• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

The end of NATO?

Spekkio said:
I mean, that's really the million dollar question as to whether this was classified, and to what level?
Click to expand...
Set aside the classification specifics, especially since SecDef, NSA, DNI, DCI, VP, SecState all have OCA and can claim they never classified it, focus on the desire to protect the info. Was it worth protecting? This guy seemed to have thought so…

We are currently clean on OPSEC.
- Hegseth
 
JTS11 said:
Was trying to find the pic of his security detail from today with a dude with a rifle standing at the base of the stairs to his jet, but couldn't clip it. Is this normal, or just more cosplay? Here was the only similar pic I could find.

Click to expand...
I’ve never seen NAOC pull security in picklesuits. Not to say they can’t and don’t have the ability to use aircrew, but if they were at Andrews this is all likely for show because they could have used base security forces or the other fly away security they carry
 
taxi1 said:
Set aside the classification specifics, especially since SecDef, NSA, DNI, DCI, VP, SecState all have OCA and can claim they never classified it, focus on the desire to protect the info. Was it worth protecting? This guy seemed to have thought so…
Click to expand...
Wouldn't that information be born secret the minute it was written by someone in the N3 or J3 shop at CENTCOM? If so, this goes back to his defense being "Well it was classified until I declassified it", which is not at all what has been testified so far.
 
Max Q said:
I’ve never seen NAOC pull security in picklesuits. Not to say they can’t and don’t have the ability to use aircrew, but if they were at Andrews this is all likely for show because they could have used base security forces or the other fly away security they carry
Click to expand...
Even the USSS doesn't do this shit for POTUS.
 
taxi1 said:
Set aside the classification specifics, especially since SecDef, NSA, DNI, DCI, VP, SecState all have OCA and can claim they never classified it, focus on the desire to protect the info. Was it worth protecting? This guy seemed to have thought so…

We are currently clean on OPSEC.
- Hegseth
Click to expand...
It's relevant when discussing the appropriate amount of accountability.

The buzz around many parts of the internet is that Hegseth should be jailed for some grave violation of statute and DoD regulations. I don't see it based on what I understand of DoD regulations and SECDEF's classification role in US statute.

Like, a CO probably shouldn't violate their own shipboard liberty policy. But they can and face no repercussions for it other than the dent to their credibility among the boys.

So then this goes back to - own a lapse of judgment, apologize, say you'll tighten up the processes, and let's move on. And again, I think this administration has a lot more egg on its face from the pre-discussion when people like Putin, Xi, et. al read the talking points from everyone not-named Michael Waltz - not suprisingly, the only person who is owning up to the incident.
 
JTS11 said:
Was trying to find the pic of his security detail from today with a dude with a rifle standing at the base of the stairs to his jet, but couldn't clip it. Is this normal, or just more cosplay? Here was the only similar pic I could find.

Click to expand...
The whole schtick is cosplay.

We all know a guy who: by all accounts, served honorably, got himself a TV gig, an (alleged) drinking problem, a few divorces, an unceremonious removal from a non-profit (see alleged drinking problem), and along the way vastly out-punted his intellectual coverage. The pushups with the Joes, the shitty mil-vit-bro-black-rifle-9Line-yut-yut cliche tattoos - it all comes together and fits really nicely when viewed through the lens of the guy in a group chat trying to look tough or "cool" about what he knows. We've all seen this kind of guy in a bar around Coronado or Virginia Beach; we've seen this kind of guy on podcasts and youtube shows. It's rank insecurity masquerading as competence. The problem for this kinda guy is that there are a shit ton of folks out there who know the score and knows he's a hollow suit.

I've still yet to see anyone make a rational defense of the escapade. I've seen some posts that are dripping with whataboutism, I've seen what appear to be the opinions of some failed night-court JAG, and I've seen some "so what," replies here, but nobody has yet to actually defended putting TOTs in a commercial messaging app that the IC and DoD just got done saying had exploitable backdoors. If you dont (or wont) understand why putting the TOTs in a Signal chat is bad a) go look at the threat systems Yemen has picked up from the Iranians and b) consider resigning your clearance. You can sea-lawyer your way through rhetorical mealy-mouthed partisan talking points, but I'm still waiting to see someone say, "yeah, this okay, no issues."

Moral outrage? No. Professional embarrassment - they're different.
 
Jesus Christ this thread is a shit show. In the past three pages alone, I've seen:

1.) Four separate definitions of national security ("normal damage to national security"?? What in the goddamn double deep-fried fuck does that mean?)

2.) Gymnastics of a staggering degree to hand-wave a clear violation that would have easily had any of us in deep shit on active-duty with zero argument from anyone over the significance.

3.) Inane comparison of the Yemen war plans being sent via Signal to a.) the B2 spirit's RCS and b.) A CO violating shipboard liberty policy. WTF, again. You sure you don't want to set the guardrails any wider than that?

4.) The naive assumption that the Houthis were the only ones that could possibly benefit from advance knowledge of the raid. Fortunately, others have pointed out the clear fallacy of that argument.


You all need to check your bearings. We used to give a shit about security, and phrases like OPSEC and "loose lips sink ships" meant something. Now, it seems to have gone fucking partisan like every other goddamned thing. We all know SECDEF isn't getting fired over this. But don't minimize and be an apologist for what was not only remarkably bad judgment, but an explicit and willful violation of DoD security policy.
 
What I was trying to say is that there is a legal and moral aspect to this.

From a legal standpoint, I can't get to a clear-cut way in which Hegseth violated the law or regulations that apply to him. Which means accountability measures like prosecution, DOJ investigation, or even resignation are off the table.

From a moral standpoint, what he did was fucked up, put real people at risk, and embarrassed the U.S. in a big way.

Higher level example of a spouse who cleans out the bonus deposited to a joint bank account to buy random shit before filing for divorce. It's fucked up, but not illegal.
 
Spekkio said:
Higher level example of a spouse who cleans out the bonus deposited to a joint bank account to buy random shit before filing for divorce. It's fucked up, but not illegal.
Click to expand...

You’re really going to compare this to “the bitch took all my money”? It’s equivalent to that in your mind?

I guess those guardrails could be wider after all. Sure am glad none of my kids are going into the service- y’all might sell them out for the LOLz, and then tell us why it was OK.
 
sevenhelmet said:
Jesus Christ this thread is a shit show. In the past three pages alone, I've seen:

1.) Four separate definitions of national security ("normal damage to national security"?? What in the goddamn double deep-fried fuck does that mean?)

2.) Gymnastics of a staggering degree to hand-wave a clear violation that would have easily had any of us in deep shit on active-duty with zero argument from anyone over the significance.

3.) Inane comparison of the Yemen war plans being sent via Signal to a.) the B2 spirit's RCS and b.) A CO violating shipboard liberty policy. WTF, again. You sure you don't want to set the guardrails any wider than that?

4.) The naive assumption that the Houthis were the only ones that could possibly benefit from advance knowledge of the raid. Fortunately, others have pointed out the clear fallacy of that argument.


You all need to check your bearings. We used to give a shit about security, and phrases like OPSEC and "loose lips sink ships" meant something. Now, it seems to have gone fucking partisan like every other goddamned thing. We all know SECDEF isn't getting fired over this. But don't minimize and be an apologist for what was not only remarkably bad judgment, but an explicit and willful violation of DoD security policy.
Click to expand...
images
 
I said 'scaled up example.' An analogy on how someone can do something morally shitty while not being illegal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top