sacase Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 I hate doing this but I had to pull out the classification guides. JMS, read DODI 5200.1 This is CURRENT DOD policy as of 2008. http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/520001p.pdf SBU is not a classification marking. You made a comment that Embassy cables are not seen on DOD message traffic. They are there all the time. I have read many of them. Here is the full scoop. I pulled the old 5200.1-R and here is a reference to SBU AP3.3. SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED (SBU) AND LIMITED OFFICIAL USE (LOU) INFORMATION AP3.3.1. Description. Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) information is information originated within the Department of State that warrants a degree of protection and administrative control and meets the criteria for exemption from mandatory public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (reference (g)). Before May 26, 1995, this information was designated and marked "Limited Official Use (LOU)." The LOU designation will no longer be used. AP3.3.2. Markings. The Department of State does not require that SBU information be specifically marked, but does require that holders be made aware of the need for controls. When SBU information is included in DoD documents, they shall be marked as if the information were For Official Use Only. There is no requirement to remark existing material containing SBU information. AP3.3.3. Access to SBU Information. Within the Department of Defense, the criteria for allowing access to SBU information are they same as those used for FOUO information. AP3.3.4. Protection of SBU Information. Within the Department of Defense, SBU information shall be protected as required for FOUO information. But that is all a moot point since the DODI changed all of that anyways. SBU=FOUO which means it can be transmitted over NIPRNET. Additionally, there is no speical SBU network. You have obviously been proven wrong about NSA, DIRNSA was my former commander and I am pretty sure General Alexander is a Army General still, but just to rub it in a little more from the NSA's own website, I give you.... http://www.nsa.gov/about/index.shtml The National Security Agency/Central Security Service (NSA/CSS) is home to America's codemakers and codebreakers. The National Security Agency has provided timely information to U.S. decision makers and military leaders for more than half a century. The Central Security Service was established in 1972 to promote a full partnership between NSA and the cryptologic elements of the armed forces. NSA/CSS is unique among the U.S. defense agencies because of our government-wide responsibilities. NSA/CSS provides products and services to the Department of Defense, the Intelligence Community, government agencies, industry partners, and select allies and coalition partners. In addition, we deliver critical strategic and tactical information to war planners and war fighters. Even if the information is Unclassified he can be prosecuted. It is all about intent, that is the hardest part that prosecutors have to prove, but there is little doubt as to his intent so basically he is screwed. At this point who knows what they are doing with the investigation. There are plenty of possibilities going on such as trying to fully identify any others involved in the case. CI cases typically take a long time to develop when they are trying to identify networks. Additionally, failure to report suspicious incidents would also get other soldiers in trouble as well, which is another issue they could be exploring. Plenty of folks here are trying to help you out and educate you as to what is going on. Obviously they have direct experience into the IC and the UCMJ. If I was you I would just apologize and take the beat down you just got handed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Dear God, could we get a little OPSEC in this thread? Please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Dear God, could we get a little OPSEC in this thread?Please I am done with him. He has all the info he needs to educate himself if he chooses to actually read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Dear God, could we get a little OPSEC in this thread?Please Oh no, do we have to have a discussion on what is OPSEC and what isn't? Really don't see anything that is an OPSEC concern Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 This thread is overflowing with acronyms... I suspect that is part of the classified system. Seriously, I'm just swimming in seemingly random letters. I also learned a bunch. Thanks RD and sacase, and Westbrook et al. I do find the arrogance of those on the outside trying to correct those with decades of real experience in these matters a trifle ridiculous. I respect your patience. I'm sure you've had to have it for me to on occassion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 This thread is overflowing with acronyms... I suspect that is part of the classified system. Seriously, I'm just swimming in seemingly random letters.I also learned a bunch. Thanks RD and sacase, and Westbrook et al. I do find the arrogance of those on the outside trying to correct those with decades of real experience in these matters a trifle ridiculous. I respect your patience. I'm sure you've had to have it for me to on occassion I've delibrately stayed out of this thread until you mentioned acronyms. It's a pet pieve of mine. Acronyms are like a terrible desease that has inflicted the military and unfortunately are now spreading to the civilian world. Resist them. If you have a subordinate that proposes or invents one, fire him. They are a crippling affliction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted March 10, 2011 Author Share Posted March 10, 2011 I hate doing this but I had to pull out the classification guides. JMS, read DODI 5200.1 This is CURRENT DOD policy as of 2008. http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/520001p.pdf And since we are speaking of SBU State Department Cables, Here is the State Department Foreign Affairs Manual for Diplomatic Security dated Feb, 2011 defining SBU for unclassified designation. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/88404.pdf Which post dates your DoD Policy statement from 2008 by three years... Finally here is one of the diplomatic cables which was leaked in Wiki leaks clearly marked SBU over and over and over again (see the link, I just posted the first such designation). Cable from Tuesday, 08 September 2009, 05:22. EU PRESIDENCY; WANTS TO LAUNCH U.S.-EU ALERNATIVE ENERGY PARTNERSHIP AT U.S.-EU SUMMIT This is an Action request. Please see para 2. 1. (SBU) Summary: On September 2, Deputy Prime Minister Olofsson pressed for the strong U.S.-Sweden cooperation in alternative technology to show results. She urged a ministerial-level U.S. official come to the October 14-16 Informal meeting of EU Competitiveness Ministers to present U.S. efforts to transform the United States into an eco-efficient economy -- or another event during the Presidency. Olofsson's State Secretary Altera explained that Sweden wants to expand the U.S.-EU alternative energy partnership to the EU level, and needs to work intensely to launch this effort at the US-EU summit planned for early November. The meeting ended with a conversation of the challenge of convincing young people not to share files illegally via the Internet. End Summary. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/223962 SBU is not a classification marking. Which is wrong, and I've shown is wong. You are arguing that SBU designation doesn't exist for diplomatic cables clearly marked SBU and using a DoD circular as proof... :doh: You made a comment that Embassy cables are not seen on DOD message traffic. They are there all the time. I have read many of them. Then I will bow to your empirical knowledge on this point because I have never seen and have no knowledge of such for SBU cables. I will note that the State Department runs their own global secure networks for SBU diplomatic cables and thus has no need to use THE SIPRNet!!. ( Cables are a state department fancy way of saying email). OPENNET and OPENNET+ both for unclass SBU data, link every American embassy and consulate domestically and internationally. The State Department runs ClassNet for classified data. Most embassies have military attache's. Maybe you saw their reports on DoD networks? Although that's hard to believe because emails don't typically just sit around for anybody to see on any DoD or State Dept network. Coarse I don't know your cercumstances so I will just roll my eyes and move on noting that the diplomatic cables in question at wikileaks don't seem to come from military attache's but rather civilian state dept folks doing their every day jobs. Observing and reporting. OpenNet According to the U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual, "OpenNet is a physical and logical Internet Protocol (IP)-based global network that links the Department of State's Local Area Networks (LANs) domestically and abroad. The physical aspect of the network uses DTS circuits for posts abroad, FTS-2001-provided circuits, leased lines, and dial-up public switch networks. This includes interconnected hubs, routers, bridges, switches, and cables. The logical aspect of the network uses Integrated Enterprise Management System (NMS) and TCP/IP software, and other operational network applications. OpenNet is a Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) network, which supports e-mail and data applications."[4] OpenNet+OpenNet+ is described for State Department use as using standard .state.gov domain names, which must be requested through a State Department intranet site at http://intranet.state.gov/ds3081 . Web site development cannot be done on machines directly connected to this network. The "www" prefix is not to be used on OpenNet+, as it is reserved for use on the Internet.[5] ClassNet- ClassNet domain names for the State Department take the form ".state.sgov.gov". Web pages for ClassNet may be developed on a "classified workstation". "Any workstation used for development purposes may not serve as the operational repository of images, files, or other information associated with a Web site."[5] ClassNet is used for telecommunications, and its use is promoted by the Business Center Division.[4] Two versions of the State Messaging and Archival Retrieval Tool set (SMART) database were created, one with a maximum rating of Sensitive but Unclassified (SBU) for OpenNet+, and one with a top rating of Secret for ClassNet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_website Additionally, there is no speical SBU network. Sombody should tell that to DISA's Network Services. NIPRNet is for Sensitive but Unclassified dataDefense Information Systems Agency ( DISA's) words not mine. NIPRNet: The Unclassified but Sensitive Internet Protocol (IP) Router Network (NIPRNet) is a global long-haul IP based network to support unclassified IP data communications services for combat support applications to the Department of Defense (DoD), Joint Chiefs of Staff (JS), Military Departments (MILDEPS), and Combatant Commands (COCOM).http://www.disa.mil/services/data.html Opennet is for unclassified state department.traffic see above Opennet+ is for unclassified state department.traffic (+) means you can also use it to surf the internet, thank you Colin Powell.. DNI-U, unclassified intelligence network CapNet, unclassified intelligence network OSIS, unclassified intelligence network Additionally DISA operates several other Global IP Networks for unclassified data. JHITS - across the pacific.. DSN - Defense Switched Network ( ever heard of a modem).. EMSS SME-PED ( both class and unclass celular on one hand held device) DVS-G ( both class and unclass IP network optimized for low latency and Jitter suitable for video) Teleport ( both class and unclass ip network over satellites when you can't get a cable hook up.) Transport when you want a private unclass or class connection.. ( encryption varies). I'm sure their are more... The departement of Energy, NORAD( Canadian and US DoD have a special shared network), the coast guard, the DEA(ADNet also from DISA) and several other agencies have SBU global networks. Hell if you want it bad enough DISA will set up an unclass/class network called a COI (community of interest) for your exclusive use if you can justify it. Did it when we invaded Bosnia and for Iraq, and for Afghanistan... Leased commercial wires bundled into unclassified networks by the US DoD for the use of our troops so they could check their civilian email and find out what was happening with Michael Jackson. Bosnian Transport Service Iraq Transport Service Afghanistan Transport Service Or did you think those networks were there before we invaded? You have obviously been proven wrong about NSA, DIRNSA was my former commander and I am pretty sure General Alexander is a Army General still, but just to rub it in a little more from the NSA's own website, I give you.... Yes, the NSA is under the DoD, I stand corrected on that. I am generally more used to hearing the NSA in terms of it's intelligence function rather than it's military command structure.. Even if the information is Unclassified he can be prosecuted. It is all about intent, that is the hardest part that prosecutors have to prove, Yes I agree. You can get prosecuted for just treating SBU material carelessly, and for maliciously disclosing that data just like you can for Secret data. My point is that they think Manning released the secret DoD data. The operational reports from Iraq, and Afghanistan. I'm not arguing that that stuff isn't secret. I'm just noting that the Diplomatic Cables were only SBU and really weren't all that interesting or damaging; and to my knowledge didn't come from Manning. He was a junior intelligence officer and had access to the after action reports, I've not seen it claimed he had access to global SBU Diplomatic cables which is what was released on WikiLeaks.. but there is little doubt as to his intent so basically he is screwed. My understanding is the law requires they show him knowingly giving the data to an enemy of the US or someone who is going to act against American interests in order to give him the harshest punishment. If that can not be done his penelties arre reduced substancially. And so far many reputable newspapers are saying they can't tie Manning to AStrange. Dear God, could we get a little OPSEC in this thread?Please All the information I've posted is available on the internet or in the newspaper and I've given links for where in all of my posts.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted March 11, 2011 Author Share Posted March 11, 2011 I do find the arrogance of those on the outside trying to correct those with decades of real experience in these matters a trifle ridiculous. I respect your patience.: :doh: Get a room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 JMS is killing it in this thread. First he says that Manning didn't release secrets but just SBU cables. Then he switched course and said he never contended that he has claimed Manning had released SBU cables. Now, in his last reply, he posts 1 SBU cable as his "proof" that Manning had released SBU cables. We all know that Manning released over 160k classified cables, but I think his posting of one unclassified cable is worthwhile to this discussion. Wait, what was this discussion about again? Oh yes, that's right. JMS is attempting to throw anything he can against the wall in an attempt to try to lesson the severity of what Manning has done. First, the government can't connect Manning to Assange. Everyone realizes that doesn't make any difference whatsoever so he claims the documents weren't even classified! Silly mistake of releasing SBU cables. Then he claims that even if they were secret, we all knew all that stuff anyway! Look at this news article that claimed what the 10 biggest revelations were from the Wikileaks scandal......pffft, we already knew all that crap. Then, he says that Manning cannot be proven to be guilty of the charges that are claimed that while he may have been "careless" of securing of classified, they can't prove that he provided them to the nation's enemies. Careless! He had been merely careless......maybe. JMS never conceded he was careless only that he may have been careless. This argument has went around and around for pages with JMS never being too busy to multi-quote 15 replies and have google help him attempt to refute the truth that others have posted. Why all of this effort to try to minimize Manning's crimes and claim that the government is treating him unfairly. I will let all of you decide that. I have my own opinions on people with the caliber of character of JMS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 We all know that Manning released over 160k classified cables, but I think his posting of one unclassified cable is worthwhile to this discussion. Has been accused of doing this. Small, but important distinction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Osama Bin Laden is accused of plotting multiple terrorist actions against the United States. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted March 11, 2011 Author Share Posted March 11, 2011 JMS is killing it in this thread. First he says that Manning didn't release secrets but just SBU cables. I would like to mail you a $100 bill if you can show anywhere in this thread I've said either.. I never said, Manning didn't release secret data, Or that manning did release SBU data... #100. Go For it. That is two separate things so you can make a cool $200 if you can demonstrate even the simplest of your overarching claims... Let's open that up to anybody on this board...... serious as a heart attack. First person to point out those statements in any post I've made in this thread I will pay up. Then he switched course and said he never contended that he has claimed Manning had released SBU cables. I have been entirely consistent in this thread as you will no doubt demonstrate by not being able support your previous claim. Now, in his last reply, he posts 1 SBU cable as his "proof" that Manning had released SBU cables. Make that $10,000 dollars if you can demonstrate my post #82, as you are claiming, asserts manning released SBU cables, It was claimed that the SBU designation does not exist, thus the diplomatic cables could not be SBU as I was asserting. I was merely demonstrating that designation does exist and that at least one of the diplomatic cables was so marked. For the record, which is clearly posted here about 10, 15 times. My position is Manning is accused of releasing the Secret operational reports an intelligence officer would have access too. My other position is the diplomatic cables WERE SBU and of coarse that the SBU designation exists. And that I've not seen evidence that Manning has been connected to the Diplomatic Cable release. Wait, what was this discussion about again? Oh yes, that's right. JMS is attempting to throw anything he can against the wall in an attempt to try to lesson the severity of what Manning has done. Actually I've consistently said he is believed to be guilty of the more severe charge of releasing secret data, and not the less severe charge of releasing SBU data. I was just noting that the diplomatic cables were not secret cables to my knowledge but were in fact SBU. First, the government can't connect Manning to Assange. Everyone realizes that doesn't make any difference whatsoever Makes a huge difference in sentencing. so he claims the documents weren't even classified! Silly mistake of releasing SBU cables. The DoD operational reports were definitely classified, I've never claimed otherwise. I've seen no evidence the Diplomatic cables were, and I've seen significant evidence that they weren't. Including the one which I posted from the newspaper marked SBU. I've seen no evidence the government has a good handle on who released the diplomatic cables yet. The State Department's tracking of SBU data is likely much less precise than the DoD's tracking of Secret data. Then he claims that even if they were secret, we all knew all that stuff anyway! The SBU diplomatic cables were not all that informative. They did contain information any well informed person would be aware of. As one would expect from SBU cables and which I already demonstrated. The secret operational reports from Afghanistan and Iraq however contained a level of detail on informants, tactics, and capabilities which would not be common knowledge and which it is said could and perhaps have gotten people killed. At the very least it harms US interests by identifying and putting at risk those who have been most helpful to us in these theaters of action. Look at this news article that claimed what the 10 biggest revelations were from the Wikileaks scandal......pffft, we already knew all that crap. My article as stated when I introduced the article, spoke only of the diplomatic cable disclosures which were entirely separate from the secret operational reports. Then, he says that Manning cannot be proven to be guilty of the charges that are claimed that while he may have been "careless" of securing of classified, they can't prove that he provided them to the nation's enemies. Careless! He had been merely careless. I've consistently said who ever released the SBU data whether careless or not could be prosecuted... Only the careless offense not tied to knowingly harming US interests carried a smaller sentence. I've also said secrete data while more serious, has a similar structure in that not being able to tie Manning to Asange directly puts a huge hole in the governments case for achieving the most serious sentence. This argument has went around and around for pages with JMS never being too busy to multi-quote 15 replies and have google help him attempt to refute the truth that others have posted. And evidently you are very comfortable in participating in a discussion without having actually read or understood anything I've said.... Why all of this effort to try to minimize Manning's crimes and claim that the government is treating him unfairly. I will let all of you decide that. I have my own opinions on people with the caliber of character of JMS. Again I've not said Manning didn't leak Secret data. All I've done is quote reputable sources saying the government can't tie Manning to Astrang and note that that was important. I've also drawn a distinction between the secret data Manning is sought to have leaked and the SBU diplomatic cables which to my knowledge he is not going to be charged with. . I've seen no credible evidence that the government believes manning was behind the lesser of the two charges.. the leaking of the SBU diplomatic cables which I wouldn't think Manning would have access too. Anyway Wesbrook... I've placed $10,200 on the table. I'm hoping that peaks your interest or at least appeals to your greed so you will review my positions and see how unreasonable and obstanant you were in this thread. I will further request, when you fail to meet the minimum support for the wild claims you've made against my statements you will do the gentlemanly thing and apologize... Private message is sufficient, if you are not man enough to do so in the same thread you defamed me in. In this way when we next spar in a thread like this I won't have to think of what a complete dolt you were in this thread, and we can try to build a more cordial and profitable association in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Osama Bin Laden is accused of plotting multiple terrorist actions against the United States. Agreed. Nevertheless, it's an important distinction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted March 11, 2011 Author Share Posted March 11, 2011 erroneous bump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted March 11, 2011 Author Share Posted March 11, 2011 intentional bump (1)..... $200 on the table and no takers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted March 12, 2011 Author Share Posted March 12, 2011 crickets, nothing but crickets..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.