{"id":42429,"date":"2023-04-13T18:51:48","date_gmt":"2023-04-14T02:51:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/?p=42429"},"modified":"2023-04-13T18:51:48","modified_gmt":"2023-04-14T02:51:48","slug":"classified-documents-leak-who-should-go-to-prison","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/2023\/04\/13\/classified-documents-leak-who-should-go-to-prison\/","title":{"rendered":"Classified Documents Leak: Who Should Go to Prison"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>As I write this, <i>Politico<\/i> reports that the US Federal Bureau of Investigation has made an arrest in the matter of &#8220;classified&#8221; government documents found circulating on social media after allegedly being posted on an Internet game chat server over a period of weeks or months.<\/p>\n<p>The <i>New York Times<\/i> reports that the likely arrestee is one Jack Teixeira, a 21-year-old member of the Massachusetts Air National Guard.<\/p>\n<p>Given my past writings on government abuse of the &#8220;classification&#8221; system, you may be surprised to learn that in this particular instance I support prison time.<\/p>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<p>Not for Teixeira, though, even if he does turn out to be the person who released the documents.<\/p>\n<p>The people who belong in jail are the people who classified those documents in the first place, and the case looks pretty airtight to me.<\/p>\n<p>At least some of the released documents were market &#8220;top secret,&#8221; a classification which reflects the claim that their release would result in &#8220;grave&#8221; damage to the national security of the United States.<\/p>\n<p>The documents were released. Amount of damage to the national security of the United States? Zip. Zero. Nada.<\/p>\n<p>The US hasn&#8217;t been bombed. The US hasn&#8217;t been invaded. No US ships have been sunk, nor have any US aircraft been shot down, nor have any US troops been put in harm&#8217;s way. Not surprising, since the US has never considered its national security threatened enough to merit a declaration of war even once in more than 80 years now.<\/p>\n<p>The documents may be politically embarrassing, but not only is that not a legitimate reason for classifying information, it&#8217;s specifically prohibited by law as a reason for classifying information.<\/p>\n<p>Those documents should never have been classified in the first place. And the people who classified them KNEW that. If they were of any importance, they wouldn&#8217;t have been shown to random 21-year-old members of the Massachusetts Air National Guard, especially in such an insecure manner that those personnel could hand-copy and\/or photograph them, walk out with them, and share them with a bunch of gamer friends.<\/p>\n<p>While I&#8217;m against the whole concept of &#8220;classified information&#8221; on principle (if you want to keep secrets from taxpayers, give up that taxpayer funding), it&#8217;s even worse when every lieutenant colonel in the armed forces stamps &#8220;top secret&#8221; on their DoorDash lunch orders, then run around chicken-littleing about &#8220;national security&#8221; when word gets out. Lock&#8217;em up.<\/p>\n<p><i>Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the <a href=\"http:\/\/thegarrisoncenter.org\/\">William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism<\/a>, publisher of Rational Review News Digest, and moderator of Antiwar.com&#8217;s commenting\/discussion community.<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>As I write this, Politico reports that the US Federal Bureau of Investigation has made an arrest in the matter of &#8220;classified&#8221; government documents found circulating on social media after allegedly being posted on an Internet game chat server over a period of weeks or months. The New York Times reports that the likely arrestee [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":80,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-42429","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"meta_box":{"disable_donate_message":"","custom_donate_message":"","subtitle":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42429","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/80"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=42429"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42429\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":42431,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42429\/revisions\/42431"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=42429"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=42429"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=42429"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=42429"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}