{"id":15788,"date":"2023-04-19T10:12:21","date_gmt":"2023-04-19T10:12:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lynettelockhart.com\/client\/how-this-years-military\/"},"modified":"2023-04-19T10:13:50","modified_gmt":"2023-04-19T10:13:50","slug":"how-this-years-military","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/lynettelockhart.com\/client\/how-this-years-military\/","title":{"rendered":"How this year&#8217;s military intelligence leaks could damage US security"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>By Arshad Mohammed and Jonathan Landay<\/p>\n<p>WASHINGTON (Reuters) &#8211;     It was huge, expensive and top secret.<\/p>\n<p>In the early 1970s the CIA built a gigantic ship called the Hughes Glomar Explorer to lift a sunken Soviet submarine from the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, according to a declassified history by the U.S. intelligence agency.<\/p>\n<p>But the elaborately woven CIA cover story &#8211; that the ship was built by Howard Hughes to mine manganese nodules from the ocean depths &#8211; began to unravel with a February 1975 Los Angeles Times story, eventually forcing the agency to abandon the project.<\/p>\n<p>The court appearance on Wednesday by Jack Teixeira, a 21-year-old member of the U.S. Air National Guard accused of posting top secret military intelligence records online, has revived questions about whether leaks damage U.S. security in cases less clear-cut than the Hughes Glomar Explorer.<\/p>\n<p>Proving that a leak, whether a single data point or a trove of documents, has harmed the U.S. government is difficult given that internal assessments are themselves kept secret, but analysts of government secrecy said the damage can be dramatic.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;There is a potential &#8230; for great damage because many of the most valuable intelligence methods are quite fragile,&#8221; said Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Once their existence is known, they can be evaded or spoofed and so their intelligence value can evaporate,&#8221; he added, referring to a target taking steps to avoid espionage or exploiting a channel to provide false information.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Individuals can be placed at significant risk of imprisonment or death,&#8221; he added.<\/p>\n<p>FOUR KINDS OF DAMAGE<\/p>\n<p>Mark Zaid, a Washington-based national security attorney, described four types of potential harm.<\/p>\n<p>These include disclosure of the information itself (such as troop locations); the source or method of collection (which can endanger the individual or the stream of information); the mere fact of U.S. interest (which may help adversaries identify and exploit U.S. trigger points); and public disclosure (which can embarrass or provoke other nations, including allies).<\/p>\n<p>There is often diplomatic fallout.<\/p>\n<p>Mexico&#8217;s president on Tuesday accused the Pentagon of spying after the Washington Post reported on apparent tensions between Mexico&#8217;s army and navy and said he would begin classifying information from the armed forces to protect national security.<\/p>\n<p>The release of U.S. diplomatic and military documents on Wikileaks starting in 2010 contributed to two U.S. ambassadors losing their assignments.<\/p>\n<p>In 2011, the U.S. ambassador to Mexico resigned after his criticism of Mexican authorities for a lack of coordination against drug cartel leaders emerged and Ecuador expelled the U.S. envoy for cables on suspected police corruption.<\/p>\n<p>It is virtually impossible for outsiders to make a complete  appraisal of the damage from leaks because internal assessments are themselves classified to avoid further disclosures.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The damage assessment itself would likely reveal additional classified information,&#8221; such as how long a source was providing information and whether what was conveyed, say about military deployments, might have caused a battlefield defeat, Zaid said.Another complicating factor is that officials can muddy the waters by minimizing the significance of leaks or playing it up, perhaps seeking a public relations benefit by pretending that no harm was done or to make a stronger case for punishing leakers.<\/p>\n<p>In the case of the Hughes Glomar Explorer, which was built at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars and only recovered part of the Soviet submarine, once its cover was blown it was of no use to the CIA. <\/p>\n<p>The ship was eventually put into private use for deepwater oil drilling and, in 2015, slated to be scrapped.<\/p>\n<p \/>\n<p> (Reporting By Arshad Mohammed and Jonathan Landay; editing by Grant McCool)<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/lynettelockhart.com\/client\/how-this-years-military\/a-mockup-representation-of-classified-u-s-military-documents-and-a-2\/\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"http:\/\/lynettelockhart.com\/client\/wp-content\/uploads\/Reuters_Direct_Media\/USOnlineReportDomesticNews\/tagreuters.com2023binary_LYNXMPEJ3I0AZ-VIEWIMAGE.jpg\" alt=\"tagreuters.com2023binary_LYNXMPEJ3I0AZ-VIEWIMAGE\"><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>By Arshad Mohammed and Jonathan Landay WASHINGTON (Reuters) &#8211; It was huge, expensive and top secret. In the early 1970s the CIA built a gigantic ship called the Hughes Glomar Explorer to lift a sunken Soviet submarine from the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, according to a declassified history by the U.S. intelligence agency. But [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":15789,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"spay_email":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1214],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15788","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-u-s-domestic"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"http:\/\/lynettelockhart.com\/client\/wp-content\/uploads\/Reuters_Direct_Media\/USOnlineReportDomesticNews\/tagreuters.com2023binary_LYNXMPEJ3I0AZ-VIEWIMAGE.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/lynettelockhart.com\/client\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15788","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/lynettelockhart.com\/client\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/lynettelockhart.com\/client\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/lynettelockhart.com\/client\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/lynettelockhart.com\/client\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15788"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/lynettelockhart.com\/client\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15788\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":15790,"href":"http:\/\/lynettelockhart.com\/client\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15788\/revisions\/15790"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/lynettelockhart.com\/client\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/15789"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/lynettelockhart.com\/client\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15788"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/lynettelockhart.com\/client\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15788"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/lynettelockhart.com\/client\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15788"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}