DonHenley said:
This was really stupid. If this Kamala and the last admin, people would be going nuts on this forum over this
This is the end of our innocence.
High level officials accidentally include Atlantic editor in group chat
79,031 Views |
1270 Replies |
Last: 1 mo ago by Sims
This is the end of our innocence.
NE PA Ag said:
An honorable person would have quickly realized they were invited in error and exited the chat. They certainly wouldn't be publicizing anything about it, but journalists, especially of the left wing variety, aren't honorable people.
This. I've had this occur in email a time or two and immediately replied to the sender to make them aware I was on the thread. Very unethical to sit quietly and read private conversations not intended for the recipient.
TOUCHDOWN! said:
So this is all the fault of The Atlantic? We shouldn't hold our leaders accountable for failing to implement and abide by controls to ensure highly classified military information isn't sent to random phone numbers? The press doesn't have an obligation to report on the incompetence of our government?
Wild. The right would be turning this into Benghazi 2.0 if it happened under Obama or Biden.
Waltz is 100% at fault, but the Atlantic could've and should've used discretion in posting the story. You know it is possible for more than one thing to be true.
DonHenley said:
This was really stupid. If this Kamala and the last admin, people would be going nuts on this forum over this
If this was Kamala and the last administration it wouldn't have been reported on/been made public.
Less Evil Hank Scorpio
Joined:
Oct 29, 2005
Posts:
20,326
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Which screenshots are grounds for treason?ChemAg15 said:
The journalist should have known the messages weren't intended for them and should have let the people in the chat know that the communication was not secure. Just because you're included in a chat by accident doesn't give you carte blanche to post screenshots. There's a case for treason here.
The treason is at the hands of Waltz and those who published the details of military operations in an unsecure forum with an unknown third party in it.
Right course of action would have been to quickly ask why he was included on this chat when they started talking about sensitive information. Before they got too far. He then can go the person's supervisor who added him to the chat if he thought it was a security breech. This is common moral behavior. People with similar names always get added to sensitive emails or chats in business and it is their responsibility to comment.
GarlandAg2012 said:That "honorable person" paves the way for continued incompetence that may actually get Americans hurt or killed in the future. If senior leadership isn't held accountable for being so reckless, this kind of crap can and will happen again.NE PA Ag said:
An honorable person would have quickly realized they were invited in error and exited the chat. They certainly wouldn't be publicizing anything about it, but journalists, especially of the left wing variety, aren't honorable people.
We should be glad that the journalist is an actual honorable person who took the personal risk to raise the alarm about this without jeopardizing the operation/security of our armed forces. Public scrutiny is the most powerful tool we have as Americans when it comes to keeping our government in check.
Maybe try quietly addressing the problem with the appropriate people in the administration first? Or how about letting this kick off a true investigation by the journalist to determine if this is rampant "incompetence", or a one off mistake, before immediately running to social media about it. You know, what an old school honorable journalist would do.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." - J.S. Mill
Less Evil Hank Scorpio
Joined:
Oct 29, 2005
Posts:
20,326
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
How can you argue it was not intended when Waltz INVITED the journalist to the chat?Rocky Rider said:NE PA Ag said:
An honorable person would have quickly realized they were invited in error and exited the chat. They certainly wouldn't be publicizing anything about it, but journalists, especially of the left wing variety, aren't honorable people.
This. I've had this occur in email a time or two and immediately replied to the sender to make them aware I was on the thread. Very unethical to sit quietly and read private conversations not intended for the recipient.
He didn't even think it was real until the operation commenced.
Please people, read the damn article.
To a degree, yes it absolutely is. If the journalist has had DOD mandated or any type of Cyber Awareness training on incidents like this and still chose to leak the spillage, he is absolutely to blame for posting screenshots of CUI/SECRET NOFOR or any other caveated message. He should have gone to a security manager and informed them of the spillage.TOUCHDOWN! said:
So this is all the fault of The Atlantic?
He invited the journalist in error.
To his credit, the Atlantic author did not publish the story until today which was about a month after these discussions took place and did not publish anything that would have jeopardized troops. Apparently there was discussion of exact troop positions and timelines which he did not publish.
El Salvador with him!
Less Evil Hank Scorpio
Joined:
Oct 29, 2005
Posts:
20,326
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Senior officials committing errors of this magnitude deserve consequences. I agree it was almost certainly an error, but that doesn't mean Waltz should be absolved. "Oopsie" is not an excuse.usmcbrooks said:
He invited the journalist in error.
The amount of mental gymnastics in this thread is not surprising. Y'all should be mad at the idiot who added a journalist to the group chat, not the journalist.
GarlandAg2012 said:How can you argue it was not intended when Waltz INVITED the journalist to the chat?Rocky Rider said:NE PA Ag said:
An honorable person would have quickly realized they were invited in error and exited the chat. They certainly wouldn't be publicizing anything about it, but journalists, especially of the left wing variety, aren't honorable people.
This. I've had this occur in email a time or two and immediately replied to the sender to make them aware I was on the thread. Very unethical to sit quietly and read private conversations not intended for the recipient.
He didn't even think it was real until the operation commenced.
Please people, read the damn article.
LMAO.
If waltz were going to commit treason, why would he do it in such a way as to get caught?
Why not record the chat and send it on the down low to the journalist. Or better yet send it to Iran?!
Your assertion is idiotic.
Did. Just not seeing all this exculpatory elements seem to think is there. There are items about differences of opinion on matters involving operations in progress. Much here that could be used by hostiles in evaluating likely actions or even scale. Still sticking with the thing to expect is to promptly notify accidentally copied; or certainly not ever further propagating it.GarlandAg2012 said:How can you argue it was not intended when Waltz INVITED the journalist to the chat?Rocky Rider said:NE PA Ag said:
An honorable person would have quickly realized they were invited in error and exited the chat. They certainly wouldn't be publicizing anything about it, but journalists, especially of the left wing variety, aren't honorable people.
This. I've had this occur in email a time or two and immediately replied to the sender to make them aware I was on the thread. Very unethical to sit quietly and read private conversations not intended for the recipient.
He didn't even think it was real until the operation commenced.
Please people, read the damn article.
Less Evil Hank Scorpio
Joined:
Oct 29, 2005
Posts:
20,326
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
My assertion was in response to something equally idiotic. No one should be charged with treason.Logos Stick said:GarlandAg2012 said:How can you argue it was not intended when Waltz INVITED the journalist to the chat?Rocky Rider said:NE PA Ag said:
An honorable person would have quickly realized they were invited in error and exited the chat. They certainly wouldn't be publicizing anything about it, but journalists, especially of the left wing variety, aren't honorable people.
This. I've had this occur in email a time or two and immediately replied to the sender to make them aware I was on the thread. Very unethical to sit quietly and read private conversations not intended for the recipient.
He didn't even think it was real until the operation commenced.
Please people, read the damn article.
LMAO.
If waltz were going to commit treason, why would he do it in such a way as to get caught?
Why not record the chat and send it on the down low to the journalist. Or better yet send it to Iran?!
Your assertion is idiotic.
Captain Winky said:
The amount of mental gymnastics in this thread is not surprising. Y'all should be mad at the idiot who added a journalist to the group chat, not the journalist.
It's not mutually exclusive. You can be upset with both.
I do have to give the journalist credit for not revealing it until after it no longer made any difference.
What is cyber awareness training?Captain Winky said:
The amount of mental gymnastics in this thread is not surprising. Y'all should be mad at the idiot who added a journalist to the group chat, not the journalist.
Cyber awareness training educates employees about cybersecurity best practices and threats to organizations, aiming to reduce human error in security breaches by making them aware of their role in protecting the business.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
What it is:
- Education and Training:
Cyber awareness training is a program designed to educate employees about cybersecurity threats, risks, and best practices. - Focus on Human Element:
It emphasizes the importance of human behavior in cybersecurity and aims to reduce the risk of human error, which is a significant factor in many security breaches. - Broad Concept:
It goes beyond simply training employees; it involves creating a security-conscious culture within the organization. - Key Topics:
Common topics covered in cyber awareness training include:- Phishing: Recognizing and avoiding phishing emails and other scams.
- Password Security: Creating and managing strong, unique passwords.
- Information Protection: Understanding how to protect sensitive information, both online and offline.
- Social Media Risks: Being aware of the potential risks associated with social media usage.
- Cyber Hygiene: Practicing good cybersecurity habits, such as regularly updating software and using strong passwords.
- Identifying and Reporting Security Incidents: Knowing how to recognize and report potential security incidents.
- Phishing: Recognizing and avoiding phishing emails and other scams.
- Reduced Risk of Breaches:
By educating employees, organizations can reduce the likelihood of human error leading to security breaches. - Employee Empowerment:
Cyber awareness training empowers employees to become the first line of defense against cyberattacks. - Enhanced Security Culture:
It helps create a culture where cybersecurity is taken seriously, and employees are proactive in protecting the organization's assets. - Compliance:
Many industries and regulations require organizations to have a cybersecurity awareness program in place.
Less Evil Hank Scorpio
Joined:
Oct 29, 2005
Posts:
20,326
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Logos Stick said:GarlandAg2012 said:How can you argue it was not intended when Waltz INVITED the journalist to the chat?Rocky Rider said:NE PA Ag said:
An honorable person would have quickly realized they were invited in error and exited the chat. They certainly wouldn't be publicizing anything about it, but journalists, especially of the left wing variety, aren't honorable people.
This. I've had this occur in email a time or two and immediately replied to the sender to make them aware I was on the thread. Very unethical to sit quietly and read private conversations not intended for the recipient.
He didn't even think it was real until the operation commenced.
Please people, read the damn article.
LMAO.
If waltz were going to commit treason, why would he do it in such a way as to get caught?
Why not record the chat and send it on the down low to the journalist. Or better yet send it to Iran?!
Your assertion is idiotic.
From the article. Not treason, and he won't be charged, but it arguably did violate the Espionage Act.Quote:
Conceivably, Waltz, by coordinating a national-security-related action over Signal, may have violated several provisions of the Espionage Act, which governs the handling of "national defense" information, according to several national-security lawyers interviewed by my colleague Shane Harris for this story. Harris asked them to consider a hypothetical scenario in which a senior U.S. official creates a Signal thread for the express purpose of sharing information with Cabinet officials about an active military operation. He did not show them the actual Signal messages or tell them specifically what had occurred.
All of these lawyers said that a U.S. official should not establish a Signal thread in the first place. Information about an active operation would presumably fit the law's definition of "national defense" information. The Signal app is not approved by the government for sharing classified information. The government has its own systems for that purpose. If officials want to discuss military activity, they should go into a specially designed space known as a sensitive compartmented information facility, or SCIFmost Cabinet-level national-security officials have one installed in their homeor communicate only on approved government equipment, the lawyers said. Normally, cellphones are not permitted inside a SCIF, which suggests that as these officials were sharing information about an active military operation, they could have been moving around in public. Had they lost their phones, or had they been stolen, the potential risk to national security would have been severe.
Sounds like this is the exact training that the person who added the wrong person to the text group should take.
Less Evil Hank Scorpio
Joined:
Oct 29, 2005
Posts:
20,326
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Please notice that even when confronted with the leak, the agencies involved do not respond with "omg how dare you", they spin it as "thoughtful" and make sure that everyone knows Vance agrees with everything Trump says.Quote:
Brian Hughes, the spokesman for the National Security Council, responded two hours later, confirming the veracity of the Signal group. "This appears to be an authentic message chain, and we are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain," Hughes wrote. "The thread is a demonstration of the deep and thoughtful policy coordination between senior officials. The ongoing success of the Houthi operation demonstrates that there were no threats to troops or national security."
William Martin, a spokesperson for Vance, said that despite the impression created by the texts, the vice president is fully aligned with the president. "The Vice President's first priority is always making sure that the President's advisers are adequately briefing him on the substance of their internal deliberations," he said. "Vice President Vance unequivocally supports this administration's foreign policy. The President and the Vice President have had subsequent conversations about this matter and are in complete agreement."
Dobbs report was leaked and no one cared, who cares about this.
Worked for Hillary.GarlandAg2012 said:Senior officials committing errors of this magnitude deserve consequences. I agree it was almost certainly an error, but that doesn't mean Waltz should be absolved. "Oopsie" is not an excuse.usmcbrooks said:
He invited the journalist in error.
I agree, he should be punished and hopefully will be.
GarlandAg2012 said:Logos Stick said:GarlandAg2012 said:How can you argue it was not intended when Waltz INVITED the journalist to the chat?Rocky Rider said:NE PA Ag said:
An honorable person would have quickly realized they were invited in error and exited the chat. They certainly wouldn't be publicizing anything about it, but journalists, especially of the left wing variety, aren't honorable people.
This. I've had this occur in email a time or two and immediately replied to the sender to make them aware I was on the thread. Very unethical to sit quietly and read private conversations not intended for the recipient.
He didn't even think it was real until the operation commenced.
Please people, read the damn article.
LMAO.
If waltz were going to commit treason, why would he do it in such a way as to get caught?
Why not record the chat and send it on the down low to the journalist. Or better yet send it to Iran?!
Your assertion is idiotic.From the article. Not treason, and he won't be charged, but it arguably did violate the Espionage Act.Quote:
Conceivably, Waltz, by coordinating a national-security-related action over Signal, may have violated several provisions of the Espionage Act, which governs the handling of "national defense" information, according to several national-security lawyers interviewed by my colleague Shane Harris for this story. Harris asked them to consider a hypothetical scenario in which a senior U.S. official creates a Signal thread for the express purpose of sharing information with Cabinet officials about an active military operation. He did not show them the actual Signal messages or tell them specifically what had occurred.
All of these lawyers said that a U.S. official should not establish a Signal thread in the first place. Information about an active operation would presumably fit the law's definition of "national defense" information. The Signal app is not approved by the government for sharing classified information. The government has its own systems for that purpose. If officials want to discuss military activity, they should go into a specially designed space known as a sensitive compartmented information facility, or SCIFmost Cabinet-level national-security officials have one installed in their homeor communicate only on approved government equipment, the lawyers said. Normally, cellphones are not permitted inside a SCIF, which suggests that as these officials were sharing information about an active military operation, they could have been moving around in public. Had they lost their phones, or had they been stolen, the potential risk to national security would have been severe.
Then action needs to be taken. What a dumb thing to do.
I've held at least a Secret clearance for the last 31 years. I have taken this mandatory training every year.Captain Winky said:
Sounds like this is the exact training that the person who added the wrong person to the text group should take.
titan said:No need for editor to mention the slip at all publicly, any part of it. The slightest thing can reveal something. Because some things overlap, once in a blue moon have been copied something a bit above my level. I treated it in opsec fashion as it deserved.Actual Talking Thermos said:If you read the article he makes it clear he left a lot out because he didn't want to compromise active intelligence agents or future war planstitan said:
Why is no one asking why the editor of the Atlantic then spread the info? That would not have happened in WW II because of national loyalty more than any fear of FDR.
If it were a different admin and they did what you're saying, you'd be screaming about collusion and covering up incompetency.
Mike Waltz needs to be sh*t canned immediately. Stop allowing incompetence in our national security apparatus.
I also heard the Atlantic writers interview on NPR and the vibe I got wasn't that he didn't want to make everything public, he just wanted to make sure he wasn't criminally prosecuted. You can bet he's meeting with a lawyer to see what else he can post. These writers have only loyalty to creating a brand for themselves.
I also heard the Atlantic writers interview on NPR and the vibe I got wasn't that he didn't want to make everything public, he just wanted to make sure he wasn't criminally prosecuted. You can bet he's meeting with a lawyer to see what else he can post. These writers have only loyalty to creating a brand for themselves.
These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.-Thomas Paine
The adults are back in charge
Nope, the Atlantic or any other left wing rag would have covered it up just like they covered up Joe's dementia for the last four years.DonHenley said:
This was really stupid. If this Kamala and the last admin, people would be going nuts on this forum over this
When those on the right tried to sound the alarm that Joe was compromised mentally they were shot down as conspiracy theorists or purveyors of deep fake videos. We were told he was "sharp as a tack" over and over from Pelosi, Schumer and even Kamala herself.
To this day we still have no clue who was actually running the country. I hope Waltz is reprimanded but after four years it speaks volumes all the liberals are finally coming out to pile on for this "gotcha" when they were silent during the embarrassment that was the Biden presidency.
Captain Winky said:
The amount of mental gymnastics in this thread is not surprising. Y'all should be mad at the idiot who added a journalist to the group chat, not the journalist.
Why do you think those two things are mutually exclusive? Why cant both sides of acted inappropriately here? We dont have to 'pick a side', for every occurrence.
A. The idiot who made the mistake, absolutely should be held accountable for that mistake (however big or small a consequence that should be). WH seemingly agrees, based on their statement.
B. The journalist should not have remained silent during the conversations, and then published the details. That wasn't required to make anyone be held accountable. Doing that is obviously an entirely different motivation.
C. The comparisons to Hilary purposefully using classified info on her unsecured machines, for years, and then purposefully destroying evidence when caught, is not even comparable to this one-time mistake.
Thankfully.GAC06 said:
The adults are back in charge
I'd rather a mistake here or there, from people trying to do right...then absolute and complete chaos/ineptitude.
This doesn't pass the smell test. This "oopsie, we put the wrong person in our super private chat" is completely bogus.
Sorry Harris lost..GAC06 said:
The adults are back in charge
Quote:
B. The journalist should not have remained silent during the conversations, and then published the details. That wasn't required to make anyone be held accountable. Doing that is obviously an entirely different motivation.
Why not? Do you understand journalism at all? This is a MAJOR story.
No journalist, even in Prosperdick's pretend world he lives in instead of reality, would just sit on a story like this. The dude was added in to literally the highest level of government discussion about military operations outside of the President himself. Doesn't matter if it was a R or D, every journalist who was in this person's position would at a minimum do what this one did. Unfortunately many others would have acted a lot more heinously with it. Thankfully he did not.
It's a story the public absolutely deserves to know. You should want to know this happened.
Featured Stories
See All
Unjustified claims that A&M was a 'fraud' appear fraudulent
by Olin Buchanan
Around the SEC: Recruiting News & Trends
by Jason Howell
19:03
1h ago
899
13:49
2h ago
1.1k
24:56
17h ago
1.3k
Pick 'Em & Rip 'Em sponsored by PrizePicks: Week 21
by Matthew Dawson
topoftexasag
20 people charged in connection with sweeping basketball game fixing scandal
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
34