Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the top-ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, is under fire for using Twitter to tell reporters that a group of officials were going to Iraq and Afghanistan. Anonymous sources have criticized Hoekstra for putting the entire delegation at risk by the security breach. It was an ironic twist for Hoekstra who has led calls for tough measures on staffers and other members accused of releasing classified or sensitive information, including my former client Larry Hanauer, a House Intelligence Committee staff member who was later cleared of all charges of leaking such information.
A Defense Department spokesman, Navy Cdr. Darryn James, said said that the information was viewed as sensitive and that travel into these high-risk areas is closely guarded from public release. James said that Hoekstra’s release of the information to the media has led to a review of how to secure the information in the future.
The media is quoting former staffers and contractors who are aghast at the use of Twitter to disclose such information. One former Armed Service staffer said, “By relaying that information and telegraphing what they were doing, he probably placed people in harm’s way. It’s just common sense.”
In the Hanauer case, Hoekstra and now Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood pushed for possible prosecution even though it was clear that Hanauer was not the source for a leak to the New York Times. Hanauer was kept under investigation and on suspension until after the election and then promptly cleared.
Hoekstra also led a hearing (at which I testified) on whether reporters should be prosecuted for receiving classified information and whether greater penalties should be passed against those who give such information to the media.
For the full story, click here.
O.K., Hoekstra seems to be sort of a choad. But is leaking information which may have compromised “operrational security”, as the linked article calls it, the same as leaking information which has been classfied?
I assume Hoekstra was engaged in some politically advantageous chest-thumping by trying to show what a butch-swashbuckler he was by leaving that great big lovable green zone known as the United States, when he twittered said itineraray.
I’ll just answer my own previous question by saying I don’t care; he’s a hypocritical ass-clown and should be sent to the military brig at Fort Brag.
Why does he hate America? Boo hoo hoo.
Republicans appear to love announcing they’re headed to a war zone. Kind of reminds me of Fux News’ Geraldo giving away military positions in Iraq. Children. (Fox & Friends aka Barney & Friends)
Remember “Loose Lips Sink Ships”? That wasn’t about classified information, it was about operational security and guarding what used to be called Essential Elements of Friendly Information (EEFI).
Not everything can or should be classified, but it is important to close hold EEFI and not shout it out to the world.
“…Obama administration’s craven attempts to sweet talk them…”
Only a moronic neocon and a sychphantic troll would call diplomacy a “craven attempt”. The innanity of the argument presented in the unacsribed piece sounds a lot like that raging, raving lunatic, former UN Ambassador Bolton, but it could be any number of knuckle-draggers from the right.
“moronic neocon”–oops. I was being redundant again. Damn, there I go again doing it again.
RC,
Hey, I’d be the last one to bash you about troll hunting, but what are you referencing here? I read the testimony and the full story but didn’t see the “craven” quote.
Buddha
Methinks there’s been a very much appreciated site cleansing since my posts. There was a nonsensical article (I don’t recall the troll’s screen name) that made that reference regarding President’s overtures to Iran. Without it, mine does certainly seem a non-sequitor.
Thanks for the clarification, rc.