Does mishandling classified information make you unfit for command?

2016-07-05T12:01:10-04:00

If you said "yes", then I would make sure you reevaluate who you are voting for. Especially if its Hillary.

Despite no indictment, the conclusion of the FBI investigation has stated as fact that she and her aides mishandled classified info in an extremely careless manner.

Let that sink in. "Extremely Careless." None of us would tolerate that in the military. None of us.

Response by PO3 Sandra Gomke made Jul 5 at 2016 12:02 PM

2016-07-05T12:02:25-04:00

Absolutely!! Mishandling classified information can and will jeopardize the safety of your men. Period. Loose lips and all that!!

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Jul 5 at 2016 12:11 PM

2016-07-05T12:11:53-04:00

Learning that you have made a mistake in how to handled classified information in your past is another way of asking this question, because the issue is have your learned from your mistakes. So while we may say it is not tolerated in the military, we are forced to accept facts, civilians are not military, and civilians will use this is a justification to vote against Hillary others will say she has learned from her mistakes.

Response by PO2 Robert Aitchison made Jul 5 at 2016 12:16 PM

2016-07-05T12:16:09-04:00

Neither of the two major parties candidates this year are remotely "fit" to be President.

Response by SGT Jerrold Pesz made Jul 5 at 2016 12:17 PM

2016-07-05T12:17:53-04:00

The simple fact is that the left does not care how incompetent and corrupt that Hillary is. Sadly she will be the next president and will continue the liberal drive to destroy America.

Response by CPT Joseph K Murdock made Jul 5 at 2016 12:18 PM

2016-07-05T12:18:53-04:00

She feels above the laws, regulations, and rules.

Response by SSgt Matthew Evans made Jul 5 at 2016 12:21 PM

2016-07-05T12:21:49-04:00

Yup.

Response by SPC Andrew Griffin made Jul 5 at 2016 12:23 PM

2016-07-05T12:23:50-04:00

It will NOT and Should NOT Keep Hillary R. Clinton out of the White House! Lets get behind her and support her!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 5 at 2016 12:26 PM

2016-07-05T12:26:11-04:00

There are actually half a dozen reasons why Clinton shouldn't be President. There are also half a dozen reasons why Trump shouldn't be President. It's extremely obvious to me that neither one of them should be President... and yet, those are the choice given to us by the Democratic Republican party.

A vote for either of these clowns is a wasted vote, it's time to start supporting some third parties.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 5 at 2016 12:37 PM

2016-07-05T12:37:36-04:00

She will most likely get my vote due to the simple fact the alternative is 10x more horrible. I can't vote for a bigot with attitude of a child. This represents everything I hate in a human being.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Jul 5 at 2016 12:40 PM

2016-07-05T12:40:04-04:00

Of course, this would be a career ender for any service members, officer or enlisted.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Jul 5 at 2016 12:59 PM

2016-07-05T12:59:09-04:00

I think so?

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Jul 5 at 2016 1:13 PM

2016-07-05T13:13:08-04:00

LTC Private RallyPoint Member, not only did she mishandle highly classified documents, but she did it intentionally, then stonewalled, lied, allowed lawyers without any security clearance to sort and destroy evidence, and maintained her lies to the public, secure in the belief that the Obama administration would cover for her.

And they did. Now the only government Department that still had any credibility left has been corrupted from the top.

Elections have consequences.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 5 at 2016 1:16 PM

2016-07-05T13:16:43-04:00

As an MI soldier, I would yes & no. Yes because you're handling sensitive information and depending upon your position, you ought to know that whatever you say has a detrimental effect on whatever situation, mission, etc. you're involved in. But then I say no because if you ever worked inside a SCIF, you'd be surprised what people do with Top Secret & Secret information. It'd blow your mind

Response by Cpl Glynis Sakowicz made Jul 5 at 2016 1:25 PM

2016-07-05T13:25:35-04:00

I'm probably the wrong person to comment on this, since I am not, nor have I ever been a fan of either Clinton, however, the just released news is bouncing around in my head, and I'm not sure what my views are on this.
On one hand, she was figuratively eviscerated by the FBI, who called her careless, and all sorts of other small snide comments, then he ends with the comment that there isn't a precedent for taking her to court.
So... a person who literally tossed our secrets out there for the world with a careless attitude actually expects us to vote her into the office that will hold all our secrets? Nope.
That comment about Precedent bothers me as well. I mean, before things were "Precedents" weren't they new and untried? Sure, she's a former first lady... a former Sec of State, but in this country, we've taken sitting presidents down without precidents... Watergate, Teapot Dome Scandal, and many believe that one first lady actually killed her husband while he was in office, but she walked away, because it was an unthinkable crime, if it happened, that is.
The problem is, I just find myself awestruck, at the idea that they leveled all sorts of charges against her, then they just backed away citing precident, and I am sure they know their jobs, but I just wonder, if these same charges had been leveled towards a military person, do you actually think there would be no prosecution? Yep, me either.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 5 at 2016 1:48 PM

2016-07-05T13:48:56-04:00

Yes. I would follow Gen Patreaus to war again. I would follow Gen McChrystal again. Mishandling classified is too general of a statement. many of our leaders have accidentally exposed classified information. Not all of it is public but as a cyber guy, I've been on the end where we had to clean mailboxes because of this.

If you are saying, deliberately establishing an email server, exposing the entire Dept State enterprise to enemy cyber action. Pushing classified information to a personal blackberry and lying about it...well that is another issue.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 5 at 2016 2:27 PM

2016-07-05T14:27:11-04:00

We require certain things before a person is considered qualified to run for a particular office: residency in a district or state among other things.

Why not require a candidate to pre-qualify for a clearance? I realize that we would loose 80% of Congress with this one, but if handling secured/classified material is required for a job then that person must be both competent to do so and willing to do so. Hillary is not one of these and her actions have told us so.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jul 5 at 2016 3:06 PM

2016-07-05T15:06:08-04:00

If ever you had any doubts, you must now know that the answer to your question doesn't really matter. We the People live by the Rule of Law. Hillary Clinton does not. The scales of justice are truly now out of balance.

Response by SFC Jerry Humphries made Jul 5 at 2016 5:13 PM

2016-07-05T17:13:18-04:00

It's always like an political Version of Goodcop
bad cop agenst the Voters any one else notice that?

Response by Capt Michael Greene made Jul 5 at 2016 5:17 PM

2016-07-05T17:17:24-04:00

We military types have been deeply indoctrinated into "follow every rule..loose lips...etc." That's exactly the kind of mindset a military person must have, to ensure that one of our millions of (relatively) low ranking minions like you and me doesn't leave a secret out for the cleaning lady to pick up.

Technical point: Each agency, State, Energy, Defense, etc, has it's own RULES about handling classified. THE LAWS are not concerned with handling, the laws are concerned with spying. It is illegal to willfully give another country secrets that give that country an advantage. To get a conviction, the government must prove intent. I think they also have to prove damage.

Related: Did you know that elected officials do NOT need clearances to see secret stuff? And the "handling class info" course is voluntary. It cannot be imposed on them. Many of our civilian leadership couldn't even qualify for a clearance, but they must be allowed to see secrets to do their jobs as senators and representatives.

Your question said "command." Does mishandling clas info mean she cannot be a military commander of a military unit? Maybe so. She certainly couldn't be a lower ranking person, for sure, without courses in handling clas info.

Some perspective:
1. Truman told Stalin we had the atomic bomb (to impress him, really). That was a super secret deliberately given to the man who Truman knew would soon be our enemy.
2. When the Dep Director of the FBI (Deep Throat) gave secrets about the FBI's investigation into Watergate to reporters Woodward and Bernstein, was he a criminal or a hero?
3. Many of our presidents have deliberately leaked secrets for the purposes of accomplishing a goal.

Your question MEANT "commander-in-chief," yes? Does mishandling clas info mean she cannot be the leader of the world? No, absolutely not a problem.

At the level of "world mover," those people have drivers and maids so they can concentrate on the big things. They also have aides, executive assistants, and military minions like you and me to take care of the administrative tasks of properly marking, storing, and transmitting secret stuff. The president is not to be bothered with that kind of administrivia.

She should have done better. Her people should have done a LOT better.

When your job is to persuade a country to move an oil pipeline so that another country won't go to war with us, nobody cares if you double-bagged your properly marked papers with an authorized cover sheet in a regulation locked briefcase.

In a world that needs a strong, highly focused leader, at least 50 percent of the US people want her to be the most powerful political leader in the world--regardless of how well she pays attention to administrative rules.

Response by Cpl Dennis F. made Jul 5 at 2016 10:46 PM

2016-07-05T22:46:42-04:00

For those who have not read the code or perhaps not posted it...here it is:
Sylvia Davis Why is hilary not be prosecuted? Federal Law: Title 18. Section 2071
Can it be any clearer?
Former United States Attorney General Michael Mukasey tells MSNBC that not only is Hillary Clinton's private email server illegal, it "disqualifies" her from holding any federal office.
Such as, say, President of the United States.
"If you do this or that bad thing, you've essentially disqualified yourself as being the leader of the free world," said Mukasey, referring to the illegal server and the illegal handling of classified materials.
Mukasey specifically points to one federal law, Title 18. Section 2071.
For those of us who do not have United States Code committed to memory, here's what it says:
“(a)
Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b)
Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.”
Yes, it explicitly states "shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States."
Shouldn't voters know that? The media won't tell them. So it's up to us. Can you help hold Hillary accountable?

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 6 at 2016 12:37 AM

2016-07-06T00:37:13-04:00

It would if your were a S2 officer or any officer, for that matter, entrusted with classified material.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 6 at 2016 9:05 AM

2016-07-06T09:05:58-04:00

I hold a TS/SCI clearance. If I were to walk out of my office holding classified information and it not be properly labeled and double wrapped in a secure bag, well let's just say losing my clearance would be the least of my worries. But now I can use the defense of "I didn't intentionally mean to so we are all cool. Right?"

Response by SGT Jerrold Pesz made Jul 7 at 2016 3:24 PM

2016-07-07T15:24:36-04:00

That is only one of many reasons that Hillary is unfit for command.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 14 at 2018 10:10 PM

2018-03-14T22:10:01-04:00

No it does not. But to what extent of mishandling?