Well, Trump does it again! Spills classified information to foreign head of state.

Discussion in 'Intelligence' started by Kode, May 24, 2017.

  1. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your beloved "god-emperor" does! :eek:
     
    Mr_Truth likes this.
  2. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,644
    Likes Received:
    13,766
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gadaffi had been on a 2 billion dollar spending spree in Moscow in 2010.. Those shoulder fired missiles came from Gadaffis arms cache.
     
    Mr_Truth and Derideo_Te like this.
  3. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,644
    Likes Received:
    13,766
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ambassador Stevens arrived in Benghazi from Tripoli on Sept 11th.. The dedication at Benghazi hospital was scheduled for the 12th. And for the record oil company execs don't go into a war zone to negotiate with militias and ambassadors.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  4. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It was Cheney/Bush that disbanded the Iraqi military thereby creating the trained ISIS army that knew how to use the weapons that were left behind for the coalition government that Cheney/Bush had set up for failure.
     
    Mr_Truth likes this.
  5. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,424
    Likes Received:
    51,244
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Maybe not:

    U.S.-Approved Arms for Libya Rebels Fell Into Jihadis’ Hands

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/w...ith-us-approval-fell-into-islamist-hands.html








    • Qatar last year, but American officials later grew alarmed as evidence grew that Qatar was turning some of the weapons over to Islamic militants, according to United States officials and foreign diplomats.

      But in the months before the Benghazi attack, the Obama administration clearly was worried about the consequences of its hidden hand in helping arm Libyan militants, concerns that have not previously been reported. The weapons and money from Qatar strengthened militant groups in Libya, allowing them to become a destabilizing force since the fall of the Qaddafi government.

      The experience in Libya has taken on new urgency as the administration considers whether to play a direct role in arming rebels in Syria, where weapons are flowing in from Qatar and other countries.

      The United States, which had only small numbers of C.I.A. officers in Libya during the tumult of the rebellion, provided little oversight of the arms shipments. Within weeks of endorsing Qatar’s plan to send weapons there in spring 2011, the White House began receiving reports that they were going to Islamic militant groups. They were “more antidemocratic, more hard-line, closer to an extreme version of Islam” than the main rebel alliance in Libya, said a former Defense Department official.
      The Qatari assistance to fighters viewed as hostile by the United States demonstrates the Obama administration’s continuing struggles in dealing with the Arab Spring uprisings, as it tries to support popular protest movements while avoiding American military entanglements. Relying on surrogates allows the United States to keep its fingerprints off operations, but also means they may play out in ways that conflict with American interests.

      “To do this right, you have to have on-the-ground intelligence and you have to have experience,” said Vali Nasr, a former State Department adviser who is now dean of the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, part of Johns Hopkins University. “If you rely on a country that doesn’t have those things, you are really flying blind. When you have an intermediary, you are going to lose control.”

      He said that Qatar would not have gone through with the arms shipments if the United States had resisted them, but other current and former administration officials said Washington had little leverage at times over Qatari officials.

      During the frantic early months of the Libyan rebellion, various players motivated by politics or profit — including an American arms dealer who proposed weapons transfers in an e-mail exchange with a United States emissary later killed in Benghazi — sought to aid those trying to oust Colonel Qaddafi.

      After the White House decided to encourage Qatar — and on a smaller scale, the United Arab Emirates — to ship arms to the Libyans, President Obama complained in April 2011 to the emir of Qatar that his country was not coordinating its actions in Libya with the United States, the American officials said. “The president made the point to the emir that we needed transparency about what Qatar was doing in Libya,” said a former senior administration official who had been briefed on the matter.

      About that same time, Mahmoud Jibril, then the prime minister of the Libyan transitional government, expressed frustration to administration officials that the United States was allowing Qatar to arm extremist groups opposed to the new leadership, according to several American officials.
      Qatar is believed to have shipped by air and sea small arms, including machine guns, automatic rifles, and ammunition, for which it has demanded reimbursement from Libya’s new government. Some of the arms since have been moved from Libya to militants with ties to Al Qaeda in Mali, where radical jihadi factions have imposed Shariah law in the northern part of the country, the former Defense Department official said. Others have gone to Syria, according to several American and foreign officials and arms traders.

      The White House largely relied on Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Qatar has given arms and money to various opposition and militant groups, chiefly Sunni Islamists, in hopes of cementing alliances with the new governments.

      The Obama administration backed the arms shipments from both countries, according to two former administration officials briefed on the talks.

      American officials say that the United Arab Emirates approached the Obama administration asking for permission to ship American-built weapons that the United States had supplied for the emirates’ use. The administration urged the emirates to ship weapons to Libya that could not be traced to the United States.

      “The U.A.E. was asking for clearance to send U.S. weapons,” said one former official. “We told them it’s O.K. to ship other weapons.”

      Qatar supplied weapons made outside the United States, including French- and Russian-designed arms. American support for the arms shipments from Qatar and the emirates could not be completely hidden. NATO air and sea forces around Libya had to be alerted not to interdict the cargo planes and freighters transporting the arms into Libya from Qatar and the emirates.

      Concerns in Washington soon rose about the groups Qatar was supporting. A debate over what to do about the weapons shipments dominated at least one meeting of the so-called Deputies Committee, the interagency panel consisting of the second-highest ranking officials in major agencies involved in national security. “There was a lot of concern that the Qatar weapons were going to Islamist groups,” one official recalled.

      The Qataris provided weapons, money and training to various rebel groups in Libya.

      “Nobody knew exactly who they were,” said the former defense official. The Qataris, the official added, are “supposedly good allies, but the Islamists they support are not in our interest.”

      The case of Marc Turi, the American arms merchant who had sought to provide weapons to Libya, demonstrates other challenges the United States faced in dealing with Libya. A dealer who lives in both Arizona and Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates, Mr. Turi sells small arms to buyers in the Middle East and Africa, relying primarily on suppliers of Russian-designed weapons in Eastern Europe.

      In March 2011, just as the Libyan civil war was intensifying, Mr. Turi realized that Libya could be a lucrative new market, and applied to the State Department for a license to provide weapons to the rebels there, according to e-mails and other documents he has provided.
      He also e-mailed J. Christopher Stevens, then the special representative to the Libyan rebel alliance. The diplomat said he would “share” Mr. Turi’s proposal with colleagues in Washington, according to e-mails provided by Mr. Turi. Mr. Stevens, who became the United States ambassador to Libya, was one of the four Americans killed in the Benghazi attack on Sept. 11.

      Mr. Turi’s application for a license was rejected in late March 2011. Undeterred, he applied again, this time stating only that he planned to ship arms worth more than $200 million to Qatar. In May 2011, his application was approved. Mr. Turi, in an interview, said that his intent was to get weapons to Qatar and that what “the U.S. government and Qatar allowed from there was between them.”

      Two months later, though, his home near Phoenix was raided by agents from the Department of Homeland Security. Administration officials say he remains under investigation in connection with his arms dealings. The Justice Department would not comment.

      Mr. Turi said he believed that United States officials had shut down his proposed arms pipeline because he was getting in the way of the Obama administration’s dealings with Qatar. The Qataris, he complained, imposed no controls on who got the weapons. “They just handed them out like candy,” he said.
     
    Ddyad and Merwen like this.
  6. MVictorP

    MVictorP Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2014
    Messages:
    7,663
    Likes Received:
    1,827
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Crying "fire" in a crowded theatre is also "free speech".
     
  7. Just_Saying

    Just_Saying Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2017
    Messages:
    453
    Likes Received:
    326
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Female
    More fake news? It's funny that while Obama, George Soros's minions in the media, and the DNC who are spending ALL their time in office bashing Trump and getting absolutely NOTHING else accomplished, Trump is trying to mend all of our ally relationships in Europe and the Middle East that Obama tore down. And while doing this, Obama is reportedly there as well talking trash about Trump trying to undo everything he's accomplished. Obama has never done anything but tear this country apart and use his smooth rhetoric to divide people and nations using the "United we stand, divided we fall" mentality. Only question is, what country is he really working for because anyone who has actually been paying attention with a minimal amount of intelligence knows his agenda was not to help America but rather to tear it down.

    And speaking of traitors, why in hell is the number two one Hillary Clinton who should be in prison, still giving speeches and bashing Trump?
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  8. Fred C Dobbs

    Fred C Dobbs Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2016
    Messages:
    19,496
    Likes Received:
    9,006
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nothing will happen. There will be no war, the submarines will not come under attack, but you are being manipulated by those who will do and say everything they can in order to undermine the Presidency.. That should be your main concern.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  9. Fred C Dobbs

    Fred C Dobbs Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2016
    Messages:
    19,496
    Likes Received:
    9,006
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And a wise pronouncement if there is a fire. But in this case there is no fire, yet the Chicken Littles are running around the barnyard claiming there is.
     
  10. Just_Saying

    Just_Saying Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2017
    Messages:
    453
    Likes Received:
    326
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Female
    NEWSFLASH: As of this date, although the left keeps sending up smoke signals pathetically trying to drag their no "there there" out until the next election while inundating the public with unsubstantiated BS with absolutely zero proof, there is however plenty of actual documented evidence to warrant a REAL investigation on the left. Everyone from Obama and Hillary down to the infamous James Comey of the FBI should be put under a magnifying glass, not Trump's team. But disturbingly instead of aiding the current administration in these very troubled times, they spend all their days accomplishing nothing good for the country but rather search for ways to destroy whatever Trump tries to accomplish. These people are nothing but a bunch of traitors who should all be hauled off to prison for, yep you guessed it, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE among a very long list of other crimes.
     
    Fred C Dobbs and Ddyad like this.
  11. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,310
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah, Nixon fell victim to the same conspiracy and fake news. And the moon landing never happened either.

    Listen. These reports on Trump and his people have been coming out daily for weeks and weeks. And many of the stories have explained and confirmed others. Much of it dovetails together. Almost nothing of it has been refuted. A picture is being painted.

    Meanwhile on the right we have objections, accusations of conspiracy, accusations of "fake news", opinions, and general blather but no research or evidence that refutes any of it. No in-depth reporting that refutes any of it. .... Just flailing and whining.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2017
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  12. Fred C Dobbs

    Fred C Dobbs Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2016
    Messages:
    19,496
    Likes Received:
    9,006
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeaaaah. Okey Dokey..
     
    Zorro likes this.
  13. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,310
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I just edited my post. Read it now.
     
  14. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,424
    Likes Received:
    51,244
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes. But only "crying fire in a theater" is like "crying fire in a theater". And of course refers to an outdated legal standard, 1919 Schenck. At one point, the law criminalized such speech, which created a "clear and present danger." But since 1969, for speech to break the law, it can’t merely lead others to dangerous situations. It must directly encourage others to commit specific criminal actions of their own.

    Schenck did not involve fires, theaters or general panic, but a protest against the WW1 military draft. Charles Schenck printed 15,000 fliers that encouraged readers to resist conscription. The Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 criminalized such an offense.

    Do you support this criminalization of draft resistance?

    Schenck argued that the Constitution allowed his expression, but the Court disagreed. They claimed Schnenck’s fliers created a clear and present danger — a clear and present danger to the government’s recruiting efforts. He hadn’t endangered life, as falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater would have, but he may as well have, according to the Court. Do you agree with the Court's finding?

    This "clear and present danger" standard stood for half a century. Further rulings even expanded it, criminalizing even more speech.

    Then in 1969 this was largely rolled back by the Court. Charles Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan leader, had spoken to group members at a televised Ohio rally. He’d used inflammatory language and racial slurs. He’d called for "revengeance," which Ohio prosecutors interpreted as a call to violence. This meant, said the prosecutors, that Charles Brandenburg had broken the law.

    A statute, which the state had enacted the same year as the Schenck decision, criminalized the advocacy of crime or violence.

    Brandenburg claimed the First Amendment protected his speech. His appeal reached the Supreme Court, and the Court agreed with him, overturning Schenck. Advocacy, even when it encourages law-breaking, helps the marketplace of ideas, ruled the Court. Had Brandenburg instructed followers to commit a specific crime, he’d have committed a number of offenses himself. But the First Amendment protects speech that merely advocates general, indefinite illegal action.

    To break the law, speech now has to incite "imminent lawless action."

    If a court can prove that you incite imminent lawlessness by falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, it can convict you. If you incite an unlawful riot, your speech is "brigaded" with illegal action, and you will have broken the law. Merely falsely shouting "fire" does not break the law, even if it risks others’ safety.

    And, of course, no court will fault you for warning of a fire that actually exists.

    More:
    http://civil-liberties.yoexpert.com...-shout-"fire"-in-a-crowded-theater-19421.html
     
  15. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,424
    Likes Received:
    51,244
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ut-Oh!
     
  16. Fred C Dobbs

    Fred C Dobbs Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2016
    Messages:
    19,496
    Likes Received:
    9,006
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It will all likely be exposed during the next couple of years, with the right political timing. These items here will certainly be exposed and the swamp eventually cleared..
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2017
  17. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,424
    Likes Received:
    51,244
    Trophy Points:
    113
  18. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    News flash. Trump seems to be she felonious leaker.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  19. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    :roflol:

    American-Treblinka trying to polish the Orange Turd in the Oval office again?

    No one takes his tweets seriously except the extremist alt right.

    That is also NOT how those kinds of communications are handled between sovereign nations either.

    :roflol:
     
    Mr_Truth likes this.
  20. Fred C Dobbs

    Fred C Dobbs Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2016
    Messages:
    19,496
    Likes Received:
    9,006
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But these 'reports' contain nothing of substance, just like this submarine story. The old story about editors separating the wheat from the chaff, and then printing the chaff, is certainly especially true today. It's often not just 'fake news' but often false and misleading news as well. This non story is just such an example.
     
  21. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's some conspiracy you got cooked up in your brain. Fox must have made some similar statement?
     
    Mr_Truth likes this.
  22. Fred C Dobbs

    Fred C Dobbs Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2016
    Messages:
    19,496
    Likes Received:
    9,006
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure. And you naturally have a link from a reliable non-anonymous source?
     
  23. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Who gave the head of state the news that this thread is about?
    The head of state was never told about subs?
     
  24. Fred C Dobbs

    Fred C Dobbs Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2016
    Messages:
    19,496
    Likes Received:
    9,006
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It seems you're unclear about what a 'leaker' actually is.
     
  25. Fallen

    Fallen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2015
    Messages:
    4,905
    Likes Received:
    466
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Suggests that subs are operating off the coast of Korea are lone wolves then called it "immaterial" when I pointed out that they are operating with 2 carriers. Then goes about similar nonsense.

    Do you understand what would be classified are the actual coordinates? Its not revealing classified information to say that our subs occupy a general body of water. In this case it could be 1 of 2. Or maybe both. What is classified are coordinates and the time of those coordinates. Because that is what could enable the enemy to track the exact location of our subs. So you see, you did imply that trump gave away coordinates. Because time and coordinates are the info that actually would be classified. Not some general location.

    Trump said that we have 2 subs operating off the coast of Korea.

    Are they somwhere near the western coast, somwhere in the vast space of the Yellow Sea? Are they somwhere off the eastern coast, somwhere in the vast space in the Sea of Japan? Which coast or sea are they even in or near? All Trump said that we have 2 subs operating off the coast of Korea

    Do you see now why your assertion that Trump gave away classified info is retarded?

    Appearently you think that saying that we have 2 subs that could be anywhere in the Yellow Sea or anywhere in the Sea of Japan is classified info.

    And again, in case you missed it. Even IF Trump gave away actual classified info,he has the authority to share classified info with whoever he wishes. Even North Korea itself.

    So youre wrong on all levels.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2017

Share This Page