Posted on 03/04/2025 9:07:17 AM PST by cgbg
“...President Trump needs to change that...”
Security on a SCIF is an excellent action. It clears some of the fishing going on in secure areas and limits the people coming and going. These comparmental storage locations are more than people realize. And even the archives have limitations. If there is a need to see something, then get the clearance and the proof of need. It really isn’t that hard if it’s done right and is legit.
I read a statement from a long time SCIF level person saying what and why and I worked under the same thought process:
Does the president of the USA have the clearance to see all classified documents?
By definition he is allowed to see anything he wants. No arguments. He does not actually undergo a clearance process and is not formally issued a clearance. But as Commander In Chief and head of the Executive Branch he can see anything he wants to. He has limited abilities to declassify however.
He is listed in the the Executive order on classification as a classification authority Notably he is NOT listed as a declassification authority. Some types of material can only be declassified as specified in the laws. And in 2018 (remind me who was President then?) a case won by the Department of Justice rebutted the theory that presidents have near-omnipotent declassification powers.
In July 2020, a case in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, the DOJ stated flatly that “declassification, even by the President, must follow established procedures.” CASE 18-2112-cv The New York Times, Matthew Rosenberg, v. Central Intelligence Agency (“Declassification cannot occur unless designated officials follow specified procedures, Executive order 13,526 established the detailed process through which secret information can be appropriately declassified.”)
And since we are talking about Trump… I spent my entire time in the Air Force dealing with highly classified materials including SCI materials.
SCI materials are compartmentalized as to the source of the intelligence information in them. And that’s what they are — intelligence information. Each source has a codename that is itself classified.
Let me offer an example. During WW2 we broke the Japanese Naval Code Purple. Whenever we decrypted a message that had been sent using that system each document was stamped TOP SECRET – MAGIC to tell people reading it where it came from without saying “This is from the Japanese Purple Code”. You had to be “read in” to the MAGIC program to even see the name MAGIC.
Many commanders got specially sanitized intelligence that didn’t say how it was obtained, they would not know we had broken the codes, only that it came from a highly reliable source.
But if the Japanese had seen ONE SINGLE MAGIC MESSAGE they would have instantly realized their codes were broken and would change them, depriving us of intelligence that allowed us to fight and win, and costing many service members their lives.”
So you can see, it is not a cut and dry scenario and the article implies somewhat out of the box ideologies. And to be honest, this is a simplified presentation. There’s a lot more.
wy69
The problem is this—our internal enemies have used the law and national security system as a weapon against the American people.
Surrendering to that weapon is a very unwise choice.
“That would protect the employee in case of later legal action.”
No, it would not. If they needed to know, someone above them would say so - like the President. When told they do not have access, they can complain to the President.
For an imaginary example, the SecDef doesn’t need to know the details of how a specific guidance system works. He needs to know IF they work, but not the technical details of how and why.
He might need to know we have people inside of X spying on others, but would not need to know their names or how to contact them.
“Oh, but we need to trust them!”
Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. Leon Panetta was SecDef and also head of the CIA. Political appointment.
That is why President Trump is going to have to step up on this issue.
We cannot have bureaucrats dictating national security policy.
That is an unacceptable disaster.
Why do those agencies have multiple sailboats?
You and Maxwell Smart win.
Lol.
“Refusing Cabinet Officials or Department Heads access to SCIFs in their agencies or departments is blatant treason.”
Treason? Not even close.
18 U.S.C. § 2381 defines treason as follows:
“Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”
We really look stupid when we indiscriminately and improperly use terms like treason, Nazi, and fascist.
The key word in that statute is “enemies”.
Those who declare themselves the sole rulers of the United States accountable to nobody regardless of the results of an election are enemies imho.
My experience is from the last century in the Pentagon basement. SCIFs are expensive to begin with. The walls and ceiling had to be lead-lined to stop electromagnetic emissions. Once upon a time spooks could sit outside an office and figure out what was being typed on an electric typewriter. There’s a wonderful book entitled, “Tradecraft” which tells many of the things done by our Agencies during the cold war. Most folks are aware you can hear what is being said in a room with windows by the vibration of the window glass. Once upon a time there were two old Soviet statesmen who sat under the same tree in a park behind a fence every day for lunch. The Agency designed a bullet with a transmitter inside with tiny antennae and they fired it into the bark of the tree. Turns out the bark was too rough to pickup the vibration of their discussion.
What I suspected has been confirmed by many experienced folks on this thread.
(Thanks for great input—you know who you are.)
There are a lot of SCIFs these days as the government Leviathan has grown and grown and grown....
Thank. All of our windows have the generators.
I built one, so I guess that means I know what one is. . .
“Surrendering to that weapon is a very unwise choice.”
I can promise you that using a SCIF with rules on how to use it for protection is a whole lot better choice than anything anyone has come up with so far. If the rules are followed to the letter it protects very well. But there is no way we can protect informtion from people in the system intent upon our destruction like government employees that are gaining access that should have been weeded out before they could.
And the democrats in congress seeing Biden’s failing mental capacity not only allowing him to violate OPSEC and COMSEC directives while saying he is not help responsible for those rules because of mental deficiency while he remains in control of the suitcase and running our government is worse. So is it the system or the people supposed to be watching over it? And that’s what Trump is going after.
wy69
Excellent—any details we missed that you are comfortable sharing?
Like with so many institutions the original concept was reasonable.
At this point it has become a danger to the country—encouraging and empowering rogue operations and operators within the bureaucracy.
We need a full body cavity search audit of all compartments imho.
I'll drop one tidbit: EVERY sheet of drywall; all materials must be inspected for listening devices or similar things. I'm not comfortable saying anything further except that SCIF design specs are available online for those interested.
Thanks—that sounds like a very unusual construction project for sure.
With apologies to Ambrose Bierce.
I respect your opinion, but legally you are incorrect. Although Art. III Section 3 of the US Constitution and 18 U.S.C. § 2381 do not define “enemies” as the term is used within the context of treason, both provisions are derived from British common-law and the Treason Act of 1351, in which the term “enemies” means subjects of a foreign government that is in open hostility with the United States.
You could have added that it was built with materials made in China.
Lol.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.