PDA

View Full Version : "Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Democratic Party?"


jAZ
04-23-2006, 06:10 PM
http://www.newgenevacenter.org/portrait/mccarthy.jpg
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_04/008669.php

April 23, 2006
CLEANING HOUSE?....David Corn points out this sentence in today's Washington Post story about the firing of CIA officer Mary McCarthy as part of the agency's stepped up effort to fight leaks:

The White House also has recently barraged the agency with questions about the political affiliations of some of its senior intelligence officers, according to intelligence officials.
That sure deserves a followup, doesn't it? And a note to the White House: if you stop breaking the law, that would be a pretty good way to stop leaks too.

Chiefs Express
04-23-2006, 06:38 PM
:rolleyes:

CHIEF4EVER
04-23-2006, 06:40 PM
"Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Democratic Party?"

No, not yet. It may happen though........right after my lobotomy. :p

Adept Havelock
04-23-2006, 07:16 PM
No, but I can recognize that this administration seems to have no problems using old Eugene's playbook. With about the same probability of long-term success for their agenda, IMO.

Whose Roy Cohn this time? Ken Mehlman? ROFL

Chiefs Express
04-23-2006, 07:39 PM
No, not yet. It may happen though........right after my lobotomy. :p

I don't think you can actually register as a democrat with a lobotomy on your medical record. If you could they might make you run for office as you would be one of the most intelligent people in the party.

Adept Havelock
04-23-2006, 07:42 PM
I don't think you can actually register as a democrat with a lobotomy on your medical record.

You are correct. However, it is a prerequisite for joining the GOP. (j/k)

CHIEF4EVER
04-23-2006, 07:50 PM
Man am I glad I don't subscribe to ANY political party lines. I can't imagine going through life with a political party telling me what is "our party values". I may be conservative but I don't share ALL the values of either the GOP or the Dems.

Edit: I am an Independent. I have the mental image of a sheep when I see someone who is blindly loyal to a political party.

Adept Havelock
04-23-2006, 07:57 PM
Man am I glad I don't subscribe to ANY political party lines. I can't imagine going through life with a political party telling me what is "our party values". I may be conservative but I don't share ALL the values of either the GOP or the Dems.

Edit: I am an Independent. I have the mental image of a sheep when I see someone who is blindly loyal to a political party.

I do believe that is why the fastest growing political affiliation in this nation is "Independent". Nice to see so many people coming to their senses, is it not?

Chiefs Express
04-23-2006, 08:03 PM
You are correct. However, it is a prerequisite for joining the GOP. (j/k)

So funny I forgot to laugh.

CHIEF4EVER
04-23-2006, 08:04 PM
I do believe that is why the fastest growing political affiliation in this nation is "Independent". Nice to see so many people coming to their senses, is it not?
Yep. I liked Ronald Reagan and JFK, both for their own reasons. Both had their weaknesses but their strengths far outweighed them. That is also how I normally vote. I personally could care less what political party a candidate belongs to. I see 2 things: 1) What is their position on the issues that affect ME and the country as a whole and 2) are they blind idealogues/demagogues or are they coherent, intelligent and can they find their azz with both hands? Lastly, I want to see CONSISTENCY in their voting record on the issues.

Adept Havelock
04-23-2006, 08:18 PM
Yep. I liked Ronald Reagan and JFK, both for their own reasons. Both had their weaknesses but their strengths far outweighed them. That is also how I normally vote. I personally could care less what political party a candidate belongs to. I see 2 things: 1) What is their position on the issues that affect ME and the country as a whole and 2) are they blind idealogues/demagogues or are they coherent, intelligent and can they find their azz with both hands? Lastly, I want to see CONSISTENCY in their voting record on the issues.

I knew there was a damn good reason that even when we disagreed, I could always respect your arguments. That, and as I've said, your Lenny the Cool avatar.

Have a good night. Cheers!
:toast:

CHIEF4EVER
04-23-2006, 08:29 PM
I knew there was a damn good reason that even when we disagreed, I could always respect your arguments. That, and as I've said, your Lenny the Cool avatar.

Have a good night. Cheers!
:toast:

Same to you man. You are one of the few people who have a completely different belief system and political viewpoint that i can have a meaningful discourse with. And yes, Lenny was indeed the bomb. Always loved the guy.....call me old school. Good Night dude.

jAZ
04-23-2006, 08:46 PM
Man am I glad I don't subscribe to ANY political party lines. I can't imagine going through life with a political party telling me what is "our party values". I may be conservative but I don't share ALL the values of either the GOP or the Dems.

Edit: I am an Independent. I have the mental image of a sheep when I see someone who is blindly loyal to a political party.
I'm one of the most outspoken Dems and my criticism of this administration causes me to be labled among the most liberal on the board. That said, I'm not even remotely close to letting any party "tell me" anything. I tell the party, not the other way around. I think that's the case with most people in both Parties.

I've actually become active within the party here in Tucson with the sole purpose of organizing my fellow liberally-minded business leaders to help influence the direction of the party.

patteeu
04-23-2006, 08:48 PM
I find it interesting that when Valerie Plame was outed, jAZ was all over it to the point that he speculated that Karl Rove might even be executed if it turned out he had leaked her identity. Now, when a major leak of actual national secrets occurs, he's more worried about whether or not democrats in senior intelligence positions will be able to hide their political affiliations than he is about the leak or the leaker.

I don't know whether the death penalty is on the table or not and I don't know if I'd support that penalty, but if the allegations are true/proven, they should sure make an example out of her if they want these leaks to stop.

CHIEF4EVER
04-23-2006, 08:59 PM
That said, I'm not even remotely close to letting any party "tell me" anything. I tell the party, not the other way around. I think that's the case with most people in both Parties
If you believe that, I have some snake oil you might be interested in. I see how you defend even the most ridiculous position or action of a Dem but YOU tell THEM how the cow eats the cabbage? I think not. They SELL you on their agenda or you wouldn't be a member of the party. IOW, you buy it hook, line and sinker. Not trying to be offensive here, just definitive.

I see things a bit differently. I may be conservative but I certainly do not endorse the Republican Party. Why? Because they say one thing and do another. Just like the Dems. The GOP claims to be Conservative but they are anything but that at the moment. Our government has grown to Democratic spending proportions and Democratic fiscal irresponsibility levels under the supposedly "conservative" Rep congress. I agree with Bush's foreign policy but am really pissed off about his domestic policy, especially illegal immigration, border security and alternative fuel research.

jAZ
04-23-2006, 09:07 PM
I find it interesting that when Valerie Plame was outed, jAZ was all over it to the point that he speculated that Karl Rove might even be executed if it turned out he had leaked her identity. Now, when a major leak of actual national secrets occurs, he's more worried about whether or not democrats in senior intelligence positions will be able to hide their political affiliations than he is about the leak or the leaker.

I don't know whether the death penalty is on the table or not and I don't know if I'd support that penalty, but if the allegations are true/proven, they should sure make an example out of her if they want these leaks to stop.
I don't care which party you are talking about, there is a difference between whistleblowing and personal revenge.

jAZ
04-23-2006, 09:18 PM
...they should sure make an example out of her if they want these leaks to stop.
They only want to certain ones to stop, those being the ones that expose their lawlessness.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/04/selectively-punishing-politically.html
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040726&s=editorial072604
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/04/treason-by-association.html

jAZ
04-23-2006, 09:21 PM
If you believe that, I have some snake oil you might be interested in. I see how you defend even the most ridiculous position or action of a Dem but YOU tell THEM how the cow eats the cabbage? I think not.
You seem to see only what you want to see.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=138676

I'll be interested in seeing any examples of an indefensible "ridiculous position" I've taken. Should be interseting reading.

Dave Lane
04-23-2006, 10:06 PM
Nope...

Prefers to pick the party that has some sanity so I am an independant.

Dave

Chiefs Express
04-24-2006, 03:24 AM
I'm one of the most outspoken Dems and my criticism of this administration causes me to be labled among the most liberal on the board. That said, I'm not even remotely close to letting any party "tell me" anything. I tell the party, not the other way around. I think that's the case with most people in both Parties.

I've actually become active within the party here in Tucson with the sole purpose of organizing my fellow liberally-minded business leaders to help influence the direction of the party.

You confuse liberalism with hate, bias, ignorance, etc.

Braincase
04-24-2006, 05:42 AM
You confuse liberalism with hate, bias, ignorance, etc.

Hate, bias and ignorance knows no party lines.

patteeu
04-24-2006, 06:37 AM
I don't care which party you are talking about, there is a difference between whistleblowing and personal revenge.

1) Release of classified information is, by definition, not "whistleblowing."

2) The Plame disclosure was not personal revenge. Personal revenge would be if the guy stood your sister up at the alter and you wanted to make his life miserable. The Plame/Wilson situation was about an argument over national defense. What is so hard to understand about that?

patteeu
04-24-2006, 06:45 AM
They only want to certain ones to stop, those being the ones that expose their lawlessness.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/04/selectively-punishing-politically.html
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040726&s=editorial072604
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/04/treason-by-association.html

None of your links support your contention so I assume you are just offering them to show that you aren't the only one who has this opinion.

Do you support the idea that everyone who handles classified information should be free to make judgments of conscience as to whether or not the classified information they are pledged to protect should be released to the public?

I'll be interested in seeing any examples of an indefensible "ridiculous position" I've taken.

Look back one post.

BucEyedPea
04-24-2006, 07:30 AM
Grew up in a Dem household...so naturally, not knowing any better, it was just on automatic that I'd register as such. That started to change, pretty quickly, once I started working and had to compete. So I registered Repub....SIGH! Now that the GOP has morphed,or may have always been, as some Libertarians claim into the Demopublican party....I have no home anymore. Libertarians just don't have their organizational act together to move beyond theory and implement.

jAZ
04-24-2006, 09:26 AM
1) Release of classified information is, by definition, not "whistleblowing."
Hogwash. In fact, it's entirely possible (so possible that it's been made explicitly illegal) to classify information for the purpose of covering up illegal activities or failure. Anyone exposing such behavior is blowing the whistle on those activities.

Again, I say there is in fact a difference between a whistleblower leak and other leaks. There is also a difference between leaks for personal (or if you insist political) purposes and all other leaks as well.

jAZ
04-24-2006, 09:37 AM
Do you support the idea that everyone who handles classified information should be free to make judgments of conscience as to whether or not the classified information they are pledged to protect should be released to the public?
Yes, if we can expect our soldiers to know when to ignore certain orders (in an environment where you basically never ignore an order), I'm quite sure we can trust our CIA ops to know the difference between whistleblowing and other activities.

I do think that there should be some mechanism for reporting/exposing such information to investigation, but as we know, getting covering for your buddy in DC is a well established practice. Hell the congressional ethics committees do almost nothing.

jAZ
04-24-2006, 09:39 AM
I find it strange that so many people are taking the thread starter as a literal question and choosing to answer it. I'm guessing folks haven't heard of Joe McCarthy?

memyselfI
04-24-2006, 10:06 AM
I find it strange that so many people are taking the thread starter as a literal question and choosing to answer it. I'm guessing folks haven't heard of Joe McCarthy?

That is probably because the actual topic is yet another step closer to King George.

Chiefs Express
04-24-2006, 11:25 AM
Hate, bias and ignorance knows no party lines.

If one did a survey of posts on this forum there might be an argument. But then it would be slanted because 90% of the posts in DC are from liberals.

jAZ
04-24-2006, 11:40 AM
... 90% of the posts in DC are from liberals.
The Vast Right Wing Migration of 2005

http://www.mmoca.org/starrytransit/images/glowacki_45_thumb.jpg

Chiefs Express
04-24-2006, 11:43 AM
I have nothing to say because the statement is true.




I had to correct your post. You seem to have a belief that 90% is incorrect. It might be but the number might be 90%+. I'd estimate that you have over 50% of them yourself. If you count up Vlad, the convert, meme, and some of the others the number might easily reach 95%.

jAZ
04-24-2006, 12:05 PM
I had to correct your post. You seem to have a belief that 90% is incorrect. It might be but the number might be 90%+. I'd estimate that you have over 50% of them yourself. If you count up Vlad, the convert, meme, and some of the others the number might easily reach 95%.
I'm not disputing your claim, I'm explaining why your claim is true. The Most cons have surrendered and the lone holdouts spending all their time running around here (trying to) defend Bush are the most radical among the Cons.

memyselfI
04-24-2006, 01:21 PM
The Vast Right Wing Migration of 2005

http://www.mmoca.org/starrytransit/images/glowacki_45_thumb.jpg


ROFL ROFL ROFL

CHIEF4EVER
04-24-2006, 01:54 PM
I'm not disputing your claim, I'm explaining why your claim is true. The Most cons have surrendered and the lone holdouts spending all their time running around here (trying to) defend Bush are the most radical among the Cons.

Funny. Surrendered? ROFL

I for one, and a few other Conservatives don't defend everything Bush does. Maybe because we're not Republican sheep. As I have already mentioned, I support his foreign policy (the Iraq War in particular) but am pissed off to the point of distraction about his lame azz handling of the Border, Illegal aliens and his inability to do more than pay lip service to alternative fuels which I believe we desperately need - the sooner the better.

jAZ
04-24-2006, 02:21 PM
Funny. Surrendered? ROFL

I for one, and a few other Conservatives don't defend everything Bush does. Maybe because we're not Republican sheep. As I have already mentioned, I support his foreign policy (the Iraq War in particular) but am pissed off to the point of distraction about his lame azz handling of the Border, Illegal aliens and his inability to do more than pay lip service to alternative fuels which I believe we desperately need - the sooner the better.
As you describe it, you don't appear to be among those "spending all their time running around here (trying to) defend Bush".

jAZ
04-24-2006, 02:37 PM
They only want to certain ones to stop, those being the ones that expose their lawlessness.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/04/selectively-punishing-politically.html
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040726&s=editorial072604
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/04/treason-by-association.html
Even more adminstration leaks?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060422/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/pentagon_spy_probe

Back to Story - Help
Spokesman Denies Rice Leaked Defense Info By MATTHEW BARAKAT, Associated Press Writer
Sat Apr 22, 9:32 AM ET



Condoleezza Rice's spokesman on Saturday branded as "utterly false" a lawyer's claim the secretary of state leaked national defense information to a pro-Israel lobbyist charged with receiving and disclosing such information.

The assertion came as a federal judge granted a defense request to issue subpoenas for Rice and three other government officials in the trial of Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, the former lobbyists with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee charged in the case.

"The claims by these defense lawyers are utterly false," Rice's spokesman, Sean McCormack, told The Associated Press.

"The secretary is the most careful person in the handling of classified information and she absolutely did not convey classified information to either of these individuals," McCormack said.

Prosecutors also disputed the claim.

Defense lawyers want a judge to dismiss the charges because the lawyers believe the case seeks to criminalize the type of backchannel exchanges among government officials, lobbyists and the press that are common in Washington.

During Friday's hearing, U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III said he is considering dismissing the entire case because the law used to prosecute Rosen and Weissman may be unconstitutionally vague and broad and may infringe on freedom of speech.

Rosen's lawyer, Abbe Lowell, said the testimony of Rice and others is needed to show that some top government officials approved of disclosing sensitive information to the defendants and that the leaks may have been authorized.

But Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin DiGregory said Rice "never gave national defense information to Mr. Rosen."

The issuance of subpoenas does not automatically require Rice or anybody else to testify or give a deposition. A recipient can seek to quash the subpoena.

The judge also granted subpoenas for David Satterfield, deputy chief of the U.S. mission to Iraq; William Burns, U.S. ambassador to Russia and retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni.

"Each of these individuals have real-life dealings with the defendants in this case. They'll explain what they told Dr. Rosen in detail," Lowell said. "On day one, Secretary of State Rice tells him certain info and on day two one of the conspirators tells him the same thing or something less volatile."

The indictment against Rosen and Weissman alleges that three government officials leaked sensitive and sometimes classified national defense information to the two lobbyists, who subsequently revealed what they learned to the press and to an Israeli government official.

One of the three government officials is former Pentagon official Lawrence A. Franklin. He pleaded guilty to providing classified defense information to Rosen and Weissman and was sentenced to more than 12 years in prison.

Franklin has said he was concerned that the United States was insufficiently concerned about the threat posed by Iran and hoped that leaking information might eventually provoke the National Security Council to take a different course of action.

The indictment against Rosen, of Silver Spring, Md., and Weissman, of Bethesda, Md., alleges that they conspired to obtain classified government reports on issues relevant to U.S. policy, including the al-Qaida terror network; the bombing of the Khobar Towers dormitory in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 U.S. Air Force personnel; and U.S. policy in Iran.

Lowell said it is impossible for Rosen and Weissman to determine what is sensitive national defense information when they are receiving the information from government officials who presumably understand national security law and therefore would not improperly disclose national defense information.

The World War I-era law has never been used to prosecute lobbyists before.

Pitt Gorilla
04-24-2006, 03:20 PM
Edit: I am an Independent. I have the mental image of a sheep when I see someone who is blindly loyal to a political party.Yup.

patteeu
04-24-2006, 03:58 PM
Hogwash. In fact, it's entirely possible (so possible that it's been made explicitly illegal) to classify information for the purpose of covering up illegal activities or failure. Anyone exposing such behavior is blowing the whistle on those activities.

Again, I say there is in fact a difference between a whistleblower leak and other leaks. There is also a difference between leaks for personal (or if you insist political) purposes and all other leaks as well.

The whistleblower statutes that I've seen explicitly exclude protection for leaks of classified information. By definition, leaking classified information is not whistleblowing. Show me a federal whistleblower statute that could protect this kind of leak and I'll concede the point.

The McCarthy leak is closer to a treasonous leak than to a whistleblower leak although I'm not prepared to call it treason at this point. She does deserve to pay a stiff price though. This is far worse than the very bad behaviors of Duke Cunningham or Bill Clinton, IMO.

patteeu
04-24-2006, 04:01 PM
Yes, if we can expect our soldiers to know when to ignore certain orders (in an environment where you basically never ignore an order), I'm quite sure we can trust our CIA ops to know the difference between whistleblowing and other activities.

I do think that there should be some mechanism for reporting/exposing such information to investigation, but as we know, getting covering for your buddy in DC is a well established practice. Hell the congressional ethics committees do almost nothing.

So given your "ends justify the means" orientation, would you support a coup against the Bush administration if you knew that the coup perpetrators would call for an immediate vote and an immediate return to US Constitutional government under the leadership of those who win the special election?

Chiefs Express
04-24-2006, 04:56 PM
I'm not disputing your claim, I'm explaining why your claim is true. The Most cons have surrendered and the lone holdouts spending all their time running around here (trying to) defend Bush are the most radical among the Cons.

And how do you categorize yourself? You are very blatant about accusing the president without any facts, how does that fit with your explanation?

Chiefs Express
04-24-2006, 04:57 PM
Funny. Surrendered? ROFL

I for one, and a few other Conservatives don't defend everything Bush does. Maybe because we're not Republican sheep. As I have already mentioned, I support his foreign policy (the Iraq War in particular) but am pissed off to the point of distraction about his lame azz handling of the Border, Illegal aliens and his inability to do more than pay lip service to alternative fuels which I believe we desperately need - the sooner the better.

You can't tell them that, it goes against the robot program they have installed in their IC chip they want to think of as a brain.

Chiefs Express
04-24-2006, 04:59 PM
The Vast Right Wing Migration of 2005

http://www.mmoca.org/starrytransit/images/glowacki_45_thumb.jpg


Isn't it amazing that the dipshit migration of the liberal moonbats looks strikingly similar!

penchief
04-24-2006, 05:14 PM
Leaking classified information should be a crime, however, whistleblowing should be protected. The act of exposing governmental abuses of power and treachory by our elected officials may be the most patriotic thing any American could do. This is a government founded on the ideals of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Anything less is a betrayal by our leaders. It is also incumbent upon the people to expose the truth about government abuses so that we may be an informed democracy.

Chiefs Express
04-24-2006, 05:24 PM
Leaking classified information should be a crime, however, whistleblowing should be protected. The act of exposing governmental abuses of power and treachory by our elected officials may be the most patriotic thing any American could do. This is a government founded on the ideals of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Anything less is a betrayal by our leaders. It is also incumbent upon the people to expose the truth about government abuses so that we may be an informed democracy.

You assume facts that are not proven, only accusations. Typical left wing tactic.

penchief
04-24-2006, 05:36 PM
You assume facts that are not proven, only accusations. Typical left wing tactic.

What's wrong with you, man?

I simply made a general statement that expresses my personal view on the topic of leaking and whistleblowing. I think governmental whistleblowing is a virtue that should be encouraged and protected. I believe it is far more patriotic to expose governmental abuses than it is to commit those abuses.

I'm not assuming any facts because, obviously, I made no reference to any particular situation. You have taken it upon yourself to jump to conclusions without understanding what you have read. My statements are a generic expression of my beliefs. Your comments are so irrelevent to what I said that it only exposes your zeal.

Chiefs Express
04-24-2006, 05:48 PM
What's wrong with you, man?

I simply made a general statement that expresses my personal view on the topic of leaking and whistleblowing. I think governmental whistleblowing is a virtue that should be encouraged and protected. I believe it is far more patriotic to expose governmental abuses than it is to commit those abuses.

I'm not assuming any facts because, obviously, I made no reference to any particular situation. You have taken it upon yourself to jump to conclusions without understanding what you have read. My statements are a generic expression of my beliefs. Your comments are so irrelevent to what I said that it only exposes your zeal.

Reacting to a typical liberal comment. Your normal mode is attack the president. Your wording is, as you said, non-descript but it also can be taken as a direct shot at the president for what you assume was an illegal release of classified information.

Tell me that your intent was truly honorable again, and this time try to be a little more convincing.

banyon
04-24-2006, 05:48 PM
So given your "ends justify the means" orientation, would you support a coup against the Bush administration if you knew that the coup perpetrators would call for an immediate vote and an immediate return to US Constitutional government under the leadership of those who win the special election?

Did you draw that protocol from our failed plan in Venezuela?

penchief
04-24-2006, 05:53 PM
Reacting to a typical liberal comment. Your normal mode is attack the president. Your wording is, as you said, non-descript but it also can be taken as a direct shot at the president for what you assume was an illegal release of classified information.

Tell me that your intent was truly honorable again, and this time try to be a little more convincing.

Exactly, it was a sincere expression of my take on leaking and governmental whistle-blowing. I think whistle-blowing is a virtue and should be protected by law.

I occasionally attack the president for not being up to the job but mostly I attack his policies, the dishonest way in which he promotes his agenda, and his fascist tendencies.

Frankie
04-24-2006, 06:02 PM
http://www.newgenevacenter.org/portrait/mccarthy.jpg
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_04/008669.php

April 23, 2006
CLEANING HOUSE?....David Corn points out this sentence in today's Washington Post story about the firing of CIA officer Mary McCarthy as part of the agency's stepped up effort to fight leaks:

The White House also has recently barraged the agency with questions about the political affiliations of some of its senior intelligence officers, according to intelligence officials.
That sure deserves a followup, doesn't it? And a note to the White House: if you stop breaking the law, that would be a pretty good way to stop leaks too.
Excellent comparrison. Good post jAZ. :thumb:

mlyonsd
04-24-2006, 06:20 PM
Let's be clear here.

A true whistleblower would come forward by holding a press conference and spilling their guts.

What this woman did was spineless. You can agree or disagree with her motives and/or position but to leak information behind the scenes hoping not to get caught is not a true whistleblower. She not only deserves to be fired but prosecuted.

That being said secret prisons is one aspect on the WOT that I don't agree with the Bush administration. They went too far and should suffer the political consequences for it.

banyon
04-24-2006, 06:22 PM
Let's be clear here.

A true whistleblower would come forward by holding a press conference and spilling their guts.

What this woman did was spineless. You can agree or disagree with her motives and/or position but to leak information behind the scenes hoping not to get caught is not a true whistleblower. She not only deserves to be fired but prosecuted.

That being said secret prisons is one aspect on the WOT that I don't agree with the Bush administration. They went too far and should suffer the political consequences for it.

So, only individuals with the wherewithal and public composure to hold a press conference and be thrust into the public sphere can be whistleblowers? :shrug:

penchief
04-24-2006, 06:26 PM
So, only individuals with the wherewithal and public composure to hold a press conference and be thrust into the public sphere can be whistleblowers? :shrug:

Where would that have left Deepthroat?

Adept Havelock
04-24-2006, 06:37 PM
Let's be clear here.
A true whistleblower would come forward by holding a press conference and spilling their guts.
What this woman did was spineless. You can agree or disagree with her motives and/or position but to leak information behind the scenes hoping not to get caught is not a true whistleblower. She not only deserves to be fired but prosecuted.
That being said secret prisons is one aspect on the WOT that I don't agree with the Bush administration. They went too far and should suffer the political consequences for it.

:hmmm:
By that criteria, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg">Daniel Ellsberg</a> doesn't qualify as a true, legitimate whistleblower because he didn't call a press conference, but instead covertly leaked <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers">The Pentagon Papers</a> to the press. This, though everything he brought out about the Vietnam War was proven to be true?

Oy. :shake:

Should he have been prosecuted, and that information gagged? Nixon sure tried, but thankfully sanity and the First Amendment prevailed in the Supreme Court case of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._U.S.">New York Times Co. v. U.S</a>.

Personally, I give it a matter of a year or two at most before we have the Iraq war version of "Daniel Ellsberg". I'm certain he or she will again be villified by the administration in power, but vindicated by history, as the Patriot Ellsberg has been.

mlyonsd, usually even when we disagree, I can see the logic of your point of view. This one though, involves some serious cognitive dissonance, IMO.

alanm
04-24-2006, 06:40 PM
Yes, and then I became older and wiser. :)

mlyonsd
04-24-2006, 06:50 PM
So, only individuals with the wherewithal and public composure to hold a press conference and be thrust into the public sphere can be whistleblowers? :shrug:

Are you saying she shouldn't be fired or prosecuted?

Adept Havelock
04-24-2006, 07:02 PM
Are you saying she shouldn't be fired or prosecuted?

Fired? Possibly. Prosecuted? IMO No, but they prosecuted Ellsberg....for all the good it did them. :D

Chiefs Express
04-24-2006, 07:07 PM
Exactly, it was a sincere expression of my take on leaking and governmental whistle-blowing. I think whistle-blowing is a virtue and should be protected by law.

I occasionally attack the president for not being up to the job but mostly I attack his policies, the dishonest way in which he promotes his agenda, and his fascist tendencies.

So why the umbridge when I made the first comment? You knew what you were posting. It's not illegal to state your feelings. I'm just confused that you tried to cover the true intent of the comment.

jAZ
04-24-2006, 08:52 PM
Let's be clear here.

A true whistleblower would come forward by holding a press conference and spilling their guts.

What this woman did was spineless. You can agree or disagree with her motives and/or position but to leak information behind the scenes hoping not to get caught is not a true whistleblower. She not only deserves to be fired but prosecuted.

That being said secret prisons is one aspect on the WOT that I don't agree with the Bush administration. They went too far and should suffer the political consequences for it.
Umm... I don't think the fanfare with with a person chooses to disclose government corruption or lawlessness defines whether or not someone is a whistleblower. I think the lawlessness or corruption itself defines it.

jAZ
04-24-2006, 08:55 PM
cognitive dissonance
Man, if there was ever a phrase that perfectly represents those out there trying to defend this administration at this point, that's it.

banyon
04-24-2006, 09:29 PM
Are you saying she shouldn't be fired or prosecuted?

Is that what you wanted me to say? :shake:

jAZ
04-24-2006, 09:34 PM
Are you saying she shouldn't be fired or prosecuted?
I think it should be investigated, but I don't see (given what little we already know) that she *should* be prosecuted or fired. It's possible and only an investigation will allow us to determine, but that investigation should include the legality of the actions being held as classified. If they are illegal actions, then the classification is illegal and her actions are perfectly legal.

Ignoring that issues is a railroad job.

Chiefs Express
04-24-2006, 09:37 PM
Where would that have left Deepthroat?

What does Linda Lovelace have to do with the conversation?

patteeu
04-25-2006, 05:42 AM
I think it should be investigated, but I don't see (given what little we already know) that she *should* be prosecuted or fired. It's possible and only an investigation will allow us to determine, but that investigation should include the legality of the actions being held as classified. If they are illegal actions, then the classification is illegal and her actions are perfectly legal.

Ignoring that issues is a railroad job.

She has reportedly confessed to unauthorized disclosures of classified information to reporters (I don't know if she has confessed to this particular disclosure though). I'm not sure how much more we need to know to decide whether or not prosecution is warranted. We're pretty darn close to having enough information to talk about what sentence she deserves.

OTOH, people should be talking about waiting to see what the investigations turn up when they want to give this gal a pass as a whistleblower since thusfar there is no evidence, aside from her story, that these black prisons even exist/existed. As usual, the leftists around here have it all backwards.

StcChief
04-25-2006, 09:09 AM
No or the Socialist party either...

mlyonsd
04-25-2006, 10:41 AM
:hmmm:
By that criteria, Daniel Ellsberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg) doesn't qualify as a true, legitimate whistleblower because he didn't call a press conference, but instead covertly leaked The Pentagon Papers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers) to the press. This, though everything he brought out about the Vietnam War was proven to be true?

Oy. :shake:

Should he have been prosecuted, and that information gagged? Nixon sure tried, but thankfully sanity and the First Amendment prevailed in the Supreme Court case of New York Times Co. v. U.S (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._U.S.).

Personally, I give it a matter of a year or two at most before we have the Iraq war version of "Daniel Ellsberg". I'm certain he or she will again be villified by the administration in power, but vindicated by history, as the Patriot Ellsberg has been.

mlyonsd, usually even when we disagree, I can see the logic of your point of view. This one though, involves some serious cognitive dissonance, IMO.

Fair enough, I'll strike my "true whistleblower" line.

I'm sticking with the gutless part though.