• 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?

robav8r

robav8r

Well-Known Member
None
Contributor
Faded Float Coat said:
Again, @robav8r , I'm intrigued, does Bartstool Dave's commentary (that you shared here as "interesting") count as "moral outrage" or is it just commentary? See, I'm confused. Because Dave said a lot of things that folks here have also expressed. Which one is interesting and which one crosses your threshold?

Contrarianism isn't a virtue.
Click to expand...
@Faded Float Coat easy now, your sanctimonious meter is pegging out. I think the JV nature of what Mike Walz did was just that, JV. And Dave makes a good point that POTUS may need to send a shot across the bow and let him, or others, go. But the whole WAR PLANS narrative on the left is comical, at best. Don't worry, I won't bother you with "whataboutism's" but like I said earlier in this string, I think a context and content discussion is worthy, without the "YOU SHOULD HAVE YOUR CLEARANCE PULLED !!!" Give me a fucking break . . . . .

So, maybe we can go forward and just "talk" with one another here, share information and insights, maybe even a sea story or two. Maybe we can make the collective audience smarter, and more engaged on issues they know little about. You know, that whole leadership thing . . . . but without the constant barrage of arrogant, sarcastic barbs that ultimately turn everyone off. And yes, I can be as guilty as anyone here.

Sorry, forgot to add a few smiley emojis 🙂 :):D
 
Last edited:
Faded Float Coat

Faded Float Coat

Suck Less
pilot
JV nature is an awfully generous characterization, and if we cared enough to go find your posts circa 2015-2016 I think we'd see some different framing...

Wrong is wrong because it's wrong. It's not JV and it's not open for interpretation. Make a good defense for any of this that isn't pulled from the mouths of partisan hacks - you cant.

Sanctimony? Fuck yeah. Put yourself onboard HST right now and think, "wait, I'm getting ready to fly and strike these targets, and while Yemen's air defense isn't exactly Moscow, if they have a heads up I'm coming, they've got some things..." and then wonder whether or not your own fucking WH administration is the one providing the tipper. Sanctimony? Yeah, unapologetically,

Finally, if we're getting our feelings hurt by "arrogant" or "sarcastic" remarks, maybe I've misunderstood the ready room nature of this forum.
 
robav8r

robav8r

Well-Known Member
None
Contributor
Faded Float Coat said:
JV nature is an awfully generous characterization, and if we cared enough to go find your posts circa 2015-2016 I think we'd see some different framing...

Wrong is wrong because it's wrong. It's not JV and it's not open for interpretation. Make a good defense for any of this that isn't pulled from the mouths of partisan hacks - you cant.

Sanctimony? Fuck yeah. Put yourself onboard HST right now and think, "wait, I'm getting ready to fly and strike these targets, and while Yemen's air defense isn't exactly Moscow, if they have a heads up I'm coming, they've got some things..." and then wonder whether or not your own fucking WH administration is the one providing the tipper. Sanctimony? Yeah, unapologetically,

Finally, if we're getting our feelings hurt by "arrogant" or "sarcastic" remarks, maybe I've misunderstood the ready room nature of this forum.
Click to expand...
You make fair points, and based on what I know about your background, you share some very salient information. And I respect your comments (well, sometimes) and prior service. Like I said previously, perhaps POTUS needs to send a message here and send someone home. My JV comment was about letting the Atlantic author in to join the chat, not the information that was shared among the group.
 
JTS11

JTS11

Well-Known Member
pilot
Contributor
robav8r said:
You make fair points, and based on what I know about your background, you share some very salient information. And I respect your comments (well, sometimes) and prior service. Like I said previously, perhaps POTUS needs to send a message here and send someone home. My JV comment was about letting the Atlantic author in to join the chat, not the information that was shared among the group.
Click to expand...
It's JV the fact that the chain was in existence, not the fact that the Atlantic editor was ham-fistedly brought in. I'm sure you'd agree. How many other Signal groups are/were out there among our senior leaders? The fucking DNI was overseas participating in the chat, and can't remember if she was using her personal or govt phone? Ridiculous.
 
taxi1

taxi1

Well-Known Member
pilot
Moving on from the supernova of moronitude that is the Signal Chat incident...

Is airpower alone enough to deter or destroy Houthi capability to gum up the Red Sea works?
 
johnboyA6E

johnboyA6E

Well-Known Member
None
Spekkio said:
If I were President and wanted to nail a rogue SECDEF to the cross for reading a TS / SCI oplan to the press, what can I do besides fire him?
Click to expand...

I'm certainly no lawyer, but I've read some interesting analysis from a former, senior DOJ lawyer, who support the president, but also supports the law. In this case, there is a strong argument for a criminal referral for violation of the Espionage Act. This is the same offense that Hillary was investigated for, but was never charged.

Section 793(f), Title 18, U.S. Code.
"Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any...... information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, ..... Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

This law isn't limited to Classified info, it covers "information relating to the national defense". There's no question the text thread meets that definition.
The law also doesn't require "knowingly, or purposeful" disclosure, that is covered in a separate section.

The key is whether or not this rises to the level of "Gross Negligence". Plenty of arguments to be made, but I think a knowlegable, reasonable person could very well find that this conduct is definitely Negligent.

1. Hegseth KNEW the info he put out was sensitive, related to national defense, and needed to be protected - hence "we are clear on OPSEC"
2. Hegseth KNEW that he was putting out this info on an unsecure, commercial platform, that was specifically called out recently as risky.
3. Hegseth KNEW that there were more than a dozen people on the text thread, some only identified by initials, and he also knew that any random person with a mobile number could be added by anyone in the chat.
4. Hegseth also KNEW that he didn't affirmativley verify who was on the chat before delivering sensitive info.

I don't know the legal ins and outs of proving negligence, but an adversarial DOJ could certainly make a case. Alas, the fact that the DOJ is on the same team is the reason nothing will happen, same as with Hillary. POTUS has already shrugged this off, and nobody is going to make him fire SecDef.

Personally, I think Hegseth should step down, but that would require a level of accountability and honor that doesn't seem to exist anymore.
 
taxi1

taxi1

Well-Known Member
pilot
cfam said:
Speaking of passwords, our favorite chat group members aren’t the best at locking down their personal info: https://www.spiegel.de/internationa...online-a-14221f90-e5c2-48e5-bc63-10b705521fb7
Click to expand...
Our SecDef

It was particularly easy for DER SPIEGEL reporters to discover Hegseth’s mobile number and email address. They turned to a commercial provider of contact information that is primarily used by companies for sales, marketing and recruitment.

DER SPIEGEL sent the provider a link to Hegseth’s LinkedIn profile and received a Gmail address and a mobile phone number in return, in addition to other information. A search of leaked user data revealed that the email address and, in some cases, even the password associated with it, could be found in over 20 publicly accessible leaks. Using publicly available information, it was possible to verify that the email address was used just a few days ago.

I can barely imagine all of the foreign intel folks bumping into each other digitally up under his skirt.

Bro...
 
Spekkio

Spekkio

He bowls overhand.
taxi1 said:
Moving on from the supernova of moronitude that is the Signal Chat incident...

Is airpower alone enough to deter or destroy Houthi capability to gum up the Red Sea works?
Click to expand...
What I gleaned from the convo: VP thinks no and it's a waste, but also can't have honest conversations with the President.

Michael Walz thinks yes and it's worthwhile.

ODNI and CIA are of the opinion "shrug, here to support."

And SECDEF doesn't have any opinions about international commerce or whether air power is the right method, he just thinks the mission is critical to sticking it to Joe Biden.

Also, they all agree that Europe sucks.
 
Spekkio

Spekkio

He bowls overhand.
johnboyA6E said:
I'm certainly no lawyer, but I've read some interesting analysis from a former, senior DOJ lawyer, who support the president, but also supports the law. In this case, there is a strong argument for a criminal referral for violation of the Espionage Act. This is the same offense that Hillary was investigated for, but was never charged.

Section 793(f), Title 18, U.S. Code.
"Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any...... information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, ..... Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

This law isn't limited to Classified info, it covers "information relating to the national defense". There's no question the text thread meets that definition.
The law also doesn't require "knowingly, or purposeful" disclosure, that is covered in a separate section.

The key is whether or not this rises to the level of "Gross Negligence". Plenty of arguments to be made, but I think a knowlegable, reasonable person could very well find that this conduct is definitely Negligent.

1. Hegseth KNEW the info he put out was sensitive, related to national defense, and needed to be protected - hence "we are clear on OPSEC"
2. Hegseth KNEW that he was putting out this info on an unsecure, commercial platform, that was specifically called out recently as risky.
3. Hegseth KNEW that there were more than a dozen people on the text thread, some only identified by initials, and he also knew that any random person with a mobile number could be added by anyone in the chat.
4. Hegseth also KNEW that he didn't affirmativley verify who was on the chat before delivering sensitive info.

I don't know the legal ins and outs of proving negligence, but an adversarial DOJ could certainly make a case. Alas, the fact that the DOJ is on the same team is the reason nothing will happen, same as with Hillary. POTUS has already shrugged this off, and nobody is going to make him fire SecDef.

Personally, I think Hegseth should step down, but that would require a level of accountability and honor that doesn't seem to exist anymore.
Click to expand...
Thanks.

Apparently cabinet members can also be impeached. But that's not happening with a Republican House, not that they'd ever get 67 votes to convict in the Senate anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top