The Press vs. The Gubmint!

Allen wrote:
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....

Sounds like you would have been a good att'y for the defense
at Nuremberg (tho I am not sure that anything you said has
any connection to the person you are talking about).

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.

--
Ken Fortenberry

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. IOW, the people (the
citizens) have given the right of management to their representatives.
And yes, I realize they have retained the rights not enumerated, but
dealing with foreign entities has been relinquished to the
representatives.

IAC, The US Constitution does not give out-of-formal-custody and/or
extra-territorial rights to non-citizens because it cannot do so, and
individuals, even high-ranking individuals, aren't authorized to grant
such rights under these circumstances. Even if CIA officers themselves
were holding foreign nationals on foreign soil, there would be nothing
"illegal" (in a US Constitutional sense) about it. The morality of that
is not material to its legality.

A CIA officer has no duty or responsibility to either provide you or
foreign nationals truth or humanity. In fact, much like the civilian
police, they would deal in a lot of information withholding, even
untruths, in the pursuit of doing their duties. You are simply mistaken
if you think or feel those charged with national security somehow "owes"
you or any of the public complete transparency or disclosure on demand.
And CIA officers, like military officers, aren't authorized to
substitute their judgment about the appropriateness of orders, only the
legality of them, and even then, they are not authorized to violate
oaths, they are only provided a specific defense for refusing an illegal
order, with that defense vitiating the use of an affirmative defense for
having followed an illegal order. There is simply no defense for
violating oaths.

TC,
R

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

wrote in message
...
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. IOW, the people (the
citizens) have given the right of management to their representatives.
And yes, I realize they have retained the rights not enumerated, but
dealing with foreign entities has been relinquished to the
representatives.

IAC, The US Constitution does not give out-of-formal-custody and/or
extra-territorial rights to non-citizens because it cannot do so, and
individuals, even high-ranking individuals, aren't authorized to grant
such rights under these circumstances. Even if CIA officers themselves
were holding foreign nationals on foreign soil, there would be nothing
"illegal" (in a US Constitutional sense) about it. The morality of that
is not material to its legality.

A CIA officer has no duty or responsibility to either provide you or
foreign nationals truth or humanity. In fact, much like the civilian
police, they would deal in a lot of information withholding, even
untruths, in the pursuit of doing their duties. You are simply mistaken
if you think or feel those charged with national security somehow "owes"
you or any of the public complete transparency or disclosure on demand.
And CIA officers, like military officers, aren't authorized to
substitute their judgment about the appropriateness of orders, only the
legality of them, and even then, they are not authorized to violate
oaths, they are only provided a specific defense for refusing an illegal
order, with that defense vitiating the use of an affirmative defense for
having followed an illegal order. There is simply no defense for
violating oaths.

TC,

Thanks for once again rewriting the national Rebublican spin on this. Im
sure your efforts are appreciated by haters of Democracy and assorted
Fascist fringies everywhere.

But what you say is bull****. Period.

Torture and extra-judicial murder are covered by the Nuremberg agreements
which make it a crime not to expose war crimes. War crimes are also
specifically dealt with in the War Crimes Act of 1996 and ". . . applies if
either the victim or the perpetrator is a national of the United States or a
member of the U.S. armed forces. The penalty may be life imprisonment or
death. The death penalty is only invoked if the conduct resulted in the
death of one or more victims. The law defines a war crime as a violation or
grave breach of any of the Geneva Conventions or the Hague Conventions of
1907."

And the United States is a signature of both the Geneva and the Hague
Conventions.

Dave
33 months to go and now the torturers and their armchair supporters are
starting to squirm.

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

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 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

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?

No, we are NOT. The answer to your question is in your subject line:

"The press vs. the Gubmint." "Versus" is the key word.

In our democracy, the press is SUPPOSED to have an adversarial
relationship with the gubmint. This is often expressed as "the press
is the watchdog of government." That's one of the main reasons for the
First Amendment.

The press's primary function is not to tell us ball scores or who
married whom; it is to protect us from the abuse of power by those
with power.

The sad thing is that it does such a lousy job. To paraphrase one
press critic, the press is often a watchdog that merely snaps at the
government's heels, yipping and yapping, but rarely taking a solid
bite.

vince