The Press vs. The Gubmint!

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

wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 13:16:30 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Allen wrote:
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.
Sometimes, such as in this case, the honorable thing to do
is to violate your oath. The trouble with a lot of military
types is they get real confused about things like honor and
responsibility, preferring instead to wrap themselves in oaths
and flags and turn a blind eye to torture, war crimes and murder.

Mary O. McCarthy is a hero, she violated her oath and thank God
she did. She realized that she has a higher responsibility to
truth and humanity than to a CIA oath. We should have more like
her. She'll be charged with a crime, and rightly so, but if I
were on her jury she'd never be found guilty.

Ken, your argument, if accepted, essentially violates the US
Constitution. Here's why: The US is representative democracy, not an
"actual" democracy, and as such, what the representatives do is "legal
until found illegal" under the US Constitution.

The "Nixon Defense" ? LOL, that's funny.

The espionage statutes don't apply in this case because only
the existence of secret prisons was revealed, not classified
methods or personnel. Even if the espionage statutes did apply
it would be unconstitutional according to the First Amendment
to criminalize leaks of information which reveal illegal
activities by the government.

Today's story in the paper says that she wasn't fired for
leaking the prisons story, in fact she couldn't have known
about them, but for failing to report some contacts with
reporters.

... There is simply no defense for
violating oaths.

There is no legal defense, but sometimes morality, honor and
patriotism trump mere legalities.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 13:10:44 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 13:16:30 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Allen wrote:
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.
Sometimes, such as in this case, the honorable thing to do
is to violate your oath. The trouble with a lot of military
types is they get real confused about things like honor and
responsibility, preferring instead to wrap themselves in oaths
and flags and turn a blind eye to torture, war crimes and murder.

Mary O. McCarthy is a hero, she violated her oath and thank God
she did. She realized that she has a higher responsibility to
truth and humanity than to a CIA oath. We should have more like
her. She'll be charged with a crime, and rightly so, but if I
were on her jury she'd never be found guilty.

Ken, your argument, if accepted, essentially violates the US
Constitution. Here's why: The US is representative democracy, not an
"actual" democracy, and as such, what the representatives do is "legal
until found illegal" under the US Constitution.

The "Nixon Defense" ? LOL, that's funny.

No. Simply pointing out that a CIA officer turning foreign nationals
over to other foreign nationals, as directed by representatives of the
US government, isn't an issue of "rights" as contemplated under the US
Constitution.

The espionage statutes don't apply in this case because only
the existence of secret prisons was revealed, not classified
methods or personnel. Even if the espionage statutes did apply
it would be unconstitutional according to the First Amendment
to criminalize leaks of information which reveal illegal
activities by the government.

Today's story in the paper says that she wasn't fired for
leaking the prisons story, in fact she couldn't have known
about them, but for failing to report some contacts with
reporters.

Well, if that's the story in "the paper," then that must be the facts...

... There is simply no defense for
violating oaths.

There is no legal defense, but sometimes morality, honor and
patriotism trump mere legalities.

No, in this case, they are 4 separate and unrelated things. If
anything, honor and patriotism suggest that the oath should be observed,
and morality, being subjective, is not material to the observance of
that oath.

TC,
R

Ken Fortenberry wrote in
et:

Allen wrote:
"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.

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.

Sometimes, such as in this case, the honorable thing to do
is to violate your oath. The trouble with a lot of military
types is they get real confused about things like honor and
responsibility, preferring instead to wrap themselves in oaths
and flags and turn a blind eye to torture, war crimes and murder.

Mary O. McCarthy is a hero, she violated her oath and thank God
she did. She realized that she has a higher responsibility to
truth and humanity than to a CIA oath. We should have more like
her. She'll be charged with a crime, and rightly so, but if I
were on her jury she'd never be found guilty.


While I regard her as a hero, Ken, I wish one of these heros would take
away this "leak" ammunition and become a whistleblower under the legal
mechanisms that exist.

In my understanding, a CIA whistleblower can take legally take concerns
to the Senate Intelligence committee, at least as a first step. Then, if
a committee member wants to release info to the press....


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:

Today's story in the paper says that she wasn't fired for
leaking the prisons story, in fact she couldn't have known
about them, but for failing to report some contacts with
reporters.

Well, if that's the story in "the paper," then that must be the facts...

I share your cynicism, inasmuch as today's story contradicts
yesterday's story in the same paper (_The Washington Post_ ).

wrote:
... There is simply no defense for
violating oaths.
There is no legal defense, but sometimes morality, honor and
patriotism trump mere legalities.

No, in this case, they are 4 separate and unrelated things. If
anything, honor and patriotism suggest that the oath should be observed,
and morality, being subjective, is not material to the observance of
that oath.

We'll have to agree to disagree, in my world morality and
responsibility are always material and in my opinion leaking
the existence of torture prisons is more honorable and patriotic
than keeping them a secret because of an oath.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Scott Seidman wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Sometimes, such as in this case, the honorable thing to do
is to violate your oath. The trouble with a lot of military
types is they get real confused about things like honor and
responsibility, preferring instead to wrap themselves in oaths
and flags and turn a blind eye to torture, war crimes and murder.

Mary O. McCarthy is a hero, she violated her oath and thank God
she did. She realized that she has a higher responsibility to
truth and humanity than to a CIA oath. We should have more like
her. She'll be charged with a crime, and rightly so, but if I
were on her jury she'd never be found guilty.

While I regard her as a hero, Ken, I wish one of these heros would take
away this "leak" ammunition and become a whistleblower under the legal
mechanisms that exist.

In my understanding, a CIA whistleblower can take legally take concerns
to the Senate Intelligence committee, at least as a first step. Then, if
a committee member wants to release info to the press....

That's probably exactly what happened, Scott. According to the
story today Mary O. McCarthy couldn't have leaked the prisons
story because she didn't know about them. She was fired for
allegedly failing to report some contacts with the press including
with the guy who wrote the prisons story. So she's no hero, just a
sloppy record keeper, or that's what they're saying today at any
rate.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:

Today's story in the paper says that she wasn't fired for
leaking the prisons story, in fact she couldn't have known
about them, but for failing to report some contacts with
reporters.

Well, if that's the story in "the paper," then that must be the facts...

I share your cynicism, inasmuch as today's story contradicts
yesterday's story in the same paper (_The Washington Post_ ).

wrote:
... There is simply no defense for
violating oaths.
There is no legal defense, but sometimes morality, honor and
patriotism trump mere legalities.

No, in this case, they are 4 separate and unrelated things. If
anything, honor and patriotism suggest that the oath should be observed,
and morality, being subjective, is not material to the observance of
that oath.

We'll have to agree to disagree, in my world morality and
responsibility are always material and in my opinion leaking
the existence of torture prisons is more honorable and patriotic
than keeping them a secret because of an oath.

--
Ken Fortenberry

If the oath and the "honor" are more important than morality we should
retroactively pardon all the members of the SS and a few other groups
in history.

Ken Fortenberry wrote in
om:

Scott Seidman wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Sometimes, such as in this case, the honorable thing to do
is to violate your oath. The trouble with a lot of military
types is they get real confused about things like honor and
responsibility, preferring instead to wrap themselves in oaths
and flags and turn a blind eye to torture, war crimes and murder.

Mary O. McCarthy is a hero, she violated her oath and thank God
she did. She realized that she has a higher responsibility to
truth and humanity than to a CIA oath. We should have more like
her. She'll be charged with a crime, and rightly so, but if I
were on her jury she'd never be found guilty.

While I regard her as a hero, Ken, I wish one of these heros would
take away this "leak" ammunition and become a whistleblower under the
legal mechanisms that exist.

In my understanding, a CIA whistleblower can take legally take
concerns to the Senate Intelligence committee, at least as a first
step. Then, if a committee member wants to release info to the
press....

That's probably exactly what happened, Scott. According to the
story today Mary O. McCarthy couldn't have leaked the prisons
story because she didn't know about them. She was fired for
allegedly failing to report some contacts with the press including
with the guy who wrote the prisons story. So she's no hero, just a
sloppy record keeper, or that's what they're saying today at any
rate.


Wow! Things certainly are getting interesting.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 14:20:46 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:



We'll have to agree to disagree, in my world morality and
responsibility are always material and in my opinion leaking
the existence of torture prisons is more honorable and patriotic
than keeping them a secret because of an oath.

Hmm...OK. Now reverse it. Suppose the officer in question discovers
that a foreign national, in the US, has a bomb and is planning to blow
up a school, so they decide that honor, morality, and patriotism suggest
that they kill this person immediately. And in doing so, they discover
a co-conspirator on-scene, so they start questioning them. With no
answers readily offered, they shoot them in the foot. In walks family
members...

In short, you are making the biggest mistake one can make with this type
of thing. You are attempting to substitute _your_ judgment in place of
the law for guidance as to what one should do. And that's real
comforting and all...until the judgment made isn't one _you_ like.
That's why things like personal judgment and "morality" have nothing to
do with this and the law and lawful orders is and should be controlling.

It's a whole lot easier on the soul and the psyche to lead men into the
breach than to order them into it, and both are harder than following
someone in, and until you've had to do all of it and understand why,
it's pretty difficult to even comprehend any of it.

HTH,
R

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
We'll have to agree to disagree, in my world morality and
responsibility are always material and in my opinion leaking
the existence of torture prisons is more honorable and patriotic
than keeping them a secret because of an oath.

Hmm...OK. Now reverse it. Suppose the officer in question discovers
that a foreign national, in the US, has a bomb and is planning to blow
up a school, so they decide that honor, morality, and patriotism suggest
that they kill this person immediately.

Huh ? Leaking information about secret torture prisons is
comparable to vigilante murder ? How so ?

In short, you are making the biggest mistake one can make with this type
of thing. You are attempting to substitute _your_ judgment in place of
the law for guidance as to what one should do.

Exactly. Sometimes my judgment would lead me to do the honorable,
moral and responsible thing as opposed to what is strictly legal.
So long as I'm willing to pay the legal penalty for my actions I
will, and do, claim the moral high ground. I know that drives some
of the military types completely bonkers but that's just a bonus,
not really intentional. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry