|
Post by deadwoodgultch on May 25, 2017 13:40:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on May 25, 2017 14:07:42 GMT
Yes Tom, that has made the head lines over here, the CIA and the FBI were not responsible, but some law enforcement branch did the leak and the NYT said that they were fully in the right to publish it.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 25, 2017 15:15:14 GMT
Another slippery slope.
I am not sure the leak of this man's name, was the same as the other apparent leaks we have dealt with here in the last few weeks, or indeed the leaks to the press that have been occurring since the time of George Washington. It has been said that the best source of intelligence Lee had during the entire ACW were the northern newspapers. I suspect there is some good bit of truth to that.
In this present case, we do not know who leaked that name. We do not know if it was deliberate. It may have been by accident. It may have been on purpose, It may have just been a f**k up. In either of these four cases it should be investigated, and the person responsible held responsible.
In the same measure, who is going to hold who responsible for telling the President of the Philippines the patrol locations of two U S Navy attack submarines. That is about as classified as in gets in U S military circles. The fact that the President of the Philippines was told and where, is contained in the phonecon transcripts that have been publicly released in the Philippines. The person who told the Philippine president this information was Donald J. Trump, and the context of the telling is also given in those transcripts. This information has been not widely circulated considering the other events of these past few days, and it is true that the President of the United States is the final classification or declassification authority in these matters. Won't even argue that point. What I will argue is judgment, which is essentially the same argument Tom makes on the name leak matter.
Teresa May has every right to grab Donald Trump by the stacking swivel, and squeeze his balls on this, for this leak did place that investigation in jeopardy. In the same manner Tom and I, and the rest of the three hundred thirty million people here have the right to grab that same Donald Trump by the stacking swivel and squeeze his ball about the two leaks of highly classified information that have occurred in the past two weeks that we know about, not for his authority to do it, but for his judgment in doing it
Now for those of you that might say Trump himself did not leak the identity of this man, that is true. What is also true is that regardless of who leaked it, Trump is responsible. He is President of the United States. He bears the ultimate responsibility. He is commander in Chief. He is the Chief Magistrate. He holds executive authority.
##############################################################################
Now to a wider matter, leaks in general.
A free press is essential to a democracy and a free society. First Amendment applies.
Leaking of information to a free press is also essential if there is to be a free press. I think we can all assume that none of this leaking is done for personal profit. Therefore the motivation must be on a higher plain and that includes both the pure of heart, and the misguided malcontent.
Don't talk to me about leaks to the press, unless you are also prepared to talk about and attempt to justify the leaking of the name of a CIA officer to the press by the administration some years ago for purely political purposes.
Don't talk to me about leaks to the press, unless you are also prepared to talk about and attempt to not justify the leaking of the fact that the President of the United States conspired with 47 other people in his administration to cover up and obstruct justice in a matter regarding a third rate break and enter.
What you can talk to me about is the responsibility of the press in knowing all the plans for D Day and holding the story until the invasion was underway.
A FREE PRESS IS THE CORNERSTONE OF A FREE SOCIETY - Never blame the press when they only report on the misdeeds of others. Nowhere in this did I say you have to like the press. What I said is you cannot live as a free man without them, so you might as well get used to it.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on May 25, 2017 19:46:37 GMT
A free press is vital but in some ways it can be used by the few to basically make money, just read about the phone hacking by the mirror group over here in Britain. linkWhat they did was disgraceful. Another thing which I also find disgraceful, is the way that these glossy magazines follow celebrities around the way to catch a photo of them picking their nose or getting drunk in a night club. What we must try and figure out here is that, are they doing this to tell the public important news or just trying to make money.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 25, 2017 20:20:48 GMT
Don't buy them or read them. Speak out about them. Label them for what they are.
You have the power over them. They have no power over you.
You provide the profit in what they do. If you don't provide that profit, they cannot do what they do.
The power of the purse is the Sword of Damocles held above the head of the press.
|
|
|
Post by BrevetorCoffin on May 25, 2017 20:44:12 GMT
Another slippery slope. I am not sure the leak of this man's name, was the same as the other apparent leaks we have dealt with here in the last few weeks, or indeed the leaks to the press that have been occurring since the time of George Washington. It has been said that the best source of intelligence Lee had during the entire ACW were the northern newspapers. I suspect there is some good bit of truth to that. In this present case, we do not know who leaked that name. We do not know if it was deliberate. It may have been by accident. It may have been on purpose, It may have just been a f**k up. In either of these four cases it should be investigated, and the person responsible held responsible. In the same measure, who is going to hold who responsible for telling the President of the Philippines the patrol locations of two U S Navy attack submarines. That is about as classified as in gets in U S military circles. The fact that the President of the Philippines was told and where, is contained in the phonecon transcripts that have been publicly released in the Philippines. The person who told the Philippine president this information was Donald J. Trump, and the context of the telling is also given in those transcripts. This information has been not widely circulated considering the other events of these past few days, and it is true that the President of the United States is the final classification or declassification authority in these matters. Won't even argue that point. What I will argue is judgment, which is essentially the same argument Tom makes on the name leak matter. Teresa May has every right to grab Donald Trump by the stacking swivel, and squeeze his balls on this, for this leak did place that investigation in jeopardy. In the same manner Tom and I, and the rest of the three hundred thirty million people here have the right to grab that same Donald Trump by the stacking swivel and squeeze his ball about the two leaks of highly classified information that have occurred in the past two weeks that we know about, not for his authority to do it, but for his judgment in doing it Now for those of you that might say Trump himself did not leak the identity of this man, that is true. What is also true is that regardless of who leaked it, Trump is responsible. He is President of the United States. He bears the ultimate responsibility. He is commander in Chief. He is the Chief Magistrate. He holds executive authority. ############################################################################## Now to a wider matter, leaks in general. A free press is essential to a democracy and a free society. First Amendment applies. Leaking of information to a free press is also essential if there is to be a free press. I think we can all assume that none of this leaking is done for personal profit. Therefore the motivation must be on a higher plain and that includes both the pure of heart, and the misguided malcontent. Don't talk to me about leaks to the press, unless you are also prepared to talk about and attempt to justify the leaking of the name of a CIA officer to the press by the administration some years ago for purely political purposes. Don't talk to me about leaks to the press, unless you are also prepared to talk about and attempt to not justify the leaking of the fact that the President of the United States conspired with 47 other people in his administration to cover up and obstruct justice in a matter regarding a third rate break and enter. What you can talk to me about is the responsibility of the press in knowing all the plans for D Day and holding the story until the invasion was underway. A FREE PRESS IS THE CORNERSTONE OF A FREE SOCIETY - Never blame the press when they only report on the misdeeds of others. Nowhere in this did I say you have to like the press. What I said is you cannot live as a free man without them, so you might as well get used to it. Don't recall the buffoon's name but there was a government official during WWII who decided to show off how "in the know" he was by blabbing that US submarines would dive below Japanese standardized depth charge attack depths. Treasonous! Needless to say the Japanese got wind of the information and it was estimated that 8 submarines were lost due to this incident. Nothing was ever done in the way of punishment albeit I believe FDR gave hom an earful. Also reminds me of Saddam Hussein keeping tabs on coalition movements during first Iraqi conflict by watching CNN. Will also never forget media members demanding to knowehen the ground war would start. I do not think Gen. Schwartzkopf threw them any bones. Best, David
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 25, 2017 21:04:37 GMT
Hell, there was one worse than that. Stanley Johnson a reporter for the Chicago Tribune, a very anti-Roosevelt, pro Republican paper at the time, discovered that we had broken to Japanese codes. Supposedly it was from his room mate the XO of Lexington during the Coral Sea battle. Somehow I do not believe that officer told Johnson. He would have had no need to know, what was very close hold information. Regardless the officer's career was in ruins.
Evidently the Japanese never read the Tribune or Johnson's book "Queen of the Flat Tops" which I have a copy of and it does contain information enough to deduce the fact that the codes were broken. There was no indication that the Japanese ever gained this knowledge.
The thing we need to know here, the take away, is that reporters serving the free press of a free people, must be responsible for their actions. Are there irresponsible reporters? You bet your sweet ass, Rivera comes immediately to mind, and he should have been taken out and shot forty years ago. Then there are reporters like Woodward and Bernstein and editors like Ben Bradley, who seek the truth and publish it so men may stay free.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on May 25, 2017 21:23:52 GMT
I wonder how many times 'leaks' have intentionally been made to give the other side misinformation.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 25, 2017 21:57:04 GMT
I would bet next month's retirement check that the vast majority of these current leaks, come directly from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and fall into four categories.
1) Those directly opposed to the president on a conduct of policy basis.
2) Those who realize that we have chosen to elect a completely politically incompetent man child to the highest office in the land, and want him out, even though they are of the same party.
3) Those that are leaking for the express purpose of covering their hind parts to try and avoid future prosecution.
4) Those who have a much larger agenda at work, primarily to see him removed from office for their own political gain.
The rest are coming from the thousands of people in government that he has already pissed off by his actions in the first hundred and twenty days of a four year term.
If anyone thinks that they are going to stop, think again. They will not as long as Donald J. Trump occupies the Oval Office.
What is pretty obvious is that the leaks are coming from a combination of Republican operatives and civil servants. Anyone with an ounce of sense cannot think they are coming from the Democrats. A leaker must have access to knowledge to gain the material used in the leaks. When you look at a lot of this stuff, the only ones that have access to much of this material are Trump's own people. Look at it for yourself. It does not take a genius to find out from where they come. Finding who then is a fairly limited universe.
They are not smart enough to use misinformation. Hell they can't even get their information message right.
Misinformation must be based upon misdirection for some clandestinely defined purpose. This information leaking is building a case of obstruction of justice, money laundering, the undo influence of a foreign intelligence service on U S elections, perjury, fraud, racketeering, and more crimes than I can think of off the top of my head. That does not mean that any of these crimes have been committed. That will be for the justice system to investigate, indict, and adjudicate, not me, or any one of you. SO if that is the misinformation the administration want to put out there, I go back to category 2 above, they are incompetent.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on May 26, 2017 0:35:33 GMT
David Andrew Jackson May was the congressman who told the press the Japanese were not setting their depth charges deep enough. He was thought to have caused several US submarine losses after his big mouth flapped. My father was a submariner and they still talked about his ignorance into the late 50's in the Silent Service. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 26, 2017 4:10:43 GMT
Why do either of you think May or Johnson were not prosecuted, and remember it was wartime, where aid and comfort constitutes treason, and either could have been sentenced to death if convicted?
A guess will do.
The moral question then is were the newspapers that published this material equally responsible and should they too face charges of the same severity?
We both incidents regarding publishing of the same severity, or were there mitigating circumstances in one that did not apply to the other?
Should Johnson's material be censored?
Should the May material face the same censorship scrutiny
Were the cases materially the same or were there significan material differences?
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on May 26, 2017 10:17:45 GMT
As Chuck has mentioned we have plenty of buffoons in our government past and present, to include those with private servers, poorly protected. Directors of CIA(Culinary Institute of America?) who share pillow talk with their girlfriends. Often times our State Department leaks to make our intelligence agencies and the pentagon look bad and vice versa. If either Chuck or I had done these thing we would have at least spent some time making small rocks out of large in the great state of Kansas.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on May 26, 2017 11:49:17 GMT
That reminds me of these bastards, now these men came from privileged back grounds and all of them went to Cambridge university, I detest traitors at the best of times but upper class traitors are the scum of the earth; link
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 26, 2017 15:46:26 GMT
That is very interesting that you brought those folks up Ian.
I mentioned the other day about what the Truman administration did just after the war that would have gotten Harry hung if it became generally known. After reading about those times in some depth I am fully convinced that our intelligence services knew all about Philby and that bunch and either did not tell the Brits, or perhaps told the Brits in a very compartmented way, so those folks could be played by both us and the Brits.
We had a pipeline right into the Kremlin, via German intelligence people, that we used and exploited for a very long time, and believe it or not there were Zionist overtones to the whole affair. You don't think Truman recognized Israel so rapidly just because of his haberdasher buddy do you.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 26, 2017 15:58:00 GMT
You know Tom, something I have always wondered about concerning the e-mail thing that you are fond of bringing up, that being, who was the classification authority on those documents. If in fact the Secretary of State was the classification authority, she was also the declassification authority. Think about that. That in no way speaks to judgment in the matter though, as we have seen with Trump's two releases of highly classified information in the last two weeks. SO, obtain the facts of the matter, all of them, including who originally classified the documents. If it was done at levels above her pay grade, she had no right. If in fact she originated the classification she had every right, then you look at the judgment involved in doing so.
I don't know if anyone ever looked at any automatic downgrading that may have been present here either.
I have myself created a classified a document, and had it blessed by my superiors. In that instance while I determined the document to contain material not for general distribution, the authority to classify and declassify rested internally in my office, and my superior could declassify that same information. The exception was if the document in question contained material from another classified source. Then it was a slightly different and larger issue.
################################################################
So now to the issue of if either one of us would be making big rocks into little rocks in Kansas, the answer is DUTS.
First of all there must be knowing intent. In these matters intent is a very hard thing to prove, and we are still blessed in these United States with proof beyond reasonable doubt being the only accepted standard, not revenge.
Secondly there must be an overwhelming public benefit from the prosecution. That is a matter for the accusing authority to decide. In the cases of both May and Johnson, there was no overwhelming public benefit to be derived. The public trial that would have surrounded each of these events would have been worse than the event itself for the purposes of maintaining secrets. It would have probably been just as bad in Great Britain regarding the Cambridge Five. It is not the bad publicity that is at stake in these matters, although that is bad enough. It is the fact that in the fair and open court system both our countries share, the further classified nature of information used by either the prosecution or defense, may be more damaging that the charges that led to the trial.
Let us say that the Secretary of State had been brought to trial. Let's say that the charges against her could be conclusively proven to any appropriate legal standard. Would it be in the overwhelming public benefit to do so. I said public, not Republican or your personal thirst for revenge and punishment. I would think not. I also thought not in the case of Richard Nixon. There was no overwhelming public benefit in seeing the deposed President of the United States in Stony Lonesome for ten years. That sort of thing happens in Banana Republics, and yes I do understand that he obstructed justice, and undermined the Constitution. So tell me what the overwhelming public interest would be? In both cases, Clinton and Nixon, what happened and what will happen is far worse to them, that getting locked up.
So the answer about big rocks and little rocks lies in overwhelming public benefit, not in the thirst for revenge, retribution, or punishment. Think with your brain, not your emotions.
None of this addresses morality, but I will leave moral judgment to a much higher court.
You have the exact same principle in play here as you would have had George Custer survived Little Big Horn. The overwhelming public benefit would lay in him not facing courts martial, even for incompetence and dereliction. The appropriate action would be to offer him either resignation or career long assignment to either Attu or Kiska (take your pick), with no return passage. Dirty laundry should not be hung out on public clothes lines, there is no overwhelming public benefit to it. The same is true with the RCOI, and that is why such a procedure was felt to be, not in the nation's best interest. I am fully convinced that Reno would have gone to the press though to clear his name as was his right to do. The RCOI was an attempt to contain damage.
|
|