Solid ideas.
www.theguardian.com
My big problem is that the AUKUS Submarine deal has always made ZERO sense when you look at the realities of the Submarine Industrial Base. The new construction Virginia class has been problematic for the better part of the past decade, and major shipyard overhauls of existing submarines has been a problem for just as long. It made no sense to agree to sell 3-5 Virginia classes when our own fleet of operational boats are being pushed to the max to meet GCC needs around the globe. It's a great idea in theory, but given that the Aussies are going in with the Brits on their Astute replacement project, I think it is way less important that they get 3+ Virginias and instead keep up the relationship we currently have with Aussie submariners coming and serving on US boats, establishment of a new US Submarine squadron out of Fremantle or some other Western Australian port, and maintain the intelligence sharing agreements with Australia for the IndoPacific. I would be more comfortable with the idea if we instead sold them later boats in the Los Angeles class if we refueled them, but I also generally reject the idea that nuclear powered submarines are that important to Australia. They can still provide the coalition tremendous value with Sea Denial in the southern and western approaches to the SCS if they based diesel boats out of DarwinSolid ideas.
I guess it would help for us not the alienate our allies in the pacific as well.
The new reality dawning in Australia: it can no longer rely on the US
For all the fraternal rhetoric, the alliance has always been asymmetric. It seems Washington under Trump sees it as immaterial
Such as?
Probably firing Mike Waltz. Unless you can prove intent to disclose NDI to an uncleared person, or the intent to use signal to evade the records retention, then I don't think that they could have a solid case with the Presidential Records Act and Espionage Act.
No consequences for anyone else?
Stay licking boots.
Can you trust the sourcing? Me personally, if it's not from MAGAVOICE, InsurrectionBarbie, DavidDukesThoughts, or BombMuslims then I won't believe it.
How is a staffer accidentally adding someone who shouldn't be in the conversation remotely close to a cabinet member intentionally subverting security laws and protocols over an extended period of time? I'm not looking for a fight or a gotcha moment. I'm asking for a serious answer. Those two things are MILES apart in intent and risk.
None of this should have been on Signal. It's not secure and all set to autodelete and stop an FOIA request. If they've done this once they've done this other times
I mean I agree 100% that this shouldn’t have been on signal and it was an irresponsible medium for classified information AND on top of that having no fail safe or apparent moderation to prevent an unauthorized individual from being added. I’m just saying the type of information on Hillary’s emails was even higher sensitivity than what was likely on this signal thread. Ultimately we are probably never going to know what exact level of classification was on the thread, but could potentially find out with a congressional investigation which I think is prudent in this case
I thought what Hillary did was wrong. This is a completely different level of bad. Adding the journalist is a stupid mistake that is embarrassing and makes them look amateurish. The real issue here is using Signal. Hillary's emails were bad because they were housed on an unsecured PRIVATE server. These are messages about military action using a 3rd party application on a PUBLIC server.
I mean Signal is considerably more secure than Hillary’s unsecured Microsoft Exchange server. Completely agree it was bad for them to use it, but Signal is like the standard bearer for E2EE messaging applications.
The difference to me is this was a real time ongoing planning of a military operation. In real time. If the wrong eyes are on this we're getting people killed in real time.
I think in this case there was a significantly larger risk to mission that risk to force, but agreed that this appears more damaging, certainly in an OPSEC sense. But we also don’t know exactly what sort of information Clinton had on her server… SAPs (Special Access Programs) are the types of things that maybe a couple dozen people or fewer are actually read on to due to their sensitivity. Given her role as SoS it very well could have been the identity of CIA agents or assets in adversarial nations.
Clearly. This goes beyond some "accidental adding of a journalist" to a chat group. Every single person on that group should have known (and I'll wager heavy money that they DO know) that they are not supposed to be using Signal for these communications. Given that they should have known or did know and did not put a stop to it the second the messages started flying shows that this isn't the first time this has occurred.
Two unique situations but seems inappropriate to be conducting this sort of business over signal.
There exist chat servers and such on classified networks, but they are not as user friendly or flexible as signal. I had the same thought though.
Well let's see if the GOP does it.
