apply to my post, as IANAL/etc.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @03:38PM
Many people are suggesting that this is the government "blackmailing" or otherwise threatening the former Navy Seal. This is not correct, and this is a complete non-story. See Government form SF312: CLASSIFIED INFORMATION NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT [archives.gov].
I'm assuming this person made an agreement with the government prior to receiving classified information. (Or do you really think the government would say "hey, here, have this Top Secret info, no strings attached.") Now see clause 5:
5. I hereby assign to the United States Government all royalties, remunerations, and emoluments that have resulted, will result or may result from any disclosure, publication, or revelation of classified information not consistent with the terms of this Agreement.
If there is a news story here, it is that the government is limiting the expense to the ~$7million, rather than targeting everything.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @05:52PM
From TFS:
He has agreed to forfeit all profits and royalties, as well as film rights and speaking fees.
So it's not "just" 7 megabucks, though I'm not sure how close it is to "everything" either. I assume the 7 million roughly corresponds to the money he's already got from it...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @03:50PM
He thought he'd write a book and have easy days. Not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 22 2016, @03:52PM
All SEALs know that The Only Easy Day Was Yesterday.
(Score: 1) by segwonk on Wednesday August 24 2016, @11:31PM
How is it possible the book's publisher didn't have lawyers on this *before* it was published?
.......go til ya know.