NY Times and intelligence leaks

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

You're of the opinion that the president is in violation of the constitution. That he intends to remain in violation of the constitution, and that all three branches of government so far have no problem with this violation of the constitution and you find it a ho-hum story and much ado about nothing?

Yes, because this story is one of the smallest pieces of the puzzle that assembles into a picture of dictatorship. I was just trying to justify why there is any kind of outcry about the bank transaction surveillance, but it's really a minor spoonful in the pot of Bush's crimes against the Constitution and his sacret oath to defend it.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

My opinion of this Administration is not going to change. The way I say things isn't going to change either. Either get used to it or get over it.

What question have you asked? I'll happily ask any one you'd like answered that I can.

[Name]

It's nice to see nothing has changed.

[Alex]

Oh never mind. In a few hours I hit the road for five days and by the time I get back I assume everything will have moved on so I won't be answering any questions.

We'll just have to live with thinking the other ridiculous.

[wendybeth]

I'm quite certain the Bush Administration will have committed another egregious constitutional breach by then. They seem to be fairly consistent in that area.

[€uroMeinke]

I guess I have to wonder just how secret somethin is, if it is uncovered by a reporter. If they can uncover it, I would presume any "enemy" we miht have would just start sending it's folks to journalism school to do whatever required intelligence work was needed. Seems in the end they're doin the admin a favor by pointing out breeches in the system. Obviously there are people with clearance talking to people they shouldn't - that's what really should be getting attention.

[Name]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

I guess I have to wonder just how secret somethin is, if it is uncovered by a reporter. If they can uncover it, I would presume any "enemy" we miht have would just start sending it's folks to journalism school to do whatever required intelligence work was needed. Seems in the end they're doin the admin a favor by pointing out breeches in the system. Obviously there are people with clearance talking to people they shouldn't - that's what really should be getting attention.

Oh, stop making sense damn you......








You know I am just being a smart ass right....


and I plead drunk otherwise....

[Alex]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

I guess I have to wonder just how secret somethin is, if it is uncovered by a reporter. If they can uncover it, I would presume any "enemy" we miht have would just start sending it's folks to journalism school to do whatever required intelligence work was needed. Seems in the end they're doin the admin a favor by pointing out breeches in the system. Obviously there are people with clearance talking to people they shouldn't - that's what really should be getting attention.

I guess I'm not clear on why only one side of the equation should get attention. It strikes me as like saying that you should thank me for exposing how unsmart it is to hide your spare key under the doormat by stealing your television.

While I'm sure the reason it isn't being widely discussed it political expediency I have no doubt that they are trying to find out who leaked the information and if found the person will be at least fired. Unless, of course, it was the same person who coordinates the bin Laden tapes in which case it might be a resource too valuable to lose.

Similarly, I wonder why people who thought it was so important to find the leaker in the Valerie Plame case and to see the reporter punished (so long as it was Bob Novak and even though it was generally known that she worked for the CIA and was the wife of the guy whose name I forget) now think that leaking classified information is really not that big of a deal, especially since it was information you could have assumed.

Both sides should feel the heat unless there is a very compelling case for revealing the information (a true whistle blower situation of which this is not a good example). The leaker should lose their job and possibly face criminal charges. The publisher should be criticized though I think the situations where any kind of criminal charge is warranted are very, very narrow.

[Name]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

...

Similarly, I wonder why people who thought it was so important to find the leaker in the Valerie Plame case and to see the reporter punished (so long as it was Bob Novak and even though it was generally known that she worked for the CIA and was the wife of the guy whose name I forget) now think that leaking classified information is really not that big of a deal, especially since it was information you could have assumed..

and vice versa.... why were those that are up in arms about this so non-chalant about the Plame leak.... or at least that is how it is perceived.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

I guess I'm not clear on why only one side of the equation should get attention. It strikes me as like saying that you should thank me for exposing how unsmart it is to hide your spare key under the doormat by stealing your television.

Yeah but the reporter isn't stealin a TV, he's just saying it's stupid to hide your key where everyone knows to look, which I think is far better than lettin people presume their TV is totally secure cause no one knows where the keys are.