The latest version of more texts from Trump administration officials provides details about an American military strike against Yemen – including sensitive information that can threaten the lives of the American forces that are carrying out the strike that fell in various hands.
Some former service members say that some former service members draw a picture of a rejecting position – and perhaps dangerous – towards operational security among senior American leaders.
They add that this revelation can affect the military morale, given that it is unlikely that these senior officials will treat the way the forces with a low bond will be if they do the same thing.
Why did we write this
The disclosure that the senior Trump administration officials used the application of a commercial correspondence to discuss secret military attacks has led to criticism from the two parties- and risks the perception of two regiments of accountability for officials with higher lifting and decline.
Indeed, the senior national security advisers of President Donald Trump witnessed before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, and they seemed to have reached a defense line to protect themselves from the repercussions of the leakage – which managed to unite many legislators in the rare two -party agreement that it was amazing.
Specifically, Trump administration officials have witnessed that the text of the group, which includes details of an American military strike in Yemen, was not a secret, although the journalist was added to the discussion.
In chatting on Signal, an encrypted commercial correspondence application, Defense Minister PETE HegSeth is naturally involved in informative information such as targets, timing and weapons that will be used in the American attack on the Houthi rebels, who were trying to hit ships in the Red Sea in the Middle East.
When will war plans be secret?
During the Congress session, Senators took the moment of digesting this proposed line of thinking: If Mr. Higseth says that the US military war plans are not secret, they are not.
This is because the Minister of Defense is the “classification authority” for the administration, the Director of the CIA, John Ratcliffe, explained to the legislators – which means that Mr. Higseth is the person who determines what is the information of the Ministry of Defense Secret.
President Trump, for his part, confirmed the originality of the text series, which included the editor of the Atlantic magazine, Jeffrey Goldberg. National Security Adviser Mike Valz took over a part of the addition of Mr. Goldberg to the list in an interview with Fox News.
Mr. Waltz admitted a “embarrassing” mistake and said he did not know exactly how the journalist got this group. “
President Trump said that Mr. Walz will not be expelled, adding that he “learned a lesson, a good man.”
Double standard for leaks?
But while the administration’s argument that there was no secret information about the sign chat that may stand up to the court, among many of those who served in the American army, this is that this represents two levels of justice: a double standard, based on whether the leakage is the official official forces or a lower soldier.
Although there may be no accountability for the summit, some analysts warn that there may be consequences in terms of morale and frustration that may make the service members less inclined to follow strict classification protocols in the future.
“My first idea,” says Victor Cora Nazario, who was running networks at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland. Or it may mean imprisonment, depending on what it is. “
Mr. Nazario, who continues to work in the private sector as an information technology specialist, says, while the Minister of Defense may have the authority to announce unknown information, this does not mean this.
He says: “It still has the same effect, which means that people are in a physical danger.” “I feel that people will look at this and go,” wait a moment – I am responsible, but it is not? “
Warning in the Pentagon earlier
At the Pentagon level note Days after the leakage warned that “the recent unauthorized disclosure of national security information that involves sensitive contacts with school administrators in the office of the Minister of Defense requests an immediate and comprehensive investigation.”
US Air Force Pilot Madeleine Kish/Defense Ministry/Reuters
The memorandum, signed by the Chief of Staff of Mr. Higseth, Joe Casper, and published on the Pentagon General website, said that the search for dropouts could include lying and “criminal prosecution.”
The strict tone directed at potential leaks within the workforce was in line with the sharp criticism of the Trump administration officials, in the past and the present, against the leakage of Hillary Clinton’s electronic messages during its 2016 presidential campaign.
Mr. Higseth complained that Mrs. Clinton survived this, and that others would go to prison for similar crimes.
The legislators this week indicated that this previous position was flagrantly contrary to the amazing responses of Mr. Trump’s national security officials under Tuesday.
Analysts at this front said, one of the most surprising moments came when Senator John Osov, a Democrat from Georgia, asked whether this leakage of American military information was “a big mistake.”
“No.”, director of the Central Intelligence Agency, answered, “No.”
He said that using a sign of collective texts between senior government officials is normal, noting that the Biden administration has also done so, although this is with strict instructions to use them slightly, according to Associated Press.
This is already the case, says a former official in the defense of Internet affairs in the Biden administration, who asked not to be identified to discuss the policy of the Ministry of Defense.
Signal conversations have been used repeatedly for “Tippers”, or timely notes that tell the recipient to check their classified systems.
A senior official says that the problem is not that Mr. Walz has created a group chat with senior colleagues. The question is how American military information apparently sensitive from the supposedly classified Pentagon networks to discuss the signal.
DOD discussions such as the details of the air strikes are usually conducted in what is known as the sensitive, or Scif, as mobile phones are not allowed. Senior officials are supposed to have safe locations in their homes as well to discuss classified matters.
“The systems are separate and are not supposed to be able to talk to each other without a very deliberate process to deport things from classified to an unbearable system,” says a senior official. “It involves many other people, and it usually involves an accurate review.”
Mr. Higseth participated in a “war plan” with the group that included, hours ago, the time when it will start, from other details, according to the Atlantic Ocean. condition.
Meanwhile, all the Ministry of Defense employees were warned in a consultant last week of the “weak” application of “the ability” of the application of “Russian professional piracy groups” in an attempt to “spy” on encrypted talks, according to NPR. a report this week. The Pentagon Memorandum said that the reference “has not been approved or storing non -colloquial classified information,” according to NPR.
During the Senate Intelligence Committee session, legislators at the Director of National Intelligence, Toulcy Gabbard, questioned her participation in the group’s text while she was abroad. The legislators indicated that the other participant, the special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkeov, participated in the sign chat group while he was in Russia, and it is assumed that the risk of the chat was hacked.
Maintaining the classified information
Mr. Nazario recalls that while he was stationed at the Andrews Air Force Base that maintains unknown computer systems, there were three times in about three years when secret data accidentally made its way to his team’s systems.
“We had to wipe all the servers that have been touched on the classified data – wipe each piece of equipment” – then rebuild it, reinstall the operating and email systems, then restore the data from the backup.
Mr. Nazario says he was a consumer of time and work density, but it is important. “I was very proud of the work we were doing.”
When listening to the signal leak, “I feel very irresponsible; it’s a kind of almost surrendering” in an attempt to secure data, if it is not for those who work abroad at the request of America, and faces a threat to implement the US military’s mission.
In fact, the extreme anxiety in the administration’s response to the signaling of the sign is that it has the ability to make “people feel that their leadership does not have the advantage of their interest in the heart,” at best, “dirty with their information,” says the great defense official.
“We send the operators there in the world to do serious things for us, and if they are not confident that their information is secret, they will not be able to do their work.”
“He is within the jurisdiction of the executive authority to decide what is classified,” there may not be accountable “for the leakage of the sign, as the great defense official adds.” But there will be consequences.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to clarify the timing of the Ministry of Defense’s consultations on the signal application. According to what was reported last week.
