What level would you classify this information at?

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 13:34:43 -0400

(a) National Security Information (hereinafter "classified information") shall be classified at one of the following three levels:

(1) "Top Secret" shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.
(2) "Secret" shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security.
(3) "Confidential" shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/17/clinton-used-personal-email-for-sensitive-libya-negotiations-documents-show/?intcmp=latestnews

Documents challenge Clinton claim no classified intel on personal emails

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used her personal email account to handle high level negotiations in 2011 for a no-fly zone to help topple Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi, according to a series of emails obtained by Fox News, potentially challenging her claim the private server did not hold classified information.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 18 at 2015 1:35 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 13:35:53 -0400

Sounds like we ended up with "grave damage" to our national security

Response by SCPO David Lockwood made Jun 18 at 2015 1:38 PM

SCPO David Lockwood — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 13:38:43 -0400

It would appear that Hillary doesn't know what each level of security is. It appears it would have caused Serious Damge to National Security.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 18 at 2015 3:25 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 15:25:16 -0400

MSG Brad Sand . This is a tempest in a teapot . . . nothing classified that would cause imminent harm to national security . . . maybe UCLASS NOFORN if you like . . . but the suggestion anything in these emails will cost lives or damage national security is a big stretch. The standard many will suggest here would put almost the entire contents of the NY Times, Washington Post, and The Economist on the classified material disclosure list. Warmest, Sandy

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jun 18 at 2015 3:26 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 15:26:21 -0400

Now this is working under "old" definitions, but:

TS - Information which if divulged could result in the damage to the Nation
- The example that was used when I was in-briefed was Capabilities. If we would lose the Capability to do something again, it would be TS. Things like Satellites, Comsec, etc.

S - Information which if divulged could result in damage to "programs" or "assets"
- Almost everything.

C - Information which if divulged could result in damage to "operations"
- If the information only affected limited scope operations and likely expired immediately after a "battle" then it was likely Confidential.

So... that said, "if" there was classified, it is unlikely it was Confidential. She was at a level where that just didn't exist. It would either be Secret or TS.

Because of her position, we're talking damage to National Capability, which leans things heavily towards the TS side of things... however just because the information "would have been classified at that level" doesn't make it classified.

I know that is counter intuitive. In the open source world, there is sometimes "unclassified" (as in does not have a classification) which is readily available, which "if it were classified" it would be significantly higher.

The problem we run into is that Policy Makers aren't classifying authorities, yet they create classified by their very actions.

As an example, if the SecState sits down with the President and says "What would you think about setting up a No Fly in X?" is that classified or not classified? If classified, at what level? Now, if an aide tells the SecState that the CIA wants a No Fly there... it gets trickier.

Response by SPC David S. made Jun 18 at 2015 3:55 PM

SPC David S. — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 15:55:56 -0400

I say at least confidential if not secret. The Clinton's have a track record of skirting the law via lies and unethical behavior. How she has survived to this point is amazing -

Hillary Clinton has a real credibility problem -

Dead Broke, Hillary Clinton dodged sniper fire with her immigrant grandparents in Tuzla while looking for Rose Law Firm records on her email server. All this only days after her daughter Chelsea and Bill where nearly killed at a speaking engagement in Benghazi while jogging around the US Embassy with Bill's close personal friend Monica Lewinsky.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Jun 18 at 2015 4:56 PM

MSG Brad Sand — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 16:56:28 -0400

At the very least, it is classified confidential. Just the fact that is official government business means it is confidential.

I remember as a young soldier finding out the the Secret information I was diligently protecting was easily found at the library...on your smart phone today. As Secretary of State, all of her correspondence is automatically classified and if she was not aware of this, it means she is completely incompetent..which I do not believe. So she is either lying, again, or should have never been allowed in position of responsibility.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Jun 18 at 2015 11:30 PM

CAPT Kevin B. — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 23:30:29 -0400

You need an "all of the above" button for all her emails including some sort of "business sensitive" which would require secure systems. Individual emails would have to be assessed against the standards.

Given her position, personal emails about yoga, etc. should be likewise encrypted. Not doing so classifies them in the "stupid" category.