Don't make inferences from what I said. I did not say, nor would I say, they should not go public. I am saying that what they did was illegal, and violated their oaths. If they leak this information, they should face the consequences.
I don't have to argue it. To my knowledge, no one has been or will be charged for leaking the information. In the most literal sense, it was not leaked, the information was public.
Where does that belief lead, though? Who decides what is "more important than keeping damaging secrets"? Who decides what is a damaging secret, for that matter? Right now, the Republicans are in power. Eventually the Democrats or someone else will be. Where does it end? The politicization of classified information leads to a place where nothing is classified, nothing is secret.
And despite what some may think, there are times when information must be kept secret.
You'll notice I didn't say anything about the trustworthiness of the government. My point, and my only point, is that the leakers knew the consequences of what they were doing, and now do not want to face them. If they believe what they were doing is right, why do they hide? Why do they deny what they did?
I'll tell you why. Its to avoid the consequences of their actions.
And while Valerie Plame could be described as an active agent of the CIA, there is no law about divulging that info. There is a law against divulging it if she is a covert agent, but her appearance on the cover of Vanity Fair would seem to argue against that.
Divulging classified information is not "whistleblowing", no matter how you look at it. There are policies in place to report corruption or illegal activities in regards to classifired material. Leaking the info to reporters is not one of those procedures.
Honestly, people who who security clearance know better than this.
Whether or not a program is illegal or unconstittutional, leakers have to expect to take a hit. They are violating their oaths of secrecy.
"As a general rule, Qwest does not release customer account information to unaffiliated third parties without your permission unless we have a business relationship with those companies where the disclosure is appropriate."
How is that any better than giving calling patterns to the government? By their own policy, they give personal info away to other companies, at their discretion. To me, that's much more invasive to my privacy.
How this all comes up now, and how so many people act as if this issue is something new, or even exclusive to the Bush administration. For instance, fill in the blanks on this paragraph:
The ________ administration claims that it can bypass the warrant clause for "national security" purposes. In July____ Deputy Attorney General ___________ told the House Select Committee on Intelligence that the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." [51] According to _______, the president (or his attorney general) need only satisfy himself that an American is working in conjunction with a foreign power before a search can take place.
I understand being concerned about possible domestic wiretapping, but lets get real. Many people are suddenly outraged only because it is this administration at this time, when it has been going on and has been an issue for many, many years. Clinton/Gore not only used it, but justified it for completely domestic issues as well.
With the current US administrations ultra-hardline "we're gonna wipe you off the map" stance, it's very understandable that they want nuclear weapons. This attitude, that US allies despise, has made the world less safe.
Donald Rumsfelds interview with Der Spiegel would seem to belie that assumption, and as the US are in fact deferring to the EU to handle Iran:
SPIEGEL: How concerned are you about Iran?
Rumsfeld: All of us have to be concerned when a country that important, large and wealthy is disconnected from the normal interactions with the rest of the world. They obviously have certain ambitions, powers and military capabilities...
SPIEGEL:...and nuclear ambitions...
Rumsfeld: That's apparently what France, Germany, the UK and the International Atomic Energy Agency have concluded. Everyone wants to have the Iranians as part of the world community, but they aren't yet. Therefore there's less predictability and more danger.
SPIEGEL: The US is trying to make the case in the United Nations Security Council.
Rumsfeld: I would not say that. I thought France, Germany and the UK were working on that problem.
SPIEGEL: What kind of sanctions are we talking about?
Rumsfeld: I'm not talking about sanctions. I thought you, and the U.K. and France were.
SPIEGEL: You aren't?
Rumsfeld: I'm not talking about sanctions. You've got the lead. Well, lead!
SPIEGEL: You mean the Europeans.
Rumsfeld: Sure. My Goodness, Iran is your neighbour. We don't have to do everything!
Now, maybe we do want to "wipe them off the map", but we're "multilaterally" letting others try to resolve the situation. A mistake, in my opinion. Iran 2006 has serious echoes of Germany 1936 to me.
I just wish the US government still believed in finding Osama and hadn't moved the vast majority of the troops elsewhere. We dropped the ball in Afghanistan and left before destroying him, and we'll likely see another domestic terrorist attack because of our leader's failure to finish the job.
Actually, Osama may not be such a problem anymore, if some sources are to be believed:
And, according to Iranians I trust, Osama bin Laden finally departed this world in mid-December. The al Qaeda leader died of kidney failure and was buried in Iran, where he had spent most of his time since the destruction of al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The Iranians who reported this note that this year's message in conjunction with the Muslim Haj came from his number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri, for the first time http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen2006010 90808.asp/
Imagine some kind and generous soul buying these, and then leaving them in public places. Subway stations, parks, coffee houses, etc. Presuming you could hide them or otherwise make them conspicuous, you could have a repository of music from anyone nearby. Over time it would update and grow, reflecting a gestalt of what music is popular in that particular neighborhood/location. Would be kind of cool, actually.
Drunk on the power of his office, and vindictive. Here's a nice little interaction he had with a former chairman of Goldman Sachs:
Last April, The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed piece by me titled "Mr. Spitzer Has Gone Too Far." In it I expressed my belief that in America, everyone -- including Hank Greenberg -- is innocent until proven guilty. "Something has gone seriously awry," I wrote, "when a state attorney general can go on television and charge one of America's best CEOs and most generous philanthropists with fraud before any charges have been brought, before the possible defendant has even had a chance to know what he personally is alleged to have done, and while the investigation is still under way."
Since there have been rumors in the media as to what happened next, I feel I must now set the record straight. After reading my op-ed piece, Mr. Spitzer tried to phone me. I was traveling in Texas but he reached me early in the afternoon. After asking me one or two questions about where I got my facts, he came right to the point. I was so shocked that I wrote it all down right away so I would be sure to remember it exactly as he said it. This is what he said:
"Mr. Whitehead, it's now a war between us and you've fired the first shot. I will be coming after you. You will pay the price. This is only the beginning and you will pay dearly for what you have done. You will wish you had never written that letter."
I tried to interrupt to say he was doing to me exactly what he'd been doing to others, but he wouldn't be interrupted. He went on in the same vein for several more sentences and then abruptly hung up. I was astounded. No one had ever talked to me like that before. It was a little scary.
It's up to others to make their own conclusions. I have only set out here what happened.
Mr. Whitehead, former chairman of Goldman Sachs, is chairman of the Lower Manhattan Development Corp.
The article seems upbeat about patent reform coming, but I doubt it. I think the prevalence of Blackberrys in D.C. probably had more to do with this being overturned.
Of course, the US government can't get away with a huge tax on fuel because there is outcry from the Americans if it costs more than $10 to fill their huge SUVs. (I currently pay about 89 pence per litre of unleaded)
You'd think so, wouldn't you? The facts speak otherwise:
From 1977 to 2004, federal and state gas tax collections have totaled more than $1.34 trillion, the report said - more than twice domestic oil industry profits during that time ($643 billion).
Or:
"in recent decades governments have collected far more revenue from gasoline taxes than the largest U.S. oil companies have collectively earned in domestic profits." In fact, "since 1977, there have been only three years (1980, 1981, and 1982) in which domestic oil industry profits exceeded government gas tax collections." (source: http://www.freemarketproject.org/news/2005/news200 51102.asp)
Keep in mind also that this does not include federal taxes on those companies profits! Remember that next time you fill up and curse the oil companies for their "obscene profits".
Granted, you're right and wrong. There is very little outcry from Americans about this, but the government does put a huge tax on our gas.
Re:ah, who cares about geneva conventions.
on
Set PHASRs On Stun
·
· Score: 1
Did you actually read that article? here's a sample:
Provided by the Studies Centre of Human Rights in Fallujah, dozens of high-quality, colour close-ups show bodies of Fallujah residents, some still in their beds, whose clothes remain largely intact but whose skin has been dissolved or caramelised or turned the consistency of leather by the shells.
Do you actually believe that the US used WP on civilians and that it burned their bodies beyond recognition, but did NOT ignite their clothing? Seriously?
Slashdot Mirror
Don't make inferences from what I said. I did not say, nor would I say, they should not go public. I am saying that what they did was illegal, and violated their oaths. If they leak this information, they should face the consequences.
I don't have to argue it. To my knowledge, no one has been or will be charged for leaking the information. In the most literal sense, it was not leaked, the information was public.
Where does that belief lead, though? Who decides what is "more important than keeping damaging secrets"? Who decides what is a damaging secret, for that matter? Right now, the Republicans are in power. Eventually the Democrats or someone else will be. Where does it end? The politicization of classified information leads to a place where nothing is classified, nothing is secret.
And despite what some may think, there are times when information must be kept secret.
You'll notice I didn't say anything about the trustworthiness of the government. My point, and my only point, is that the leakers knew the consequences of what they were doing, and now do not want to face them. If they believe what they were doing is right, why do they hide? Why do they deny what they did?
I'll tell you why. Its to avoid the consequences of their actions.
Not to be an ass, but what secret CIA prisons? The ones in Europe that Dana Priest reported on, after a leak from Mary McCarthy, that won him a Pulitzer? The ones that the EU investigated and found no proof of (http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2006/04 /21/eu_official_no_evidence_of_illegal_cia_action/ /)? Those?
And while Valerie Plame could be described as an active agent of the CIA, there is no law about divulging that info. There is a law against divulging it if she is a covert agent, but her appearance on the cover of Vanity Fair would seem to argue against that.
Divulging classified information is not "whistleblowing", no matter how you look at it. There are policies in place to report corruption or illegal activities in regards to classifired material. Leaking the info to reporters is not one of those procedures.
Honestly, people who who security clearance know better than this.
Whether or not a program is illegal or unconstittutional, leakers have to expect to take a hit. They are violating their oaths of secrecy.
How is that any better than giving calling patterns to the government? By their own policy, they give personal info away to other companies, at their discretion. To me, that's much more invasive to my privacy.
He forgot it was about the science, man.
Everyone knows its about walking up to tornadoes naked and chuckin' whiskey bottles at it.
Better that than his fathers IUD.
I wonder why? Oh yeah: http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/02/craig slist_sued.htm/
Roomate.com was sued for the exact same thing and won handily. Why these lawyers would bring this suit with such a clear precedent case is beyond me.
Who wants to bet the newspaper industry is behind this?
If you get enough tags, they send you to -1, Troll School.
If you guessed Bush, 2004, and Gonzales, try again: http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/01/al-gore
I understand being concerned about possible domestic wiretapping, but lets get real. Many people are suddenly outraged only because it is this administration at this time, when it has been going on and has been an issue for many, many years. Clinton/Gore not only used it, but justified it for completely domestic issues as well.
Donald Rumsfelds interview with Der Spiegel would seem to belie that assumption, and as the US are in fact deferring to the EU to handle Iran:
Now, maybe we do want to "wipe them off the map", but we're "multilaterally" letting others try to resolve the situation. A mistake, in my opinion. Iran 2006 has serious echoes of Germany 1936 to me.
Actually, Osama may not be such a problem anymore, if some sources are to be believed:
And, according to Iranians I trust, Osama bin Laden finally departed this world in mid-December. The al Qaeda leader died of kidney failure and was buried in Iran, where he had spent most of his time since the destruction of al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The Iranians who reported this note that this year's message in conjunction with the Muslim Haj came from his number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri, for the first time
http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200601
Time will tell, of course.
I have 2 Macs (laptops) and a high end desktop PC. The PC is, I'm nearly ashamed to admin
Thats okay. Most Windows admins feel the same way...
Imagine some kind and generous soul buying these, and then leaving them in public places. Subway stations, parks, coffee houses, etc. Presuming you could hide them or otherwise make them conspicuous, you could have a repository of music from anyone nearby. Over time it would update and grow, reflecting a gestalt of what music is popular in that particular neighborhood/location. Would be kind of cool, actually.
Yeah, he wears a different kind of turtleneck in those.
And its definitely not black.
Drunk on the power of his office, and vindictive. Here's a nice little interaction he had with a former chairman of Goldman Sachs:
Last April, The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed piece by me titled "Mr. Spitzer Has Gone Too Far." In it I expressed my belief that in America, everyone -- including Hank Greenberg -- is innocent until proven guilty. "Something has gone seriously awry," I wrote, "when a state attorney general can go on television and charge one of America's best CEOs and most generous philanthropists with fraud before any charges have been brought, before the possible defendant has even had a chance to know what he personally is alleged to have done, and while the investigation is still under way."
Since there have been rumors in the media as to what happened next, I feel I must now set the record straight. After reading my op-ed piece, Mr. Spitzer tried to phone me. I was traveling in Texas but he reached me early in the afternoon. After asking me one or two questions about where I got my facts, he came right to the point. I was so shocked that I wrote it all down right away so I would be sure to remember it exactly as he said it. This is what he said:
"Mr. Whitehead, it's now a war between us and you've fired the first shot. I will be coming after you. You will pay the price. This is only the beginning and you will pay dearly for what you have done. You will wish you had never written that letter."
I tried to interrupt to say he was doing to me exactly what he'd been doing to others, but he wouldn't be interrupted. He went on in the same vein for several more sentences and then abruptly hung up. I was astounded. No one had ever talked to me like that before. It was a little scary.
It's up to others to make their own conclusions. I have only set out here what happened.
Mr. Whitehead, former chairman of Goldman Sachs, is chairman of the Lower Manhattan Development Corp.
It looks like the fifth patent NTP was suing RIM over has been overturned by the USPTO: http://www.linuxelectrons.com/article.php/20051221 150546394
The article seems upbeat about patent reform coming, but I doubt it. I think the prevalence of Blackberrys in D.C. probably had more to do with this being overturned.
Just think, if it answered, you'd have an all new myth to bust.
Of course, the US government can't get away with a huge tax on fuel because there is outcry from the Americans if it costs more than $10 to fill their huge SUVs. (I currently pay about 89 pence per litre of unleaded)
0 51102.asp)
You'd think so, wouldn't you? The facts speak otherwise:
From 1977 to 2004, federal and state gas tax collections have totaled more than $1.34 trillion, the report said - more than twice domestic oil industry profits during that time ($643 billion).
Or:
"in recent decades governments have collected far more revenue from gasoline taxes than the largest U.S. oil companies have collectively earned in domestic profits." In fact, "since 1977, there have been only three years (1980, 1981, and 1982) in which domestic oil industry profits exceeded government gas tax collections."
(source: http://www.freemarketproject.org/news/2005/news20
Keep in mind also that this does not include federal taxes on those companies profits! Remember that next time you fill up and curse the oil companies for their "obscene profits".
Granted, you're right and wrong. There is very little outcry from Americans about this, but the government does put a huge tax on our gas.
Yeah, man! Generation Colon blows!
Watch more Family Guy: What The Deuce?
the same way as in "United States killed Iraqi civilians using white phosphor"
/ 2005/11/yet_more_wp.html
I call bullshit. If you're going to quote "The Independent", at least be aware when they discredit and contradict their own story.
Here, enlighten yourself: http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution
Did you actually read that article? here's a sample:
/
Provided by the Studies Centre of Human Rights in Fallujah, dozens of high-quality, colour close-ups show bodies of Fallujah residents, some still in their beds, whose clothes remain largely intact but whose skin has been dissolved or caramelised or turned the consistency of leather by the shells.
Do you actually believe that the US used WP on civilians and that it burned their bodies beyond recognition, but did NOT ignite their clothing? Seriously?
Please look here for more information, and a debunking of the Independents slander:
http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution