The Press vs. The Gubmint!

Saw this today: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060422/...urity_cia_dc_6

My question: how can the same country/people/nation award a journalist the
Pulitzer Prize for exposing a story, and at the same time file charges
against the CIA operative who exposed it? Aren't we on the same side here?
Either the journalist recieved a prize for doing something wrong, or the
operative is getting charged for doing something right. There seem to be two
rules at play here, and no one seems to mind.

--riverman

riverman wrote:
Saw this today: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060422/...urity_cia_dc_6

My question: how can the same country/people/nation award a journalist the
Pulitzer Prize for exposing a story, and at the same time file charges
against the CIA operative who exposed it? Aren't we on the same side here?
Either the journalist recieved a prize for doing something wrong, or the
operative is getting charged for doing something right. There seem to be two
rules at play here, and no one seems to mind.

News is the stuff the government doesn't want you to know.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

In article , "riverman" wrote:

Saw this today: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060422/...urity_cia_dc_6

My question: how can the same country/people/nation award a journalist the
Pulitzer Prize for exposing a story, and at the same time file charges
against the CIA operative who exposed it? Aren't we on the same side here?
Either the journalist recieved a prize for doing something wrong, or the
operative is getting charged for doing something right. There seem to be two
rules at play here, and no one seems to mind.

--riverman

The Pulitzers are not decided by the country/people/nation. They are
decided by a committee. The people charging her are doing so because she
took an oath not to divulge classified information and then allegedly
did so. The oath is not optional. If you do not like the oath and the
lifelong commitment it entails you are in the wrong business and should
leave. If this woman is found guilty she will be subject to penalties
that she was made fully aware of when she signed the oath. She went into
it with her eyes open and now there's a clear message for the rest of us
that raised our right hands.

Allen

Some people are like slinky's, useless but you can't help but smile when
they fall down the stairs.

"Allen" wrote in message
...
In article , "riverman" wrote:

Saw this today:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060422/...urity_cia_dc_6

My question: how can the same country/people/nation award a journalist
the
Pulitzer Prize for exposing a story, and at the same time file charges
against the CIA operative who exposed it? Aren't we on the same side
here?
Either the journalist recieved a prize for doing something wrong, or the
operative is getting charged for doing something right. There seem to be
two
rules at play here, and no one seems to mind.

--riverman

The Pulitzers are not decided by the country/people/nation. They are
decided by a committee. The people charging her are doing so because she
took an oath not to divulge classified information and then allegedly
did so. The oath is not optional. If you do not like the oath and the
lifelong commitment it entails you are in the wrong business and should
leave. If this woman is found guilty she will be subject to penalties
that she was made fully aware of when she signed the oath. She went into
it with her eyes open and now there's a clear message for the rest of us
that raised our right hands.

Allen

Some people are like slinky's, useless but you can't help but smile when
they fall down the stairs.

Does that oath you swear trump the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
Where in the US Code does the Federal Government get the authority to
subcontract torture to foreign countries? Where in the oath you swear are US
government employees authorized to kidnap people, and contractors authorized
to steal and torture?

Id like you to inform me on this. Because . . .

If it is true that you believe these things are in conformance with the
Constitution of the United States of America, I want to doubly dedicate
myself that people like you are dismissed ASAP from collecting a check at
the public tit and are rendered unable to commit or assist in the commission
of any more crimes in the name of the people of the United States.

I am sick and tired of paying the mortgages of dumb**** spineless Government
clerks without the gumption to say NO when they are told to violate the
constitution, and jackass hirelings of beltway bandits from bloodsucking
outfits like MITRE talking nonsense. All such assholes should note that
their time is short and that WallMart is hiring.

Dave

"David Snedeker" wrote in message
...

I am sick and tired of paying the mortgages of dumb**** spineless
Government
clerks without the gumption to say NO when they are told to violate the
constitution

Mr. Epps served in Navy for a period of time Dave. While not speaking for
him, I think he comes at it from his military position and experience. They
have things like firing squads or some such.

from bloodsucking
outfits like MITRE talking nonsense. All such assholes should note that
their time is short and that WallMart is hiring.

You've never met Mr. Epps nor Mr. Reid, I can speak for Mr. Reid who speaks
nice of Mr. Epps and asshole is not the appropriate term.

Sheesh.

"Wayne Knight" wrote in message
asshole is not the appropriate term.

Truer words have rarely been spoken.

Joe F.

In article ,
"Wayne Knight" wrote:

"David Snedeker" wrote in message
...

I am sick and tired of paying the mortgages of dumb**** spineless
Government
clerks without the gumption to say NO when they are told to violate the
constitution

Mr. Epps served in Navy for a period of time Dave. While not speaking for
him, I think he comes at it from his military position and experience. They
have things like firing squads or some such.

from bloodsucking
outfits like MITRE talking nonsense. All such assholes should note that
their time is short and that WallMart is hiring.

You've never met Mr. Epps nor Mr. Reid, I can speak for Mr. Reid who speaks
nice of Mr. Epps and asshole is not the appropriate term.

Sheesh.

Thanks for the words Wayne. Snedecker has been plonked for so long I'd
forgotten he existed

Allen

"Allen" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Wayne Knight" wrote:

"David Snedeker" wrote in message
...

I am sick and tired of paying the mortgages of dumb**** spineless
Government
clerks without the gumption to say NO when they are told to violate
the
constitution

Mr. Epps served in Navy for a period of time Dave. While not speaking
for
him, I think he comes at it from his military position and experience.
They
have things like firing squads or some such.

from bloodsucking
outfits like MITRE talking nonsense. All such assholes should note
that
their time is short and that WallMart is hiring.

You've never met Mr. Epps nor Mr. Reid, I can speak for Mr. Reid who
speaks
nice of Mr. Epps and asshole is not the appropriate term.

Sheesh.

Thanks for the words Wayne. Snedecker has been plonked for so long I'd
forgotten he existed

Allen

Yeah, yeah yeah, but you are still full of it on the oath thing, maybe if
you had actually read the law you wouldn't believe the nonsense you shared
in your post. And please explain how you "plonked" me when you can't even
spell the name right. You are probably as a nice guy as some others say, but
on this issue you know diddle squat.

Dave

"Wayne Knight" wrote in message
. ..

"David Snedeker" wrote in message
...

I am sick and tired of paying the mortgages of dumb**** spineless
Government
clerks without the gumption to say NO when they are told to violate the
constitution

Mr. Epps served in Navy for a period of time Dave. While not speaking for
him, I think he comes at it from his military position and experience.
They
have things like firing squads or some such.

from bloodsucking
outfits like MITRE talking nonsense. All such assholes should note that
their time is short and that WallMart is hiring.

You've never met Mr. Epps nor Mr. Reid, I can speak for Mr. Reid who
speaks
nice of Mr. Epps and asshole is not the appropriate term.

Sheesh.



Mr Epps may well be a fine companion and well like by other fine fellows.
However, Mr Epps apparently is a bit twisted on his understanding and
ordering of a military oath vis a vis the Constitution and Laws of the
United States of America.

1. In general, advancing a military oath over allegiance to a national
constitution is an earmark of a particular variety of totalitarian state.
Specifically in modern times it was a tactic used by Hitler to corrupt the
German officer corps, and later used in Fascist Italy, as well as by a
number or lesser fascist wantabees. I detest its appearance on the American
scene.

2. Mr Epps ignores United States law including the War Crimes Act of 1996
which applies to both civilian and military nationals of United States for
which the penalty can be death. He also ignores that the U.S. is a signature
of the Nuremberg agreements, which makes it a crime not to expose war
crimes, and we are also a signature of both the Geneva and Hague
conventions.

Mr Epps service in the Navy is appreciated, but he may have missed a
workshop or two on these issues. As far as your comment about "military
firing squads," would you care to provide a reference for when one of these
squads was used?

Dave

"David Snedeker" wrote in message
...

1. In general, advancing a military oath over allegiance to a national
constitution is an earmark of a particular variety of totalitarian state.
Specifically in modern times it was a tactic used by Hitler to corrupt the
German officer corps,

Hitler didn't corrupt the German officer corps, he controlled them through
hands on management and a extra-military service (the SS). The inability of
the officer corps to make tactical and strategic adjustments in battle
without Berlin approval is well documented by military historians.

2. Mr Epps ignores United States law including the War Crimes Act of 1996
which applies to both civilian and military nationals of United States
for
which the penalty can be death. He also ignores that the U.S. is a
signature
of the Nuremberg agreements, which makes it a crime not to expose war
crimes, and we are also a signature of both the Geneva and Hague
conventions.

He's not ignoring ****, he's stating an opposite oppinion from one in which
you agree. I would tend to disagree with him on the issue but it's not a
reason to go off the handle and term people assholes. That the present
administration has pushed the envelope in it's treatment of captured
fighters (and non-fighters) in it's interpetation of the various laws that
govern this does not make it a War Crimes Act violation. I worry more about
the next POW US serviceman and how they get treated by a capturing force and
how we can take the high ground in their treatment. There has been no
declared war so I assume this enables them to abide only by the letter of
the laws and not the spirit of the laws.
I'll take your word on the Act itself. I'm not very familiar with the issue
at hand but I do see where the reporting paper clarified things a bit.

As far as your comment about "military
firing squads," would you care to provide a reference for when one of
these
squads was used?

It was more tongue in cheeck, which is why I added the *or* afterwards. Last
one I remember reading about was in WWII, those more advanced in military
law than myself may wish to comment if they technically still exist.