This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/24/hillary-clinton-secrets-classified
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Hillary Clinton likely 'mishandled' secrets because too much is classified | Hillary Clinton likely 'mishandled' secrets because too much is classified |
| (1 day later) | |
| The minute that private email server Hillary Clinton used for work emails as Secretary of State became a controversy, it was clear that evidence would surface showing that classified information passed through that address – despite her repeated denials. | The minute that private email server Hillary Clinton used for work emails as Secretary of State became a controversy, it was clear that evidence would surface showing that classified information passed through that address – despite her repeated denials. |
| Of course there was “secret” information in her emails – but not because she had attempted to cover up smoking gun Benghazi emails like conspiracy-addled Republicans hoped. It’s because the US classification system is so insanely bloated and out of control that virtually everything related to foreign policy and national security is, in some way or another, classified. | Of course there was “secret” information in her emails – but not because she had attempted to cover up smoking gun Benghazi emails like conspiracy-addled Republicans hoped. It’s because the US classification system is so insanely bloated and out of control that virtually everything related to foreign policy and national security is, in some way or another, classified. |
| And now it’s finally happened: the New York Times reported late Thursday that two internal government watchdogs have recommended that the Justice Department open a criminal investigation into Clinton’s private email account, because the cache of 55,000 emails from her now-deleted server reportedly include “hundreds of potentially classified emails”. On Friday, The Times corrected the story and said the referral “addressed the potential compromise of classified information in connection with that personal email account. It did not specifically request an investigation into Mrs. Clinton.” | |
| Even before the New York Times report on Thursday, the State Department had already “retroactively” classified a bunch of information in the first tranche of emails released to the public as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. As experts pointed out at the time, it was “highly unusual” for the government to be classifying information six years after the fact. | Even before the New York Times report on Thursday, the State Department had already “retroactively” classified a bunch of information in the first tranche of emails released to the public as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. As experts pointed out at the time, it was “highly unusual” for the government to be classifying information six years after the fact. |
| Why would Clinton repeatedly and forcefully denied that the email account had any classified information on it? It’s hard to imagine she could not have known how broadly the government blankets its work with a secrecy stamp. | Why would Clinton repeatedly and forcefully denied that the email account had any classified information on it? It’s hard to imagine she could not have known how broadly the government blankets its work with a secrecy stamp. |
| Just look at the hundreds of thousands of leaked State Department cables addressed to Clinton in 2010 and 2011, published by Wikileaks, that caused her State Department so many headaches. Along with extremely important information, the cables were full of mundane facts, already-public information and unsubstantiated gossip that were marked “secret” by government classifiers for no other reason than they could. | Just look at the hundreds of thousands of leaked State Department cables addressed to Clinton in 2010 and 2011, published by Wikileaks, that caused her State Department so many headaches. Along with extremely important information, the cables were full of mundane facts, already-public information and unsubstantiated gossip that were marked “secret” by government classifiers for no other reason than they could. |
| As the Federation of American Scientists’ Steven Aftergood said at the time: “Many officials in the State Department and elsewhere use classified as a default setting...It diminishes the meaning of the classified stamp. It ceases to be an index of national security sensitivity and it becomes a mere bureaucratic artifact.” | As the Federation of American Scientists’ Steven Aftergood said at the time: “Many officials in the State Department and elsewhere use classified as a default setting...It diminishes the meaning of the classified stamp. It ceases to be an index of national security sensitivity and it becomes a mere bureaucratic artifact.” |
| The same can be said for any federal agency that has anything to do with foreign policy or national security. Over-classification is why any journalism investigation into the State Department or CIA or NSA worth its salt is inevitably is full of classified information – which puts reporters’ sources at risk of prosecution, even if the information clearly in the public interest and plainly would not harm national security. (The countless examples of absurd levels of government secrecy and staggering numbers of people with access to it have been tallied elsewhere many times.) | The same can be said for any federal agency that has anything to do with foreign policy or national security. Over-classification is why any journalism investigation into the State Department or CIA or NSA worth its salt is inevitably is full of classified information – which puts reporters’ sources at risk of prosecution, even if the information clearly in the public interest and plainly would not harm national security. (The countless examples of absurd levels of government secrecy and staggering numbers of people with access to it have been tallied elsewhere many times.) |
| But the chances of Clinton being prosecuted for “mishandling classified information” are about as close to none as you can get – not because she didn’t break the law (one suspects it will eventually come out that she technically did, if only because the secrecy laws are impossible not to break), but because the prosecution “crimes” involving classified information in the US is so shamefully biased. | But the chances of Clinton being prosecuted for “mishandling classified information” are about as close to none as you can get – not because she didn’t break the law (one suspects it will eventually come out that she technically did, if only because the secrecy laws are impossible not to break), but because the prosecution “crimes” involving classified information in the US is so shamefully biased. |
| As we have seen over and over in the last few years, infractions involving government secrets committed by low-level officials without connections lead to jail time, but high-ranking officials with well-placed friends get a slap on the wrist or nothing at all (or even sometimes they get promoted). There’s no debate which category Clinton falls into. | As we have seen over and over in the last few years, infractions involving government secrets committed by low-level officials without connections lead to jail time, but high-ranking officials with well-placed friends get a slap on the wrist or nothing at all (or even sometimes they get promoted). There’s no debate which category Clinton falls into. |
| However, Clinton – who has been dogged by criticisms of being overly secretive her entire career – could turn this scandal into an advantage and make transparency a campaign issue. There’s a non-controversial Freedom of Information Act reform bill she could get behind. She could call for increased funding for Foia departments throughout government - the State Department is claiming they are so deluged with such requests that they can’t respond to anyone in a timely manner, after all. More importantly, she could take on the much larger challenge of dismantling the corrupt and arbitrary secrecy system once and for all. | However, Clinton – who has been dogged by criticisms of being overly secretive her entire career – could turn this scandal into an advantage and make transparency a campaign issue. There’s a non-controversial Freedom of Information Act reform bill she could get behind. She could call for increased funding for Foia departments throughout government - the State Department is claiming they are so deluged with such requests that they can’t respond to anyone in a timely manner, after all. More importantly, she could take on the much larger challenge of dismantling the corrupt and arbitrary secrecy system once and for all. |
| The late Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart wrote in the famous Pentagon Papers case in 1971: | The late Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart wrote in the famous Pentagon Papers case in 1971: |
| For when everything is classified, then nothing is classified, and the system becomes one to be disregarded by the cynical or the careless, and to be manipulated by those intent on self-protection or self-promotion. | For when everything is classified, then nothing is classified, and the system becomes one to be disregarded by the cynical or the careless, and to be manipulated by those intent on self-protection or self-promotion. |
| Almost 44 years later, it’s clear Potter’s statement has never been more true – as Clinton is now finding out. | Almost 44 years later, it’s clear Potter’s statement has never been more true – as Clinton is now finding out. |