Why Panetta is Mad: SCI NONDISCLOSURE STATEMENT Explained

"That contains or purports to contain..."

What if it doesn't purport, and in fact purports not to contain?  No need to submit for review, according to snippet in this article.

This article is correct. It's also part of the ACCM non-disclosure agreement (NDA)  (which actually stipulates you CANNOT write ANYTHING under the auspices of that ACCM without prior approval) he signed. He signed much more than just the SCI. Every SAP or STO he was in has to be evaluated. I refuse to read the book. INFOSEC is also preventing "the enemy"'s ability to discern through context. When something happened...where it happened...under what conditions..foreign countries involved..use of specific software...all can be used for CI purposes. The question is: How can the author make a personal judgement on what he has or has not revealed? He cannot. So it must be scrutinized. The reason I'm very careful about what I write is that in my head the information is under "classified" and "unclassified"...but we ALL make mistakes. One mistake can be a life sentence...so charged or not...How and why did the author believe he had a right to disclose anything in writing that was inherently covered by his SCI and ACCM NDA? My two cents.

Let's keep in mind that Owen has not yet and may never be charged with anything.  We all have to admit that he might have been better served by submitting the manuscript for vetting but he chose not to.  And while I'm tired of reading uselessly redacted pages I have to admit that there are areas I would have never suspected to be linked in the material I was privy to.  i signed the same pledges many of you here did and while time has made most of what I knew irrelevant, I certainly didn't know what or who I might have revealed then. 

When a President or Chief of Staff release classified information to the public that information is by default now declassified, regardless if that info went through the "proper" process.  Everyone agrees that those leaders can disclose whatever they want since they are the de/classifying authority.  If such authorities as those release it to the public in one way or another, to argue that anyone else within the military who releases it violated the NDA because they confirm it, is looking at it from a clouded lens.  If the President or an active General/Admiral releases classified info, that info can be taken to the bank.  

I happen to agree with Matt, that if his most senior leaders have talked about the mission, and released various info, all of which have been replicated throughout the media countless times, then it can, by default, no longer be classified information.  

I recall reading a story about Tom Clancy being interrogated by the FBI about who his "source" was that was releasing classified information about submarines.  He pointed to the 3 books on his shelf that were all printed by the U.S. Navy Press.  His source was the publicly released information by the U.S. Navy.  

If the powers that be release it to the public it can no longer be classified information.  When something is classified it means it is not open to the public.  Unclassified is released to the public.  So if the POTUS or the JCoS, etc release to the public through a press release or verbal interview, then that information can no longer be kept classified, regardless of the red rubber stamp.  

Good article by Mark Miller.  This gets down to the brass tacks of classifed information and NDAs.  I read No Easy Day and it appears as though the author violated the NDA.  His justification in the book is basically that the information is already out there and others have disclosed it.  My argument against that is as follows: if you are read on to such material and you disclose something that is already out there, you just confirmed that information.  The old saying "two wrongs don't make a right" holds true here.  As far as the leaks regarding the Abbotobad mission go, POTUS or SECDEF can release any information they wish as they are the authority under which the information is classified.  However, even they must go through the declassification process or they are in violation of federal law.  Specifically

32 CFR Part 2001.  The problem here is that POTUS wants the information out there for political points but does not want to be know as the guy who declassifys things concerning SOFcentric issues.  This entire environment concerning OPSEC violations, violations of NDAs, and everyone from enlisted operators to POTUS betraying the public trust is a national disgrace.  By the way, the whole world is watching and listening.  read that to mean Russia, China, Al Qaeda, etc. 

If Mark Owen is subjected to legal action, that should be grounds to do the same to the current administration for releasing details on Operation Neptune Spear, true or not it should be based on intent. Of course that will never happen.

The DOD/Administration opened the door by going public with the UBL raid.  In effect they broke the NDA.  MB just walked through it.  Should the guys from ST6/DevGru/whatever it is now be pissed off that he broke a code of silence?  I think they have that right.  But legally it can be proven that he only followed up to what was already put out by those much higher up the chain.  He did not follow the procedure, regardless of how insanely long it might take, and can be penalized for that.  But that should only be a minor punishment.  The real punishment (if deserved at all) should be the groups policing there own.  IMHO.

I'm curious where censorship comes into all of this.   Mark Owen retold a story that has already been made public. He knew there was no classified/sensitive information - he was simply RETELLING a story from a first-person narrative.  Could the military be accused of censorship?

Like I said below, I'm a civilian, I've never been in the military and at age 52 I never will be, so take my opinion with that in mind....I will agree that it would have been better to never have had any of the Bin Laden raid details made public, but once they were, I think the American Public deserves the truth. Let's also remember that this particular raid is historic, what is there to compare it to in US Military History....The Jimmy Doolittle raid over Japan in 1942  ?? the shooting down of Admiral Yamamoto in WW II, the Enola Gay dropping the atomic bomb, what I'm getting at is this raid is so unique that perhaps the public is best served to have the truth so they can be assured that Bin Laden is dead and to honor the heroes that carried out the raid........

The charges will hinge on whether his book actually reveals SCI in violation of that agreement. If it's available thru open sources there is no crime. Honestly, I thought the book was pretty thin stuff in terms of details.

The civilian world is really siding with the author on this one - a lot of people are saying they're buying it because quote, "Obama lied." So I think we can all agree on the bad PR of this, the thing is PR isn't the most important thing out there. But who knows in this escially political season and year what will happen. There is a possiblity that the negative PR can be considered dangerous to certain elected officials, so No Easy Day (NED) author could get off easier, at least for now.

Even if POTUS is not directly responsible for punishing the NED author, it will be attributed to him. Welcome to election year.

A relative just suprise-gifted NED to me via Kindle, which is nice because at first I wasn't sure if I really wanted to buy it yet.

@BrandonTWebb doesn't this apply to admin officials and pentagon officials when they leak classified info?? Where is the uproar about that?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BIN_LADEN_BOOK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-09-11-08-05-03

Here' s a link to an article about Panetta saying MB deserves to be punished.....I'm a civilian and don't understand the culture of the military especially at the Seal level, but this will be horrible PR, prosecuting a man who many consider a hero for doing what all the Suits do with no regard is shameful, IMO......

There are many secrets held by our servicemen and folks from the State Dept. many for good reasons.  Others due to political expediency:

http://www.stripes.com/news/newly-declassified-memos-show-us-hushed-up-soviet-massacre-1.188765

Look at the Carlyle Group, they have all sort of ex-Cabinet folks, Senators, ex-Presidents, violating their NDA everytime they share their expertise, only difference is they keeps it private, so only a select few benefit. 

Civilians have to sign these and have ignore the document for oh... about 60 years running.  Don't get me started on the State Dept.

McRaven signed one of these also as well as droves of folks in the White House.

I know it's tiring to hear but keep in mind why there's such a sustained and loud drum roll when it comes to MB.  There have been MANY leaks.