What is the Federal Law regarding the protection of Classified Information?

2016-04-27T12:08:16-04:00

I am looking for two things. Please leave the Liberal and GOP Party hats OFF. I want to know what the law states regarding the marking of classified information and then second and here you can issue opinion but please try and leave your political agenda out of this, What does this mean for HRC based on what the law says NOT based on who she is.

Response by MSgt Richard Rountree made Apr 27 at 2016 12:33 PM

2016-04-27T12:33:20-04:00

First, IANAL. Second, it's been it's been 26 years since I handled classified information and I have not kept current on any changes in the law or how the laws were implemented by the DOD. As for the Department of State, I have no clue if they have the same or similar implementations as DOD. I will say I am a former TSCO (Top Secret Control Officer) for three USAF installations in the UK. If I or my staff EVER handled that level of classified in the manner alleged I believe all of us would still be in jail. This should be an interesting thread and I hope someone that actually knows the current law is willing to post about it.

Response by TSgt David L. made Apr 27 at 2016 12:36 PM

2016-04-27T12:36:29-04:00

I don't know about the Fed law but the military is covered by this rule. Not sure if this helps.
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/520001_vol3.pdf

Response by SGT Edward Wilcox made Apr 27 at 2016 1:50 PM

2016-04-27T13:50:39-04:00

Since it has already been established that no information was classified when it crossed her server, the entire question is moot.

As for a specific law that covers classified materials and information, there isn't one. There are, in fact, several. A quick Google search, and a subsequent search on the Legal Information Institute website(part of Cornell Law School), found laws that covered classified information for the Departments of Transportation and Justice. Good hunting.

After debating this issue with you on other threads, I find your plea to leave political agendas out of the conversation disingenuous.

Have a nice day.

Response by MSgt Doug P. made Apr 27 at 2016 2:42 PM

2016-04-27T14:42:36-04:00

There are several laws regarding classified information but as to marking classified information, the current standard is based on E.O. 13526: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information (section 1.6 for the markings section).
More of the regulations are found in 32 CFR Part 2001: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/32/part-2001.

See https://www.archives.gov/isoo/training/marking-booklet.pdf and https://www.ncsc.gov/training/WBT/docs/CM_AltText_021312.pdf for practical classified marking methods. That's the basic guidance to mark classified materials. Some classified materials will have additional requirements that get added to the materials. And each department (State, Defense, etc.) has their own additional requirements and regulations.

Those entrusted with a security clearance and access to classified materials are also taught how to recognize classified (or potentially classified) materials even without the proper markings. If such information is found outside of proper channels or facilities, the information must be secured (if possible) and reported to a security official immediately.

For the 2nd part of your question, you'll need to review 18 USC 37: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-37 sections 793 and 798.

If any mere mortal (typical workers with classified access, not the elite or political classes) were to have done anything remotely similar to what HRC (or even Gen Patraeus) did, they'd have their clearance/access revoked, be arrested immediately, and jailed while security officials investigated what happened. Only after the investigation is complete would they either be released as innocent or charged with a violation. If found to have been involved in a security incident, most have their security clearance revoked for a long time if not permanently whether or not another additional fines or punishment is levied.

The fact that members of the political or elite classes routinely flaunt the law or only receive a verbal warning or a slap on the wrist infuriates those not privileged with their status. This double-standard should not exist if the law was applied evenly to all citizens.

Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information

This order prescribes a uniform system for classifying, safeguarding, and declassifying national security information, including information relating to defense against transnational terrorism. Our democratic principles require that the American people be informed of the activities of their Government. Also, our Nation's progress depends on the free flow of information both within the Government and to the American people. Nevertheless,...

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 27 at 2016 3:28 PM

2016-04-27T15:28:11-04:00

No one here can answer the second question. Because despite all of the "leaks" by various sources, no one knows exactly what material in the Hillary emails was determined to be classified. Because, Surprise! They redacted the classified stuff and it wasn't released to the public. therefore, it is also impossible to say whether any or all of that material that some agencies believe is now classified, was actually classified at the time the emails were sent. So again, anyone claiming to have a knowledgeable opinion on whether Hillary broke any law or not is full of shit. The actual facts needed to make that determination have not been released to the public. But of course, since it's an election year, the lack of facts hasn't stopped the right wingers from putting out article after article outlining how Hillary is absolutely guilty of breaking all sorts of laws.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Apr 27 at 2016 3:51 PM

2016-04-27T15:51:23-04:00

Oooh.... Rabbit hole...

Classified Information gets "tricky" because MOST of it is not actually covered under LAW, but Executive Order (WHICH IS NOT LAW). It has the Full Force of Law, in the Absence of Law, and Clarifies Existing Law.

Think of it like Military Regulations. You break one, you're screwed, but you didn't break a Law.

That's really a semantics issue, but it changes how things are (potentially) handled. E.O.s are subject to the whim of the Executive, whereas Law in theory applies to everyone.

Remember there are "rules" regarding the disclosure of classified information (we signed Non-disclosure agreements. VOLUNTARILY) However, some positions, by virtue of position alone are granted clearance regardless of who the person is, are granted a clearance. Specifically elected officials, and Senate confirmed ones. They don't go through the "standard background check" like the rest of us. You can't tell the President he doesn't get a TS President's Eyes Only.

For someone like the Sec State, who likely violated an Administrative Rule/Regulation/E.O. it boils down to the following:

1) Did she "knowingly" disseminate classified? That's knowingly is the biggest hurdle for CRIMINAL charges. Chances are the FBI has her dead to rights on NEGLIGENT. But going from Negligent to Criminal is the issue.

2) Did the leaks cause ACTUAL harm to U.S. interest. Actual vs. Potential is another huge hurdle. It also ties into the Negligence vs. Criminal aspect.

3) Context. All this went down at the same time as Snowden & Manning. Her "errors" (best neutral word I can think of) pale in comparison to theirs.

This is before we get into what is and what is not classified based on markings, and analysis etc. Guys like SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4" and myself can't comment on news stories because "that's classified" even though their sources are 100% unclassified. It's not the information itself that is the issue, it's everything behind. It's like an Iceberg, the 90% you don't see is the problem. We may "know" something is classified, but we don't know how they got that information (in an unclassified way) which creates conflicts in marking.

A similar concept is "parallel investigations/construction" (where law enforcement construct a case using two sets of sources). This creates massive DOUBT when it comes to criminal intent. Makes it hard to press charges against HRC.

Response by SSG Mathew Ada made Apr 28 at 2016 5:38 AM

2016-04-28T05:38:02-04:00

For digital classified documents you must use a computer with secured line that is approved of the corresponding clearance level. For physical documents or items they must be sealed and marked in the correct identifying marks of the classification level and handled by an assigned courier of equal clearance level after signing that they have possession of the documents. Spillage happens primarily with digital records than physical, as a messenger is still the most secure line of transport and communication. The burden of proof relies on whether or not those responsible for the loss of the documents is that of the security management team. If they are doing their jobs, there will be no issues. If not, then it is a failure on both parties and both are subject to judiciary punishment.

Response by PO2 Mark Saffell made Apr 28 at 2016 7:16 AM

2016-04-28T07:16:16-04:00

WOW. Not sure if everyone in the post will get this but Thank You. Great Information and now we have a better understanding of the Rock and Hard spot the FBI is in. Based on what I learned here, at the very least HRC, her staff and even the State Department are guilty of a loosy goosy handling of classified material. We don't know if the FBI has proof or not that a staffer or staffers where instructed to re-type material in order to move it from the classified system to an un-classified one, but we do know that had she not set up her own private server most of this would not have happened. We also know there may be evidence that she "Knowingly" tried to skirt around the laws but we don't know if she over stepped them enough for criminal charges.

Again Than you all for the information. Funny but scary part is when I had my TS I didn't know half of this stuff. ALL I knew was you didn't talk about it, copy it, send it or leave it unprotected. My life was so much easier when I had my clearance. I just kept everything in the safe and my mouth shut about what I knew...LOL BUT least I knew what was and wasn't classified. We all knew it based on family of information and if we didn't know without a doubt...we considered it classified.

Seems to me people in the State Department and the government would have learned that if in doubt, consider it classified and there would have been a lot less potential for the release of classified information to people not authorized to see it.