If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Obama gets tough on leaks. No not that one   (nytimes.com) divider line 48
    More: Ironic  
•       •       •

6893 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Jun 2010 at 6:54 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



48 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2010-06-11 04:54:10 PM
GaryPDX: Yep, all transparent now.

Sir, that joke is a felony
 
2010-06-11 05:32:57 PM
Though he is charged under the Espionage Act, Mr. Drake appears to be a classic whistle-blower whose goal was to strengthen the N.S.A.'s ability to catch terrorists, not undermine it. His alleged revelations to Ms. Gorman focused not on the highly secret intelligence the security agency gathers but on what he viewed as its mistaken decisions on costly technology programs called Trailblazer, Turbulence and ThinThread.

"The Baltimore Sun stories simply confirmed that the agency was ineptly managed in some respects," said Matthew M. Aid, an intelligence historian and author of "The Secret Sentry," a history of the N.S.A. Such revelations hardly damaged national security, Mr. Aid said.


F*cking hell.

Obama promised to close Guantanamo, to end DADT, to bring our troops home from Iraq. He said he'll fight for net neutrality and an open and transparent government. So far, nothing. Just bailouts, protecting the criminals from the Bush years, and talk, talk, talk.

I'm staying home in November this year, and staying home in two years. Maybe we do deserve a President Palin after all.
 
2010-06-11 05:55:15 PM
GaryPDX: Yep, all transparent now.
 
2010-06-11 06:37:16 PM
Unacceptable.
 
2010-06-11 06:37:45 PM
sounds like business as usual for D.C.
 
2010-06-11 06:38:30 PM
coco ebert: Unacceptable.

yeah, but be honest - did you really expect any other result?
 
2010-06-11 06:57:02 PM
For the war on leaks...

img268.imageshack.us
 
2010-06-11 07:00:27 PM
Paranoia, the destroyer.
Paranoia, the destroyer.
 
2010-06-11 07:02:29 PM
TAKE THAT APPLE!

/I win right?
 
2010-06-11 07:03:57 PM
Weaver95: sounds like business as usual for D.C.

The bush admin leaked like a sieve, and they managed to do fark all about it.

That doesn't even count former security advisers stuffing their socks full of classified documents.
 
2010-06-11 07:06:59 PM
Ha! The ole bait and switch
 
2010-06-11 07:10:33 PM
I understand the desire - the need - for transparency in government. However, within the intelligence community, Classified means something. First and foremost, it means you don't reveal that material to someone who you have verified has both the proper clearance and need-to-know.

If you reveal classified information without verifying clearance and need-to-know, you are WRONG. Wrong, as in breaking federal law, possibly even committing treason (though these don't seem that severe).

Anyone who gets access to classified information is very clearly advised of all this and more - and have to acknowledge their understanding in writing.
 
2010-06-11 07:10:39 PM
Obama is deeply concerned about U.S. citizens being confused by what the government is really doing. Personally, I hope he puts a stop to the privatization of media all together. Only the government is responsible enough to be the gate keepers of media. Allowing people like Rupert Murdoch to own media outlets should be a felony.

I would like to see a new constitutional convention where Obama is is given a life-term as President and freedom of the press is only as free as Obama allows it to be.

This could bring the true American utopia we are all waiting for. Obama will equalize the standard of living and everyone will be rich beyond our wildest dreams.
 
2010-06-11 07:10:53 PM
Leaks under Bush for nearly a decade were seen by the left as fantastic, and the way things are supposed to work. You could get, or fabricate, or twist, an "unnamed source" who was always noted as speaking anonymously because they were yammering on about sensitive or classified information that someone in their position specifically should not have been revealing.

Leaks under Obama are inherently bad. They are wrong, only bad people leak information, and it all must be stopped, up to and including sending the Pentagon after Wikileaks because it might make public all of the shiat we've done and said in conjunction with other governments.
 
2010-06-11 07:12:16 PM
JMMODE: Obama is deeply concerned about U.S. citizens being confused by what the government is really doing. Personally, I hope he puts a stop to the privatization of media all together. Only the government is responsible enough to be the gate keepers of media. Allowing people like Rupert Murdoch to own media outlets should be a felony.

I would like to see a new constitutional convention where Obama is is given a life-term as President and freedom of the press is only as free as Obama allows it to be.

This could bring the true American utopia we are all waiting for. Obama will equalize the standard of living and everyone will be rich beyond our wildest dreams.


7/10
 
2010-06-11 07:13:32 PM
A transparent government: a government where you can look all you want but can't really see anything at all?
 
2010-06-11 07:14:00 PM
Bush leak = OMG loook at what hes doing!

Obama Leak = He cant run the country if you know what hes doing!
 
2010-06-11 07:15:07 PM
Fartbama will prosecute anyone who knows too much, anyone who believes in freedom of information, anyone who stands in the between him and real ultimate power.
 
2010-06-11 07:15:07 PM
the latest evidence that the Obama administration is proving more aggressive than the Bush administration in seeking to punish unauthorized leaks to the press.


good jorb on that whole transparency thing Fartbama.
 
2010-06-11 07:15:56 PM
IOKIYAD!
 
2010-06-11 07:16:19 PM
This is clearly Obama's Mount Vesuvius.
 
2010-06-11 07:19:15 PM
This could even be Obama's Y2K.
 
2010-06-11 07:22:08 PM
lh3.ggpht.com
 
2010-06-11 07:23:02 PM
Beaver1224: I understand the desire - the need - for transparency in government. However, within the intelligence community, Classified means something. First and foremost, it means you don't reveal that material to someone who youboth you and the senior security officer or project manager have verified has both the proper clearance and need-to-know.

FTFY.

/Yeah, Dan, I understand that you've "introduced us", but what I'm not buying is that you have the authority to.
 
2010-06-11 07:24:31 PM
boo
 
2010-06-11 07:29:54 PM
sandreckoner: Leaks under Obama are inherently bad. They are wrong, only bad people leak information, and it all must be stopped, up to and including sending the Pentagon after Wikileaks because it might make public all of the shiat we've done and said in conjunction with other governments.

An-Unnecessarily-Long-Name: Bush leak = OMG loook at what hes doing!

Obama Leak = He cant run the country if you know what hes doing!



Who are you guys arguing with? The left is hammering the man over this.

Greenwald (new window)
DailyKos (new window)
Crooksandliars (new window)
 
2010-06-11 07:31:05 PM
Seriously, that Army cat deserves to get hammered.
 
2010-06-11 07:32:18 PM
I love that no one has yet to really defend the increased prosecution of leaks, but the majority of posts so far are decrying the partisan defense of increased prosecution.

/good job being relevant
 
2010-06-11 07:39:03 PM
yalesustainablefoodproject.files.wordpress.com
RIP Leeks


But seriously, classified video released to Wikileaks? That should carry a jail term.

I say this as someone who approved of Daniel Ellsberg's decision to leak the Pentagon Papers, in the circumstances he was in.

The Drake case is sad but I also feel that he made a huge mistake in the way he went about contacting the press. He also should have realized the consequences of his actions.
 
2010-06-11 07:44:56 PM
wingnutx: Seriously, that Army cat deserves to get hammered.

Why? Because the video embarrassed the military?
Sometimes the truth hurts. Nothing in that video compromises military security.
There is no reason for it to have been classified.
 
2010-06-11 07:46:45 PM
Beaver1224: I understand the desire - the need - for transparency in government. However, within the intelligence community, Classified means something. First and foremost, it means you don't reveal that material to someone who you have verified has both the proper clearance and need-to-know.

If you reveal classified information without verifying clearance and need-to-know, you are WRONG. Wrong, as in breaking federal law, possibly even committing treason (though these don't seem that severe).

Anyone who gets access to classified information is very clearly advised of all this and more - and have to acknowledge their understanding in writing.


umm what about classifying things as secret or top secret when they're a bunch of BS or things that should be public?

/baby meet bathwater
 
2010-06-11 07:51:03 PM
Beaver1224: I understand the desire - the need - for transparency in government. However, within the intelligence community, Classified means something. First and foremost, it means you don't reveal that material to someone who you have verified has both the proper clearance and need-to-know.

If you reveal classified information without verifying clearance and need-to-know, you are WRONG. Wrong, as in breaking federal law, possibly even committing treason (though these don't seem that severe).

Anyone who gets access to classified information is very clearly advised of all this and more - and have to acknowledge their understanding in writing.


Unless you have evidence of criminal conduct and have exhausted every legal channel. IMHO that's the only time it would be acceptable.
 
2010-06-11 07:57:50 PM
He must have really farked up, only 34 posts and the usual suspects aren't in here foaming at the mouth.
 
2010-06-11 08:04:22 PM
4chan Ambassador: Though he is charged under the Espionage Act, Mr. Drake appears to be a classic whistle-blower whose goal was to strengthen the N.S.A.'s ability to catch terrorists, not undermine it. His alleged revelations to Ms. Gorman focused not on the highly secret intelligence the security agency gathers but on what he viewed as its mistaken decisions on costly technology programs called Trailblazer, Turbulence and ThinThread.

"The Baltimore Sun stories simply confirmed that the agency was ineptly managed in some respects," said Matthew M. Aid, an intelligence historian and author of "The Secret Sentry," a history of the N.S.A. Such revelations hardly damaged national security, Mr. Aid said.

F*cking hell.

Obama promised to close Guantanamo, to end DADT, to bring our troops home from Iraq. He said he'll fight for net neutrality and an open and transparent government. So far, nothing. Just bailouts, protecting the criminals from the Bush years, and talk, talk, talk.

I'm staying home in November this year, and staying home in two years. Maybe we do deserve a President Palin after all.


Ever stop and think that whatever talking points someone spewed before they got into office are pointless precisely because they're not in the office and don't have all of the information?

Anyone can say they're going to do things differently than the other guy when they aren't armed with the most up-to-date information.
 
2010-06-11 08:05:10 PM
farkingatwork: Beaver1224: I understand the desire - the need - for transparency in government. However, within the intelligence community, Classified means something. First and foremost, it means you don't reveal that material to someone who you have verified has both the proper clearance and need-to-know.

If you reveal classified information without verifying clearance and need-to-know, you are WRONG. Wrong, as in breaking federal law, possibly even committing treason (though these don't seem that severe).

Anyone who gets access to classified information is very clearly advised of all this and more - and have to acknowledge their understanding in writing.

umm what about classifying things as secret or top secret when they're a bunch of BS or things that should be public?

/baby meet bathwater


To be fair, I'd rail against that just as hard. One of the rules of classification is that you do not classify things to save embarrassment. Unfortunately, you'll never get to see that since I will not rail about it in an unclassified forum.

Certainly, you could make a case that if the proper declassification authorities refused to declassify something that was improperly classified, then it would be right to "leak" it. That may be so, but it would still be illegal, and if I were to do it, I would expect to be prosecuted.
 
2010-06-11 08:11:30 PM
You're right, but the answer is to vote for Rand Paul. He is legit.

4chan Ambassador:
Though he is charged under the Espionage Act, Mr. Drake appears to be a classic whistle-blower whose goal was to strengthen the N.S.A.'s ability to catch terrorists, not undermine it. His alleged revelations to Ms. Gorman focused not on the highly secret intelligence the security agency gathers but on what he viewed as its mistaken decisions on costly technology programs called Trailblazer, Turbulence and ThinThread.

"The Baltimore Sun stories simply confirmed that the agency was ineptly managed in some respects," said Matthew M. Aid, an intelligence historian and author of "The Secret Sentry," a history of the N.S.A. Such revelations hardly damaged national security, Mr. Aid said.

F*cking hell.

Obama promised to close Guantanamo, to end DADT, to bring our troops home from Iraq. He said he'll fight for net neutrality and an open and transparent government. So far, nothing. Just bailouts, protecting the criminals from the Bush years, and talk, talk, talk.

I'm staying home in November this year, and staying home in two years. Maybe we do deserve a President Palin after all.
 
2010-06-11 08:13:04 PM
JMMODE: Obama is deeply concerned about U.S. citizens being confused by what the government is really doing. Personally, I hope he puts a stop to the privatization of media all together. Only the government is responsible enough to be the gate keepers of media. Allowing people like Rupert Murdoch to own media outlets should be a felony.

I would like to see a new constitutional convention where Obama is is given a life-term as President and freedom of the press is only as free as Obama allows it to be.

This could bring the true American utopia we are all waiting for. Obama will equalize the standard of living and everyone will be rich beyond our wildest dreams.


Obama and Rupert are on the same team, don't kid yourself.
 
2010-06-11 08:39:25 PM
Beaver1224: farkingatwork: Beaver1224: I understand the desire - the need - for transparency in government. However, within the intelligence community, Classified means something. First and foremost, it means you don't reveal that material to someone who you have verified has both the proper clearance and need-to-know.

If you reveal classified information without verifying clearance and need-to-know, you are WRONG. Wrong, as in breaking federal law, possibly even committing treason (though these don't seem that severe).

Anyone who gets access to classified information is very clearly advised of all this and more - and have to acknowledge their understanding in writing.

umm what about classifying things as secret or top secret when they're a bunch of BS or things that should be public?

/baby meet bathwater

To be fair, I'd rail against that just as hard. One of the rules of classification is that you do not classify things to save embarrassment. Unfortunately, you'll never get to see that since I will not rail about it in an unclassified forum.

Certainly, you could make a case that if the proper declassification authorities refused to declassify something that was improperly classified, then it would be right to "leak" it. That may be so, but it would still be illegal, and if I were to do it, I would expect to be prosecuted.


yeah, but here's the thing: these things are equal in significance.

one: classified when it shouldn't be:
two: leaked when it should be classified

So either a: prosecute both (which will never happen, lets face it), or b: let both exist (which will, can and does happen, lets face it).

You can sue and sue and sue all day, maybe even put to death people for a leak. Meanwhile, it's just going to enrage the public *AND* show why the first amendment exists. In that sense: the leaker has given the information to a news agency (wikileaks). So why is he to be blamed?
 
2010-06-11 08:48:48 PM
I wonder what sort of spin he will put on these leeks,
I mean leaks.
 
2010-06-11 08:56:56 PM
veryequiped: You're right, but the answer is to vote for Rand Paul. He is legit.

Yeah, a legit nutcase.

Libertarians need to stop with this tea party crap now that it's been hijacked by FOX and Friends, and nominate someone sane (i.e. who doesn't think Jews did 9/11 or that blacks are teh dumb) as an alternative to the two corporate (or just spineless) parties.
 
2010-06-11 09:24:51 PM
I'm a bed wetting liberal and even I lol'ed
 
2010-06-11 09:25:02 PM
4chan Ambassador: veryequiped: You're right, but the answer is to vote for Rand Paul. He is legit.

Yeah, a legit nutcase.

Libertarians need to stop with this tea party crap now that it's been hijacked by FOX and Friends, and nominate someone sane (i.e. who doesn't think Jews did 9/11 or that blacks are teh dumb) as an alternative to the two corporate (or just spineless) parties.


Almost but not quite. It's not that Libertarians need to stop the tea party crap. It's that Glenn Beck and crew realized that they had lost all political capital in the words "Republican" and "conservative", so they started calling themselves "Libertarian" to spend the political capital that we have worked to accumulate. They're like the opposite of RINOs. (Anti-RINOs? Not-RINOs?)

And as much as I am on the wrong side of this, I have to admire the ruthless efficiency with which they have destroyed the Libertarian party. It would be beautiful if I didn't have to suffer the consequences. But now in every political discussion, I have to defend beliefs that I do not hold, because people think we claimed those assh*les. Seriously, Democrats, listen up. When they get done with us, they'll be coming for you. It won't be pretty. Hopefully, I'll be able to watch from somewhere else and laugh.
 
2010-06-11 10:22:38 PM
The us sucks donkey dorks......seriously......A war longer than any in US history and rallying the populace to pretend they are heroes? JFC.....you folks deserve to be sold into slavery. Some dink wad pilot lights up a bunch of civvies and the military is all lets get the guy who let people know what is really happening? The apologist viet vets should be supporting desertions for an illegal war. The viet vets got shiat one by the civilian population and now they are all lets support the same shiat we were in. Fark you all!
 
2010-06-11 10:31:42 PM
They are apparently not getting everyone.

The first time I saw this video, it was on a classified network in Iraq with about 10 seconds of red screen and SECRET warnings at the beginning and the end.

less than a month later, it was on the interwebs.

The video. (not safe for the squeamish and requires age-verification login at YouTube)
 
2010-06-11 11:10:01 PM
Leakers should get medals, not prison. They are the real heroes of today, and this sort of crap will discourage them.

I just hope these heroes take more care in the future to avoid detection by the government. The world needs to know about the evils perpetrated by our government.

And no, it's not any more ok when Obama behaves like this than when Shrubbie did.

See, that's the thing about us liberals, we care about principles like open government, and we won't go easy on evil just because it's a Democrat doing it. Evil is evil.
 
2010-06-11 11:51:34 PM
4chan Ambassador: veryequiped: You're right, but the answer is to vote for Rand Paul. He is legit.

Yeah, a legit nutcase.

Libertarians need to stop with this tea party crap now that it's been hijacked by FOX and Friends, and nominate someone sane (i.e. who doesn't think Jews did 9/11 or that blacks are teh dumb) as an alternative to the two corporate (or just spineless) parties.


You're an uneducated moran. If you had a clue, you would know that Rand Paul is the only politician who isn't a criminal. He's the only guy that makes sense
 
2010-06-12 02:03:07 AM
4chan Ambassador: Obama promised to close Guantanamo, to end DADT, to bring our troops home from Iraq. He said he'll fight for net neutrality and an open and transparent government. So far, nothing. Just bailouts, protecting the criminals from the Bush years, and talk, talk, talk.

I'm staying home in November this year, and staying home in two years. Maybe we do deserve a President Palin after all.


i'm probably as disappointed as you in the differences between the candidate and the office holder. that said staying home isn't an option. especially if it leads to palin or her clone. remember the old adage: "cheer up, things could be worse. so i cheered up and they got worse." obama is a disappointment, palin is a disaster.
 
2010-06-12 12:15:15 PM
wingnutx: Fartbama will prosecute anyone who knows too much, anyone who believes in freedom of information, anyone who stands in the between him and real ultimate power.

No, THIS (new window), is real ultimate power.
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report