Re: NSA whistleblower asks to testify

In article <thh0t1139kqgbemdc6gui8h69vdq0he1ho@xxxxxxx>,
fmccall@xxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
> Mark Borgerson <mborgerson.at.comcast.net> wrote:
>
> :In article <pf10t19lq8f9sfrj74lr9frfgdj8pvl5f2@xxxxxxx>,
> :fmccall@xxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
> :> Mark Borgerson <mborgerson.at.comcast.net> wrote:
> :>
> :> :In article <rgbvs1to8hv7p7mnrqslf5csv3dj5i7lrc@xxxxxxx>,
> :> :fmccall@xxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
> :> :> Mark Borgerson <mborgerson.at.comcast.net> wrote:
> :> :>
> :> :> :In article <bvmrs1lo337g2vtfoc0b5s1j6bbl4obrsp@xxxxxxx>,
> :> :> :fmccall@xxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
> :> :> :> Peter Kemp <peter_n_kemp@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> :On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 07:33:00 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> :> :> :> :<fmccall@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> :> :> :> :
> :> :> :> :>Mark Borgerson <mborgerson.at.comcast.net> wrote:
> :> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> :>:My personal experience is that a lot of information is classified not
> :> :> :> :>:because its disclosure would harm the US, but because its disclosure
> :> :> :> :>:would embarass someone working for the US government. I think the
> :> :> :> :>:"Pentagon Papers" and the war in Vietnam are a prime example.
> :> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> :>And your personal experience with classified information would be
> :> :> :> :>what, precisely?
> :> :> :> :
> :> :> :> :Fred, you know better than that. The best you can hope for is "I was
> :> :> :> :cleared TS for my work for xx years" Anyone looking for a 'precise'
> :> :> :> :explanation is going to be sorely disappointed.
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> He made a specific (and preposterous, to my mind) claim. He needs to
> :> :> :> back it up.
> :> :> :
> :> :> :In 1973, when I was on a ship sailing in plain sight of the French
> :> :> :Nuclear Testing site at Mururoa, the position of our ship was
> :> :> :supposedly classified secret (I didn't send the position reports, but
> :> :> :that is what I was told). However it is hard to hide a 400-foot
> :> :> :white ship bristling with dozens of antennas. The French knew we were
> :> :> :there. Greenpeace knew we were there. Our presence was reported
> :> :> :in the San Francisco Chronicle (my mother sent me a copy of the
> :> :> :article after I returned). OTOH, the crew and military techs were
> :> :> :never told that our presence in the South Pacific was classified---just
> :> :> :that some aspects of the mission were.
> :> :> :
> :> :> :My conclusion is that the classified position reports were an attempt
> :> :> :(which failed) to keep the American public, many of whom opposed
> :> :> :atmospheric nuclear testing, from asking embarassing questions
> :> :> :about our involvement in the French nuclear testing program.
> :> :>
> :> :> Your conclusion is just a bit silly, don't you think, given that:
> :> :>
> :> :> 1) All ship movements are always classified, or at least they were
> :> :> when I was in. Nothing particularly 'odd' about this.
> :> :
> :> :I was aboard a civilian-operated missile range tracking ship, and,
> :> :IIRC, their movement orders were not normally classified.
> :>
> :> However, once you were seconded to intel duties, they probably
> :> normally were.
> :
> :For what reason. The 'Secret' stamp did not make the ship less
> :visible!
>
> For the same reason that USN vessel movements were classified. None
> of the grey ships were invisible, either.
>
> :> :> 2) We don't appear to have been 'involved' in the sense you seem to
> :> :> mean it. I suspect we were monitoring the thing, not assisting with
> :> :> it. Why would the public oppose that?
> :> :
> :> :The US government has maintained that appearance quite carefully.
> :> :However, the truth is a bit more complex:
> :> :
> :> :"Yet, despite French claims
> :> :and assertions of nuclear independence, in reality, after
> :> :strong initial opposition, France benefited in the 1970s
> :> :and 1980s from highly-secret U.S. nuclear assistance.
> :> :This included assistance in the development of advanced
> :> :nuclear warhead and missile designs, as well as help in
> :> :the development of France?s first multiple-warhead submarine-
> :> :launched ballistic missile (M4A).25 "
> :>
> :> Well, you've got that in quotes, but where is it a quote from? I
> :> believe what is being referred to above was a 'deal' whereby we would
> :> give them simulation software that we had developed and, once they had
> :> satisfied themselves that it worked correctly they would stop doing
> :> atmospheric tests.
> :
> :Sorry. I forgot the attribution:
> :
> :http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol03/31/rauf31.pdf
>
> Thanks. I get curious about these things.
>
> :It is from the NonProliferation Review, a publication of
> :the Center for Nonproliferation studies. The benefits in the
> :70s and 80's predated the use of simulations, AFAIK. What I heard
> :about the quid-pro-quo had nothing to do with simulations.
>
> We've been using nuclear weapon simulations for a LONG time. It's why
> *we* could stop atmospheric testing.

Cite? I get curious about these things. I could find no references to
simulations before about 1980. I know we were circling Mururoa waiting
for events that could not be simulated--even with the underground
testing that the US continued in the 80's and 90's.
>
> :> :I was told at one time that part of the quid-pro-quo for this
> :> :assistance was that the French would not interfere with out
> :> :monitoring of their atmospheric tests.
> :>
> :> People get told all sorts of silly things. Some of them are gullible
> :> enough to believe them.
> :>
> :> :> :I have seen classified messages arranging golf tee times for
> :> :> :visiting generals. My conclusion was that the general might
> :> :> :find it embarassing to explain why, in the closing months
> :> :> :of the war in Vietnam, he was playing golf in Hawaii.
> :> :>
> :> :> Again, it seems to be your conclusion that is flawed here. Just how
> :> :> does arranging the tee time hide the whole trip?
> :> :
> :> :My point exactly. There was no reason that the tee time message needed
> :> :to be classified.
> :>
> :> Other than to get it to the recipient on time. This does *NOT* fit
> :> your thesis that there was all that much being classified to 'prevent
> :> embarrassment'.
> :
> :> :> Perhaps the
> :> :> classified net was used because it was a priority net that could get
> :> :> directly to the folks he wanted to talk to rather than spending
> :> :> several days wending its way through routine traffic channels?
> :> :
> :> :General officers had their own priority circuits that handled both
> :> :classified and unclassified traffic. There was no apparent national
> :> :security reason to classify the message about tee times, and there
> :> :was no increase in priority because it was classified.
> :>
> :> Ok, so what do you think it hid, given that he still had to physically
> :> go to Hawaii for golf? Hardly preventing any embarrassment, which was
> :> your thesis, since it doesn't really conceal much of anything.
> :
> :It would conceal the fact that he was playing golf at all---if
> :he was playing on a military course not open to the public. Perhaps
> :he wanted the public to think he was spending all his time conferring
> :with his peers on the course of the war in Vietnam, rather than
> :conferring with his peers on the break on the 4th green at the
> :Hickam Military Golf Course.
>
> How would it conceal anything? Civilians don't get copies of
> UNCLASSIFIED military traffic, either. I think you're reaching
> mightily on this one. Sending the tee time in a classified message
> didn't render him invisible, did it?
>
> :> :> From these two examples, the problem seems to be that your vision is
> :> :> affected by your preconceptions.
> :
> :These are not preconceptions---they are perceptions based on experience.
> :Before I had any contact with classified communications, I had no
> :opinions on the use or misuse of classification---the issue never
> :came up.
>
> Uh huh....
>
> :> :Is it not also a preconception to argue that information is never
> :> :classified to prevent embarassing a government official?
> :>
> :> It probably would be. Unfortunately for you, I never said any such
> :> thing.
> :
> :I agree that you did not say that---and I never said that you did. For
> :anyone to argue that information is never classified to prevent
> :embarassing a government official would require that person to prove
> :the non-existence of such information----a logically and physically
> :difficult thing to do given the terabytes of classified information in
> :the US alone. In any case that would be easily proved as I mentioned
> :at the very start when I cited the Pentagon Papers as an example.
>
> Then it's a good thing nobody is arguing that, isn't it? It does
> leave me wondering why you want to keep pounding on that poor, dead
> equine, though....
>

Perhaps the horse steaks are getting tenderized because you keep asking
questions, and I keep answering! ;-)


Mark Borgerson


>
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Privacy
    ... there is no legal reason to prevent me doing so (vide all the ... I've also avoided giving ... As far a I am concerned the reason for publication was in the hope of making ... My tree may be seen at www.the-edwards.org.uk ...
    (soc.genealogy.britain)
  • Re: CD-IV: transcriptions
    ... tunes anyhow and there's nothing like a reason to do it... ... This could represent publication and as such might require clearances, ...
    (rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic)
  • Re: Greedy Booksellers
    ... That's me assuming that you're talking about CHAINS OF FOLLY. ... The publication date listed is 2006. ... I have an order in for it with my library system, ... You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument is ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)
  • Re: cant open saved project on another computer
    ... If you are trying to open the file from the CD this maybe the reason it won't ... See if copying the publication to your hard drive makes a difference. ... anyway round this? ...
    (microsoft.public.publisher)
  • Unruh, wheres your web page ?
    ... Holy crap! ... I see no reason why your simulations shouldn't run on Win_XP. ... Perhaps you need to separate out the User_Interface. ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)