Osama, dead or alive... or not - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-05-2006, 07:07 PM   #16
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,884
Local Time: 04:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
once again, we see the politicization of terrorism in order to scare the right wing base back into the booths this fall.
Every issue doesn't need to become a left/right slugfest. I think this is one of them, although the NYT seems to have shown its hand a long time ago. Even John Murtha was against releasing this.

I'd like to see a serious investigation into the government officials who had loose lips. That would be some progress.
__________________

__________________
Bluer White is online now  
Old 07-05-2006, 07:09 PM   #17
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,486
Local Time: 04:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Bluer White


Every issue doesn't need to become a left/right slugfest. I think this is one of them, although the NYT seems to have shown its hand a long time ago. Even John Murtha was against releasing this.

I'd like to see a serious investigation into the government officials who had loose lips. That would be some progress.


this has been made a right/left issue not by the NYT but by the moaning of the Bush administration. the simple fact that they are going after the NYT and not the right-wing WSJ demonstrates that this is little more than an attack on a single newspaper who's very name gets their base all riled up.

how has the NYT shown it's hand? did you watch Meet the Press on Sunday? everyone agrees: there's a firewall between the Op-Ed pages of the NYT and the WSJ and their reporting. this was a report, not an opinion piece.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-05-2006, 08:14 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 04:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




he outed a CIA agent for the sake of politics -- this is a big deal! there is no question that she was a covert officer:

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0703nj1.htm
There is indeed question about whether she was covert, and not just by me, in case you were wondering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-05-2006, 08:48 PM   #19
Blue Crack Addict
 
the rockin edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: tomorrow's just an excuse away
Posts: 26,816
Local Time: 03:07 PM
hasn't bin laden already been caught? they are just waiting to announce until a couple weeks before the elections in Nov...
__________________
the rockin edge is offline  
Old 07-05-2006, 11:58 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 03:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

this has been made a right/left issue not by the NYT but by the moaning of the Bush administration. the simple fact that they are going after the NYT and not the right-wing WSJ demonstrates that this is little more than an attack on a single newspaper who's very name gets their base all riled up.

A few points:
1. While both the WSJ and LA Times had the story (apparently the leaker really wanted this info out ) neither was going to print it until they learned the NY Times was going with it. The NY Times was the catalyst. That's the explanation I've heard.
2. This is the 3rd such story in less than a year for the Times following disclosures about the NSA surveillance program and "secret CIA prisons." Both of the earlier stories earned the reporters Pulitzers, make of that what you will.
3. It was the NY Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr who in a May commencement address called the war in Iraq "a misbegotten war in a foreign land.”

I hope both reporters of the terrorist/banking story are subpoenaed and asked to reveal their sources on threat of jail time. Won't it be fun watching them explain to the American people why "the people's right to know" that supposedly allows the Times to print these classified government secrets, suddenly stops with the secrets of the NY Times.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 07-06-2006, 01:58 AM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 04:07 PM
So it really is not a illegal to publish or release classified information? It's not a crime? You're allowed to do this?
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-06-2006, 03:57 AM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 05:07 PM
What is the motive here? If there was outrage that this information was harmful to nationial security, then Irvine's right. The White House should be all over the other papers as well as NYT.

I suspect this is more desire to intimidate the New York Times, to intimidate a powerful newspaper whose editorial policy opposes.
I suspect that the same information released being given a really positive spin would have pleased the President.

There are reasons why protection of the press was built into the Constitution and protection of the government was not.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 07-06-2006, 10:03 AM   #23
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,486
Local Time: 04:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


There is indeed question about whether she was covert, and not just by me, in case you were wondering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame


and you should know that wikipedia is only fact-checked by peers and would be inadmissable as a citation on any high school or university level paper.

and by insisting that she wasn't covert, when she was, and making the discussion about that misses the much bigger issue.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-06-2006, 10:04 AM   #24
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,486
Local Time: 04:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
I hope both reporters of the terrorist/banking story are subpoenaed and asked to reveal their sources on threat of jail time. Won't it be fun watching them explain to the American people why "the people's right to know" that supposedly allows the Times to print these classified government secrets, suddenly stops with the secrets of the NY Times.

it is NOT illegal to publish classified information. it isn't. nothing was illegal. nothing.

there is no issue here beyond administration tantrums.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-06-2006, 11:36 AM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 04:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


and you should know that wikipedia is only fact-checked by peers and would be inadmissable as a citation on any high school or university level paper.

and by insisting that she wasn't covert, when she was, and making the discussion about that misses the much bigger issue.
Wikipedia isn't where I first got my info about Valerie Plame not being covert. It's just what I used to show you quotes that testify to the fact that there is indeed question about whether she was a covert agent.

I am curoius as to what big issue I am missing. I think the one you are missing is that it was well known that she was CIA. How can it be a leak if everyone knew it anyway?
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-06-2006, 11:37 AM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 04:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



it is NOT illegal to publish classified information. it isn't. nothing was illegal. nothing.

there is no issue here beyond administration tantrums.
I think the issue of compromising national security is a big issue.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 07-06-2006, 11:52 AM   #27
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,486
Local Time: 04:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


I think the issue of compromising national security is a big issue.


yes, but national security was not compromised. every terrorist knows that his bank account and communications are being monitored.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-06-2006, 12:17 PM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 04:07 PM
Okay, so it's not illegal to reveal classified information.

I think it should be. If something is vital to national security then it seems like there should be some sort of law about just revealing it to the world.

If, on the other hand, the information is not important enough to be protected by law then there shouldn't be any complaint about that information being revealed.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-06-2006, 12:40 PM   #29
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,486
Local Time: 04:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean
I think it should be. If something is vital to national security then it seems like there should be some sort of law about just revealing it to the world.


here's what Dana Priest, who won a Pulitzer for her article on the secret torture chambers the CIA set up in Eastern European nations, has to say about this subject:


[q]Arlington, Va.: No doubt about it, a free media is critical in a democratic system. However, it is not the media's job to determine whether or not information is classified. There are legal processes for declassifying documents. And Congress, as the overseer of the intelligence community (residing in the executive branch), has the responsibility to deal with issues of excessive government secrecy, or not enough secrecy. When the media decides for itself whether or not documents should be declassified, they are breaking the law and should be prosecuted.

Dana Priest: Well, actually, the media is not breaking the law by publishing classified information. That's still a safeguard we have in the law. The person/s who turn it over are breaking the law, technically. But the courts and the body politic have always looked at this as the cost of democracy and that is one huge reason why reporters have not be pursued previously. It's the trade off for having a free press. The alternative is prior censorship and government control of the media, a la Israel, China, Iran, etc.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...nation/special

[/q]



[q]MS. PRIEST: Well, it’s not a crime to publish classified information. And this is one of the things Mr. Bennett keeps telling people that it is. But, in fact, there are some narrow categories of information you can’t publish, certain signals, communications, intelligence, the names of covert operatives and nuclear secrets.

Now why isn’t it a crime? I mean, some people would like to make casino gambling a crime, but it is not a crime. Why isn’t it not a crime? Because the framers of the Constitution wanted to protect the press so that they could perform a basic role in government oversight, and you can’t do that. Look at the criticism that the press got after Iraq that we did not do our job on WMD. And that was all in a classified arena. To do a better job—and I believe that we should’ve done a better job—we would’ve again, found ourselves in the arena of...

[...]

MS. PRIEST: Still, the point is the tension between the media and the government is long-standing. And that’s to be expected. And in fact, all these—many of the people getting up to lambaste the media now are also people that we talk to with our stories, to vet our stories, to say, “What is it in this story that you’re most concerned about?”

MS. MITCHELL: You mean, to hold things back?

MS. PRIEST: To hold things back. In the prison story, we talked with the administration. No one in the administration asked us not to publish the story. In fact, people said, “We know you have your job to do, but please don’t publish the names of the countries where the prisons are located.” So there is a reasoned dialogue that often goes on between the media and the government behind, behind all this.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13615446/page/5/

[/q]



how about Jon Harwood, of the Wall Street Journal:

[q]MR. JOHN HARWOOD: This is what I don’t get. The people who killed 3,000 Americans on September 11, who murdered Danny Pearl, my colleague at The Wall Street Journal, commit atrocities every day in Iraq, are evil, but they’re not stupid, and I don’t understand the logic that says all of a sudden they’ve discovered something they didn’t know. September 24, 2001, President Bush walked into the Rose Garden and announced, “We’ve developed a strategy, we’re putting banks and financial institutions around the world on, on notice. We’ll work with their governments, freeze or block terrorists’ money. We’re going to work with the United Nations, the EU, the G8 to follow this money.”

[...]

MR. HARWOOD: Well, Republicans certainly think so. They—if you’re a Republican in the White House or in Congress, would you rather talk about immigration, gas prices, the estate tax, all the things that you can’t get done right now, or would you rather go after The New York Times, the Supreme Court on the Guantanamo ruling—we’ll talk about that later—and make hay and say “They’re tying our hands in the war on terrorism”? It’s obvious they’d rather do the latter, and they love this discussion. They’re going to love it even more if Congress takes up legislation on Guantanamo.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13615446/page/5/

[/q]
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-06-2006, 01:00 PM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 03:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



it is NOT illegal to publish classified information. it isn't. nothing was illegal. nothing.

there is no issue here beyond administration tantrums.
It is illegal for government employees who sign a contract of nondisclosure to then leak classified information. That's who needs to be worried right now.

Imagine this, instead of leaking to the newspapers, the very same leaker had been caught passing the very same classified information on to an agent of Al-Qaeda in the form of a computer disc or something. Gosh, think they'd be in trouble?
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com