PDA

View Full Version : New snake eater looking for info



jerkyguy
19th November 2000, 01:03
Here is a quick offhanded question. Are those of you who have served in special force units bound to secrecy upon retirement? I am an active member of a foreign special force unit(which shall remain unnamed)and I would like to tap into the wealth of experienced gained through traumatic blood loss(ha ha). I would consider this a great honor to speak to tested warriors.

Gary Fresno
(not my real name)

George Kohler
19th November 2000, 01:27
Hi Gary (or whoever you are :) )

Not everything is secret. When I was in, we did have to sign something when I left my unit. They (USSOCOM) don't want you talking about how SOF are deployed, some weapons used, their size (including other SOF units you work with), some of the equipment (including vehicles), some of the operations they've done, and how combined SOF work together. This is a short list. BTW, all of these are common sense.

George "my real name" Kohler
Genbukan/KJJR
Kusakage Dojo-cho

Joseph Svinth
19th November 2000, 08:07
"Note that of the 6,610,154 million secrets created in 1997 a small proportion, some 1.4 percent were created under statute, that is to say the Atomic Energy Act.(8) The remainder are pure creatures of bureaucracy, via Executive Orders." (Senator Daniel Moynihan, http://www.senate.gov/~moynihan/speeches/secrecy.htm )

Ah yes, bureaucracy...

***

For those interested in the Beanie Boys' security policy, see Fort Bragg's official policy at http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/ar380-5_xviii.htm . Civilian contractors also should see the Federation of American Scientists' description of the SF 189 at http://www.fas.org/sgp/isoo/sf312.html . According to this site:

QUOTE:

Question 13: What is the threshold of liability for violating the nondisclosure provisions of the SF 312?

Answer: A party to the SF 312, SF 189 or SF 189-A may be liable for disclosing "classified information" only if he or she knows or reasonably should know that: (a) the marked or unmarked information is classified, or meets the standards for classification and is in the process of a classification determination; and (b) his or her action will result, or reasonably could result in the unauthorized disclosure of that information. In no instance may a party to the SF 312, SF 189 or SF 189-A be liable for violating its nondisclosure provisions by disclosing information when, at the time of the disclosure, there is no basis to suggest, other than pure speculation, that the information is classified or in the process of a classification determination.

***

Question 19: If information that a signer of the SF 312 knows to have been classified appears in a public source, for example, in a newspaper article, may the signer assume that the information has been declassified and disseminate it elsewhere?

Answer: No. Information remains classified until it has been officially declassified. Its disclosure in a public source does not declassify the information. Of course, merely quoting the public source in the abstract is not a second unauthorized disclosure. However, before disseminating the information elsewhere or confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified. If it has not, further dissemination of the information or confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure.

CLOSE QUOTE

So, what is declassified and what is not? Check with the agency, but in general the US Department of Defense downgrades most material to public record within 25 years. (Britain, I think, is 50 years.) Some links appear at http://www.fas.org/sgp/advisory/index.html . The folks are trying -- several hundred million pages were declassified in 1997 alone. But there is so much...

Some other interesting websites out there, too. See, for example, http://www.capnasty.org/taf/issue5/tempest.htm

jerkyguy
21st November 2000, 14:05
Hey! All I wanted to know was if there was someone out there who could impart some knowledge gained through experience. I really don't care what the atomic energy act dictates. I really get anoyed at some of the members who feel they need to turn a discussion topic into their chance to show the world why they should be on Jepardy(misspelled).
I did not bring my "queen's regulations and orders volume 2" so do me a favor and leave the U.S Congress out of this. Also I am not an idiot or I would not be in this line of work. I am well aware of the guidelines set forth in regards to operational security. All I was saying was that, like the S.A.S. ,some SOF units will ban their members from their Mess if they brake the silence. Sometimes 2 minutes of info from a veteran far outweighs the content of a training manual in its validity when put to the test.

I 'm off the soapbox now, thank you.

Gary Fresno

Jeff Cook
21st November 2000, 19:43
Gary,

Don't beat up on Joe too bad. He is a depthless well of trivia, and a valuable resource. I don't think he intends to be condescending.

Maybe you should clarify what type of experiences you want to share. Much value can be gained by listening to experiences that don't compromise classified information disclosure rules. Combat experiences are universal, and not restricted to SpecOps folks. In fact, many many SpecOps folks avoid direct combat at all costs, so as to not compromise the covert nature of their mission.

Be more specific about that which you seek. Also, it is a violation of this board's policy to not use your real name. Leave the cloak-and-dagger stuff outside of this board, please.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

FastEd
21st November 2000, 23:05
Originally posted by jerkyguy
Hey! All I wanted to know was if there was someone out there who could impart some knowledge gained through experience. I really don't care what the atomic energy act dictates. I really get anoyed at some of the members who feel they need to turn a discussion topic into their chance to show the world why they should be on Jepardy(misspelled).
I did not bring my "queen's regulations and orders volume 2" so do me a favor and leave the U.S Congress out of this. Also I am not an idiot or I would not be in this line of work. I am well aware of the guidelines set forth in regards to operational security. I 'm off the soapbox now, thank you.
Gary Fresno

First of all, if you are going to participate in this forum, you must sign with your real name, otherwise stop playing with people's time, and leave.

Second, if your going to be rude, you can also take your questions and leave, people will not tolerate you for very long.

And lastly, if you are "really" stationed at Canadian Forces Station Alert, then most likely you are a member of the Canadian Armed Forces (I hope not!). Show some respect for your position.

[Edited by FastEd on 11-22-2000 at 02:25 PM]

Joseph Svinth
22nd November 2000, 07:44
At least in the United States, counsel generally does not recommend "I read this on the Internet" as a defense at the court-martial. However, since I erroneously believed that everyone who is not an idiot already knew that, I forgot to mention that in my first post. Sorry.

Also, I erred in assuming that the question was serious rather than a call for war stories. As a result, I cited some reasonably official US precedent. Now, I admit that US precedent does not necessarily apply outside the US and dependencies. However, neither is it necessarily irrelevant. For example, read the summary at http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/sisco.htm , in which the Solicitor-General of New Zealand entered US, Canadian, and British precedent into court. BTW, said case involved NZ national security, and the decision -- each situation is different, so if you have questions, seek legal counsel -- certainly seems appropriate advice.

All that said, since the question seems aimed mostly at eliciting war stories, perhaps visiting http://www.sofmag.com or attending an SOF convention would prove more satisfactory?