I think the person who leaked the information about Bush's abuses of the Constitution is a true patriot and should be given a medal,not a jail cell.

No argument there.

I think the person who leaked the information about Bush's abuses of the Constitution is a true patriot and should be given a medal,not a jail cell.


Hope the leaker's not double jointed !:eek7:

They should be executed for treason.

They should be executed for treason.

Contra, way back when around 1776, when these colonies were rebelling against the King of England, which side of the war would you have been on?

Contra, way back when around 1776, when these colonies were rebelling against the King of England, which side of the war would you have been on?

I was going to mention this, but I'm pretty sure Contra has little interest for our founding fathers and their views on dissent.

Contra, way back when around 1776, when these colonies were rebelling against the King of England, which side of the war would you have been on?

What does this have to do with anything at all and who the hell is Contra? If you need to ask me some inane, moronic question, PM me. Keep your trash out of the threads. :rolleyes:

I was going to mention this, but I'm pretty sure Contra has little interest for our founding fathers and their views on dissent.

ROFL yes, and people like you who support mass infanticide and state socialism are the ones who most resemble the spririt of the founding father's politics. :nonono:

What does this have to do with anything at all and who the hell is Contra? If you need to ask me some inane, moronic question, PM me. Keep your trash out of the threads. :rolleyes:

Well, if you answer the question, then maybe you will find out its relevancy, Contra. Oh, and I do believe you have been told before that you need to stop this "Contra is not Rubicon" crap.

Well, if you answer the question, then maybe you will find out its relevancy, Contra. Oh, and I do believe you have been told before that you need to stop this "Contra is not Rubicon" crap.

This is your last warning. Take your baiting and derailing to another thread.

I think the person who leaked the information about Bush's abuses of the Constitution is a true patriot and should be given a medal,not a jail cell.

No argument there.


Since you're playing "What If"...what it is concluded that no laws were broken? Will you people call for punishing the person that leaked state secrets?

This is your last warning. Take your baiting and derailing to another thread.

Baiting and derailing? Who's baiting and derailing, contra? I'm asking you a simple question. If you answer it, then you will see where I'm going with this. It's totally on topic, so stop throwing a temper tantrum.

Since you're playing "What If"...what it is concluded that no laws were broken? Will you people call for punishing the person that leaked state secrets?

No, because we still believe that person did the right thing. Legal=/=right all the time, you know.

But I thought your earlier argument was that it is okay to break the law and reveal state secrets if you are exposing illegal activity? (you know, all that civil liberties-4th Amendment bullsh*t you and others were spouting) I thought you have made it clear that the Constitution and Congress (when it passed FISA) were the ultimate authority?


Instead you have exposed your true feelings, your hate for the Bush administration guides you. It is okay to break the law and reveal state secrets if it takes down Bush or if it satisfies your politcal leanings

But I thought your earlier argument was that it is okay to break the law and reveal state secrets if you are exposing illegal activity? (you know, all that civil liberties-4th Amendment bullsh*t you and others were spouting) I thought you have made it clear that the Constitution and Congress (when it passed FISA) were the ultimate authority?

Could you link me to where I was claiming that? And remember, if you can't, I expect an apology for lying. Silence from you on this matter will be treated as an admission that you are guilty.

Instead you have exposed your true feelings, your hate for the Bush administration guides you. It is okay to break the law and reveal state secrets if it takes down Bush or if it satisfies your politcal leanings

That's a whole lotta bull**** there.

since he/she/they exposed illegal activities by the executive branch, they are entitled to whistleblower protections

ROFL yes, and people like you who support mass infanticide

Im against abortion. Maybe you should learn this. So you can ****ing stop accusing me.

and state socialism are the ones who most resemble the spririt of the founding father's politics. :nonono:

I sponsor socialism? Dear god, do your radical biasing ways ever end? If I support Socialism, then you support empircal tyrany, hands down.

since he/she/they exposed illegal activities by the executive branch, they are entitled to whistleblower protections

Probably not, since they leaked it to the press. Whoever it is, they did break the law, and if they're found, there should be some review by a prosecutor. Extenuating circumstances, of course, should keep any sentence light. They're trying to defend the country. If it's someone who swore an oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and, in this case, domestic, then they were just doing their duty. Kind of a rough spot to be in.

This is your last warning. Take your baiting and derailing to another thread.

I agree. Baiting and derailing are wrong.

Oh. Wait . . .


people like you who support mass infanticide and state socialism


Say what? Baiting and de...what?

Okay ... this it completely off-topic

but I found truthtellers mug-shot and had to share it
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/packageart/mugshots/campbellnewmug1.jpg
alright ... It ain't TT ... its Glen Campbell ... so shoot me :rolleyes:

*resume topical discussion*

WTF are you guys talking about? Give him a medal? For breaking the law? Which is what we're mad that Bush did that this guy revealed?

Ohmigod, I feel like I'm stuck in some sort of weird pick-your-morals zone right now.

Well, Bush is spying on US citizens without consulting the judicial or legislative branches of government. The other branches of government don't seem like they're interested in doing their job with the whole checks and balances thing.
So, yeah, I think this leaker is doing a public service. And I hope there are more "leakers" who expose activities like this.
Once we accept that the US government has a right to do what it wants without any oversight, then our country is no better than any other dictatorship.
George Bush, whatever you want to say about him good or bad, has no problem with making the executive branch all powerful. This is something the founding fathers were expressly against.

I think the person who leaked the information about Bush's abuses of the Constitution is a true patriot and should be given a medal,not a jail cell.

He should be arrested and given 15 years. It doesn't matter what his opinion of the policy was, he swore an oath. He isn't some political figure appointed to fill a political post, he's part of an intelligence agency. In the world of intelligence, security depends on secrecy.

He should be arrested and given 15 years. It doesn't matter what his opinion of the policy was, he swore an oath. He isn't some political figure appointed to fill a political post, he's part of an intelligence agency. In the world of intelligence, security depends on secrecy.

But as part of the federal government, he has an obligation to an authority above and beyond that oath he made to that agency--to the Constitution. Unless that oath actually states that his job is really to protect the ideals laid down in the Constitution, then really he's just carrying out his oath.

But as part of the federal government, he has an obligation to an authority above and beyond that oath he made to that agency--to the Constitution.


Then let him come out and do it openly. Its ridiculous to suggest that its up to him. He's not a Constitutional scholar, and neither are you or I. If he's so dead set against it let him come out and say it, and deal with the consequences if he's wrong.

Leftists felt the same way about the atomic bomb, and gave it to the Soviets. Thats not their job.


Unless that oath actually states that his job is really to protect the ideals laid down in the Constitution, then really he's just carrying out his oath.

Says you.

Then let him come out and do it openly. Its ridiculous to suggest that its up to him. He's not a Constitutional scholar, and neither are you or I. If he's so dead set against it let him come out and say it, and deal with the consequences if he's wrong.

Well, if he does it openly, then that causes all sorts of problems for him, now doesn't it? Frankly, one doesn't have to be a Constitutional scholar to figure out when the Constitution is being violated. It's not that complicated.
Think Watergate with Deep Throat. Protection, security for his person, etc. He can't come out because if it goes deeper, he'll be out of the loop, and he won't know. It is better for him to do it this way. Furthermore, if it's anonymous, then all those fallacious attacks that will sucker most people can and will be avoided. Frankly, calling him a pussy to call him out is stupid.

Leftists felt the same way about the atomic bomb, and gave it to the Soviets. Thats not their job.

What?

Says you.

If the President commits an act that you believe to be contrary to the Constitution, and you swore an oath to uphold the ideals of the Constitution, then that means that the President, and not the Constitution, is to whom that oath actually refers?
That's apparently what you believe, since that's the oppposite of what I stated, and you seem to believe that I am incorrect in my hypothetical.

What does this have to do with anything at all and who the hell is Contra? If you need to ask me some inane, moronic question, PM me. Keep your trash out of the threads. :rolleyes:

I started the topic and I say it is a relevant question.




Will you people call for punishing the person that leaked state secrets?

I say this person should still get a metal for exposing how unethical our president is.






Instead you have exposed your true feelings, your hate for the Bush administration guides you.


As your "love" for the Bush administration guides you.


It is okay to break the law and reveal state secrets if it takes down Bush or if it satisfies your politcal leanings

I like JFK,but I do not like the illegal and unethical wiretaps/spying he did.

I do not like the idea of any president be it liberal or conservative,right or left,Democrat or Republican abusing his power to spy on people only becasue the are poltical dissidents,it's sad that you do [at least as long as you disaprove of the dissidents].




but I found truthtellers mug-shot and had to share it
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/packageart/mugshots/campbellnewmug1.jpg
alright ... It ain't TT ... its Glen Campbell ... so shoot me :rolleyes:

*resume topical discussion*

:rofl: ,let's just say that the original mug shot resembles how I look in the morning and leave it at that.

Well, Bush is spying on US citizens without consulting the judicial or legislative branches of government. The other branches of government don't seem like they're interested in doing their job with the whole checks and balances thing.
So, yeah, I think this leaker is doing a public service. And I hope there are more "leakers" who expose activities like this.
Once we accept that the US government has a right to do what it wants without any oversight, then our country is no better than any other dictatorship.
George Bush, whatever you want to say about him good or bad, has no problem with making the executive branch all powerful. This is something the founding fathers were expressly against.
:nice: ,I couldn't have said it better myself.

He should be arrested and given 15 years. It doesn't matter what his opinion of the policy was, he swore an oath. He isn't some political figure appointed to fill a political post, he's part of an intelligence agency. In the world of intelligence, security depends on secrecy.

And Bush swore an oath not to abuse his power,in my view "the leaker" showed that Bush has violated that oath and that IMHO trumps any laws " the leaker" might have broken.

since he/she/they exposed illegal activities by the executive branch, they are entitled to whistleblower protections

But the activities weren't illegal. It was the act of treason which is illegal.

Well damn, I hope the Pres has Contra's number so that he can call him to the witness stand and prove to the world why its not
illegal.

Damn... What arrogance.

Well, Bush is spying on US citizens without consulting the judicial or legislative branches of government. The other branches of government don't seem like they're interested in doing their job with the whole checks and balances thing.
So, yeah, I think this leaker is doing a public service. And I hope there are more "leakers" who expose activities like this.
Once we accept that the US government has a right to do what it wants without any oversight, then our country is no better than any other dictatorship.
George Bush, whatever you want to say about him good or bad, has no problem with making the executive branch all powerful. This is something the founding fathers were expressly against.


And this guy is taking matters into his own hand and went above the law, just like Bush did? WTF is the difference? He broke the law, and he did so knowingly, and on top of that its a freakin' security issue. The leaker is doing a public service? I probably agree. And I also agree that Bush was doing a public service when he issued the EO. Just because its a public service doesn't mean its good, or the right thing to do.

Would it be a public service if I cut down the tree that happens to block your view of the mountains from your bedrooms? Yeah. What if that tree is in someone else's backyard and they like it, or when I cut it down it falls on someone else's house.

The leaker did what he thought was right. Good for him. But if he's caught, send his ass to jail, that's the chance he took.

But as part of the federal government, he has an obligation to an authority above and beyond that oath he made to that agency--to the Constitution. Unless that oath actually states that his job is really to protect the ideals laid down in the Constitution, then really he's just carrying out his oath.


He also took an oath not to reveal state secrets. How come everyone is defending this guy from a jail term? Yeah, admirable in a patriotic way maybe, but even that's doubtful. I'll bet you 10 to 1 that it was more politically motivated than an actual act of real patriotism.

Well, if he does it openly, then that causes all sorts of problems for him, now doesn't it?


Ah. So the leftist modern view of a 'hero' is someone who takes POT SHOTS in the dark? Reward without RISK is heroism now?

Patriots act in the open. People doing the right thing do it in the light of day. And if they're punished for DOING THE RIGHT THING, that'll be debated in the public arena.

Its fascinating that this fellow feels that THIS ISSUE should be brought to the light of day, but not an intelligence operative who talks to the papers.


Frankly, one doesn't have to be a Constitutional scholar to figure out when the Constitution is being violated.


One doesn't need to be a Constitutional scholar to be a paranoid nut who believes the Constitution is always being violated. :rolleyes:


It's not that complicated. Think Watergate with Deep Throat.


Yes, who we learned was actually a disgruntled federal employee who didn't get the promotion he wanted.

And by the way, his refusal to be open with his leaking caused several careers to remain under a cloud of suspicion for DECADES. He was incredibly selfish and self absorbed.

Also, I don't see any relation between a President spying on his political enemies and an intelligence service listening in on people talking to Al Qaeda members.


What?


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/venona/images/inte_intercept_fuchsgold1.gif

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/venona/images/inte_intercept_fuchsgold2.gif


If the President commits an act that you believe to be contrary to the Constitution, and you swore an oath to uphold the ideals of the Constitution, then that means that the President, and not the Constitution, is to whom that oath actually refers?


The key word is if you believe. It isn't your job. If you FEEL that way, come out publically and deal with the consequences. An intelligence operative is a SERVANT of the state and he doesn't have a veto over its actions!

This is just so absurd. What if a NAZI SYMPATHIZER had served in the OSS and felt that our secret aid to Britain, which was a violation of our neutrality, should be made public?

Would you have thrown him a hero's parade?

Do the righties feel that whoever in the Bush administration outed Valerie Plame is a "traitor"?

Of course not, things that actually damage our national security are good as long as they benefit the BA, anybody who leaks info about the BA breaking the law is THE TRAITOR!!!!!!11!!!

What if Karl Rove is the leaker on this one too??:rofl:

Well damn, I hope the Pres has Contra's number so that he can call him to the witness stand and prove to the world why its not
illegal.

Damn... What arrogance.

Who is Contra? :confused:

Of these actions WERE indeed illegal, YOU must PROVE it in a court of law with evidence and facts. Ever hear of the concept of being innocent until proven guilty? What do you think it doesn't apply to republicans? :rolleyes:

Ever hear of the concept of being innocent until proven guilty?

Who's the one making statements about whether the pres is innocent or guilty?

Ah. So the leftist modern view of a 'hero' is someone who takes POT SHOTS in the dark? Reward without RISK is heroism now?

No, the view is that someone revealed a secret operation that violates the Constitution, that makes him a patriot for serving the constitution.

Patriots act in the open. People doing the right thing do it in the light of day. And if they're punished for DOING THE RIGHT THING, that'll be debated in the public arena.

You haven't been paying attention, laddy. Oh, and not all patriots act in the open. True patriotism is belief that is proved through action. That does not require it to be in the open.

Its fascinating that this fellow feels that THIS ISSUE should be brought to the light of day, but not an intelligence operative who talks to the papers.

Okay, that makes no sense. Who is "this fellow"?

One doesn't need to be a Constitutional scholar to be a paranoid nut who believes the Constitution is always being violated. :rolleyes:

Is that in reference to me? A simple affirmative response or negatory response will suffice.

Yes, who we learned was actually a disgruntled federal employee who didn't get the promotion he wanted.

So did he do the wrong thing?

And by the way, his refusal to be open with his leaking caused several careers to remain under a cloud of suspicion for DECADES. He was incredibly selfish and self absorbed.

Bwhahahaha.

Also, I don't see any relation between a President spying on his political enemies and an intelligence service listening in on people talking to Al Qaeda members.

Well, let's change some words around without actually violating the truth. A president spying on American citizens without a warrant=Nixon.
A president spying on American citizens without a warrant=Bush.
See the parallel?

The key word is if you believe. It isn't your job. If you FEEL that way, come out publically and deal with the consequences. An intelligence operative is a SERVANT of the state and he doesn't have a veto over its actions!

If one is privy to such information, and one has good reason to believe it to be a violation, then one has the obligation to report it. He is a servant of the state, not of the president. He serves this country, not the President. The President serves this country. Both are servants of the state. If either one of them betrays the state, it is the duty of those who know to report that betrayal.

This is just so absurd. What if a NAZI SYMPATHIZER had served in the OSS and felt that our secret aid to Britain, which was a violation of our neutrality, should be made public?

Under what treaty did we state our neutrality? I'm not sure we ever officially committed in that sense to neutrality. And if we did not, then your analogy must be thrown out as irrelevant.

Would you have thrown him a hero's parade?

His motivations were not patriotic to this country. Ergo, irrelevant.


Verona thing is nifty, but got more on it. Codenames don't offer me much interest. I want historical, documented data. I could throw that crap just about anywhere, now couldn't I? Plus it states that the stuff happened in '44. The bomb wasn't completed till '45, right? So wouldn't that mean that in reality, the bomb was not given to the Russians since we didn't even have one at that point in time? Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

And this guy is taking matters into his own hand and went above the law, just like Bush did? WTF is the difference? He broke the law, and he did so knowingly, and on top of that its a freakin' security issue. The leaker is doing a public service? I probably agree. And I also agree that Bush was doing a public service when he issued the EO. Just because its a public service doesn't mean its good, or the right thing to do.

Would it be a public service if I cut down the tree that happens to block your view of the mountains from your bedrooms? Yeah. What if that tree is in someone else's backyard and they like it, or when I cut it down it falls on someone else's house.

The leaker did what he thought was right. Good for him. But if he's caught, send his ass to jail, that's the chance he took.

And if somebody didn't put the public's right to know above the President's desire to trample on the rights of the American people, then it would never stop.
You seem to be drawing conclusions on the basis that violating the will of the executive branch is treason and should be punished. According to the letter of the law, you may be correct.
However, when the checks and balances in the government fail, as they seem to be doing now, then going public with policies that violate Constitutional rights are probably within the spirit of the law.
Additionally, what is "right" and "wrong" does not always match up with what is "legal" and "illegal".

But if a society's idea of right and wrong aren't in line with legal and illegal, what's the point of a legal system? And what's the point of crucifying Bush for breaking the law? What you are proposing is that your idea of right and wrong be ABOVE the laws of the land.

So you're saying that Bush can't act above the laws of the land, iyo, but that this leaker CAN act above those laws, iyo. That's just plain wrong. You, nor I, should have the power to decide who's right or wrong, nor should any single person like Bush. He did wrong, someone revealed what he was doing to be wrong, but the revealing of it was also wrong. All of this has been stated as such by the law. In all reality, what Bush did was much more legal than the leaker. There are provisions that EOs can supercede the laws at certain times, and its been a precedent that has withstood court challenges. But there are NO provisions for leakers breaking the law to the best of my knowledge.

I think you assume that this leaker was doing it for a noble purpose, and that's why you want to defend his actions, that he was exposing Bush for a fraud and all. But that's the EXACT same stance that the cons use when talking about who outed Plame. In both instances, its wrong. No one should have the personal judgment call of which state secrets to reveal for their own purposes, otherwise the system breaks down.

But if a society's idea of right and wrong aren't in line with legal and illegal, what's the point of a legal system? And what's the point of crucifying Bush for breaking the law? What you are proposing is that your idea of right and wrong be ABOVE the laws of the land.

Let's put it this way. A violation of the law is being committed. To let it be known, another violation must be made. Is it warranted to commit this second act? It is, so long as the violation that it is bringing to light is bad enough to warrant it. What is being done is morally wrong and illegal. Bringing it to light might be a violation of national security, but national security does not take precedence over the Constitution, which is what was being violated.

So you're saying that Bush can't act above the laws of the land, iyo, but that this leaker CAN act above those laws, iyo. That's just plain wrong. You, nor I, should have the power to decide who's right or wrong, nor should any single person like Bush. He did wrong, someone revealed what he was doing to be wrong, but the revealing of it was also wrong. All of this has been stated as such by the law. In all reality, what Bush did was much more legal than the leaker. There are provisions that EOs can supercede the laws at certain times, and its been a precedent that has withstood court challenges. But there are NO provisions for leakers breaking the law to the best of my knowledge.

The President's powers do not include suspending any part of the Constitution. What Bush did was much worse.

I think you assume that this leaker was doing it for a noble purpose, and that's why you want to defend his actions, that he was exposing Bush for a fraud and all. But that's the EXACT same stance that the cons use when talking about who outed Plame. In both instances, its wrong. No one should have the personal judgment call of which state secrets to reveal for their own purposes, otherwise the system breaks down.

So you're saying you'd rather live in a state where the government can hide from the people that it is supposed to be serving (after all, it's a government by the people for the people, not the other way around) the truth about activities that violate the constitution of that country?

But if a society's idea of right and wrong aren't in line with legal and illegal, what's the point of a legal system? And what's the point of crucifying Bush for breaking the law? What you are proposing is that your idea of right and wrong be ABOVE the laws of the land.

So you're saying that Bush can't act above the laws of the land, iyo, but that this leaker CAN act above those laws, iyo. That's just plain wrong. You, nor I, should have the power to decide who's right or wrong, nor should any single person like Bush. He did wrong, someone revealed what he was doing to be wrong, but the revealing of it was also wrong. All of this has been stated as such by the law. In all reality, what Bush did was much more legal than the leaker. There are provisions that EOs can supercede the laws at certain times, and its been a precedent that has withstood court challenges. But there are NO provisions for leakers breaking the law to the best of my knowledge.

I think you assume that this leaker was doing it for a noble purpose, and that's why you want to defend his actions, that he was exposing Bush for a fraud and all. But that's the EXACT same stance that the cons use when talking about who outed Plame. In both instances, its wrong. No one should have the personal judgment call of which state secrets to reveal for their own purposes, otherwise the system breaks down.


What law did this person break? Since when did the reporting of a crime become a crime itself?

No, I'm saying I want to live in a state where the government cannot break the law, nor any member of that government, without facing punishment.

This is not something I'm flexible on. This man, who knows what his motivations were? Once again, I think too many people on the left think he was acting out of some noble cause, in the exact same manner that those people on the right try to justify the outing of Plame as somehow defendable. That act, and this, are both against the written laws of the land.

Would I admire this man if he came forth and said, "It was me. I leaked the information because I thought the situation was wrong." and by thus saying so end whatever political career he had left in him? Yes, I would admire him, and then I would believe that he acted with a good conscious for the American people. But even then I would expect him to be punished, and I would expect him to take that punishment like the patriot he is.

Right now he looks like some sniveling little Democratic bereaucrat who had a bone to pick with the Bush Admin, and knew that this would send them into a tailspin, and who is now sweating it out hoping he doesn't get caught.

And since when has reporting state secrets to the New York Times not been a crime? This leaker didn't go forth to the media and say, "Hey, Bush is doing something non-constitutional, check it out." He said "Hey, I have this, this, and this piece of classified information about national security that I will give to you in a clear violation of the law."

And since when has reporting state secrets to the New York Times not been a crime? This leaker didn't go forth to the media and say, "Hey, Bush is doing something non-constitutional, check it out." He said "Hey, I have this, this, and this piece of classified information about national security that I will give to you in a clear violation of the law."


Which law was broken? How was this a state secret?President decides to break law and wipe rear with Constitution, somebody lets the hat out of the bag, what law protects lawbreaking? So far all I've seen is media hype, tough talk from the Bush administration now that they suddenly dislike leakers, but nothing concrete.

What kind of free Democratic country are we when a power mad executive can trample all over our rights illegally and all people are concerned with is whether or not the person who exposed this un-Democratic activity is a traitor who should be punished?

What if Bush was planning on secretly committing genocide, would a person who leaked this info to the press be a "lawbreaker"? Not in my books.

Attempts by neo-conservatives to equate this with what they did to Valerie
Plame are downright idiotic as they are nothing alike except for they are both cases of Bush's administration breaking the law in their rabid pursuit of dictatorial powers. That's what everybody should be concerned with, this is the USA, not China or the Soviet Union, there's damned good reasons the executicve branch isn't supposed to have un-checked powers.

Why is there such a distinction between Plame's outing and this? Both were matters of national security, and neither should have happened the way that they happened.

To argue about the moral correctness of the leak is one thing, to argue that it wasn't illegal is a total other thing. Don't make me point out the obvious to you about how the law was broken.

Rice, let's make this simple for you. Matters of national security still must fall within the legal limitations of the Constitution. Once they go beyond the limitations of the law, especially the Constitution, they have become illegal, and those with the knowledge of them have a duty and an obligation to make known these criminal activities. In short, as soon as the President initiated a program that violates the Constitution, it no longer was protected as a matter of national security.

Outing Plame was a direct hit on our NS, we might never know how many overseas fronts got exposed and/or people killed because of it.

Leaking her name was obviously wrong and treasonous.

Bush going around the courts to spy on people is pointless, he could have done so legally if he had chosen to, which is why many people think they might have been spying on people that have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism, and everything to do with opposing Bush. They might have even spied on the Kerry campaign for all we know.

I don't think any terrorists are stupid enough to not know that our government would try to spy on them so I don't see how this could have NS implications, it's really bad to misunderestimate them. Everybody already knows governments and their spy agencies spy, so when the president breaks the law and starts spying on millions of Americans, how does us finding out about this hurt NS?

What hurts us is giving up our liberties for security.

And revealing the program might not cause harm to our nation? Of course no terrorist is dumb enough to believe that we're not spying on them, but revealing details of a spying program is still not something to cause all of us to jump for joy.

CA, Swift, I totally agree with you guys that there's a certain limit when it comes to trading liberties for security. I 100% agree with you guys that the spying program was on the very edge of legality, and legal or not should not have been instituted, and if it was definitely not for as long as it was in place.

But to deny that this has NS implications is silly. Were any government employee legally allowed to go to the NEW YORK TIMES and report whatever they felt was a violation of the constitution we wouldn't have a problem on our hands?

btw, this thread reminds me of why I liked the PD forums back in the days

Rice: Something you must consider is that Whistleblowing is always case specific. No two illegal activities are the exact same, and in some cases it is best if slightly illegal activities go un-announced if the scenario suites it. However, outting Plame served no ones interests except the BA's. Its blatent obvious that it was an attempt at a smear campaign to ruin the image of someone opposing Bush. This is a polar opposite from exposing an entire government system that would allow the president to illegaly monitor any given US citizen without that citizens knowledge. Whistleblowing is not something that I feel can be consistent with everyones morals and laws. The spying issue is one where I might near understand republican and conservatives saying that it was a terrible thing, because lets face it--they'v been living in absolute terror since the day after Sept. 11, as many of us were (but most got over). This is honestly not an attack on conservatives--its an appeal to the logic used by both sides. Liberals in general have gotten over their fears, and have become far more concerned with our civil liberties. Conservatives are still very concerned with terrorism, and are willing to risk our civil liberties to combat it.

Its bassicaly a matter of perspective and where you put your inidivdual views, when it comes to whistle blowing.

Swift, you're missing the point of what I'm saying.

Whistleblower or not, good deed or not, this person TOOK THE LAW INTO THEIR OWN HANDS. Are we to simply let him go unpunished for that?

Whistleblower or not, good deed or not, this person TOOK THE LAW INTO THEIR OWN HANDS. Are we to simply let him go unpunished for that?

You arent violating the law when you are reporting a massive violation of the law. Its whistle blowing, and our country is built on the principle of it.

Sure, fine. You're not listening to what I'm saying. There's a principle behind it that you're ignoring here. This one man singlehandedly went to a non-governmental institution to report the secret program of which he had knowledge of because of his security clearance, a part of which states that he will not do such things.

You arent violating the law when you are reporting a massive violation of the law

What pisses me off is that if Libby or Rove were to be convicted for a leak they'd almost certainly be pardoned, but if this leaker is convicted he'll probably rot for years in prison.

Why is there such a distinction between Plame's outing and this? Both were matters of national security, and neither should have happened the way that they happened.

To argue about the moral correctness of the leak is one thing, to argue that it wasn't illegal is a total other thing. Don't make me point out the obvious to you about how the law was broken.

There are many distinctions between the Plame outing and the NSA leak.

The most germane being the fact that, unlike the data-mining of US citizens private phone calls, Plames' CIA employment was not illegal or unconstitutional

...sigh

I know all of that. On a real world level I'm not comparing the two acts in a moral sense. You know that I didn't support the outing of Plame or accepted any of the dumb excuses that were made for the Bush Admin people involved. And I am very aware that the NSA program is on the very edges of the legal boundaries.

But the leaker broke the LAW, dammit. Why can't other people see that?

Sure, fine. You're not listening to what I'm saying. There's a principle behind it that you're ignoring here. This one man singlehandedly went to a non-governmental institution to report the secret program of which he had knowledge of because of his security clearance, a part of which states that he will not do such things.

And there's a part of what we're saying that you're not listening. Nothing in the government can hold itself higher than the Consitution. That part of that clearance does not mean that he is obligated to look the other way as the Constitution is being violated. Such a clause would have to have some sort of basis in the Constitution. Considering there is none, the Constitution trumps it.

No, I've heard your argument, but your argument has nothing to do with him getting a jailterm. Where's the line in the constitution that says "If you think someone did something illegal, you can go report it to the media without fear of jailtime."

That's all I'm saying, he deserves jailtime.

If the leaker had a security clearance then he/she did, yes ... I thought you were asking why there was a distinction

No, I've heard your argument, but your argument has nothing to do with him getting a jailterm. Where's the line in the constitution that says "If you think someone did something illegal, you can go report it to the media without fear of jailtime."

That's all I'm saying, he deserves jailtime.

Well, that would be found in the First Amendment, actually.

That's all I'm saying, he deserves jailtime.

*shrug* I wouldnt be for this, because the last thing we need is people afraid to report corruption and constitutional abuse in the government. Sending him to jail would only make it easier for Politicans to abuse there already abused powers. We need hundreds more people like this guy, and if anything he'll only go to jail for threatening the structure of power as it stands.

Rice, I believe FL already said this but I'd like to try and reword it so maybe its more understandable: All of our laws are based on the constitution. To hold any merit, they must breath life from the constitution. If there is a law, requiring you to be secret about people not following the constitution, the laws of the constitution trump it. Know Euchre? Or what a Bauer is? Think of the Constitution as the Right Bauer. All other laws are the left.

Rice, I believe FL already said this but I'd like to try and reword it so maybe its more understandable: All of our laws are based on the constitution. To hold any merit, they must breath life from the constitution. If there is a law, requiring you to be secret about people not following the constitution, the laws of the constitution trump it. Know Euchre? Or what a Bauer is? Think of the Constitution as the Right Bauer. All other laws are the left.

Actually, I don't know what either of those things mean. Further explanation?

OK, let me state my position again one more time. Completely disregarding his motives for being a whistleblower (which MUST be held suspect), and the method of his whistleblowing (going to the media without revealing his name or position or otherwise publicly making a stand), the fact that he is a whistleblower and outed a program that conflicts with the constitution must be applauded. He saw something that wasn't right, that wasn't constitutional, and spoke out against it, that takes a certain kind of courage and I am thankful that there are people like that still in this world, those who will speak up against things that they feel are wrong.

But on the flipside, this is more than likely motivated by politics, he went to a newspaper that, let's face it, is more than a little liberal and is quick to speak out against Bush, never came forth to the American public openly about it, and so forth. He also violated the laws of the land to do so, and did so knowing that he was violating those laws.

If the leaker had a security clearance then he/she did, yes ... I thought you were asking why there was a distinction

Distinction between what? I'm not sure if I was asking a question. But we went through this ad naseum during the Plame incident. This man had a security clearance, we can all be pretty sure. And he obviously breached that security clearance. What would happen to national security if no one was ever punished for violating that clearance? What if there was some whacko out there who thought outing Plame was the "right" thing to do? Just because he thought it was the right thing, he should go unpunished? This is NOT an issue of morals in my mind, this is an issue of him breaking the law.

Well, that would be found in the First Amendment, actually.

OK, I'm no constitutional scholar, but this is what I'm getting at. A soldier who is giving an immoral order can refuse to obey that order, right? But he will face the consequences of that action in a court martial, where he will be given the chance to defend his reasons for why he disobeyed the order. And in the same way, the leaker has gone a huge step beyond not accepting the order, since he obviously was aware of the program and didn't resign his position because of it and come forth, but intentionally gave secret information to a media outlet which he was well aware would make that information public. So he should be brought to justice to answer for his actions.



We can't give this guy a free pass on violating our national security because we agree with him.

Actually, I don't know what either of those things mean. Further explanation?

Thought you were a card shark dude. :)

A Bauer is a card that trumps all other cards (trump meaning wins the trick-meaning gets the points). The right bauer is the most powerful card, and takes all other cards and tricks. The left bauer is the next most powerful, and takes all other tricks. The Bauer in most games is the jack, the left bauer is the jack of the same color as the suite thats called trump.

The constitution is the right bauer, all laws that stem from it the left.

That's an interesting analogy. And I don't play pinnocle or whatever game those rules apply to, hahaha.

But, let's say I completely accept that premises (I'll have to think about it but it sounds about right), there is still the matter of fact that you're allowing the power to decide what is constitutional and what is not in the hands of one man. Let me amend what I said previously to this; if we find the leaker, he should be tried in court. If found guilty, he should be sentenced to the proper punishment prescribed by the law, if found innocent then yay! But to simply give him a "get out of jail free" card becaus what you think he did was morally correct is a no-no.

On the flip side of the coin, its like saying that Bush enacted the program to preserve the constitution, because he thought that was the only way. I'm sure if you asked him, he would probably answer in some similar fashion. But in this democracy, one man's will should not be held up beyond public accounting.

OK, I'm no constitutional scholar, but this is what I'm getting at. A soldier who is giving an immoral order can refuse to obey that order, right? But he will face the consequences of that action in a court martial, where he will be given the chance to defend his reasons for why he disobeyed the order. And in the same way, the leaker has gone a huge step beyond not accepting the order, since he obviously was aware of the program and didn't resign his position because of it and come forth, but intentionally gave secret information to a media outlet which he was well aware would make that information public. So he should be brought to justice to answer for his actions.



We can't give this guy a free pass on violating our national security because we agree with him.

The protection for whistleblowers within the media is that if there can be no guarantee of security for those who report in the newspaper, then the government can and will be able to punish those who appear in it if they can force a reporter to give up his or her sources. That means that the government would, in essence, control the media, which violates the purpose of that clause of that Amendment.

hmm, that's an interesting angle I'll have to think about

so you're saying that this is a first-amendment issue because he went to the media?

hmmmmmmmm

No, just that his privacy is to be protected.

You arent violating the law when you are reporting a massive violation of the law. Its whistle blowing, and our country is built on the principle of it.

I haven't seen solid evidence of a "massive" or any other violation of the law yet. So if there isn't one, what then? Is the "leaker" still a hero or should he be punished?

I haven't seen solid evidence of a "massive" or any other violation of the law yet. So if there isn't one, what then? Is the "leaker" still a hero or should he be punished?

The American public has the right to know when the government is spying on it. I dont give a **** if the 410 most powerful people in the country dont believe the other hundreds of millions need to know: We do. We are not a dictatorship, we are not ruled by the govt--we rule the govt. That is the point. Having the Govt. keep us in check voids the entire point of power of the people over Government.

But a government in today's modern world cannot operate without some level of secrecy in some matters, you agree with that, right?

I don't think his the wb's privacy should be protected. But then again, I'm having some issues with the entire idea of confidential sources for the media right now, started a thread about it in big debates.

I disagree that our government can only work properly if secrecy is maintained.
Take 9/11 for instance. There was plenty of information pointing to the fact that an attack would happen. All of that information was in the hands of the federal government, and none of them were able to put two and two together. In that instance, making the intelligence public might have been more useful than keeping it in the hands of a few government officials.
Also, historically, most Presidents use secrecy as a veil to hide their misdeeds. Nixon and Watergate come to mind, Reagan and Iran-Contra, Clinton and Lewinsky, and with Bush we get torture, spying, and financial corruption at various levels.
The people who claim the government requires this level of secrecy are the same people who write the laws making it illegal to violate the concept.
So, on a practical level I think it is necessary in certain situations to determine if the letter of the law is more important than the government being accountable to the people it represents.
In the USA, at least, our government is supposed to be accountable to the people, because we live in an open society, a democratic society. Once the government can control the flow of information without any fear of reprisal, then the qualities which have formed our society will cease to exist.
Furthermore, whether or not the "leaker" is found and punished, the damage is done. It is quite obvious that probably more than one person in the Bush administration has severe moral and/or legal issues with the choices being made.

And we should also make the codes for arming nuclear warheads public? What about the Presidential security detail, there's no need for secrecy there. Or troop movements in both times of war and peace. And all Congressional meetings should be held openly too, right?

There are some things that are understandably private. But keeping private an illegal program is not one of them.

Yes! But who decides what is legal or illegal! That power should not be vested in one man, no matter who he is. What you're saying is that anyone who feels that he is witness to a secret, illegal action can step forward to reveal that action. I cannot support that.

[QUOTE=ResidentRice]Yes! But who decides what is legal or illegal! That power should not be vested in one man, no matter who he is./QUOTE]

Who decides what is legal? The constitution. If it goes against the constitution, no matter how needed it is--It has no right to be in this country. And your second point is exactly why what this man did was a very patriotic thing, as it was exactly what Bush was doing.

It would have been patriotic if he had stepped forward publicly and said "I believe this program is wrong. I am resigning my position, and violating my security clearance because I feel that it is unconstitutional." But instead, what he did was to stay hidden and run to the media to report this incident.

And once again, what right does he have to interpret the constitution himself and pass such a huge judgment? I am still of the mindset that, while what he did might not cause direct harm to the nation, sets a very bad precedent. In that way I think its very similar to the Plame leak. Most likely neither of these leaks will cause direct damage, but the message that they send is not good for the nation.

It would have been patriotic if he had stepped forward publicly and said "I believe this program is wrong. I am resigning my position, and violating my security clearance because I feel that it is unconstitutional." But instead, what he did was to stay hidden and run to the media to report this incident.

And once again, what right does he have to interpret the constitution himself and pass such a huge judgment? I am still of the mindset that, while what he did might not cause direct harm to the nation, sets a very bad precedent. In that way I think its very similar to the Plame leak. Most likely neither of these leaks will cause direct damage, but the message that they send is not good for the nation.

When you're in a position of such power (such as a security clearance of that level), one should be expected to have an idea of the limitations of one's ability to do things before they violate the Constitution. After all, they could go too far much too easily, so it'd be obvious.

Rice, it looks like you might have no more reason to complain: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060104-114052-6606r.htm
The whistleblower has gone public and wants to testify it looks like.

i think its a mistake to hail this guy as a whistleblower. whistleblower protection should apply when you tell the proper people in the proper channels. you can't just run to the press with national secrets. that's against the law and should be punishable.

How come the Justice Dept didn't investigate who the leaker was 2-3 yrs ago when the NYT first got a hold of this?

i think its a mistake to hail this guy as a whistleblower. whistleblower protection should apply when you tell the proper people in the proper channels. you can't just run to the press with national secrets. that's against the law and should be punishable.

I disagree with you.
Our government is all run by one political party now, in all three branches. Just who is a whistleblower supposed to contact with a dissenting opinion? Particularly when that opinion includes evidence that the government is violating the Constitution?
Also, in the article I read, the whistleblower basically state that he said as little as he could to make the problem known. He didn't start telling all the national security secrets he knew. All he basically did was tell the public that the government was spying on US citizens and he and other people weren't convinced this was legal.
If it is really illegal for somebody to publically reveal that a branch of the government is breaking the law, then you might as well crown George as King and get ready for a monarchy/dictatorship. In a democracy, public accountability has to be present, even if the public wants it and the government doesn't.

Rice, it looks like you might have no more reason to complain: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060104-114052-6606r.htm
The whistleblower has gone public and wants to testify it looks like.

Well, thats that then. No worries Rice--Republicans will happily throw this guy in jail and resume their surveliance.

Patriots act in the open. People doing the right thing do it in the light of day. And if they're punished for DOING THE RIGHT THING, that'll be debated in the public arena.


I guess he does fit yuor defintion of patriot after all,eh?



Yes, who we learned was actually a disgruntled federal employee who didn't get the promotion he wanted.


And what he said was the truth,and losing a promotion he earned is[in the real world at least] as noble a motivation as any.






This man, who knows what his motivations were?


Who cares?

The bottom line is still the bottom line.





Swift, you're missing the point of what I'm saying.

Whistleblower or not, good deed or not, this person TOOK THE LAW INTO THEIR OWN HANDS. Are we to simply let him go unpunished for that?

If you punish whistleblowers for coming forward,then major wrongs won't be righted.

Why can't you see that?

This is nor a perfect world,trade offs are sometimes involved.

I'll trade letting a whistleblower go instead of having a president get away with abusing his authority ,all of you people who trust authority blindly scare the chit out of me.


i think its a mistake to hail this guy as a whistleblower. whistleblower protection should apply when you tell the proper people in the proper channels. you can't just run to the press with national secrets. that's against the law and should be punishable.

What specific law did this person alledgedly break?

It seems to me he made sure what little he told the Times was indeed legal.

Alberto Gonzales was White House Counsel and was attempting to get then Atty. General Ashcroft to sign off on this wiretapping while Ashcroft was in the hospital.

So how can Gonzales be considered a disinterested party and conduct an impartial investigation? No, can’t be done.

This is nor a perfect world,trade offs are sometimes involved.

Ohhh, so now you're not willing to stick completely on one side of the issue. This sounds suspiciously like something that Bush would say to justify the program, and he'd be right. So who decides the trade-off? You?

I'll trade letting a whistleblower go instead of having a president get away with abusing his authority ,all of you people who trust authority blindly scare the chit out of me.

Low blow. You don't really think I'm blindly following authority, do you actually? That's ridiculous if you think that my line of reasoning in any way stems from or leads to blind trust in authority.

What specific law did this person alledgedly break?

Ever heard of a security clearance? Don't ask banal questions like that, man.

Rice, it looks like you might have no more reason to complain: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060104-114052-6606r.htm
The whistleblower has gone public and wants to testify it looks like.

Interesting, you're right, this does pretty much take away a lot of my reasons to complain. But not fully, hmm. Do you have any more information on that Whistleblower's Protection Act they mentioned in that article, I had no idea something like that existed. I will say this; if that act protects wb's who went straight to the media to report their misgivings, I really have not much more to say, because the matter of legality would have been settled, and all that would be left to do is to settle it in a court of law.

Swift, some things should transcend dem/rep even in today's climate of Washington. And I will say this, if I were in Congress I'd be there as a democrat, and I would scream bloody murder if he didn't go to trial.

Russell Trice stated that the whistleblower protection doesn't apply to intelligence officials. His interview is on Democracy Now!'s website.

Isn't it titled the Intelligence Community Whistleblower's Protection Act?

Isn't it titled the Intelligence Community Whistleblower's Protection Act?

Resident, here's the context in which he said that:


AMY GOODMAN: That was Sibel Edmonds. Russell Tice, you are a member of her group, the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition.

RUSSELL TICE: That, I am. National Security Whistleblower Coalition is basically put together of people who are in sort of the same boat that I am in, that have brought whistleblower concerns to the public or to their perspective chain of supervisors and have been retaliated against. And the intelligence community, all of the whistleblower protection laws are -- pretty much exempt the intelligence community. So the intelligence community can put forth their lip service about, ‘Oh, yeah, we want you to put report waste fraud abuse,’ or ‘You shall report suspicions of espionage,’ but when they retaliate you for doing so, you pretty much have no recourse. I think a lot of people don't realize that.
And Sibel has basically started this organization to bring these sort of concerns out into the public and ultimately to get Congress to start passing some laws to protect folks that are going to be in a position to let the public or just, you know, to let Congress know that crimes are being committed. And that's what we're talking about. We're talking about a crime here. So, you know, all of this running around and looking for someone who dropped the dime on a crime is a whole lot different than something like the Valerie Plame case.

AMY GOODMAN: What do you think of the Justice Department launching an investigation into the leak, who leaked the fact that President Bush was spying on American citizens?

RUSSELL TICE: Well, I think this is an attempt to make sure that no intelligence officer ever considers doing this. What was done to me was basically an attempt to tell other intelligence officers, ‘Hey, if you do something like this, if you do something to tick us off, we're going to take your job from you, we're gonna do some unpleasant things to you.’
So, right now, the atmosphere at N.S.A. and D.I.A., for that matter, is fear.

The security services basically rule over the employees with fear, and people are afraid to come forward. People know if they come forward even in the legal means, like coming to Congress with a concern, your career is over. And that's just the best scenario. There’s all sorts of other unfortunate things like, perhaps, if someone gets thrown in jail for either a witch-hunt or something trumping up charges or, you know, this guy who is basically reporting a crime.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/03/1435201

Ever heard of a security clearance? Don't ask banal questions like that, man.

It's not banal,you made the charge ,I asked you to back it up and you couldn't.

As PeoplesChamp pointed out,this might be legal,you are convicting him before he's even gone to trial,before there's even been a charge made.

No, what you're doing is declaring him innocent before he ever goes to trial. I clearly amended what I meant to say towards the beginning of the thread to say that I think he should go to trial, from my original position of he should go to jail, which I admitted was wrong.

Every NSA official who would have knowledge of this program would have a security clearance, and I can guarantee you that that clearance states that such information cannot be divulged publicly.

Well,I'm saying you don't know what the fine print is in every law.

What was done to me was basically an attempt to tell other intelligence officers, ‘Hey, if you do something like this, if you do something to tick us off, we're going to take your job from you, we're gonna do some unpleasant things to you.’
So, right now, the atmosphere at N.S.A. and D.I.A., for that matter, is fear.


Actually caught his interview on Hardball, I definitely think more of him after seeing that piece, he spoke very well on his position. My fears that this was a politically motivated thing ebbed definitely, but are still there.

The part I highlighted is my point exactly. That's EXACTLY why we should prosecute this guy. Would you rather the environment in the NSA, CIA, DIA, and others is "Hey, I can tell the media whatever I want about secret programs and I can get away with it, hell, they won't even start an investigation!" Now, I know its not very likely to happen, but I just think that would be a very dangerous attitude to have in those agencies, one of a feeling that they can be the end-all interpreters of the constitution on their own. Of course, on the flip side, I'm not denying the danger of having illegal programs going unannounced, but its pretty clear to me that, on a legal standing, Bush has a point.

I do feel that this guy does need protection legally, but I also feel like he blew any sympathy he'll get from me by going to the NYT and the WashPost with this stuff.

Well,I'm saying you don't know what the fine print is in every law.

Oh, no doubt. I'm not claiming to be a lawyer, but I think its quite safe to assume that it was very clearly written in his security clearance that, under no circumstances could he waltz up the the Times and hand out state secrets. We need to get java back in here, he knows more about this clearance stuff than all of us combined.

Isn't the real issue that there was no clear path the whistleblower could take?
There is nothing protecting whistelblowers in the intelligence community. His superiors didn't want to hear about it. He can't tell Congress about it directly. Just what is he supposed to do?
I can understand the argument that he shouldn't break the law to let us know a law has been broken. But, it's not a perfect world we live in.
Instead, it seems like there are two major opinions one can hold on this.
One viewpoint is that the rule of law is supreme, and even if the people enforcing the laws violate the Consitution of the United States, it is unacceptable to break other existing laws to make this known.
The other is that the Constitution supercedes all other laws, and if it is violated then any other laws in effect are not as important in this context.
In my mind, blatant violations of the Constitution are among the most serious legal offenses that could be committed within the government. Any other laws on the books are less important than what's in the Consitution.