Signalgate: Pentagon watchdog probes Defense Sec Hegseth A US Department of Defense watchdog has opened an investigation into its own Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, over his use of instant-messaging app Signal to discuss government business. In a Thursday memorandum, the dept's acting Inspector General (IG) Steven Stebbins wrote [PDF] that a probe will be carried out in …
Sure.
I'm absolutely convinced that the military personnel involved in the operation will be thrilled to know that they were thrown into the meat grinder with their objective's full knowledge.
Every idiot that was part of that chat should be, hey, what's the term already ? Oh, right : Lock Them Up !
Surely one of the issues is whether Mr Hegseth knew that the Signal chat was unclassified only, as well as whether he posted classified information on it? If Mr Waltz did not warn people that the chat was on a commercial platform then Hegseth may have some defence (no pun intended).
It will be interesting to see what happens.
They knew exactly what they were doing. Signal is fairly secure, though it doesn't meet governance standards.
What's curious to me is that none of these security oriented people thought to check "Who's in the room" before discussing sensitive topics. Does Signal hide the list of attendees?
Doesn't really matter whether he knew or not.
However he will no doubt have been briefed on classifications, what could be shared where etc. when he took on the role so the presumption on him is to always question whether the people he is sharing with have sufficient need to know AND that he is doing it via an approved method.
Going by the transcript he's typing in stuff from some other system he's accessing which would have been plastered with the classification level and putting it onto a system, probably on a personal phone with his own copy of Signal, that would not have been on the list of approved methods he would have been given.
Massive failure in judgement. Especially with all the brouhaha about Hilary Clinton's private mail server previously.
Ignorance of the law is no defence. If the Defence Minister doesn't understand either the definition of classified information, or the requirements for secure communication, as set down in law, then he should resign. It really is as simple as that: he endangered active members of the armed forces and has set the worst kind of example.
"Ignorance of the law is no defence"
It is in Trumpistan. Then again, the law can be ignored by the rulers of that sad, be-nighted land. As can public opinion: The current US administration operates in an echo chamber open only to favourable press, and loyal lickspittles, and outside of that to the MAGA faithful, nothing contradicts the narrative of the Orange Messiah. There's some opinion polls in the FT showing how Trump is fast losing the support of people who voted for him, with the clear exception of those who identify as MAGA enthusiasts. Trump's inner circle aren't going to tell him that, he's too stupid to find out for himself, so he will continue to believe in his own genius, and that all of America supports him.
True, but that's not relevant in the context which was suggesting it might be used as a defence: mitigating circumstances when it came to sentencing at best.
Trump will no doubt put pressure to prevent any prosecutions which, while he'd probably pardon any convictions, would be an embarrassing distraction to the destruction and dumbing down of America. It's almost as if he's doing it at the behest of a foreign power…
In the UK this type of information would be classified as SECRET or at the very, very least OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE.
Either way such communications would be restricted to approved devices over approved networks or VPN's etc.
Breach of that is a breach of the Official Secrets Act, putting SECRET over an unapproved channel would be a large security breach with an in-depth investigation possibly leading to loss of security clearance and dismissal.
And that's before taking into account the auto-deletion that Signal allows in breach of the various US record acts.
@gryphon
In the UK this type of information would be classified as SECRET or at the very, very least OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE.
You raise an interesting point. If the information regarding aircraft and missile types, target locations and timings of attacks were shared with NATO partners, to avoid confusion, it would have been 'protectively marked'. The marking would have been at least "CONFIDENTIAL", but IMO (although I have no actual experience of theatre-of-war operations) would probably have been "SECRET" as divulging it could have lead directly to loss of life of the aircrew.
There would also have been an embargo on its being publicised until after the event.
The inquiry should find out the classification on the data shared with NATO allies regarding this operation, of which Hegseth, Vance, Rubio, and Waltz would, of necessity, been made aware.
You forgot Gabbard and Ratcliffe… but there's no need for an extended inquiry: the breaches of the Espionage and Presidential Records Act are clear. Hegseth, Public Idiot Number One, should as a former member of the armed forces (okay, national guard), know that no operaitonal details may ever be dislosed in this way.
You raise an interesting point. If the information regarding aircraft and missile types, target locations and timings of attacks were shared with NATO partners, to avoid confusion, it would have been 'protectively marked'.
That's something that's been hyped up by the media though. There wasn't much in the way of specifics or actionable intelligence in the leak. So the target and target locations weren't named, aircraft were generic F-16s.
..would probably have been "SECRET" as divulging it could have lead directly to loss of life of the aircrew.
Which would have been unlikely given the lack of specifics, along with the lack of Houthi GBAD. Assuming the Houthis had real-time access to the chat, they would have been aware that F-16s were inbound from.. somewhere to attack.. somewhere. If the target had been an Iranian, then Iran could have activated their air defences to try and intercept the F-16s, but the Houthis don't really have that capability.
The inquiry should find out the classification on the data shared with NATO allies regarding this operation, of which Hegseth, Vance, Rubio, and Waltz would, of necessity, been made aware.
That assumes anything was shared, and if it were, how it was shared. It doesn't excuse the abysmal lack of security or common sense shown by the Signal participants though.
I'm so tired of hearing the apologists. It doesn't matter if the intelligence was actionable in this case or not. That is completely irrelevant.
It was a massive exposure of the most serious nature, and they got lucky, this time. It is fucking amateur hour at the top of the largest military in the world and they need to own it or be pwned. This is a non partisan issue.
"This is a non partisan issue."
Except that it is. I agree it should be a non partisan issue, but where's the challenge or criticism from within GOP?
The Republican party has been parasitised by Trump, and he's now eaten the entire party alive and from the inside. There's nothing of the old GOP left, no elder statesmen, no voices of calm or common sense, no individuals of competence or judgement. All the US have got by way of government now is the deceased husk of the Republican party, which is being moved around with string and sticks by the Orange Jesus and his moronic acolytes. And there's the alarming thing: Even if the Fat Bastard in Chief were to choke to death on his burger, it would be the cretins he's appointed who would be left to govern for the remainder of the next four years.
To the people of the US, if you didn't vote, or you voted for anybody else then I'm so sorry for your misfortune. If you did vote for Cheeto-man, then you're getting exactly what you voted for, so enjoy!
That last line is actually the essence of this case: what was shared doesn't substantially change the initial offense (a) using an unapproved channel for military invitation and (b) being terminally stupid in not checking the participants prior to discussion. At that point you can already be deemed on the wrong side of the law.
Adding the exchange of material that deserves a protective marking aggravates the offense and may add charges, but they were already on the wrong side of the line qt this point.
And that's all of them, as none asked questions they became culpable too.
The weapons systems Hegseth stated to be used were F-18s, (not F-16s as you state), and Tomahawk cruise missiles. The locations from which these systems could be launched are few in that part of the world, so could be guessed.
Informing an enemy whether state or terrorist insurgent of your imminent attack and the weapons systems to be used as well as the precise time of take-off is always classified.
Informing an enemy whether state or terrorist insurgent of your imminent attack and the weapons systems to be used as well as the precise time of take-off is always classified.
So Goldberg is an enemy now? But here's a thing-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airstrike_campaign_in_Yemen
As of 2 January 2025, the Houthis recorded 931 American and British airstrikes against its sites in Yemen, resulting in 106 deaths and 314 injuries
So it's not exactly the first time carrier strikes have been used against the Houthis, and it's conceivable they've learned something. It's also kind of hard to hide a carrier, and, well, maybe the Houthis are keeping an eye on those?
So Goldberg is an enemy now?
Hegseth posted on the web chat in advance of the mission, i.e., before take-off. Goldberg published after the mission and the bombs had dropped, when he had checked that the web chat was not a fake to lure him into publishing 'fake news'. We know the reported web chat is genuine because were it false, Vance, Hegseth, Waltz etc. would have stated categorically that it wasn't real and they had not been on a Signal call with Goldberg, and would have been able to prove it.
So, no, Goldberg is not an enemy for posting the chat on The Atlantic web site.
Hegseth posted on the web chat in advance of the mission, i.e., before take-off..
So TL;DR, what you're saying is no Houthis were on the call? So this claim-
Informing an enemy whether state or terrorist insurgent of your imminent attack and the weapons systems to be used as well as the precise time of take-off is always classified.
Is demonstrably false and didn't happen in this case. But did kinda happen when Trump and Biden bombed Damascus and other parts of Syria when Russia was notified in advance so they didn't shoot stuff down.
You're missing a substantial consideration. This wasn't only operational and to some degree tactical intel, it was strategic intel, by virtue of displaying the thought process of various decisionmakers and their relationship to each other. Countries don't (try to) listen to national command authority meetings to find out what versions of aircraft are about to be used to bomb something, they listen to figure out how their fellow nations' leadership functions; even more critical with the new mix that Trump has thrown into the soup. That content alone merits a SECRET/NOFORN classification here.
Within the UK HMG scheme, CONFIDENTIAL does not exist any more, since the rearrangement in 2014. It used to be level 0 was not protectively marked, 1 and 2 were PROTECT, 3 was RESTRICTED, then up through CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET and TOP SECRET. The 2014 change kept the top two levels the same, and everything that was C was revised up to S or down to the new OFFICIAL. It was a pain for police forces, who were a significant user of CONFIDENTIAL and who did not want the trouble of operating at SECRET but considered OFFICIAL too low. The other problem with OFFICIAL is that it includes what was not protectively marked all the way up to quite sensitive information, so everything from the canteen menu to an individual's criminal records ended up in the same bucket. (Yes I have seen a government building canteen menu with OFFICIAL across the header and footer, because the rule there was that every hard copy had to be marked.) Adding -SENSITIVE does not mean a higher level of protection or necessary clearance, just that the need-to-know of the recipient should be more carefully considered, so access control is more important.
The old Business Impact Levels that were meant to help guide setting marking levels did have expected loss of life at various scales as one of the deciding factors. From memory, which may be faulty after 10 years, lots = 6, several = 5, at least one = 4 which was an indicator that CONFIDENTIAL was a suitable level, but those tables were deprecated in the same 2014 policy change.
I was referring to the likely classification marking that theUSA would have for the information. It is true that the UK's classification levels / protective markings no longer include "RESTRICTED" or "CONFIDENTIAL", but I believe that the USA does still use the latter classification:
"Markings other than “Top Secret,” “Secret,” and “Confidential” shall not be used to identify classified national security information."
From: https://www.archives.gov/files/isoo/training/marking-booklet-revision.pdf , page ii
Actually, we do still have a CONFIDENTIAL classification. After the changes you describe, it was realised that in certain areas, OS didn't give the right protection, Secret made it a real p.i.t.a. to work, so CA (CONFIDENTIAL ATOMIC) exists in a sort of no-mans land between OS and S - and has a separate read-in before you're allowed access. Or at least, that was how it was described to me by a colleague just the other week.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgerl183j3o
"White House fires National Security Agency chief
The Trump administration has fired Gen Timothy Haugh - the head of both the National Security Agency and US Cyber Command - the BBC's US partner CBS has reported.
It is not clear why he was removed, but it comes after a meeting between President Donald Trump and far-right activist Laura Loomer on Wednesday. Ms Loomer reportedly urged Trump to fire specific employees whom she suspected lacked support for his agenda.
She posted on X that Gen Haugh and his deputy Wendy Noble, who US media reported was also let go, "have been disloyal to President Trump. That is why they have been fired."
"
Loyal to the US, disloyal to Trump no doubt. These people matter.
In related news, and although he's a million miles from my politics, pleased to see Mike Pence being award the Kennedy 'Profile in Courage Award'. It's a token thing but a signal history will remember him, as well as those who serve a similar role during the current administration's maddest hours.
Loyal to the US, disloyal to Trump no doubt. These people matter.
That's speculation. Loyal to the US means following the oath they would have sworn to defend the Constitution, which puts the President as Commander in Chief, and a reasonable expectation of loyalty to the President. If Haugh had been acting against the President, and Loomer presented evidence of this, then firing would be justifiable. As the old saying goes, respect the rank, not the man. Haugh will have the opportunity to appeal his dismissal, and then we might find out. But he was a Biden appointee, and it's normal for political appointments to get dismissed when there's a changing of the guard.
She posted on X that Gen Haugh and his deputy Wendy Noble, who US media reported was also let go, "have been disloyal to President Trump. That is why they have been fired."
Before their firings were reported, Trump told reporters he would get rid of any staff deemed to be disloyal.
"We're always going to let go of people – people we don't like or people that take advantage of, or people that may have loyalties to someone else," he told reporters aboard Air Force One.
That's not speculation, that is a statement. Maybe read what idiotic shit they've been taking credit for before you attempt damage control.
That's not speculation, that is a statement. Maybe read what idiotic shit they've been taking credit for before you attempt damage control.
Perhaps you should learn to read, or does TDS degrade your ability to do so? I was responding to this comment-
Loyal to the US, disloyal to Trump no doubt. These people matter.
Which is speculation, and also not how the Constitution works. Disloyalty to the President is disloyalty to the US, and it doesn't really matter who the President is. The speculation is really about exactly why Haugh was fired, and what evidence may have been presented to persuade Trump he should be fired. Again if he thinks he was unfairly dismissed, he can appeal the decision and we find out. People are currently calling for Waltz, Hegseth etc to be fired for their part in the Signal leak, maybe there was evidence that Haugh was also leaking classified or sensitive information to the media. We don't know though.
@Blazde, thank you for drawing attention to this. I don't like this guy, but his actions deserve the award, and I'm glad he is getting it.
In other news, as a fairly news-conscious USAian, your comment in The Reg was the first I'd heard of it. Had to go searching AP's website specifically to verify (no knock on you personally, but I have grown skeptical of information in the current USA).
Claims have been made and an honest investigation into the chat to see if anything actually secret was shared on the commercial app. I still wonder if there actually is more that hasnt been shared or if it really is just a private chat that shouldnt have included a journalist.
In other news I read today that Hegseth is abandoning the differing standards for military forces based on age and gender and instead going back to standards of ability. At least there is that good bit of news.
The government admitted that what the Atlantic published looked genuine. It had aircraft take-off times and target information in it. By definition that is secret, time-sensitive information. The Houthis have surface to air missiles, knowing the location of the carrier, the location of the target and the timing of take-off and strike allows them to attempt to ambush the attack. So by definition it's secret information. There is no defence.
Worse, it's not something anyone on the political or intel management side needs to know. They do need to know roughtly when a strike is happening, so they can prepare a response - but nothing more detailed. This is just secret-porn - which is a thing among politicians and wannabes - I know cool secrets and that makes me cool - and you don't know them, which makes me cooler - but if I share them with you I'm even damned cooler - and now you can tell all your friends that you know cool secrets too!
@I ain't Spartacus
"The government admitted that what the Atlantic published looked genuine"
And also said it wasnt classified. I read the messages in the Atlantic, again I dont see the problem but I also dont speak for the US law so maybe they do take a different view but more likely the chat was overblown. We know the journalist made 'mistakes' and exaggerated for effect so actually looking into the chat makes sense, just in case.
Adding the journalist is embarrassing enough and had people stuck with the story instead of the hype the gov would probably be more bothered by this. Instead people started speculating over how acceptable it is to use signal and debating what is or not classified and some have wet dreams of bringing down the Trump gov.
The Houthis have surface to air missiles, knowing the location of the carrier, the location of the target and the timing of take-off and strike allows them to attempt to ambush the attack. So by definition it's secret information. There is no defence.
This kind of BS is exactly what I mean by exagerating the supposed threat. Knowing the 'location of the carrier' doesn't help you at all. So-
“1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package)”
“1345: ‘Trigger Based’ F-18 1st Strike Window Starts (Target Terrorist is @ his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME – also, Strike Drones Launch (MQ-9s)”
Who is the target, where are they, and why assume the F-18s would be making a beeline straight from the carrier to an unknown target location, and not striking from the safest direction they could plan, taking into account any possible GBAD threat?
At 2 p.m., Waltz responded: “Typing too fast. The first target – their top missile guy – we had positive ID of him walking into his girlfriend’s building and it’s now collapsed.”
So the target was identified after they'd suffered a terminal case of coitus interuptus.
And no mention of how many innocent people were also killed in that building.
No icon because a 'Sad Face' does not get anywhere close.
Yes, I know that the MAGA faithful will (anonymously) downvote away, but compared to being bombed that is a small price to pay for at least trying to point out the complete lack of conscience exhibited by the seniors in the Trump administration in that group chat. Mike Waltz's response to being told the building had collapsed of icons of a fist, the USA flag and a fire are obscene, IMO. But feel free to disagree if you think that we should only talk about the people the Houthi rebels were targeting, and completely ignore the casualty rate of innocent bystanders.
@Eclectic Man
"Yes, I know that the MAGA faithful will (anonymously) downvote away, but compared to being bombed that is a small price to pay for at least trying to point out the complete lack of conscience exhibited by the seniors in the Trump administration in that group chat."
Why would they? This wasnt to be a public release statement to make you feel all warm and fuzzy, this was project managers discussing a job they were working on and celebrating the success. It may not be polished bullshit like Obama about Osama's body being carefully looked after yadda yadda then being embarrassed when one of the guys from the mission wrote a book mentioning them cramming into the chopper and sitting on the body.
"But feel free to disagree if you think that we should only talk about the people the Houthi rebels were targeting, and completely ignore the casualty rate of innocent bystanders."
Except in desperation to moan you guys only talk about the 'innocent bystanders' and not the people ('innocent bystanders') targeted by the Houthi terrorists.
@ codejunky
Thank you for your reply.
I do actually mean that. You have reminded me that however carefully or clearly I state my meaning, however much I accept that every side of an argument, even those who oppose mine, may have a valid point, there are those among us who at best misunderstand, and at worst wilfully misrepresent, honesty and consideration for others.
I will not bother you with any more detail, as I understand that, at least on the Internet, one should not feed the trolls, but maybe, when you are calm and can read posts without getting angry at what you perceive to be their blatant 'wrongheadedness', you could at least try to understand someone else's point of view for once.
Thank you again.
E M
@Eclectic Man
"I do actually mean that. You have reminded me that however carefully or clearly I state my meaning"
You may want to try and do that as I have no idea what you are now talking about.
"when you are calm and can read posts without getting angry at what you perceive to be their blatant 'wrongheadedness'"
Eh what? First I am calm and there is no anger, second I factually stated why they wouldnt polish the text if it was intended to be private.
I do note you wrote- "Yes, I know that the MAGA faithful will (anonymously) downvote away" and while not MAGA I did downvote and explained clearly why. Sorry if that hurts your feefees or breaks your brain (from reading your comment).
Feel free to try and explain what you actually mean if you can be bothered.
"one should not feed the trolls"
Or, as often heard on Usenet "Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."
If you prefer, Proverbs 26:4 "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him."
And the pig likes it!
And no mention of how many innocent people were also killed in that building.
Glad you mentioned that, and it's something I pointed out before. In the haste to demand political scalps, people are rather missing that important point, and possible admission of a warcrime. Which this line from the leak covers-
“1345: ‘Trigger Based’ F-18 1st Strike Window Starts (Target Terrorist is @ his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME – also, Strike Drones Launch (MQ-9s)”
Known location being the girlfriends apartment, and it being fairly clear the US had some method of tracking his movements. Unless his girlfriend was also a terrorist, her, along with some or all of the other 50 people reportedly killed when the residential apartment building was blown up were civilians, and thus entitled to protection. Especially when the MQ-9s could also launch the Hellfire Ginsu variants the US has used in previous targetted assassinations.
People are also ignoring the 'Trigger Based' point in their desperation to play politics. So the F-18s would have launched, held <somewhere> and be waiting for the go ahead to strike, or final confirmation that the target was err.. in position.
Yes, I know that the MAGA faithful will (anonymously) downvote away,
Not me guv. I will downvote inane comments from the more obvious TDS suffers, but not when the comments are more rational. But count yourself lucky. At least you don't have a skiddy who created a script to automatically downvote every post I've ever made, every new post and seems very proud of their killfile. So they don't even have to read a comment to express their displeasure.
Mike Waltz's response to being told the building had collapsed of icons of a fist, the USA flag and a fire are obscene, IMO.
Yep. There are some other issues, like the suggestion they should bill the EU for this assassination. Which rather ignores the fact that the UK and EU have been contributing, and have incurred losses, delays and increased costs for shipping. And glosses over the reasons why the Houthis are attacking shipping in the first place. If the US can't keep their dog on a leash and keep arming Israel, hostilities in the region are going to continue, and perhaps escalate. And why should Europe be expected to pay for US foreign policy misadventures? Which was also a possibly interesting comment about the US conducting this strike before Israel did, or if the US had advance warning that Bibi was going to break the ceasefire and start mowing the lawn again. The US should have known when his trial was due to resume at the very least, and predicted his methods to avoid that trial.
This kind of BS is exactly what I mean by exagerating the supposed threat.
My original post was pretty clear that the threat of extra danger to the pilots was why this information is automatically secret. And the Trump team's pathetic denials that there was any secreit infor in the chats - despite it being fucking obvious to any passing moron that details of an upcoming or ongoing military operation should remain secret. This is absolutely fucking basic oprerational security - and almost everyone in those chats will have been given a briefing on that within the last 4 months (when they came into office).
There is no fucking excuse.
I'm fully aware that in this case, the risk isn't very large. And in fact you're also adding a tiny amount of extra risk to any military operation by telling your foreign affairs team (and any other bits of government) in advance, however vaguely - so they can be prepared to respond. And I'm not objecting to that, because nothing is risk free.
But this is simply indefensible. They fucked up. They're either lying when they say that they didn't fuck up - or they're incredibly stupid if they believe the statements they put out. My post was there to prove that there was classified info in that chat - and there was. At least two of the people involved in that chat have served in some kind of military capacity, plus they've all had recent training. They have properly secure communications channels provided for them - which are there speciifcally to share this kind of info with those that actually need it.
And some of these are the same people who talked about locking up Hilary Clinton.
If you're defending this bullshit, you're also a liar or a fool. This is one of those political scandals where someone needs to get sacked as an example - and rules and training need to be tightened up. Before someone does something equally stupid and blows an operation.
The only point of defence that I do agree with, and that is a valid point that everyone should agree with, is that both US parties' politicians are too cavalier with communications and classified information. There's also been politicians in the UK using Gmail or text messages for official comms - either to allow them to get away with not archiving stuff or just because it was easy and they didn't care. Ursula von der Leyen did some of the comms to buy Covid vaccines over text messages that may since have been deleted - or she's just refusing to hand over. And I've read several news stories where world leaders are texting each other about things, rather than doing it by minuted phone call with translation services available to avoid fuck-ups.
My original post was pretty clear that the threat of extra danger to the pilots was why this information is automatically secret.
Calm down dear. But like many TDS sufferers, you don't seem able to be objective. What 'extra danger'? Which was more likely to create extra danger, along with expense, aircraft taking off from a carrier with bombs attached, Tomahawks being launched, or the inevitable retaliation that's likely to follow this assassination due to bombing a residential apartment building, or Israel breaking another ceasefire?
And some of these are the same people who talked about locking up Hilary Clinton.
Well, 'they' didn't. They didn't lock up Biden either. Leadership by example and all that. Here's another post I made on that very point-
https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2025/04/02/waltz_gmail_security/#c_5048101
Acting swiftly and decisivily helps stop the disease. The immune system is weakened and compromised, if the infection isn't cut out and is allowed to spread. Boss is allowed to use insecure comms, so minions folllow. Make an example out of a few bosses, minions are more likely to fall in line.
If you're defending this bullshit, you're also a liar or a fool.
Ah, slava-boy is projecting again. Here's something I prepared earlier-
https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2025/04/04/hegseth_inspector_general/#c_5049286
That assumes anything was shared, and if it were, how it was shared. It doesn't excuse the abysmal lack of security or common sense shown by the Signal participants though.
Wasn't that clear enough for you? Or will you carry on with your faux-outrage and demand Republican scalps.. and that the Demorats should be held to lower standards? Also the NYT's 'secret history' leaks were arguably more damaging, but also may have been authorised leaks to help exit that sh1tshow. That it potentially endangered a few 'allied' Generals may not have bothered the leaker though.
Jellied Eel,
I'm not quite sure of the point you're making with your linked post. To quote from it:
If the information regarding aircraft and missile types, target locations and timings of attacks were shared with NATO partners, to avoid confusion, it would have been 'protectively marked'. The marking would have been at least "CONFIDENTIAL", but IMO (although I have no actual experience of theatre-of-war operations) would probably have been "SECRET" as divulging it could have lead directly to loss of life of the aircrew.
Bold emphasis is mine.
To quote from you again:
What 'extra danger'?
That extra danger. I think we both agree there's not a huge amount of extra danger in this instance. The Houthis have weak anit-air warfare abilities, and the US Navy have got good electronic warfare support and good intelligence to allow them to avoid risks in their flight plans. However the Serbs did manage to shoot down an F117 with a pretty outdated SAM. in that case the reason was clever work from the Serbs and lazy / bad habits from the USAF.
Hence my calling for heads to roll. If you let this kind of stupidity continue, people will continue in their bad habits and eventually someone will fuck up in a way that has serious consequences.
As for ramblings about TDS or demanding Republican scalps over Democrat ones, I'd already pointed out that both sides of the aisle in the US are guilty of a lot of breaches of security. And that it's also happened (to a lesser extent in the UK and Europe). I've not read enough about the various US scandals to know who should be punished, if any. But this is an open-and-shut case of people who've literally only just taken office and had the security training doing something really stupid and illegal. I'd like to see someone get punished because the stupid and illegal thing is also potentially dangerous.
Politicians have always been a security risk. And always will be. It's unavoidable. It needs to be treated as a scandal when they really fuck up, to teach all of them valuable lessons. And that means their own side also need to hold them accountable.
"I know cool secrets and that makes me cool - and you don't know them, which makes me cooler - but if I share them with you I'm even damned cooler - and now you can tell all your friends that you know cool secrets too!"
Well, let's face it the Fat Bastard in Chief pioneered this when he illegally stole classified document last time he left office and took them to Mar-a-Lardo. It's clearly a standard operating procedure for him and his half-wit appointees.
@Like a badger
"Well, let's face it the Fat Bastard in Chief pioneered this when he illegally stole classified document last time he left office and took them to Mar-a-Lardo. It's clearly a standard operating procedure for him and his half-wit appointees."
Pioneered? Pre Pudding Brain in Chief Biden illegally stole classified documents and left them in his garage. At least the secret service went to check the security of Trumps storage of documents.
@BartyFartsLast
"This may come as a shock but that well known defence of "other boys did it too" or "whataboutery" is actually not a defence at all so they should both be fully investigated and prosecuted to the full extent of the law regardless of their party affiliation."
Both were investigated and Biden was found mentally incapable of being prosecuted and Trump's case was dismissed once the Executive office was explained to the prosecution and Trump won the presidency (Jack Smith running before Trump could kick him out). The significant difference being Senator Biden had classified documents (as I understand is illegal) and apparently did share them with a ghost writer who didnt have clearance while Trump legally had them but the national archives wanted them (not illegal).
Of course actions such as leaking photos of an ongoing investigation when raiding Trump doesnt sound legal to me but might instead just be considered prejudicial to the jury. I am not sure where the nuclear secrets claims came from and selling to Russia but its the usual FUD against Trump.
Finally I am glad you would consider evenly applying justice and not giving the previous administration a pass due to bias. But I was responding to Like a badger and it seems 8 voters (deduct 2-3 pet trolls if you like) who disagree with equally applying the rules.
No.
When Biden was found to have a few papers he shouldn't he handed them over immediately and fully cooperated with the investigators.
When Trump was found to have some papers he lied about them, refused the to cooperate and tied up the courts with procedural nonsense to delay it as long as possible in the hope of election where he could sack all the people involved in the prosecution.
If you are unable to see the difference between those scenarios then I give up completely. They are not remotely comparable.
@DJO
"When Biden was found to have a few papers he shouldn't he handed them over immediately and fully cooperated with the investigators."
A few papers he shouldnt legally have had anyway (before Presidency). Improperly stored and shared but Hur thought it unlikely that the doddering old man would be convicted.
"When Trump was found to have some papers he lied about them, refused the to cooperate and tied up the courts with procedural nonsense to delay it as long as possible in the hope of election where he could sack all the people involved in the prosecution."
To which the Supreme Court had to explain the role of the executive office to the prosecution. The national archives wanted Trumps documents, Trump didnt want to hand over his documents. Hence the bullshit national security claims (that vanished so quickly) to raid the property.
"If you are unable to see the difference between those scenarios then I give up completely. They are not remotely comparable."
You are right. The absolute determination to 'get Trump' regardless of the facts vs protecting someone who 'runs rings around his staff', either a lie or his staff were seriously unfit for the job.
"In other news I read today that Hegseth is abandoning the differing standards for military forces based on age and gender and instead going back to standards of ability. "
Does this mean you will be signing up to join the US military now? Deploying your deep skills in combat and tactics shared with us on these very pages? This is grand news indeed! (You could even earn citizenship through this route! )
The flight details are considered classified until after they return to base. Reporting on movements during an operation is a big no-no, to use the technical term.
Sure, but once again, what flight details were actually reported? Aircraft taking off, and potential time on target. No details of courses, holding areas, ingress and egress vectors or even the target. We'd previously bombed Houthi radar installations, but there's a lot of boats in the Red Sea and it's entirely likely some of those would be trying to keep an eye on the US CBG. And then there's this-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Space_Agency#Satellites
Along with closer co-operation between Iran, Russia, China which includes intelligence sharing. Which is another example of the way US foreign policy weakens global security, as does bombing apartment buildings. But the risks from the leak have been greatly exagerated for political effect. But that doesn't alter the woeful lack of security I keep mentioning, and Goldberg or The Atlantic should probably add '100% OPSEC' t-shirts to their merch store.
Welcome to TrumpLand: where alcoholism, drug use, cowardice, and sex offenses are qualifications for the job.
So.. ermm.. About that laptop. Or the bag of coke found in the Whitehouse. Or as Joe put it, Hunter is the smartest man he knew, which again doesn't say much about the people on Team Biden..
The complete lack of a clear chain of custody makes the laptop utterly useless as evidence of anything. It has never been important, and never will be.
The "bag" of coke (containing under one gram) was found in an area that any White House visitor had access to. Including public tours.
EVERY father will tell the world their kid is smart. 'Tis human nature.
Biden is no longer the President ... and in fact is completely out of politics. Please move with the times.
The complete lack of a clear chain of custody makes the laptop utterly useless as evidence of anything. It has never been important, and never will be.
You really should stop watching CNN, MSNBC and other providers of misinformation. FBI agents signed for the laptop, and provided a custody receipt. If they broke the chain of custody after it was in the FBI's possession, then that obviously highlights a problem for the FBI. If showed clear evidence of criminality, both from the laptop itself, and the handling of it. And it is being investigated, as is the bag of coke.
Biden is no longer the President ... and in fact is completely out of politics. Please move with the times.
I had noticed, which means he's no longer in charge and can now be investigated. But do try to keep up-
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/bidens-want-back-in-rcna196956
WASHINGTON — Former President Joe Biden has told some Democratic leaders he’ll raise funds, campaign and do anything else necessary for Democrats to recover lost ground as the Trump administration rolls back programs the party helped design, according to people close to him.
"FBI agents signed for the laptop, and provided a custody receipt."
The chain was completely busted between the time ... somebody ... dropped the laptop off with Mac Issac in April of 2019 and October of 2019 when the FBI picked up the useless thing. That's half a year where anybody could do anything to the box.
As for the second or third-hand copies thrown about by the completely untrustworthy convicted criminals with an agenda (Bannon and Giuliani), who the hell knows what kind of bullshit was added/dropped from those copies of copies. All we know is that forensic evidence shows that there definitely was stuff deleted, and there was nonsense added (email with bogus headers, for example). As such, those copies were a non-starter as evidence before the copying was complete.
I do keep up. That's just stumping. Biden is not running for political office any more than Bush is.
Note that Biden WAS investigated while STILL in office. Don't you remember how much time Congress wasted in so-called investigations, instead of doing their job of making their constituent's lives easier?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
