|
|
Post by peterd on Dec 18, 2011 16:17:19 GMT -8
Manning case: Army 'failed to spot Wikileaks danger' Lawyers defending a US soldier accused of leaking government secrets say his supervisors failed to recognise his troubled emotional state and revoke his access to classified information. www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16239198 |
|
|
|
Post by peterd on Dec 18, 2011 16:19:02 GMT -8
Prosecution to Present its Case Against Manning The prosecution is laying out its charges against the young soldier blamed for the largest leak of classified material in American history in a case that may hinge on whether the U.S. government overzealously stamped "secret" on material posing no national security risk. The long-awaited military court case against Army Pfc. Bradley Manning, the accused source for the WikiLeaks website's trove of U.S. military and diplomatic secrets, is moving ahead. The defense requested that the presiding officer, Lt. Col. Paul Almanza, step aside because of alleged bias. Almanza, an Army Reserve lieutenant colonel and Justice Department prosecutor, rejected the request and refused to suspend the hearing pending an appeal. www.military.com/news/article/prosecution-to-present-its-case-against-manning.html?comp=700001075741&rank=6 |
|
|
|
Post by chillyd on Dec 18, 2011 19:27:17 GMT -8
This is only the Article 32 investigation.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterd on Dec 19, 2011 17:57:27 GMT -8
Army Traces Alleged WikiLeaker's Digital Footprints When digital-crimes investigator David Shaver combed through two work computers used by an Army private accused of spilling hefty U.S. secrets, he got an eyeful, according to his testimony to a military hearing. On one computer, the special agent said, were more than 10,000 U.S. diplomatic cables and other tightly held government information. On the other, he said, was evidence that someone had been vigorously searching the Internet to find out about WikiLeaks and its founder. The government connected those dots in its case accusing Pfc. Bradley Manning of committing traitorous leaks from his perch as an intelligence analyst in Baghdad. Shaver's testimony Sunday provided the first hard evidence linking Manning to the unauthorized release of hundreds of thousands of documents that ended up on WikiLeaks, the anti-secrecy website. www.military.com/news/article/army-traces-alleged-wikileakers-digital-footprints.html?comp=700001075741&rank=8 |
|
|
|
Post by Sailor on Dec 20, 2011 10:59:59 GMT -8
"Lawyers defending a US soldier accused of leaking government secrets say his supervisors failed to recognise his troubled emotional state and revoke his access to classified information."Bullshit. His lawyers want to make Manning the victim here because the government has so hogtied the security managers that they couldn't move to revoke his clearances without risking serious backlash of their own. It used to be suspicion of being a homosexual, a drug user or having emotional issues that could make you vulnerable or reckless was enough to get clearances suspended. Nowadays you could almost get caught in bed with a live little boy, dead little girl or show up for work with a heroin needle stuck in your arm and a joint between your teeth and not have to worry about your clearance getting suspended temporarily or revoked permanently. Sorry about the rant (not really  ) but I used to be a security manager and Special Security Officer in my former life. I wouldn't even think about getting back into it under the rules they have now. I considered it recently, the Navy and Coast Guard opened up a couple of positions at the GS-11 level in Chesapeake doing what I did as an E-6. The consideration was very brief. 
|
|
|
|
Post by warrior1972 on Dec 29, 2011 8:51:36 GMT -8
The man was supposed to undergo psychatric analysis BEFORE he was granted a security clearance.
In the entire time I had a Top Secret-SBI, SCI, and the old SSIR clearances, I NEVER had a supervisor who was a licensed psycologist.
Oh yeah, they had certain responsibilities in terms of monitoring my behavior. But they were NOT responsible for revoking my security clearance every time I didn't act like a model NCO.
How about a discussion about PFC MANNING'S Goddamned responsibilities, the oath he took, the training he received, and the fact that all he had to do if HE was concerned about his "troubled emoitional state" being a liabilty to his ability to perform the duties that his security clearance required was to advise one of those same supervisors about his concerns, and he would have been relieved of that clearance and his duties practically on the spot?
I SAW people do it, and saw them relieved of their clearance. No harm, no foul.
Oh, wait, these are Manning's defense attorneys trying to cop a plea, and blame the military because their client is the biggest security leak since John Walker, who got LIFE IN A SUPERMAX PRISON, with the possibility of parole being a very poor April Fool's joke.
My, how times have changed....
|
|
|
|
Post by chillyd on Dec 29, 2011 10:51:08 GMT -8
Still think they should have sent that boy to the 11 Bang Gang, carry a 75-pound ruck & find IEDs. |
|
|
|
Post by Sailor on Dec 29, 2011 16:37:16 GMT -8
The man was supposed to undergo psychatric analysis BEFORE he was granted a security clearance. In the entire time I had a Top Secret-SBI, SCI, and the old SSIR clearances, I NEVER had a supervisor who was a licensed psycologist. Then you're familiar with what I was saying. I was a security manager, did personnel screenings and made initial determinations for TS, SCI, Communications and Nuke Weaps as well as putting together the initial investigations packages (DD 398 et al.) How much formal psychological training did I receive? About this much (holds index finger and thumb together.) There are, however, several levels of processing and screening and investigation that every candidate and his package go through for TS etc clearances. The system though isn't perfect and bad apples get through, Manning was one such as was Mr Walker earlier though Walker (to my knowledge) never had access to SCI. They were instructed on the rules and regs and federal law, reminded of them regularly and made the conscious decision to disregard them.Your chain of command has the authority to suspend access at any time and for any reason shipmate. I've done it, twice temporarily for youngsters who f*cked up (and happily recommended to the CO they be reinstated after they got it all back in one sock) and once for a shipmate recommending permanent revocation who couldn't stay out of the G.D. bottle and who put another shipmate on permanent disability during a DWI wreck. That one occured on his third fall, the first two prior to my arrival aboard ship. In all three cases my authority was positional in nature, authorized by the ship's Captain and my immediate boss (the SSO.) Yeah, no shit. IMHO Manning is guilty as all hell and and also IMHO if found guilty should spend the rest of his miserable life in a small, cold cell with no nonessential amenities and as little contact with the outside world as is workable. |
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on Dec 29, 2011 22:05:59 GMT -8
They can hang the little puke for all I care.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterd on Dec 30, 2011 5:48:17 GMT -8
He will learn to make plenty of license plattes in Leavenworth
|
|
|
|
Post by Sailor on Dec 30, 2011 7:04:22 GMT -8
He will learn to make plenty of license plattes in Leavenworth I don't want him to have even that much contact with the world. Since we can't hang or shoot the little bastard I want him to live the life of a traitor. Isolation, small cold cell, bland meals in isolation, no internet, no tv, no radio, no amenities except a bunk with a thin mattress, thin blanket, a toilet and a sink with no hot water. I want him treated with the contempt he showed the rest of us with his betrayal. |
|
|
|
Post by warrior1972 on Dec 30, 2011 7:35:23 GMT -8
"Your chain of command has the authority to suspend access at any time and for any reason shipmate."
Yes, I know, but having said that, clearances were not revoked every time somebody sneezed. If they were, you would not have very many people with security clearances.
It is left up to the judgement of that same chain of command to use discretion in the exercising of the authority they wield, and such a revocation is not taken lightly.
Those clearances cost money, you know?
I'd guess that almost half a million dollars was spent on security investigations and background checks on me alone.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterd on Dec 30, 2011 9:07:31 GMT -8
Same here Warrior. However during my time in the Intell service I saw people who got security clearance who never should.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sailor on Dec 30, 2011 22:07:04 GMT -8
Same here Warrior. However during my time in the Intell service I saw people who got security clearance who never should. I think all of us have at one time or another Pete. Warrior, I know how much the investigations used to cost. If you were the subject of an SBI (Special Background Investigation) around the same time I was, the initial investigation ran right around $50K, perhaps more depending upon how much field work was needed. The police and agency file checks required for up to Secret or an interim TS usually ran right around $8k (the file checks were still labor instensive in the early 70s.) Now the checks are run electronically as much as possible with as little field work as DIS can get away with but the cost of that field work as exploded geometrically. I wouldn't care to guess how much a full blown SBI would cost today. And no, security clearances weren't suspended or revoked for every little thing, granted. The two minor ones I mentioned were petty larceny shipboard (the idiot got caught jimmying a vending machine) and the other was another kid with an alcohol problem. In both cases these dummies worked directly for me, the larceny while I was acting division officer (E-6 filling in for an O-3 who got appointed as the shipyard daycare officer.) The first was a year earlier after I came aboard as LPO of the Intel Center right after we got home from Desert Storm. I couldn't ignore the problems. My call, in both cases they got straightened out and I got them reinstated. I finally lost touch with them about a year after I retired and the Nassau went to the Persian Gulf again and they were still straight at that point. |
|
|
|
Post by warrior1972 on Dec 31, 2011 5:57:33 GMT -8
Same here Warrior. However during my time in the Intell service I saw people who got security clearance who never should. I think all of us have at one time or another Pete. Warrior, I know how much the investigations used to cost. If you were the subject of an SBI (Special Background Investigation) around the same time I was, the initial investigation ran right around $50K, perhaps more depending upon how much field work was needed. The police and agency file checks required for up to Secret or an interim TS usually ran right around $8k (the file checks were still labor instensive in the early 70s.) Now the checks are run electronically as much as possible with as little field work as DIS can get away with but the cost of that field work as exploded geometrically. I wouldn't care to guess how much a full blown SBI would cost today. And no, security clearances weren't suspended or revoked for every little thing, granted. The two minor ones I mentioned were petty larceny shipboard (the idiot got caught jimmying a vending machine) and the other was another kid with an alcohol problem. In both cases these dummies worked directly for me, the larceny while I was acting division officer (E-6 filling in for an O-3 who got appointed as the shipyard daycare officer.) The first was a year earlier after I came aboard as LPO of the Intel Center right after we got home from Desert Storm. I couldn't ignore the problems. My call, in both cases they got straightened out and I got them reinstated. I finally lost touch with them about a year after I retired and the Nassau went to the Persian Gulf again and they were still straight at that point. I just wish they had handed me the money,and told me to keep my mouth shut. I wouldn't have said a word...  |
|
) but I used to be a security manager and Special Security Officer in my former life. I wouldn't even think about getting back into it under the rules they have now. I considered it recently, the Navy and Coast Guard opened up a couple of positions at the GS-11 level in Chesapeake doing what I did as an E-6. The consideration was very brief. 
