Okay...anyone want to take a shot at explaining his motivation for THIS LATEST ACTION?

[KoKo]

Last edited Fri May 9, 2014, 03:28 PM - Edit history (2)

Obama Directive Makes Mere Citing of Snowden Leaks Punishable Offense

Once promising the most transparent administration in history, White House reins in free speech of employees

- Jon Queally, staff writer

Directive from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) makes mention of news reporting referencing unauthorized informatin, like that leaked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, a punishable offense. In a new policy directive from the Obama administrative, national security and other government officials will no longer be allowed to publicly discuss or even reference news reporting that is based on "unauthorized leaks."

President Obama once promised the American people that his administration would be the most transparent in history, but after years of fights with civil libertarians trying to obtain legal memos used to justify the president's overseas assassination program, an unprecedented pattern of prosecuting government whistleblowers, the targeting of journalists, and all the secrecy and obfuscation related to the NSA's mass surviellance programs made public by Edward Snowden, that claim is now met with near universal laughter, if not scorn, by critics.

According to the New York Times:

A new pre-publication review policy for the Office of Director of National Intelligence says the agency’s current and former employees and contractors may not cite news reports based on leaks in their speeches, opinion articles, books, term papers or other unofficial writings.

Such officials “must not use sourcing that comes from known leaks, or unauthorized disclosures of sensitive information,” it says. “The use of such information in a publication can confirm the validity of an unauthorized disclosure and cause further harm to national security.”

Failure to comply “may result in the imposition of civil and administrative penalties, and may result in the loss of security clearances and accesses,” it says.

Timothy H. Edgar, a visiting professor at Brown University, told the Times the ODNI directive is overly restrictive because it goes beyond telling officials they cannot comment on or confirm the accuracy of unauthorized leaks—something he thinks makes sense and is already covered by statute—but it bizarrely asserts that these people cannot even acknowledge the existence of a story that may have appeared on the cover of a major newspaper.

“You’re basically saying people can’t talk about what everyone in the country is talking about,” Edgar said. “I think that is awkward and overly broad in terms of restricting speech.”

The new rule was first reported by journalist Steve Aftergood at the Secrecy News website on Thursday and relates to other rules that guide national security officials who are speak to the press or in public forums.

Referencing the Times reporting on the directive, the president's critics were focused on the continued hypocrisy between claims of transparency by the president and other high-level officials and the reality represented by the continued attempt to by the White House and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to control information:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/05/09
______________________________________
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.

-----------DOCUMENT LINKS MENTIONED IN ARTICLE----------------

Official Document:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1156526-instr-80-04-pre-publication-review-of.html\

AND...

DOCU LINKS from "Secrecy News Website" at:


ODNI Requires Pre-Publication Review of All Public Information

Categories: Intelligence, Secrecy News Website

All employees of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence are required to obtain authorization before disclosing any intelligence-related information to the public.

“All ODNI personnel are required to submit all official and non-official information intended for public release for review,” says ODNI Instruction 80.04 on “Pre-publication Review of Information to be Publicly Released.” The Instruction was newly updated on April 8.

http://blogs.fas.org/secrecy/2014/05/odni-prepub/

[ProSense]

1. Does it

"Okay...anyone want to take a shot at explaining his motivation for THIS LATEST ACTION?"

...matter? Or more specifically, it's not likely to matter to anyone who wants to make it out to be sinister. From the OP:

Referencing the Times reporting on the directive, the president's critics were focused on the continued hypocrisy between claims of transparency by the president and other high-level officials and the reality represented by the continued attempt to by the White House and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to control information:

What does this policy have to do with "transparency"? It's about how officials handle information. It seems the policy is simply streamlining existing policy.

From the NYT article.

<...>

Intelligence officials have long agreed to submit writings for pre-publication review as a condition of receiving security clearances. While the goal of the old policy was to ensure “the protection of classified information,” the new policy is subtly broader: “to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of information.”

Mr. Anchukaitis said the change was intended to acknowledge that there are other types of sensitive information whose release was already restricted, such as proprietary business data submitted for contract negotiations or personnel information covered by the Privacy Act.

The new policy is written ambiguously in places. It combines what had been two directives — one governing official agency writings and another covering unofficial writings by both current and former employees — into one. It is sometimes unclear which categories are covered by particular rules.

One section, for example, suggests that writings by former officials may be censored to remove unclassified information deemed “For Official Use Only” and intended for the state and local police. But Mr. Anchukaitis said that section is meant only to make sure that official releases to state and local agencies are screened for classified information before being issued.

[pampango]

17. The OP title implies that Obama never does anything right. This is just the latest example.

Don't let it bother you, ProSense. Some Democrats find Obama as evil as most republicans do.

[Sunlei]

2. I can't even find it on their website the- Directive from the Office of the Director of National Int

Here you look please for the directive. Seems they currently are working on getting rid of many bush era stuff and trying to get rid of some of the 9-11 bush patriot act crap.

I can't find any 'official' report about your OP, except I see all the News quotes in your topic about 'it"

http://www.dni.gov/index.php#

http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases

[KoKo]

4. Just added the links to the OP...and here...in answer to you:

Sorry...got left off Original Post when transferring.


-----------DOCUMENT LINKS MENTIONED IN ARTICLE----------------

Official Document:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1156526-instr-80-04-pre-publication-review-of.html\

--------------

DOCU LINKS from "Secrecy News Website" at:

ODNI Requires Pre-Publication Review of All Public Information

Categories: Intelligence, Secrecy News Website

All employees of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence are required to obtain authorization before disclosing any intelligence-related information to the public.

“All ODNI personnel are required to submit all official and non-official information intended for public release for review,” says ODNI Instruction 80.04 on “Pre-publication Review of Information to be Publicly Released.” The Instruction was newly updated on April 8.

http://blogs.fas.org/secrecy/2014/05/odni-prepub/

[Sunlei]

7. Thanks! The official Gov. website has to much information.Obama must be superman to keep track of it

Could be hundreds of people with access to Snowdens material he took. We know for sure he "shared with the public" for sure with a couple of major media people. Who knows how many more have access?

These media persons can call employees of that Gov. office and ask questions. Some of those employees may even work for outside media groups. There may be more Snowdens working among their 20,000 employees stealing information.


"All employees of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence are required to obtain authorization before disclosing any intelligence-related information to the public."

Employees should not disclose "intelligence-related information" to the public without authorization. I don't have a problem with this.

[KoKo]

8. This is the part that is ridiculous and over reach...but, watch them prosecute someone ....

This seems to be so extreme that it could be seen as violation of Free Speech not to talk about something already published and confirmed? For instance Snowden Leaks Documents. The Documents are there..but, can't be talked about for fear of prosecution by Government? Even past employees? It's another action to intimidate Government Workers who know something the Govt. is doing that could harm the people but if they are caught talking about it trying to expose it to a journalist or another Govt. Department they can be prosecuted. Yet insiders in Govt. leak to newspapers and MSM all the time. And they will continue to do so if it is self-serving info that will protect a powerful person in the "insider group." Those will be the only people who can get away with it...and it will be for propaganda purposes to entrench their power while others cannot refute or provide any counter info to MEDIA. That's the danger.

---------

Timothy H. Edgar, a visiting professor at Brown University, told the Times the ODNI directive is overly restrictive because it goes beyond telling officials they cannot comment on or confirm the accuracy of unauthorized leaks—something he thinks makes sense and is already covered by statute—but it bizarrely asserts that these people cannot even acknowledge the existence of a story that may have appeared on the cover of a major newspaper.

“You’re basically saying people can’t talk about what everyone in the country is talking about,” Edgar said. “I think that is awkward and overly broad in terms of restricting speech.”

[Sunlei]

9. wish all the patriot act went away, its caused our country nothing but grief and trillions of our $.

People can still talk about anything they want.

It is our security employees who can no longer verify "Snowden Leaks & Documents" info. or leaks in general (leaks have been a problem the last several years) to anyone who asks them. Without permission.

[karynnj]

12. I'm not sure it really goes further than what Professor Edgar says is already covered

Obviously if the worker confirmed the existence of the leak, they are providing verification that it is real - which is substantive information. A personal with relevant classified would have to be extremely careful that anything they said could not be revealing any classified information at all.

I don't get where Edgar gets that they can not engage in the various philosophical/ideological debates --- I do get that it is awkward for them because there is much they could not say that would likely be the real basis for their position.

[KoKo]

18. Given the Track Record of our Presidents in past few decades...wouldn't YOU

Question?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. But..but..it will protect our delicate ears from hearing what our (allegedly "our") government does.

Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.

 Thomas Jefferson

[IAMWE]

5. Because, technically... It's all TOP SECRET

Though many seem to think this is all OLD news.

Also, if you're running a secret organization you certainly don't want anyone else getting any ideas to go off the reservation, too.

[bahrbearian]

6. 11th Dimensional Chess

We don't get to play because its too complex .

[KoKo]

16. I know...It's not for us to know...but, to BELIEVE! And that's what it's about....

Many of us are too uncomplicated to understand "Dimensional Chess".......so we have NO IDEA how we are being Protected by the Amazing Intelligence of our Elected Official.

We are just "Losers." 's.

[bvar22]

10. Farther and farther we fall down the Rabbit Hole.

Are we "there" yet?

[jeff47]

11. OMG!!! THEY'RE TRYING TO PROTECT CLASSIFIED!!!!!

HOW PURELY EVIL OF THEM!!!!!!!!!

Leaks are not declassification. The information Snowden leaked is still classified. People with security clearances can not disclose classified information without authorization from on-high*. In fact, people with security clearances can't look at the documents Snowden leaked on an unclassified computer - if they accidentally stumble across a leaked document, they have to report it, and could face penalties for having it on their unclassified system.

This rule appears to be designed to prevent accidentally disclosing classified - if you have to seek permission (and thus review) before discussing Snowden's leaks, you can't accidentally disclose classified.

*The classification system in the US is based on a law which basically says, "Hey executive branch! Come up with a classification system". As a result, the President gets to decide what's classified and what isn't. So if he says "leak this", it's legal to disclose it. It would be much better if we had a "real" law that set up our classification system, so that even the President had to obey it. But we don't.

[KoKo]

19. Good point...so how do we get legislation for what you point out here......

" As a result, the President gets to decide what's classified and what isn't. So if he says "leak this", it's legal to disclose it. It would be much better if we had a "real" law that set up our classification system, so that even the President had to obey it. But we don't."

Problem is when a President Declares this...it takes years to get it overturned.

WHY did he do this unless his ideology is very Republican leaning?

where the RULE of SECRECY is the RULE OF THE LAND...until the PEOPLE OVERTURN IT...

Fat Chance of that happening in this current environment or anytime soon enough to help us.!

[Godhumor]

13. ODNI clarifying protection of intelligence to intelligence workers

And we are supposed to have an issue with that?

[KoKo]

14. Yes...because the "Devil is in the Details." If you take the time to read..

[DeSwiss]

15. K&R

[font size=5]''All tyrannies rule through fraud and force, but once the fraud is exposed they must rely exclusively on force.'' ~George Orwell [/font]