This is a start!!!!!

[kapkomet]

why people want their gov't to be so secretive is beyond me...

Because you don't need to know everything? What good is it to know that we have detention centers for terrorists? What would it change? If we get information from these people, it's worth it, and it SHOULD be COVERT.

[bmags]

Because you don't need to know everything?  What good is it to know that we have detention centers for terrorists?  What would it change?  If we get information from these people, it's worth it, and it SHOULD be COVERT.

 

we have a right to know how our governor is treating prisoners especially in times like these where no charges are brought up...but whose to say in the future the people being put in these camps won't just be "known terrorists"...

 

i'd rather know. History isn't on the side of noble gov'ts prevailing without the watch of its people.

[FlaSoxxJim]

And i'm asking Priest, Risen and Lichtblau to tell me who leaked classified material to the Toast and Slimes respectively.

 

You want to thank them for doing their patriotic duty too, eh?

 

CIA, NSA, and similar agency employees take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not to stick their heads in the sand when the actions of the administration controvert the Constitution.

 

The people with questionable morals are the agency officials who knew about rendition with intent to torture and domestic warrrentless spying and didn't think it was their place to question it.

[kapkomet]

You want to thank them for doing their patriotic duty too, eh?

 

CIA, NSA, and similar agency employees take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not to stick their heads in the sand when the actions of the administration controvert the Constitution.

 

The people with questionable morals are the agency officials who knew about rendition with intent to torture and domestic warrrentless spying and didn't think it was their place to question it.

Patriotic Duty.

 

:rolly

 

It always comes back to that - that something has to be diabolical or evil or whatever negative connotation with this administration.

 

The dog and pony show about what evil f***s they are gets old.

 

Ms. McCarthy, et al, just couldn't possibly be political in running to the press, could they? It's "patriotic whistleblowing". I call it pathetic.

 

You know what? QUIT then (now the media is spinning it that she did - protect, protect, protect). And then go on a speaking tour around the country and call attention to it that way. Oh wait, then she couldn't have been a mole inside feeding the press the information. I almost forgot.

Edited April 27, 2006 by kapkomet

[Texsox]

Patriotic Duty.

 

:rolly

 

It always comes back to that - that something has to be diabolical or evil or whatever negative connotation with this administration. 

 

Yet, they keep doing stuff and doing stuff.

 

We'll see how Jeb does next . . .

[kapkomet]

Yet, they keep doing stuff and doing stuff.

 

We'll see how Jeb does next . . .

Don't take me out of context.

 

These people (our current administration) ain't no saints, that's for sure, but no one in the government is. They all have their political motivation.

 

So people against the administration take these so-called "patriotic whistleblowers" like Ms. McCarthy and Mr. Wilson (gee they worked together on some of the same projects, ain't that nice??????), and put these people on a pedistal like they are s***ting gold bricks or something for "upholding their duty to rat out the (current) administration". You know what? Their insides are made of fool's gold. Maybe that's why they s*** (fake) gold bricks.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Don't take me out of context. 

 

These people (our current administration) ain't no saints, that's for sure, but no one in the government is.  They all have their political motivation.

 

So people against the administration take these so-called "patriotic whistleblowers" like Ms. McCarthy and Mr. Wilson (gee they worked together on some of the same projects, ain't that nice??????), and put these people on a pedistal like they are s***ting gold bricks or something for "upholding their duty to rat out the (current) administration".  You know what?  Their insides are made of fool's gold.  Maybe that's why they s*** (fake) gold bricks.

 

I wouldn't characterize Joe Wilson as a whistleblower, per se. He wrote an op ed that strongly questioned the administration contention that nukes from Niger was reliable intel, based on the fact finding trip he had taken.

 

He wasn't an agency insider, so I don't think the whistleblower description is appropriate.

[kapkomet]

I wouldn't characterize Joe Wilson as a whistleblower, per se.  He wrote an op ed that strongly questioned the administration contention that nukes from Niger was reliable intel, based on the fact finding trip he had taken.

 

He wasn't an agency insider, so I don't think the whistleblower description is appropriate.

Strictly speaking, no, he wasn't an insider. But he was an 'insider'... if you catch my drift.

[Balta1701]

You know what?  QUIT then (now the media is spinning it that she did - protect, protect, protect).  And then go on a speaking tour around the country and call attention to it that way.  Oh wait, then she couldn't have been a mole inside feeding the press the information.  I almost forgot.

Interestingly, it looks like the Bush Administration is going to try to prevent a large group of people from doing exactly that.

[kapkomet]

Well no s***. People could retire and tell all the secrets. That's cool. :rolly, again.

[Texsox]

Don't take me out of context. 

 

These people (our current administration) ain't no saints, that's for sure, but no one in the government is.  They all have their political motivation.

 

So people against the administration take these so-called "patriotic whistleblowers" like Ms. McCarthy and Mr. Wilson (gee they worked together on some of the same projects, ain't that nice??????), and put these people on a pedistal like they are s***ting gold bricks or something for "upholding their duty to rat out the (current) administration".  You know what?  Their insides are made of fool's gold.  Maybe that's why they s*** (fake) gold bricks.

 

Wasn't trying to take you out of context and I think I will not take you literally. So far, any flap, every mistep, every embarassment in the past year has been met by about the same post as you just made.

 

I also believe, you realize some of this s***, is actually f*** ups by Bush and Co.

 

So some where between Bush as the devil and Bush as Saint, is the truth. I can say, I was a coin flip vote this past election, hoping for a strong second term when he was elected. Sadly, I think this term is worse than his first and his first wasn't exactly brilliant.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Because you don't need to know everything?  What good is it to know that we have detention centers for terrorists?  What would it change?  If we get information from these people, it's worth it, and it SHOULD be COVERT.

 

 

^^^

 

There are some people who hate the Bush Administration so much that they will let nothing stand in the way of them landing some sort of blow against it. Problem with that is that in this case the person in question is charged with protecting classified secrets which are vital to national security.

 

When you're in the employ of the government and entrusted with its secrets, even if you don't like whats happening, it is your duty to protect those secrets. Your political views should not interfere with you doing what you are sworn to do. In this case it clearly did and she should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Interestingly, it looks like the Bush Administration is going to try to prevent a large group of people from doing exactly that.

 

 

Balta and Kap.

 

There are laws on the books which prevent persons entrusted with classified information from disclosing said information for a very long period of time. Something like 10 years or so if memory serves.

[Texsox]

Politics being poltics, if these leaks were happening during the Clinton years, they would have been blamed on the moral decay and cut backs, etc. You know, just saying :rolly

[Balta1701]

Balta and Kap.

 

There are laws on the books which prevent persons entrusted with classified information from disclosing said information for a very long period of time.  Something like 10 years or so if memory serves.

Well, I think the big question in all this is what happens when the disclosure is of a program which violates the law. Can it be illegal to disclose an illegal program?

[Rex Kickass]

I believe the courts have said that it is not illegal to expose an illegal program. But the program has to be found illegal first - and since neither the Congress nor the Executive controlled Attorney General's office seems interested in investigating the legality of such a program - it makes it hard to determine whether the illegal leak of a program was actually illegal or if it was legal whistleblowing of an illegal program.

 

BTW, in tangentially related news, Arlen Specter is threatening to pull the plug on funding for the NSA's Domestic Spying program if the White House doesn't start cooperating and disclose to the Senate just what the program exactly does.

[Texsox]

BTW, in tangentially related news, Arlen Specter is threatening to pull the plug on funding for the NSA's Domestic Spying program if the White House doesn't start cooperating and disclose to the Senate just what the program exactly does.

 

Our system at work. balance meet check, or in this case, potentially no check.

[kapkomet]

Wasn't trying to take you out of context and I think I will not take you literally. So far, any flap, every mistep, every embarassment in the past year has been met by about the same post as you just made.

 

I also believe, you realize some of this s***, is actually f*** ups by Bush and Co.

 

So some where between Bush as the devil and Bush as Saint, is the truth. I can say, I was a coin flip vote this past election, hoping for a strong second term when he was elected. Sadly, I think this term is worse than his first and his first wasn't exactly brilliant.

ABSOLUTELY, the truth is somewhere in the middle. However, the main stream media, and the "liberals" that get the itch don't want to believe anything is good about the man at all. BushCo has absolutely screwed the pootch on many issues, and I have always said that if there were a Democrat that could be trusted to stand on national defense (and not smoke and mirrors bulls***) and was a fiscal conservative - meaning a Democrat that could or would admit tax cuts work and figure out another way to make the government more responsible (SPENDING CUTS) I'd vote for him in a minute.

[Texsox]

ABSOLUTELY, the truth is somewhere in the middle.  However, the main stream media, and the "liberals" that get the itch don't want to believe anything is good about the man at all.  BushCo has absolutely screwed the pootch on many issues, and I have always said that if there were a Democrat that could be trusted to stand on national defense (and not smoke and mirrors bulls***) and was a fiscal conservative - meaning a Democrat that could or would admit tax cuts work and figure out another way to make the government more responsible (SPENDING CUTS) I'd vote for him in a minute.

 

When you find any politician that will balance spending and income, I don't care what party they are from.

 

Since when is the news about good? It's the stuff that doesn't work right that is news. This morning I turned on my shower and water came out. My neighbors also had the same thing happen. Call a reporter! Now if South Texas was without water, that's news.

 

If we cut taxes, how come income is up?

[kapkomet]

Economic growth.

 

We've had this conversation before on soxtalk.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I believe the courts have said that it is not illegal to expose an illegal program. But the program has to be found illegal first - and since neither the Congress nor the Executive controlled Attorney General's office seems interested in investigating the legality of such a program - it makes it hard to determine whether the illegal leak of a program was actually illegal or if it was legal whistleblowing of an illegal program.

 

That's the crux of the biscuit right there. I understand the need for secrecy and confidentiality, and I understand the need to sign confidentiality agreements and take secrecy oaths etc.

 

It's when the actions of your superiors cross the line into illegality/unconstitutionality that there becomes a problem. As has been shown time and again, most of the eventual whistleblowers have tried and tried to work for change within the system, following chain of command etc., and going outside the system is a last resort.

 

Unbiased investigation of the purported abuses, both by the whistleblower/leaker(depending on your pov) and by the superiors should happen as a matter of course in these instances but it doesn't. Without subpoena powers, the congressional Dems are pretty powerless. The same woudl be the case in a Dem administration scandal if the Dems controlled both houses, and it would be equally wrong. I don't know if a special prosecutor kind of arrangement is the solution, but the system isn't working now.

 

[Aside: From personal experience on a smaller scale I can relate to this. I've been employed at a research institution with strict non-disclosure agreements in place for all employees. But there was a time when it became incredibly clear that the President/CEO and the board were committing gross fraud and it came down to a plurality of employees deciding they would risk violating the agreements to expose what was going on in order to save the institution. This was after years of trying to affect change from the inside. In this case, the guilty parties blinked and stepped down before we had to blow the whistle, because it probably would have meant jailtime for them. If they didn't budge thougj, we'd have had to breach our trust agreements to go to the state AG and get a Sarbanes investigation rollong.]

[Texsox]

Economic growth.

 

We've had this conversation before on soxtalk.

 

Yeah, let's not go there. As long as someone else is paying my taxes for me, and countries are willing to fininace our debt, why worry

 

That's my favorite bed time story. Borrow more money for me Mr. President.

[kapkomet]

Yeah, let's not go there.  As long as someone else is paying my taxes for me, and countries are willing to fininace our debt, why worry

 

That's my favorite bed time story. Borrow more money for me Mr. President.

Why do you have to equate that with our national debt? It doesn't have to be that way. CUT SPENDING.

[NorthSideSox72]

ABSOLUTELY, the truth is somewhere in the middle.  However, the main stream media, and the "liberals" that get the itch don't want to believe anything is good about the man at all.  BushCo has absolutely screwed the pootch on many issues, and I have always said that if there were a Democrat that could be trusted to stand on national defense (and not smoke and mirrors bulls***) and was a fiscal conservative - meaning a Democrat that could or would admit tax cuts work and figure out another way to make the government more responsible (SPENDING CUTS) I'd vote for him in a minute.

What would you think of a Democrat who was willing to enter office and keep tax levels right where they are, and were strong on national defense? But who had a mind towards efficiency, and put in place a serious program of analyzing and streamlining all federal agencies, using corporate consulting firms, like other businesses (as I have suggested here before)? Would you vote for that candidate, even though they didn't cut taxes?

 

I know that is just a theoretical, I'm just curious how important tax cuts are to you.

[kapkomet]

What would you think of a Democrat who was willing to enter office and keep tax levels right where they are, and were strong on national defense?  But who had a mind towards efficiency, and put in place a serious program of analyzing and streamlining all federal agencies, using corporate consulting firms, like other businesses (as I have suggested here before)?  Would you vote for that candidate, even though they didn't cut taxes?

 

I know that is just a theoretical, I'm just curious how important tax cuts are to you.

Status quo is fine by me on current tax levels, as our current 'state' wouldn't allow for further cuts. The talk of "make wealthy people pay their fair share" from the Democrats today will effect a lot of the middle class (a household income of somewhere about $70K and above is 'rich' from what I've seen) by raising their taxes.

 

I never in the world would think I (well my family) would qualify for "rich" by today's Democratic Party, but I do, and my taxes would go up. And that's sad, because I sure as hell ain't 'rich'.