Cknolls Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192640,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 QUOTE(Cknolls @ Apr 21, 2006 -> 01:45 PM) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192640,00.html A start indeed. That guy should be brought up on charges and tossed in the slam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 Friend: Leaker Categorically Denies Leak http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12466719/site/newsweek/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samclemens Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Apr 24, 2006 -> 06:31 PM) Friend: Leaker Categorically Denies Leak http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12466719/site/newsweek/ you forgot to mention that he failed his polygraph. that f***ers guilty and ought to be brought up on charges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 She, Mary McCarthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted April 24, 2006 Share Posted April 24, 2006 Alright, well then I guess we need Rove and Libby to be brought up on the same charges because we know that they were involved in leaking the identity of CIA operatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 QUOTE(samclemens @ Apr 24, 2006 -> 04:23 PM) you forgot to mention that he failed his polygraph. that f***ers guilty and ought to be brought up on charges. You can't bring a person up on charges because they fail a polygraph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 24, 2006 -> 06:36 PM) You can't bring a person up on charges because they fail a polygraph. But you CAN be fired or suspended from a federal job based on it. Or not hired at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted April 25, 2006 Author Share Posted April 25, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Apr 24, 2006 -> 05:57 PM) Alright, well then I guess we need Rove and Libby to be brought up on the same charges because we know that they were involved in leaking the identity of CIA operatives. You mean analyst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 24, 2006 -> 06:30 PM) But you CAN be fired or suspended from a federal job based on it. Or not hired at all. Doesn't make it right. There's a reason why those things are inadmissable in court. But hey, I guess if you're the federal government, you're big enough that if you fire the correct person 75% of the time, you're getting enough of the bad guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 martyr... anybody who makes our gov't more transparant of wrongs is A-OK in my book Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 24, 2006 -> 09:55 PM) Doesn't make it right. There's a reason why those things are inadmissable in court. But hey, I guess if you're the federal government, you're big enough that if you fire the correct person 75% of the time, you're getting enough of the bad guys. I wasn't justifying it. Just adding some important information to the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 GMAB people. She gets fired for leaking, and you all are making her a "martyr". She should have been fired. She should be nailed for treason. The difference between Bush and Cheney and Ms. McCarthy is that Bush and Cheney BY LAW can discuss these matters by declassifying information. It might stink, it might be "morally" wrong, but the law states that they can do so, since they ARE the executive branch. Furthermore, if this were treated like the MSM treats it, by extension, shouldn't Bill Clinton be brought up on charges? After all, he must have known all these people are doing this for him and his future wifey President. What's good for Bush should be good for Clinton, shouldn't it? Oh the irony. (BTW, the last paragraph is not serious... but I find it interesting the line - Berger, Albright, McCarthy, Wilson, Plame - all of these people are mid to late 90's cronies and they are all interwoven) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Apr 25, 2006 -> 09:41 AM) GMAB people. She gets fired for leaking. . . Yeah, that was the official version of the story on Friday anyway. Now, however. . . Fabricate. Lie. Repeat – The BushCo Way® John Avarosis: The Bush administration said explicitly last Friday that a CIA agent was fired for leaking classified information, assumed to be regarding the existence of secret CIA prisons in former Soviet gulags in Eastern Europe. Today we find out they were just kidding. She didn't leak any classified information. She didn't say anything about the secret prisons. Oh, she's still fired, we just don't know why. Then why was she fired? And why did the Bush administration tell the world that she was a leaker when she wasn't? They fired this woman ten days before she was due to retire. Then they lied about why. Sounds to me like this was one more bit of retribution by George Bush against a woman whose expert analysis of the facts didn't toe the Bush pro-war line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 SHE ADMITTED IT! WTF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Apr 25, 2006 -> 10:55 AM) SHE ADMITTED IT! WTF? What did she admit, where, and how? Her lawyer says she wasn't the source for the story, and a former coworker says she wasn't privy to the information that ran in the story. She was involved in internal investigations of the accusations of CIA prisoner abuse in Iraq and and she did contribite to the Kerry campaign. Knowing this administration this may very well be a retaliatory dismissal. If she was the source of information on illegal prisons and renditions, I'm sure she would be availing herself to the various whistleblower protection, both legal and in the public eye. Hopefully whoever is the source is doing that. In more cases than not, career intelligence program employees who do turn whistleblower have probably been beating their heads against the wall trying to go through proper channels to bring concerns to the attention of superiors. These are by-the-book kind ogf people. Fortunately, some of them also have moral integrity as well, and realize their allegience is to the country and not to an administration in controversion of international law and convention. Hiding an illegal program through classification is not morally justifiable, nor is going after the whistleblowers in retaliation. And the bit that you are trying hard not to acknowledge. The difference between the unidentified leaker here and the "legal" leaking of BushCo, is that in the BushCo case the leak amounts to a selective declassification of information they KNEW was wrong (see Tyler Drumheller bombshell), in order to allow the media to propagate and perpetuate this bad information as evidence of the grave and gathering Iraqi threat, to mislead Congress and the nation into war. In the CIA case, the leaker was exposing the existence of an administration-approved program of extraordinary rendition and subsequent black site torture that seems clearly in violation of our international convention obligations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 George Bush has the right to declassify information. The Vice President only has the right to classify information unless given express written consent by the President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted April 25, 2006 Author Share Posted April 25, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 24, 2006 -> 09:55 PM) Doesn't make it right. There's a reason why those things are inadmissable in court. But hey, I guess if you're the federal government, you're big enough that if you fire the correct person 75% of the time, you're getting enough of the bad guys. She signes a release not to speak to the press as a CIA employee. She admitted to speaking to the Post several times. She violated her agreement. SHE GONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Apr 25, 2006 -> 11:24 AM) George Bush has the right to declassify information. The Vice President only has the right to classify information unless given express written consent by the President. Which Cheney has stated was given him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 That's great. Cheney says a lot of things. Not all of them are true. Authorization to declassify information is not something that needs to be classified. Show us the executive order giving him the privilege. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samclemens Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Apr 26, 2006 -> 12:29 PM) That's great. Cheney says a lot of things. Not all of them are true. Authorization to declassify information is not something that needs to be classified. Show us the executive order giving him the privilege. look, to counter his point, all you are doing is calling cheney a liar. its not an argument when all you are doing is saying the other person's points are lies. i dont think cheney lied, because if he had written consent, then he must have a piece of paper signed by the prez that gave him express permission, which he should be able to produce if he is asked to. i have no idea if he has already presented this document or not, but if hes willing to say that he had signed permission, then he must have it, or he is risking being caught in a lie that would force his resignation. whether its a lovely and friendly democrat or an evil and hateful republican, no politician is that dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 No, I'm asking the Vice President to produce the executive order showing his authorization to declassify material. If he has the authority to do it, he should prove it. Without it, he's just leaking intelligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted April 27, 2006 Author Share Posted April 27, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Apr 27, 2006 -> 12:54 AM) No, I'm asking the Vice President to produce the executive order showing his authorization to declassify material. If he has the authority to do it, he should prove it. Without it, he's just leaking intelligence. And i'm asking Priest, Risen and Lichtblau to tell me who leaked classified material to the Toast and Slimes respectively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 Why, of course, Scooter Libby, who was told by Cheney, who was told by Bush. No one else except anyone tied to the president does that "leaking", only "whistleblowing". :rolly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 why people want their gov't to be so secretive is beyond me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts