Author of No Easy Day indentified...

[Ldir]

Book was reviewed/vetted by lawyers versed in what is/is not allowed.

It is what is in the overall book that has pissed off the administration.

You are psychic? Can you give me tonight's lottery numbers.

 

[blankslate]

Book was reviewed/vetted by lawyers versed in what is/is not allowed.

That's the thing...

From the article the OP posted

U.S. military and intelligence officials say they do not believe the book has been read or cleared by the Defense Department. The Pentagon reviews publications by military members — both active duty and retired — to make sure that no classified material is revealed.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/story/2012-08-24/Navy-SEAL-book-warning-leaks/57290144/1

Books containing details about military operations are to be submitted to military authorities to ensure that they do not reveal information that could jeopardize troops or missions, Navy Rear Adm. John Kirby said. The Navy has an office in New York that handles such matters, he said.
Pentagon regulations note that "a lecture, speech or writing that pertains to military matters, national security issues, or subjects of significant concern to (the Defense Department) shall be reviewed for clearance by appropriate security and public affairs office prior to delivery or publication."
That was not done in this case, Kirby said.

Who were the lawyers who reviewed the book?



If they were independent of the Pentagon then the author may well have done something that will let legal action be taken against him even if there turns out to be no sensitive information exposed.

 

[Thump553]

Book was reviewed/vetted by lawyers versed in what is/is not allowed.

It is what is in the overall book that has pissed off the administration.

They were raked over the coals once for leaking national security information on the operation. Now the full story is to be exposed; they opened up Pandora's box and all of a sudden when the usefulness is no longer needed; they want to close it.

Let's assume all of your claims are gospel truth. How does that justify Fox News revealing the true identity of the author? Or is another part of your fantasy that Faux News was actively doing what President Obama directed them to?

I don't know (and further don't care) if the book is anti or pro-Obama. I think the author is stepping way over the line and endangering other soldiers, other missions and the safety of the USA, despite what his tame expert claims. But I am equally, if not more so, offended by Faux News cynically revealing his identity to all the retaliatory jihadists in the world.

 

[blankslate]

How does that justify Fox News revealing the true identity of the author?

Good question funny how none of the people who author conservative leaning posts address it.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Let's assume all of your claims are gospel truth. How does that justify Fox News revealing the true identity of the author? Or is another part of your fantasy that Faux News was actively doing what President Obama directed them to?

I don't know (and further don't care) if the book is anti or pro-Obama. I think the author is stepping way over the line and endangering other soldiers, other missions and the safety of the USA, despite what his tame expert claims. But I am equally, if not more so, offended by Faux News cynically revealing his identity to all the retaliatory jihadists in the world.

Good question funny how none of the people who author conservative leaning posts address it.

I do not agree that the book author should have been revealed. Anonymous for a reason - safety!

I object to that fact that Obama has put the US Military in a compromising position of defending actions that have been professionaly vetted and/or authorized by the administration.

 

[EagleKeeper]

dp

 

[blankslate]

I do not agree that the book author should have been revealed. Anonymous for a reason - safety!

So obviously the patriotic Fox News wasn't so much that in this case...

 

[Fern]

-snip-

I'd like to hear him explain why he felt the need to go the route he did and ignore established protocol.

I'd like to hear that from him, too.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally Posted by Thump553
How does that justify Fox News revealing the true identity of the author?

Good question funny how none of the people who author conservative leaning posts address it.

Really?

Surely you consider me a Conservative. I've already said it was an outrage.

Fern

 

[Thump553]

I do not agree that the book author should have been revealed. Anonymous for a reason - safety!

I object to that fact that Obama has put the US Military in a compromising position of defending actions that have been professionaly vetted and/or authorized by the administration.

The bolded part of your statement is based upon a false assumption. The Dept. of Defense (ie, Administration) has never vetted this book-the author deliberately ignored that requirement. Instead he (and/or his publisher) hired a private party attorney formerly associated with the military and are relying on that person's opinion that nothing in the book harms national security.

I'm still mystified how you cast the blame on Obama and/or the Dept of Defense, it must be the GOP knee jerk reaction-sometimes gone wrong, it must be Obama's fault.

 

[blankslate]

Surely you consider me a Conservative. I've already said it was an outrage.

My apologies indeed you did.

Now let's hear from some others...

 

[kage69]

I do not agree that the book author should have been revealed. Anonymous for a reason - safety!

6 posts in, on the 5th page of the thread and you finally get around to saying something definitive regarding your position regarding the subject, and this is after you've already shown yourself to be perfectly fine citing the contents of a book you haven't read. A brief description of this, or a quick sentence on that may be good enough for you, but it's not for me. You'll have to excuse me if I don't buy what you're selling - your priorities seem a little partisan. Nice of you to finally sound off on Fox's despicable behavior though. Better late than never...

I object to that fact that Obama has put the US Military in a compromising position of defending actions that have been professionaly vetted and/or authorized by the administration.

Right on cue. Yes, back to Obama we go ... *sigh*

 

[kage69]

I'd like to hear that from him, too.

Fern

Update:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/seal-...erial-pentagon/story?id=17152164#.UEaSY5GO6So


"Owen's attorney said in his own letter to the Pentagon Friday that agreements signed by Owen in 2007 did not require him to present any materials for pre-publication review and said the book did not reveal any sensitive information. The book's publisher, Dutton, has also said that it had been vetted by a former special operations attorney before publication, even if it was not vetted by officials at the Department of Defense, the White House or the CIA. "


So according to his attorney, he has a waiver of sorts?

 

[werepossum]

Update:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/seal-...erial-pentagon/story?id=17152164#.UEaSY5GO6So


"Owen's attorney said in his own letter to the Pentagon Friday that agreements signed by Owen in 2007 did not require him to present any materials for pre-publication review and said the book did not reveal any sensitive information. The book's publisher, Dutton, has also said that it had been vetted by a former special operations attorney before publication, even if it was not vetted by officials at the Department of Defense, the White House or the CIA. "


So according to his attorney, he has a waiver of sorts?

I'm going to be amazed if he has a waiver that allows him to publish operational details without review. That could do enormous damage.

He might have an out in that President Obama has allowed unprecedented access to SEAL Team Six (yes, I know that's no longer it's official name so no one has to correct me) and is releasing much the same information, even if they disagree on the details, but I see two problems. First, pretty much anything the President wishes to reveal is technically legal, as there is no higher authority. Even releasing to the Russians highly sensitive nuclear information about the Brits didn't get Obama in trouble, so this won't either. And second, Obama's movie is supposedly delayed until after the election, so this book will be the first publication of details beyond what have already been shared.

 

[Rudee]

Please educate yourself on what he is doing with the proceeds before you make accusations. Thanks.

You mean what he is doing with SOME of the proceeds.

 

[kage69]

You mean what he is doing with SOME of the proceeds.

I haven't seen the actual percentage the goes to the fund either, anyone know or have a link?

 

[bononos]

I have a few friends in the armed forces, serving overseas. They post photos on facebook fairly often. You can clearly see some of the same faces over and over in those photos. You have a good idea who their buddies are over there.

If this is the same for the Seals, then by leaking one name, it really wouldn't be too hard to infer who some of the other Seals are.

The small elite operator community are different from normal military personnel. They tend to stay anonymous and are very publicity shy.