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.

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

"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

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).

"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.

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

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

Truer words have rarely been spoken.

Joe F.

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