Secrecy Versus Truth [Jack Teixeira vs. Biden Administration] | antiwar.com

Scott

Verified User
An article from columnist and former judge Andrew Napolitano that I found quite interesting. Perhaps worthy of some discussion. Quoting the introduction and the conclusion...

**
by Andrew P. Napolitano

April 21, 2023

The arrest last week of 21-year-old air National Guardsman Jack Teixeira on charges of espionage has sparked a debate in the intelligence community and elsewhere about whether his behavior is criminal or heroic. He apparently shared top-secret intelligence and military briefings – to which he had lawful access – with folks in his chatroom, at least one of whom let the cat out of the bag.

Is Teixeira a pawn for folks in the government far senior to him who believe that the United States needs to cease its criminal foray into the Russia/Ukraine war? Or should he be prosecuted because government agents have risked their lives to amass data about Russia and the compromise of this data can be fatal to them and their sources?

I look at this from the perspective of the natural human right to search for and reveal the truth.

What we have here is either Teixeira operating on his own in an effort to impress acquaintances whom he barely knew or Teixeira as a pawn for government officials repulsed by Biden administration policies.

What are these policies? During the past 15 months, the U.S. has spent more than $68 billion in military hardware and ammunition, and in cash, all in an effort to help the Ukraine government resist the Russian military. The administration’s argument is that Russian President Vladimir Putin is trying to reassemble the old Soviet Union. If he succeeds in Ukraine, this argument goes, he will soon choose another European country to occupy. This is the discredited domino theory that President Lyndon Johnson used to justify the Vietnam War.

The counter-argument offers that the American promise that triggered the non-bloody dissolution of the old Soviet Union was that NATO would not move one inch closer to Moscow than it was in 1989. Of course, it is hundreds of miles closer to Moscow today – complete with a U.S.-instigated coup in Ukraine in 2014 – and just recently added Finland and its 800-mile border with Russia. NATO countries have easy access to Western military hardware – aimed at Moscow.

Even though NATO is a defensive organization, its weapons are deployed in an ancient border dispute between Ukraine, a non-NATO country, and Russia – a dispute that has no bearing on the national security of the US


[snip]

Is there a moral difference between Nuland’s revelations and Teixeira’s? Both are truths derived from secrets, yet one furthers killing and the other lets the public judge for itself if the government is worthy of belief. Is there a moral difference between what Teixeira told his buddies and what Austin told Congress? Yes, Teixeira told the truth and Austin lied.

Pontius Pilate famously asked Jesus: "What is truth?" St. Thomas Aquinas defines it as identity between intellect and reality. When the government is manipulating the consent of the governed to fight an illegal war and lies about it, we should praise those who identify reality, not punish them.

**

Full article:
Secrecy Versus Truth | antiwar.com
 
Last edited:
An article from columnist and former judge Andrew Napolitano that I found quite interesting. Perhaps worthy of some discussion. Quoting the introduction and the conclusion...

**
by Andrew P. Napolitano

April 21, 2023

The arrest last week of 21-year-old air National Guardsman Jack Teixeira on charges of espionage has sparked a debate in the intelligence community and elsewhere about whether his behavior is criminal or heroic. He apparently shared top-secret intelligence and military briefings – to which he had lawful access – with folks in his chatroom, at least one of whom let the cat out of the bag.

Is Teixeira a pawn for folks in the government far senior to him who believe that the United States needs to cease its criminal foray into the Russia/Ukraine war? Or should he be prosecuted because government agents have risked their lives to amass data about Russia and the compromise of this data can be fatal to them and their sources?

I look at this from the perspective of the natural human right to search for and reveal the truth.

What we have here is either Teixeira operating on his own in an effort to impress acquaintances whom he barely knew or Teixeira as a pawn for government officials repulsed by Biden administration policies.

What are these policies? During the past 15 months, the U.S. has spent more than $68 billion in military hardware and ammunition, and in cash, all in an effort to help the Ukraine government resist the Russian military. The administration’s argument is that Russian President Vladimir Putin is trying to reassemble the old Soviet Union. If he succeeds in Ukraine, this argument goes, he will soon choose another European country to occupy. This is the discredited domino theory that President Lyndon Johnson used to justify the Vietnam War.

The counter-argument offers that the American promise that triggered the non-bloody dissolution of the old Soviet Union was that NATO would not move one inch closer to Moscow than it was in 1989. Of course, it is hundreds of miles closer to Moscow today – complete with a U.S.-instigated coup in Ukraine in 2014 – and just recently added Finland and its 800-mile border with Russia. NATO countries have easy access to Western military hardware – aimed at Moscow.

Even though NATO is a defensive organization, its weapons are deployed in an ancient border dispute between Ukraine, a non-NATO country, and Russia – a dispute that has no bearing on the national security of the US


[snip]

Is there a moral difference between Nuland’s revelations and Teixeira’s? Both are truths derived from secrets, yet one furthers killing and the other lets the public judge for itself if the government is worthy of belief. Is there a moral difference between what Teixeira told his buddies and what Austin told Congress? Yes, Teixeira told the truth and Austin lied.

Pontius Pilate famously asked Jesus: "What is truth?" St. Thomas Aquinas defines it as identity between intellect and reality. When the government is manipulating the consent of the governed to fight an illegal war and lies about it, we should praise those who identify reality, not punish them.

**

Full article:
Secrecy Versus Truth | antiwar.com

Rule violation. Post the link to source.
 
president-vladimir-putin-nodding-i3m8geg5f8quyfsj.gif
 
That’s a lot to discuss. First let’s get the BS out of the way.
. The counter-argument offers that the American promise that triggered the non-bloody dissolution of the old Soviet Union was that NATO would not move one inch closer to Moscow than it was in 1989.
Who made that “promise”?
 
Rule violation. Post the link to source.

I imagine you know or at least suspect it was a simple oversight. I did have the title of the article as well as the web site source, I'd just forgotten to add the link. Anyway, I've now linked to the source.
 
That’s a lot to discuss. First let’s get the BS out of the way.Who made that “promise”?

Quite a few people actually. You may find the following article educational:

NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard | National Security Archive

Quoting the introduction:

**
Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner

[snip]

Washington D.C., December 12, 2017 – U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).

The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.

The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”

President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2]

**
 
Quite a few people actually. You may find the following article educational:

NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard | National Security Archive

Quoting the introduction:

**
Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner

[snip]

Washington D.C., December 12, 2017 – U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).

The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.

The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”

President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2]

**
Baker’s statement, multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO, memcons , yet nothing in writing.
https://theconversation.com/ukraine...ato-promised-not-to-expand-to-the-east-177085

In 2014, the former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev marked the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall by noting in an interview that that Nato’s enlargement “was not discussed at all” at the time:

Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either.
There was, he (Mikhail Gorbachev) said, no promise not to enlarge the alliance,


https://natowatch.org/newsbriefs/20...misled-over-assurances-against-nato-expansion
None of the assurances of non-expansion were included in any treaty documents, as NATO makes clear in its official explanation on its website: “NATO allies take decisions by consensus and these are recorded. There is no record of any such decision having been taken by NATO. Personal assurances, from NATO leaders, cannot replace alliance consensus and do not constitute a formal NATO agreement”.
Former US ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul labelled the idea of a reneged promise a “myth” in an interview in 2016. Other experts have labelled Russian grievances as a case of “false memory syndrome”.

Nonenlargement was discussed but that’s about it.

There’s tons of articles on this:
https://www.google.com/search?q=nat...-8#sbfbu=1&pi=nato promise not to expand 1991

If we can’t get past this myth , there’s no sense in further discussion.
Good day.
 
Quite a few people actually. You may find the following article educational:

NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard | National Security Archive

Quoting the introduction:

**
Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner

[snip]

Washington D.C., December 12, 2017 – U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).

The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.

The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”

President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2]

**
I guess you didn’t think I’d make the effort to read the entire article :

“ the dissolution of the USSR was brought about by Russians (Boris Yeltsin and his leading advisory Gennady Burbulis) in concert with the former party bosses of the Soviet republics, especially Ukraine, in December 1991. The Cold War was long over by then. The Americans had tried to keep the Soviet Union together (see the Bush “Chicken Kiev” speech on August 1, 1991).”

Looks like from reading the article, the verbal assurances were mostly made in 1990 at the time of German reunification and before the complete dissolution of the USSR.
Once those former Soviet republics became sovereign nations they were free to to request NATO membership.

Wow Phoenyx.
 
That’s a lot to discuss. First let’s get the BS out of the way.Who made that “promise”?

Quite a few people actually. You may find the following article educational:

NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard | National Security Archive

Quoting the introduction:

**
Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner

[snip]

Washington D.C., December 12, 2017 – U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).

The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.

The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”

President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2]

**

Baker’s statement, multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO, memcons , yet nothing in writing.

I suspect you don't know what memcon means. Here we go:
**
Memorandum of conversation (abbrev.: MEMCON) and also memorandum of a conversation and memo to the file refers to a method of contemporaneous documentation of a conversation in the form of a memorandum used by the United States federal government.[1][2]
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_conversation

Perhaps you're unaware of what a memorandum means as well, so more on that:

**
noun A short note written as a reminder.

noun A written record or communication, as in a business office. synonym: letter.

noun A short document outlining the terms of an agreement, especially as a draft leading to a formal, detailed contract.

noun A writing submitted to a court by a party arguing an aspect of a case; a brief.

**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_conversation

Bottom line, Gorbachev was assured by former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker and others that NATO would not expand eastward. After which the U.S. went back on its word and essentially educated Russia on the U.S.'s duplicity.
 
I suspect you don't know what memcon means. Here we go:
**
Memorandum of conversation (abbrev.: MEMCON) and also memorandum of a conversation and memo to the file refers to a method of contemporaneous documentation of a conversation in the form of a memorandum used by the United States federal government.[1][2]
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_conversation

Perhaps you're unaware of what a memorandum means as well, so more on that:

**
noun A short note written as a reminder.

noun A written record or communication, as in a business office. synonym: letter.

noun A short document outlining the terms of an agreement, especially as a draft leading to a formal, detailed contract.

noun A writing submitted to a court by a party arguing an aspect of a case; a brief.

**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_conversation

Bottom line, Gorbachev was assured by former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker and others that NATO would not expand eastward. After which the U.S. went back on its word and essentially educated Russia on the U.S.'s duplicity.
Baker “and others” :rolleyes: did not have the authority to make NATO policy, especially with memorandums.
But you know that.
Look Phoenyx, we all know you’re biased but you don’t have to let your bias lead to dishonesty. I’d enjoy discussing the OP with you but if you can’t get past this simple item , we can’t.
That said I don’t believe either side is without fault but you seem to place at least ~ 90% of the blame on the US. I put ~ 20% on the U.S. The rest to Russia.
In not so diplomatic terms , I believe that Putin and his war pig henchmen were butthurt the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians want nothing to do with Russia’s political system, no different than Lithuania, Slovenia, etc and all the other countries that were in the Warsaw pact that weren’t part of the Soviet Union. They hate Russia.
 
Last edited:
Baker’s statement, multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO, memcons , yet nothing in writing.

I suspect you don't know what memcon means. Here we go:
**
Memorandum of conversation (abbrev.: MEMCON) and also memorandum of a conversation and memo to the file refers to a method of contemporaneous documentation of a conversation in the form of a memorandum used by the United States federal government.[1][2]
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_conversation

Perhaps you're unaware of what a memorandum means as well, so more on that:

**
noun A short note written as a reminder.

noun A written record or communication, as in a business office. synonym: letter.

noun A short document outlining the terms of an agreement, especially as a draft leading to a formal, detailed contract.

noun A writing submitted to a court by a party arguing an aspect of a case; a brief.

**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_conversation

Bottom line, Gorbachev was assured by former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker and others that NATO would not expand eastward. After which the U.S. went back on its word and essentially educated Russia on the U.S.'s duplicity.

Baker “and others” :rolleyes: did not have the authority to make NATO policy, especially with memorandums.

Way to move the goal posts. You had said there was "nothing in writing" stating that NATO would not expand eastwards, and yet everyone worth their salt knows that former Secretary of State James Baker promised Gorbachev that NATO would go "not one inch eastwards" and the fact that I'm quoting him means that yes, it was written down. Whether or not he had the authority to make NATO policy is not the point. The -point- is that he made a promise on NATO's behalf, others made similar promises, and then the U.S. went back on those promises without so much as a 'sorry, we changed our minds'.
 
Way to move the goal posts. You had said there was "nothing in writing" stating that NATO would not expand eastwards, and yet everyone worth their salt knows that former Secretary of State James Baker promised Gorbachev that NATO would go "not one inch eastwards" and the fact that I'm quoting him means that yes, it was written down. Whether or not he had the authority to make NATO policy is not the point. The -point- is that he made a promise on NATO's behalf, others made similar promises, and then the U.S. went back on those promises without so much as a 'sorry, we changed our minds'.

Sorry we can’t go on with a discussion of the OP. It had the potential of a good one.
You openly admit there was nothing in writing, no treaty, Baker had no authority to make NATO policy (or US policy for that matter) yet a promise made by Baker “and others” while the Soviet Union was still intact was somehow an ironclad agreement.
Actually I agree with Baker, hoping the Soviet Union would stay intact. But those former republics hated being under the thumb of Russia. It wasn’t meant to be.

You consistently cite two , only two westerners with dubious credentials as journalists, yet disregard the dozens of Russian independent journalists that have fled an authoritarian regime to report what that regime will incarcerate them decades for reporting.
You are not credible in the least discussing this topic.
Good day. Hopefully we can have a civil discussion on another topic .
 
Last edited:
An article from columnist and former judge Andrew Napolitano that I found quite interesting. Perhaps worthy of some discussion. Quoting the introduction and the conclusion...

**
by Andrew P. Napolitano

April 21, 2023

The arrest last week of 21-year-old air National Guardsman Jack Teixeira on charges of espionage has sparked a debate in the intelligence community and elsewhere about whether his behavior is criminal or heroic. He apparently shared top-secret intelligence and military briefings – to which he had lawful access – with folks in his chatroom, at least one of whom let the cat out of the bag.

Is Teixeira a pawn for folks in the government far senior to him who believe that the United States needs to cease its criminal foray into the Russia/Ukraine war? Or should he be prosecuted because government agents have risked their lives to amass data about Russia and the compromise of this data can be fatal to them and their sources?

I look at this from the perspective of the natural human right to search for and reveal the truth.

What we have here is either Teixeira operating on his own in an effort to impress acquaintances whom he barely knew or Teixeira as a pawn for government officials repulsed by Biden administration policies.

What are these policies? During the past 15 months, the U.S. has spent more than $68 billion in military hardware and ammunition, and in cash, all in an effort to help the Ukraine government resist the Russian military. The administration’s argument is that Russian President Vladimir Putin is trying to reassemble the old Soviet Union. If he succeeds in Ukraine, this argument goes, he will soon choose another European country to occupy. This is the discredited domino theory that President Lyndon Johnson used to justify the Vietnam War.

The counter-argument offers that the American promise that triggered the non-bloody dissolution of the old Soviet Union was that NATO would not move one inch closer to Moscow than it was in 1989. Of course, it is hundreds of miles closer to Moscow today – complete with a U.S.-instigated coup in Ukraine in 2014 – and just recently added Finland and its 800-mile border with Russia. NATO countries have easy access to Western military hardware – aimed at Moscow.

Even though NATO is a defensive organization, its weapons are deployed in an ancient border dispute between Ukraine, a non-NATO country, and Russia – a dispute that has no bearing on the national security of the US


[snip]

Is there a moral difference between Nuland’s revelations and Teixeira’s? Both are truths derived from secrets, yet one furthers killing and the other lets the public judge for itself if the government is worthy of belief. Is there a moral difference between what Teixeira told his buddies and what Austin told Congress? Yes, Teixeira told the truth and Austin lied.

Pontius Pilate famously asked Jesus: "What is truth?" St. Thomas Aquinas defines it as identity between intellect and reality. When the government is manipulating the consent of the governed to fight an illegal war and lies about it, we should praise those who identify reality, not punish them.

**

Full article:
Secrecy Versus Truth | antiwar.com

Teixeira didn't have access to that information, period.
 
How about this...maybe someone gave it to him?
Possible. If so, that person will go down as well.
Why would this person reveal it knowing it would/could incarcerate him for decades?
Why would the person that gave Tiexeira that information, knowing the risk of a dumb kid spreading it on gaming, could very possibly land him in prison for decades?
 
Possible. If so, that person will go down as well.
Why would this person reveal it knowing it would/could incarcerate him for decades?
Why would the person that gave Tiexeira that information, knowing the risk of a dumb kid spreading it on gaming, could very possibly land him in prison for decades?

You're missing the point, Teixeira's job and clearance didn't allow him to obtain that information. It was given to him.
 
Back
Top