Bin Laden Raid Book: First-Hand Account Of Navy SEAL Mission Will Be Released On Sept. 11

[Unstoppable]

Here's something thats been bugging me, if his real name has been plastered all over the internet, what exactly is going to happen with this guys friends and family? Wouldn't they be in some sort of danger? I would imagine AQ is chomping at the bits to get at this guy.

 

[Chopstick]

In all the football fun last night I forgot this was airing on 60 Minutes. Anyone watch it? Thoughts?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...cid=maing-grid7|aim|dl1|sec1_lnk2&pLid=203173

 

[dknob]

I thought the 60 Minutes interview was very well done. The guy is very likeable.

 

[Crusader74]

I thought the 60 Minutes interview was very well done. The guy is very likeable.

I'm sure a lot of his former Team mates will disagree....

 

[Centermass]

No but it contractually and specifically says "no books" not just a general NDA. What I mean is, the wiggle room in a general NDA can be massive, if you put down a blanket statement it makes things much less wriggarable.

Last time I checked, it was pretty damn specific - especially for someone with his level of clearance knew full well and chose to do otherwise.

He broke the faith, not once, but twice. First against that contained in the NDA, and second, more importantly, to those still walking the walk.

Guess in this day and age, it's ok to pick and choose what you agreed to and what you decided to take back. Seems it's getting harder and harder to find someone that can actually keep their mouths shut and not so hard to find those willing to give guys like these a pass.

If I ever met the guy, I'd thank him for his service first and then let him know how he lost my respect at the same time.

 

[DA SWO]

No but it contractually and specifically says "no books" not just a general NDA. What I mean is, the wiggle room in a general NDA can be massive, if you put down a blanket statement it makes things much less wriggarable.

He probably signed the same NDA I signed, which specifically covered books and other manuscripts. He violated the NDA.

 

[dknob]

Based on the interview alone, there was no sensitive or important information disclosed. I'm picking up the book today. But aside from simply exploiting his SMU time, the whole major OPSEC violation stuff has come out to be nothing but some huplah.

 

[Ravage]

For those that missed it:

 

[AWP]

Here's something thats been bugging me, if his real name has been plastered all over the internet, what exactly is going to happen with this guys friends and family? Wouldn't they be in some sort of danger? I would imagine AQ is chomping at the bits to get at this guy.

So what? He should have thought about that before he ran his mouth. He endangered them, not the media.

 

[Desperado]

I saw the book at the Hastings check out counter but had no desire to pick it up; not because of the ethical issues involved; I just don't have the interest I guess. Besides, after my inquiry, my son said there was no chapter in the table of contents entitled "How DevGru Puts on Their Pants in the Morning" so at that point I paid for my DVD rental of NCIS Season 9 (after all these years I'm still hoping to catch a glimpse of Abby Sciuto's panties).

 

[dknob]

It would be nieve to think that AQ has the capabilities to infiltrate an assassin into the US to kill him.

Any danger would come from a home grown militant islamist/ Lone wolf deal.

 

[Marauder06]

Based on the interview alone, there was no sensitive or important information disclosed. I'm picking up the book today. But aside from simply exploiting his SMU time, the whole major OPSEC violation stuff has come out to be nothing but some huplah.

How do you know what is sensitive and what isn't when it comes to something like this? Do you have training as a security manager for SOCOM?

Additionally, just because it's not classified, doesn't mean it is OK to release. By definition, "OPSEC" covers operations at the UNCLASS level. That's why it's "OPSEC" and not "INTSEC." The NDAs which we ALL had to sign to have a clearance, which is required to be in units like he was in, doesn't say "I will only disclose things that I think are OK to disclose, or if I can rationalize it to where someone higher than me released it first, or if I need to "set the record straight" (see also "Dalton Fury") or if I really, really want to make a buck." That fact that he did this AT ALL is a violation of his word of honor and a betrayal to the community to which he formerly belonged.

 

[dknob]

Of course he violated all his agreements.

But in my opinion his violations don't threaten national security, his teammates, or our current capabilities on the ground.

His chapters on Green Team/Selection might help some aspiring Sixers get a headsup on what to expect more so then any other books that cover it, but if they are on the Teams I'm sure they know plenty about the course.

 

[surgicalcric]

It would be nieve to think that AQ has the capabilities to infiltrate an assassin into the US to kill him.

Any danger would come from a home grown militant islamist/ Lone wolf deal.

Nieve like thinking they could never infiltrate enough guys into the US to conduct a large scale attack on US soil? ;)

 

[Marauder06]

Nieve like thinking they could never infiltrate enough guys into the US to conduct a large scale attack on US soil? ;)

lol

In all seriousness, if someone would have written a novel in say 1998 about fictional events that unfolded exactly the same way 9/11 did, I would have called BS.

"Let me get this straight. A dude living in a cave in Afghanistan successfully planned a mission in which a bunch of foreign-born terrorists come to the US, live here for years, take flight lessons (learning only how to fly, not how to land), and remain true to their extremist beliefs while living the American life of drinking, strip clubs, and drugs. Then, on a specific day, at a specific time, they hijack a bunch of planes inside the US, using only box cutters, and then crash them into the Pentagon and the Twin Towers. Then the Twin Tower both collapse. And then the US invades (and occupies, wtf) not only Afghanistan, but Iraq. And the US intel community never caught wind of any of this in advance? Riiiiight." ;)

Sometimes truth really is stranger than fiction.

 

[Brooklynben]

ADMIN EDIT: We're not going to publish links like that here.

 

[JackMurphyRGR]

They already sign an NDA, getting them to sign something isn't the problem, it's enforcement of what they sign that's the problem.

Yup, NDA's are worthless. They are not stopping anyone from doing anything.

 

[Desperado]

"A dude living in a cave in Afghanistan successfully planned a mission in which a bunch of foreign-born terrorists come to the US, live here for years, take flight lessons (learning only how to fly, not how to land), and remain true to their extremist beliefs while living the American life of drinking, strip clubs, and drugs. Then, on a specific day, at a specific time, they hijack a bunch of planes inside the US, using only box cutters, and then crash them into the Pentagon and the Twin Towers. Then the Twin Tower both collapse. And then the US invades (and occupies, wtf) not only Afghanistan, but Iraq. And the US intel community never caught wind of any of this in advance? Riiiiight."

It's still not safe to objectively discuss the rhetorical extensions of what you just wrote.

Thus, I'll quickly change the subject, and go slightly off topic, to ask if any one remembers the plane that went down somewhere in or around NYC some days or weeks shortly after 9/11, and all the anthrax shit? Those were strange days indeed. Was that plane crash proven to have been an accident? And the anthrax is still unsolved, or? I almost feel like there has been a collective amnesia. On the other hand, I killed my T.V. years ago so I'm kind of out of the loop.

 

[Marauder06]

It's still not safe to objectively discuss the rhetorical extensions of what you just wrote.

...

I'm pretty sure everything I just wrote was covered in the officially-released 9/11 Report. So in what way is it "not safe to objectively discuss?"

 

[Desperado]

I'm pretty sure everything I just wrote was covered in the officially-released 9/11 Report. So in what way is it "not safe to objectively discuss?"

Let's just say that if some devil's advocate, me for instance, were to objectively discuss one or more of the rhetorical extensions what you just wrote, I'd probably get banned. Maybe I should have phrased it thus: "It's still not politically safe to objectively discuss the rhetorical extensions of what you just wrote." Then it might have been more clear. I actually thought about adding that word in the first place, but found the sentence unwieldy. [Although there is a certain meter to it.]