There are a number of levels of security classification. The higher the level of classification given to information, the higher the level of clearance required to see it and the higher the risk of damage if the information is disclosed.
When an individual is granted a security clearance, all of the information classified at that level is not shared with that person. It is compartmentalized and handled on a “need-to-know” basis – if they don’t need to know it, they won’t see it! In fact, clearances are usually downgraded when the individual is no longer working with the more highly classified information.
The procedures vary and I won’t get into that, but some things are common – an initial briefing, periodic briefings that reiterate the salient points of the initial briefing, and then an exit briefing. All of these briefings discuss the proper procedures for the handling of classified material and the potential consequences to you (if you’re the one being granted a clearance), your compadres, your family, and the country if the information is compromised. The consequences can be wide-ranging – everything from the destruction of the country, your death, or the deaths of other individuals (singly or on a large scale). The potential consequences for mishandling that information are also covered – criminal prosecution, jail, or execution in extreme circumstances. These are not briefings easily forgotten – partially because they are structured to reinforce their critical nature!
When your life and the lives of those around you are in the balance, you take security and classified material very seriously. Unless the proper protocols are followed, having unsecured classified information in your possession, risks compromising that material. Intent has no bearing! It is black or white – either it is secured or it isn’t. This is particularly true of electronic platforms because they are often easily hacked. It is also imperative to know if and/or when that information is compromised. When trying to determine if that data is erased, or wiped clean, it certainly deserves something other than a flippant, “Like with a rag…?”
The trigger for this post was the 3rd Presidential Debate – not the debate itself, but a statement made in the debate. Hillary Clinton stated as fact, that the response time for nuclear weapons is four minutes. I spent over 28 years in the US Army and I worked with nuclear weapons during part of that time and I don’t know if that is an accurate statement or not. I was not dealing with response times. I did not have a “need-to-know” and quite honestly, I didn’t want to know! My questions now become, is that information accurate, and did the whole world need to know that?
Military commanders do their best to get inside the decision cycle of their adversaries. There is a major advantage to knowing the timeline of their cycle because a commander can insert himself and the forces at his disposal to disrupt their decision-making ability. According to Mrs. Clinton, there is a four-minute window in which to compromise our national defenses. Again, if accurate, that is information I would only want those with a true need to know to possess.
As the election approaches, we have four choices. I will rule out the two third parties simply because there is no chance that either will win, and even if they do, they will be fighting both the Republicans and the Democrats in Congress. With a degree in Political Science, I can tell you – that is a recipe for gridlock like we’ve not seen. So that leaves two viable candidates.
I will state up front, Donald Trump is not my first choice for President. I do not like some of the things he has said which indicate some character flaws. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, also has some serious character flaws that I won’t get into at the moment.
So, who to vote for…?
First, to not vote is an abdication of personal responsibility for the future of this country and even the world. Second, to vote for someone who has no chance to win is, in effect, the same. If it is in protest, it will not get the attention of the major parties. (It is like spitting into the wind – the only one who notices and suffers the consequences is the one doing the spitting.) The net result of either of those options is the same – the future is determined by the vote of someone else.
A recent television ad highlights a former missile launch officer talking about when the order comes down to launch, the missile is launched. He goes on to say that he wouldn’t want Trump to make that decision. Obviously, Hillary Clinton approved that ad.
So again, who to vote for…?
What isn’t stated in the ad is that this officer alone cannot launch a missile. It requires additional personnel – to include a second launch officer acting in concert with the first. Further, he knows that, likewise, an order to launch is not made in a vacuum at the sole whim of the President. It is a deliberate act with many “moving parts” and fail-safes. The possible exception is the response to an imminent attack – and even then, within the “four-minute window” and beyond, the fail-safes are still in play.
While I have deep suspicions about the women coming forward to accuse Trump of unwanted advances, even if true, they do not directly compromise the security of this nation, nor endanger the lives of those who serve to protect us.
I will state that I cannot – I will not – vote for someone who has casually put our country, our servicemen, and others at great risk – intentionally or not! By her actions and cavalier approach to security, Hillary Clinton has already shown that she does not respect the lives and sacrifices of those of us who have answered the call to potentially put our lives on the line to serve our great nation! What could her future actions entail?
Trump may be temperamental and blusterous, but he has not compromised the safety of this nation through his actions, his email nor his speech. I see no other option for our security and the future of our country – I will vote for Mr. Trump and strongly urge you to do the same!
CasualComments.com 