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.

(Guardian)   President Obama's assault on the First Amendment continues   (theguardian.com) divider line 337
    More: Obvious, Obama administration, 1st amendment, shield laws, press freedom, First Amendment Center, Espionage Act, duty of care  
•       •       •

5434 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Aug 2013 at 11:32 AM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



337 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-12 02:42:26 PM

LasersHurt: super_grass: LasersHurt: super_grass: You mean aside from secret courts, secret interpretations of the law, secret legal rulings, and the complete lack of outside review of the process? You need judicial review that is more than a rubber stamp be worth a damn. If you think rule of law is just guys in black moo-moos with ambiguous pants wearage, you're missing out.

What does the NSA stuff have to do with Whisteblower protections? It seems like you're conflating entirely different things.

I was talking about the entire Whistleblowing process, and how it is slowly becoming a symbolic, yet useless, process.

I welcome any specific proof, citations, or information you have that support that.


It's illegal to disclose any classified information, regardless of the legality of the activity discussed within.  There number of classified documents grows every year.  Therefore the accessibility of whistleblower protections is diminished.  Every year.
 
2013-08-12 02:46:53 PM

super_grass: See my previous post about the secretive review process.


That's just a sentence you said, that's not evidence of anything.

BeesNuts: It's illegal to disclose any classified information, regardless of the legality of the activity discussed within.  There number of classified documents grows every year.  Therefore the accessibility of whistleblower protections is diminished.  Every year.


That doesn't make any sense. What are you trying to say here? It's illegal to leak it, not to Whistleblow.

BeesNuts: It's important to distinguish between Whistleblowing protections related to your employer (which have expanded) and those related to the government (which haven't properly been tested in ... decades)


Obama specifically granted new Whistleblower protections to people working for the Government.
 
2013-08-12 02:48:09 PM

vygramul: A whistleblower reveals a crime. A leaker reveals stuff that isn't.

It's possible to do both: blow the whistle on a crime, and then also leak information about stuff that isn't. Being the first doesn't excuse the second.

Telling the press that Lt. Calley murdered Vietnamese civilians is whistle-blowing. Telling the press the schedule of the next US bombing attack on the NVA isn't. Doing the first is laudable. Doing the second should send you to prison even if you did the first also.


Agreed.  The problem is that we're not even examining the information that was leaked before we determine that the leak was illegal.  Classified info = automatic crime.  Therefore, no whistleblowing is actually whistleblowing when it comes to the government.  If it's public domain, you can talk about it.  If it's classified, you simply can't.  And we've seen from the Assange days that most of this classified shiat was classified out of an extreme overabundance of caution.
 
2013-08-12 02:48:19 PM

lawboy87: Headso: ['you can't publish that because of the national security risk'] when you write a story. And then they can never back it up. They say that about everything.

I remember when the wikileaks stuff all came out, classified information included conversations about the fact that Gaddafi had a blonde nurse with big tits. If that is even top secret info then you have no credibility to claim anything is.

While I tend to agree that most stuff that is classified is of limited value for the information it actually contains.  What most "Spy" agencies are protecting is not the information itself, but the circumstances and information that could potentially identify the source for that information.

Ok, let's say that there's classified info that Gaddafi had a big-tittied blonde nurse and that they did certain "things" together from time to time.  Gaddafi knew that information, as did his intelligence service, but what they didn't know was the general time frame in which it was reported, the details of exactly what was reported, etc.  It's that sort of information which would allow Gaddafi and his operatives to likely ferret out the identity of the person who was/is providing the information.  (Whether it be the nurse herself, a trusted aid/servant, a mole, or someone in the inner circle who blabbed the info for whatever reason.)

That was the important part of the Valerie Plame debacle, it really wasn't that important that her cover was blown given that she was practically retired at that point anyway.  But what was important is that every enemy intelligence agency now had something to look at and the means of identifying those who either knew her or did business with her "phony" front company.  From that information, undoubtedly they were able to identify those who had been "sources" or even "double agents" and could now take retaliatory steps against them.


Most people really have a hard time grasping why things are classified. It's actually kind of scary how many people I ran into who had clearances who just didn't get it. One of the top violations is people thinking they can talk about something just because it's now on CNN, or that some government official said it.
 
2013-08-12 02:48:30 PM

LasersHurt: super_grass: See my previous post about the secretive review process.

That's just a sentence you said, that's not evidence of anything.

BeesNuts: It's illegal to disclose any classified information, regardless of the legality of the activity discussed within.  There number of classified documents grows every year.  Therefore the accessibility of whistleblower protections is diminished.  Every year.

That doesn't make any sense. What are you trying to say here? It's illegal to leak it, not to Whistleblow.

BeesNuts: It's important to distinguish between Whistleblowing protections related to your employer (which have expanded) and those related to the government (which haven't properly been tested in ... decades)

Obama specifically granted new Whistleblower protections to people working for the Government.


One might say "You're whistleblowing Fox News talking points about whistleblowing".
 
2013-08-12 02:48:55 PM

firefly212: The people who fight for a government that operates within the constraints of the constitution, who fight for a government that operates in an honest manner with the citizenry... calling them "traitors" would be a sort of wrong of the highest order. I cannot think of a superlative version of wrong, but that's what it is.


The word you are looking for is "badong".
 
2013-08-12 02:49:42 PM

lawboy87: Headso: ['you can't publish that because of the national security risk'] when you write a story. And then they can never back it up. They say that about everything.

I remember when the wikileaks stuff all came out, classified information included conversations about the fact that Gaddafi had a blonde nurse with big tits. If that is even top secret info then you have no credibility to claim anything is.

While I tend to agree that most stuff that is classified is of limited value for the information it actually contains.  What most "Spy" agencies are protecting is not the information itself, but the circumstances and information that could potentially identify the source for that information.


It was ambassador correspondence iirc. Their correspondence with eachother is classified by default so it's added to the unwieldy mountain of data that must be "protected". They should figure out what actually needs to be classified  instead of chasing down horses that already ran out of the barn.
 
2013-08-12 02:50:02 PM

coeyagi: One might say "You're whistleblowing Fox News talking points about whistleblowing".


It gets frustrating sounding like I'm defending the government all the time just because I want evidence of stuff before I form strong opinions on it.
 
2013-08-12 02:50:20 PM

LasersHurt: super_grass: See my previous post about the secretive review process.

That's just a sentence you said, that's not evidence of anything.

BeesNuts: It's illegal to disclose any classified information, regardless of the legality of the activity discussed within.  There number of classified documents grows every year.  Therefore the accessibility of whistleblower protections is diminished.  Every year.

That doesn't make any sense. What are you trying to say here? It's illegal to leak it, not to Whistleblow.

BeesNuts: It's important to distinguish between Whistleblowing protections related to your employer (which have expanded) and those related to the government (which haven't properly been tested in ... decades)

Obama specifically granted new Whistleblower protections to people working for the Government.


A: If you whistleblow about a government program that is classified, it's not whistleblowing by your definition because it was classified and therefore would be a leak.  If the program wasn't classified, you wouldn't be whistleblowing because you wouldn't be revealing new information.

B: I was aware of the additional employee protections about being laid off/fired for calling OSHA and stuff.  I believe you, but I'm curious to know what bill/order/whatever you're referring to?
 
2013-08-12 02:52:31 PM

BeesNuts: A: If you whistleblow about a government program that is classified, it's not whistleblowing by your definition because it was classified and therefore would be a leak.


You misunderstand. Whistleblowing is an internal process - even IF it's classified, as long as you were supposed to be able to get that info because of your job, you can report the issue to the proper channels. That's not illegal, it's specifically protected.

BeesNuts: B: I was aware of the additional employee protections about being laid off/fired for calling OSHA and stuff.  I believe you, but I'm curious to know what bill/order/whatever you're referring to?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/obama-issues-wh is tleblower-directive-to-security-agencies/2012/10/10/5e2cbbfe-132d-11e2 -ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_blog.html

Specifically he extended it to the Intelligence Community, where they had not been before. It's particularly relevant.
 
2013-08-12 02:53:26 PM

LasersHurt: coeyagi: One might say "You're whistleblowing Fox News talking points about whistleblowing".

It gets frustrating sounding like I'm defending the government all the time just because I want evidence of stuff before I form strong opinions on it.


It's worth mentioning that my opinion on the individual cases, Manning, Assange and Snowden aren't very strong.  I lean towards, "probably some good and some bad, definitely illegal, ethically questionable."

In general, I think your assertion that you can reveal information about classified programs and be called a Whistleblower under *any* current circumstances is ridiculous.
 
2013-08-12 02:54:48 PM

BeesNuts: LasersHurt: coeyagi: One might say "You're whistleblowing Fox News talking points about whistleblowing".

It gets frustrating sounding like I'm defending the government all the time just because I want evidence of stuff before I form strong opinions on it.

It's worth mentioning that my opinion on the individual cases, Manning, Assange and Snowden aren't very strong.  I lean towards, "probably some good and some bad, definitely illegal, ethically questionable."

In general, I think your assertion that you can reveal information about classified programs and be called a Whistleblower under *any* current circumstances is ridiculous.


I find your assertion that that was actually his assertion... ridiculous.
 
2013-08-12 02:58:18 PM

BeesNuts: vygramul: A whistleblower reveals a crime. A leaker reveals stuff that isn't.

It's possible to do both: blow the whistle on a crime, and then also leak information about stuff that isn't. Being the first doesn't excuse the second.

Telling the press that Lt. Calley murdered Vietnamese civilians is whistle-blowing. Telling the press the schedule of the next US bombing attack on the NVA isn't. Doing the first is laudable. Doing the second should send you to prison even if you did the first also.

Agreed.  The problem is that we're not even examining the information that was leaked before we determine that the leak was illegal.  Classified info = automatic crime.  Therefore, no whistleblowing is actually whistleblowing when it comes to the government.  If it's public domain, you can talk about it.  If it's classified, you simply can't.  And we've seen from the Assange days that most of this classified shiat was classified out of an extreme overabundance of caution.


There are a host of disincentives to classifying something unnecessarily. At least, where I worked there was. The document tracking alone can give you headaches. Writing something classified in a notebook accidentally could be really problematic. One tried to avoid that. "Is that number classified?" would be a question one might ask before writing it down.

Bottom line: don't create classified information if you can help it.

So I have some difficulty believing that there's a trivial approach to classifying information. All too often, people look at the content and judge it by that. But sometimes, something that looks otherwise trivial is classified not because of its content, but because of the implications of how we got it. It may look trivial to the casual observer, but to the people who generated the information to begin with, it might tell of a mole in their organization.
 
2013-08-12 03:03:52 PM
Damn you George Bush!
 
2013-08-12 03:04:59 PM

LasersHurt: BeesNuts: A: If you whistleblow about a government program that is classified, it's not whistleblowing by your definition because it was classified and therefore would be a leak.

You misunderstand. Whistleblowing is an internal process - even IF it's classified, as long as you were supposed to be able to get that info because of your job, you can report the issue to the proper channels. That's not illegal, it's specifically protected.


I apparently do misunderstand.  I think most people would think that "Whistleblowing" requires an audience who wasn't aware of the information you're revealing.  That sounds like the catch 22 that makes the process superficial to me.  What does telling the guy above you that you think what he's asking you to do is illegal accomplish?

BeesNuts: B: I was aware of the additional employee protections about being laid off/fired for calling OSHA and stuff.  I believe you, but I'm curious to know what bill/order/whatever you're referring to?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/obama-issues-wh is tleblower-directive-to-security-agencies/2012/10/10/5e2cbbfe-132d-11e2 -ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_blog.html

Specifically he extended it to the Intelligence Community, where they had not been before. It's particularly relevant.


That I didn't know.  Neat.  But:
"who are eligible for access to classified information can effectively report waste, fraud, and abuse while protecting classified national security information. It prohibits retaliation against employees for reporting waste, fraud, and abuse."

In our current hyper-classified age, doesn't that restrict protections to basically financial information?  Which... while good, isn't exactly what American's think of when they think Whistleblower.  I suppose FDA corruption could be uncovered because of this.
 
2013-08-12 03:07:17 PM

BeesNuts: LasersHurt: BeesNuts: A: If you whistleblow about a government program that is classified, it's not whistleblowing by your definition because it was classified and therefore would be a leak.

You misunderstand. Whistleblowing is an internal process - even IF it's classified, as long as you were supposed to be able to get that info because of your job, you can report the issue to the proper channels. That's not illegal, it's specifically protected.

I apparently do misunderstand.  I think most people would think that "Whistleblowing" requires an audience who wasn't aware of the information you're revealing.  That sounds like the catch 22 that makes the process superficial to me.  What does telling the guy above you that you think what he's asking you to do is illegal accomplish?

BeesNuts: B: I was aware of the additional employee protections about being laid off/fired for calling OSHA and stuff.  I believe you, but I'm curious to know what bill/order/whatever you're referring to?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/obama-issues-wh is tleblower-directive-to-security-agencies/2012/10/10/5e2cbbfe-132d-11e2 -ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_blog.html

Specifically he extended it to the Intelligence Community, where they had not been before. It's particularly relevant.

That I didn't know.  Neat.  But:
"who are eligible for access to classified information can effectively report waste, fraud, and abuse while protecting classified national security information. It prohibits retaliation against employees for reporting waste, fraud, and abuse."

In our current hyper-classified age, doesn't that restrict protections to basically financial information?  Which... while good, isn't exactly what American's think of when they think Whistleblower.  I suppose FDA corruption could be uncovered because of this.


You know they can still protect it, right?  If they go through proper channels and redact things and use proper protocol, they can protect classified info AND bust illegal activity.  It's almost like they've thought of these things before.
 
2013-08-12 03:07:57 PM

BeesNuts: A: If you whistleblow about a government program that is classified, it's not whistleblowing by your definition because it was classified and therefore would be a leak. If the program wasn't classified, you wouldn't be whistleblowing because you wouldn't be revealing new information.


You're conflating "not classified" with "publicly available information". If, for instance, there was criminal misconduct being done by someone in a government organization, that information would neither be classified nor would it (before it came to light, anyway) be public knowledge. This is actually the main kind of thing that whistleblowing protections are for. Think Abu Ghraib, for example - if someone alerted the relevant authorities about something like that happening then that person would without doubt be a whistleblower.

The problem now is that some people have this idea that whistleblower protections should be extended to people "blowing the whistle" on legal government programs that they personally feel are unconstitutional, or some even vaguer sense of a program that they think "goes too far" or makes them uncomfortable in some way. There's no coherent way to incorporate this idea into the official whistleblower process because it's a silly idea to begin with.
 
2013-08-12 03:10:26 PM

BeesNuts: The problem is that we're not even examining the information that was leaked before we determine that the leak was illegal.


When the Snowden thing first happened, I considered the possibility the NSA had crossed a line. People who spend too much time looking for bad guys eventually see bad guys everywhere. And then they want to do a whole bunch of shiat to protect us, even if it isn't really justifiable. The endless warnings and tips and "credible" sources can be relentless.

But Snowden said several things that totally did not mesh with my experience and I started paying attention. Then it turned out he lied. He didn't work there years, he worked there three months. He didn't make $200k he made only a little more than half that. Oh, of course, there are explanations, but wonderfully vague. "I meant career high salary." But he was careful not to tell us WHERE lest we be able to actually CHECK on his claim. Then there's the contradictions. On the one hand, the government collects EVERYTHING. But then he says he could authorize a wiretap on someone's email. Wait - I thought we already collected that. Doesn't he mean he could do a database query to retrieve their email? What's this about wiretap?

One you start paying attention to the details and look at the slides without preconceptions as to what they say, the story all this tells is very different.
 
2013-08-12 03:12:11 PM

BeesNuts: What does telling the guy above you that you think what he's asking you to do is illegal accomplish?


Gets you fired, usually.
 
2013-08-12 03:12:36 PM
fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net
 
2013-08-12 03:13:22 PM

chrismurphy: BeesNuts: What does telling the guy above you that you think what he's asking you to do is illegal accomplish?

Gets you fired, usually.


That's why there are usually formal channels outside the immediate chain of command.
 
2013-08-12 03:14:16 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: [fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net image 480x360]


Holy cow that's a distortion that Salvador Dali would consider extreme.
 
2013-08-12 03:15:26 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: [fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net image 480x360]


Are you posting this ironically, or is this one of those things that easily labels an idiot?
 
2013-08-12 03:17:16 PM

BeesNuts: That I didn't know. Neat. But:
"who are eligible for access to classified information can effectively report waste, fraud, and abuse while protecting classified national security information. It prohibits retaliation against employees for reporting waste, fraud, and abuse."


Thomas Drake revealed unclassified information related to waste and abuse after a decade of trying to report it internally and was prosecuted and sent to federal prison in 2011.
 
2013-08-12 03:17:26 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: [fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net image 480x360]


And God saideth unto Moses: "Believeth all the dumb sh*t your see on Facebook.  You Jews gotta make a living some how."
 
2013-08-12 03:17:47 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: [fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net image 480x360]


If you only read the capitalized words it says "criticize failed party party parties praise party".. seekrit illuminati programing
 
2013-08-12 03:18:20 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: [fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net image 480x360]


This is 100% correct. However, it doesn't really have to do with this thread.
 
2013-08-12 03:19:18 PM

Headso: Lt. Cheese Weasel: [fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net image 480x360]

If you only read the capitalized words it says "criticize failed party party parties praise party".. seekrit illuminati programing


Capitalization is like cat nip for retards Republicans.
 
2013-08-12 03:21:07 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: [fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net image 480x360]


Um, what does that have to do with the subject of this thread? Did you accidentally Benghazi on the floor because you couldn't make it to the bathroom in time?
 
2013-08-12 03:22:56 PM

vygramul: BeesNuts: vygramul: A whistleblower reveals a crime. A leaker reveals stuff that isn't.

It's possible to do both: blow the whistle on a crime, and then also leak information about stuff that isn't. Being the first doesn't excuse the second.

Telling the press that Lt. Calley murdered Vietnamese civilians is whistle-blowing. Telling the press the schedule of the next US bombing attack on the NVA isn't. Doing the first is laudable. Doing the second should send you to prison even if you did the first also.

Agreed.  The problem is that we're not even examining the information that was leaked before we determine that the leak was illegal.  Classified info = automatic crime.  Therefore, no whistleblowing is actually whistleblowing when it comes to the government.  If it's public domain, you can talk about it.  If it's classified, you simply can't.  And we've seen from the Assange days that most of this classified shiat was classified out of an extreme overabundance of caution.

There are a host of disincentives to classifying something unnecessarily. At least, where I worked there was. The document tracking alone can give you headaches. Writing something classified in a notebook accidentally could be really problematic. One tried to avoid that. "Is that number classified?" would be a question one might ask before writing it down.

Bottom line: don't create classified information if you can help it.

So I have some difficulty believing that there's a trivial approach to classifying information. All too often, people look at the content and judge it by that. But sometimes, something that looks otherwise trivial is classified not because of its content, but because of the implications of how we got it. It may look trivial to the casual observer, but to the people who generated the information to begin with, it might tell of a mole in their organization.


Or it might be classified to prevent public relations problems between a program the government feels is valuable but doesn't trust the public to support.  It's absolutely been confirmed in the past.  Over and over again.  You have mountains of documents with a mundane, but valid reason to be classified.  you have reams of paper about financial records that are classified for less apparent reasons, and then you have the stuff that's classified simply to limit exposure temporarily while the work is done.

See also:  Moynihan Secrecy Commission.  Which determined in the 90's that the American people were not properly equipped with the information necessary to engage their government in debate.

I'm not even sure what I'm arguing anymore.  I know you asserted that the system wasn't rigged.  Can I take that to mean you think the classification system, as well as the protections present to those who choose to reveal classified information are adequate, sensible and otherwise satisfactory?

There's a lot rolled up into this debate.
 
2013-08-12 03:24:49 PM

vygramul: chrismurphy:Gets you fired, usually.

That's why there are usually formal channels outside the immediate chain of command.


Well except in the Snowden case everyone in that chain of command up to the president has defended the government keeping secrets. And once ratted out, they're all slowly starting to come around, in one form or another, and admit changes are needed (while being vague and circumspect on the details of such changes). Changes are needed is the whole premise of blowing the whistle in the first place.
 
2013-08-12 03:25:06 PM

someonelse: Lt. Cheese Weasel: [fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net image 480x360]

Um, what does that have to do with the subject of this thread? Did you accidentally Benghazi on the floor because you couldn't make it to the bathroom in time?


Snowden, or Snow-den.  Another word for Igloo.  Eskimos lives in Igloos.  Eskimo Pussy is Might Fine - R. Lee Ermy.  Who was also in Toy Soldiers with Sean Astin.  Who was in Lord of the Rings with Sir Ian McKellan.  Who is gay.  Just like Ambassador Stevens. Benghazi!
 
2013-08-12 03:26:40 PM

BeesNuts: Which... while good, isn't exactly what American's think of when they think Whistleblower.



The movie "The Whistleblower" was about a former tobacco-company employee, so what the American people might think of when they hear the term is kind of nebulous.
 
2013-08-12 03:28:32 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: I am the libbiest lib who has ever been a liberal and even I think that this is going to far.
It isn't just an attack on the First Amendment, it is an attack on Journalism (with a capital "J").


I have you farkied in orange asking why anyone posts here without getting paid. You're not liberal OR conservative. You're paid for it.
 
2013-08-12 03:29:56 PM

vygramul: BeesNuts: The problem is that we're not even examining the information that was leaked before we determine that the leak was illegal.

When the Snowden thing first happened, I considered the possibility the NSA had crossed a line. People who spend too much time looking for bad guys eventually see bad guys everywhere. And then they want to do a whole bunch of shiat to protect us, even if it isn't really justifiable. The endless warnings and tips and "credible" sources can be relentless.

But Snowden said several things that totally did not mesh with my experience and I started paying attention. Then it turned out he lied. He didn't work there years, he worked there three months. He didn't make $200k he made only a little more than half that. Oh, of course, there are explanations, but wonderfully vague. "I meant career high salary." But he was careful not to tell us WHERE lest we be able to actually CHECK on his claim. Then there's the contradictions. On the one hand, the government collects EVERYTHING. But then he says he could authorize a wiretap on someone's email. Wait - I thought we already collected that. Doesn't he mean he could do a database query to retrieve their email? What's this about wiretap?

One you start paying attention to the details and look at the slides without preconceptions as to what they say, the story all this tells is very different.


What do all those discrepencies have to do with the difference between leaking and whistleblowing?  I thought it was about whether the activities disclosed were legal?  And also who the information was given to?

So is Prism constitutional?  I think the jury's still out on that.  The other half of the question is who should he have brought that to?

I don't see where the amount of time he worked there or claimed to work there fits into the discussion of whether what he did was illegal or not.  It calls his credibility into question, but we're not arguing about that.
 
2013-08-12 03:31:40 PM

imontheinternet: BeesNuts: That I didn't know. Neat. But:
"who are eligible for access to classified information can effectively report waste, fraud, and abuse while protecting classified national security information. It prohibits retaliation against employees for reporting waste, fraud, and abuse."

Thomas Drake revealed unclassified information related to waste and abuse after a decade of trying to report it internally and was prosecuted and sent to federal prison in 2011.


But Obama expanding his rights to whistleblow in 2010 so that's impossible.
 
2013-08-12 03:33:54 PM

coeyagi: someonelse: Lt. Cheese Weasel: [fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net image 480x360]

Um, what does that have to do with the subject of this thread? Did you accidentally Benghazi on the floor because you couldn't make it to the bathroom in time?

Snowden, or Snow-den.  Another word for Igloo.  Eskimos lives in Igloos.  Eskimo Pussy is Might Fine - R. Lee Ermy.  Who was also in Toy Soldiers with Sean Astin.  Who was in Lord of the Rings with Sir Ian McKellan.  Who is gay.  Just like Ambassador Stevens. Benghazi!


I KNEW IT!

Beckian reasoning exposes another consipracy.
 
2013-08-12 03:42:48 PM

someonelse: Lt. Cheese Weasel: [fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net image 480x360]

Um, what does that have to do with the subject of this thread? Did you accidentally Benghazi on the floor because you couldn't make it to the bathroom in time?


Yep, when you gotta Benghazi, you gotta Benghazi.
 
2013-08-12 03:47:18 PM

BeesNuts: imontheinternet: BeesNuts: That I didn't know. Neat. But:
"who are eligible for access to classified information can effectively report waste, fraud, and abuse while protecting classified national security information. It prohibits retaliation against employees for reporting waste, fraud, and abuse."

Thomas Drake revealed unclassified information related to waste and abuse after a decade of trying to report it internally and was prosecuted and sent to federal prison in 2011.

But Obama expanding his rights to whistleblow in 2010 so that's impossible.


Drake's "whistleblowing" occurred during the Bush administration so unless Obama let him borrow his time machine there's no way he could have taken advantage of the new whistleblower process. Beyond that, I have no idea what imontheinternet is talking about, since the Wikipedia page he linked to says all the major charges were dropped in 2011, with Drake ultimately pleading guilty to a misdemeanor and getting sentenced to a year of community service and probation.
 
2013-08-12 03:48:16 PM

BeesNuts: imontheinternet: BeesNuts: That I didn't know. Neat. But:
"who are eligible for access to classified information can effectively report waste, fraud, and abuse while protecting classified national security information. It prohibits retaliation against employees for reporting waste, fraud, and abuse."

Thomas Drake revealed unclassified information related to waste and abuse after a decade of trying to report it internally and was prosecuted and sent to federal prison in 2011.

But Obama expanding his rights to whistleblow in 2010 so that's impossible.


Are you trying to be obtuse or do you still not understand how the Whistleblowing thing works (in an official sense)?
 
2013-08-12 04:01:25 PM

Biological Ali: BeesNuts: imontheinternet: BeesNuts: That I didn't know. Neat. But:
"who are eligible for access to classified information can effectively report waste, fraud, and abuse while protecting classified national security information. It prohibits retaliation against employees for reporting waste, fraud, and abuse."

Thomas Drake revealed unclassified information related to waste and abuse after a decade of trying to report it internally and was prosecuted and sent to federal prison in 2011.

But Obama expanding his rights to whistleblow in 2010 so that's impossible.

Drake's "whistleblowing" occurred during the Bush administration so unless Obama let him borrow his time machine there's no way he could have taken advantage of the new whistleblower process.


The leak took place during the Bush Administration, but the Obama Administration prosecuted him.  He was indicted in 2010.

Drake pled down to a misdemeanor, because the charges against him were so shaky that the prosecution had to drop them at the last minute.  The DOJ, Obama's DOJ, was going for 35 years in prison.  Drake lost his job and was financially ruined by the ordeal.  It's just another case of attacking whistleblowers to create a chilling effect that prevents future ones.

But please, keep telling everyone that the Obama Administration is whistleblower friendly and transparent, like the rest of the mindless cheerleaders.
 
2013-08-12 04:04:35 PM

vygramul: BeesNuts: vygramul: A whistleblower reveals a crime. A leaker reveals stuff that isn't.

It's possible to do both: blow the whistle on a crime, and then also leak information about stuff that isn't. Being the first doesn't excuse the second.

Telling the press that Lt. Calley murdered Vietnamese civilians is whistle-blowing. Telling the press the schedule of the next US bombing attack on the NVA isn't. Doing the first is laudable. Doing the second should send you to prison even if you did the first also.

Agreed.  The problem is that we're not even examining the information that was leaked before we determine that the leak was illegal.  Classified info = automatic crime.  Therefore, no whistleblowing is actually whistleblowing when it comes to the government.  If it's public domain, you can talk about it.  If it's classified, you simply can't.  And we've seen from the Assange days that most of this classified shiat was classified out of an extreme overabundance of caution.

There are a host of disincentives to classifying something unnecessarily. At least, where I worked there was. The document tracking alone can give you headaches. Writing something classified in a notebook accidentally could be really problematic. One tried to avoid that. "Is that number classified?" would be a question one might ask before writing it down.

Bottom line: don't create classified information if you can help it.

So I have some difficulty believing that there's a trivial approach to classifying information. All too often, people look at the content and judge it by that. But sometimes, something that looks otherwise trivial is classified not because of its content, but because of the implications of how we got it. It may look trivial to the casual observer, but to the people who generated the information to begin with, it might tell of a mole in their organization.


Having worked with some of the agencies before, and having had clearance... I can attest that there are times where classification is the default, and agencies demand a compelling reason not to classify things. Without speaking to any particular topic, I've written reports based on publicly available data that ended up getting classified, though even I can't for the life of me figure out why. There is a culture within some parts of the government, not just intelligence parts, where they feel like the less that is public, the less they'll get criticized for by politicians... ultimately a lot of the classification process in many parts of the government ends up being a function of PR more than security.

The problem with this approach is that it actually harms security. In order to access relatively benign and useless information, because of rampant over-classifying, there are tens of thousands of people who have security clearances that they really shouldn't have. They get issued the clearances because they need that benign information to do their job, but it also gives them access to a litany of data that was rightly classified.

The consequential problem to these two is that you can't talk about the problem of classification with any real specificity in a public manner... I can't say "My work with regard to _______ is classified even though it shouldn't be" because if I actually filled in the blank so you could see how frickin ass-backward the classification system is, I'd be breaking the law. Beyond even that, the way the law works, even if something classified is... say published in the Guardian or NYT like in this case... if you have a clearance and want to keep it, you must treat that information as though it is still classified... so you end up with people who wrote documents that are available in the newspaper making statements like "I can't confirm or deny the existence of that" when the published document indicates clearly that they authored it.

Overall, it's a clusterfark of a system that is so badly beyond repair that it actually harms those who would try to repair it. The classification system probably started with the best intentions, of keeping the nation safe, making sure people knew what they couldn't talk about publicly, and keeping battle plans against guys like Hitler from getting out and costing us wars... but now, there's as much, if not more, political muscle involved, as security... despite some public ends of the classified information, like Nuns, elderly people, and babies being on the no-fly list, there will be no fixes, there won't be a real discussion, and there won't be as long as people like Obama and Holder are in charge... they're more concerned with protecting the existing system than reforming it and making it reasonable, efficient, and secure.
 
2013-08-12 04:06:50 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: PsiChick: tenpoundsofcheese: I am the libbiest lib who has ever been a liberal and even I think that this is going to far.
It isn't just an attack on the First Amendment, it is an attack on Journalism (with a capital "J").

I have you farkied in orange asking why anyone posts here without getting paid. You're not liberal OR conservative. You're paid for it.

Interesting.  I have you farkied in mauve since you lie so much.
Do you have any proof that I am paid to post?


Really, would you mind explaining one time I've lied? And your quote actually comes from the thread where you said, and I quote: "But just curious, does anyone really post here without getting paid? Why would you do that?"

It was an epic thread.
 
2013-08-12 04:08:31 PM

imontheinternet: But please, keep telling everyone that the Obama Administration is whistleblower friendly and transparent, like the rest of the mindless cheerleaders.


Are you for real? You post a Wikipedia article that you clearly haven't even read (or did read and lied about its contents), and you have the gall to call other people mindless?

I'm being trolled, aren't I?
 
2013-08-12 04:10:22 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: PsiChick: tenpoundsofcheese: I am the libbiest lib who has ever been a liberal and even I think that this is going to far.
It isn't just an attack on the First Amendment, it is an attack on Journalism (with a capital "J").

I have you farkied in orange asking why anyone posts here without getting paid. You're not liberal OR conservative. You're paid for it.

Interesting.  I have you farkied in mauve since you lie so much.
Do you have any proof that I am paid to post?


I feel like I keep having to say this. Coming from you that's comedy gold.
 
2013-08-12 04:16:20 PM

Biological Ali: imontheinternet: But please, keep telling everyone that the Obama Administration is whistleblower friendly and transparent, like the rest of the mindless cheerleaders.

Are you for real? You post a Wikipedia article that you clearly haven't even read (or did read and lied about its contents), and you have the gall to call other people mindless?

I'm being trolled, aren't I?


I'm honestly not sure in his particular case. It feels that way, but he might also be a real-world fool.
 
2013-08-12 04:17:43 PM

vygramul: firefly212: vernonFL: The first amendment doesn't cover espionage or treason.

Words have farking definitions, and I'm goddamn tired of farkers throwing around TREASON as synonomous with "dissidence that I don't like."

Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term  aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information.

(sorry, copy pasta from legal dictionary, underlining not added)

The reality is that from Snowden through this guy, we're just tossing the term Treason around lightly... it isn't a farking light word. We're not talking about people waging war against our country or running to our enemies and giving them information to overthrow us, we're talking about people having substantive conversations with members of the press about ways in which the government is potentially violating our constitution. People attempting to force the government to adhere to the constitution are not attempting to "overthrow" our government, "levy war" against it, or give aid and comfort to the hypothetical enemies of state the government scapegoats as reasons for the questionable practices in the first place.  These are people who want to make a constitutional government, not dismantle it. Under this looser, new definition of "Treason" advocated by the fascists among us, "Treason" now means doing anything illegal, as breaking the law is inherently anti-state... whether you mishandle sensitive data, disclose obviously illegal practices by the government (if they have not yet been ruled illegal by the courts), or jay-walk, they contort the definition of the term such that any act constitutes a little war against the government, and as such is treason.

Treason is a real and serious crime. ...

You are aware that the word "treason" has a meaning outside of U.S. law. "Traitor: one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty" according to definition 1 of Merriam-Webster. Not definition 2 or 3 but 1. That word goes back to the 13th century.

When people call him a traitor, they're not farking wrong.


Secret laws and trials are not compatible with healthy democracy. It is irrelevant if he is a traitor; more importantly, the spirit if the bill of rights is being violated. That is far more serious than what mr snowden did.
 
2013-08-12 04:17:46 PM

Biological Ali: imontheinternet: But please, keep telling everyone that the Obama Administration is whistleblower friendly and transparent, like the rest of the mindless cheerleaders.

Are you for real? You post a Wikipedia article that you clearly haven't even read (or did read and lied about its contents), and you have the gall to call other people mindless?

I'm being trolled, aren't I?


How does the judge's final sentence change anything?  The DOJ ruined his life and tried to throw him in jail for 35 years for something the administration says it supports.

This is what people do when they don't have an argument.  Focus on some tiny detail to draw focus from what's actually happening.  The Obama Administration is hostile to whistleblowers.  It is secretive and lashes out at anyone who tries to impose transparency, even through the methods it says it approves.  This was one of the Bush Administration's worse policies, and the Obama Administration has adopted it.

Attacking individual whistleblowers isn't even the point; the point is the chilling effect it creates.  Here's an article from that conservitard rag, HuffPo, if you care to read about Drake and other cases and how journailsts are reacting to all this.  Of course, you can also feel free to ignore the article itself and go line-by-line to find some minor detail that helps your point.
 
2013-08-12 04:18:30 PM

imontheinternet: Biological Ali: imontheinternet: He's chasing whistleblowers all over the world and compromising our relations with Russia to make a point that he wants to prosecute a whistleblower. He's throwing reporters in jail. How are you possibly arguing that he's pro-whistleblower?

There's a process for whistleblowers that has indeed been strengthened under Obama. Obama never made any promise to extend legal protections to people who leak classified information.

Even if you're personally of the opinion that Snowden's a "whistleblower", you've got to at least understand that the issue here isn't that Obama made some promise to go easy on people like Snowden and failed to keep it - it's that Obama never considered people like this to be "whistleblowers" to begin with.

I'm not saying leaking classified information isn't illegal.  I'm not even saying that he can't be prosecuted.  I'm saying that the tremendous efforts to get Snowden, condemning Russia and China, waylaying the plane of the president of Bolivia, etc., and the PR campaign against him have been extreme.  This Administration takes a hard line on whistleblowers or leakers, whatever you want to call it, that goes above and beyond simply enforcing the law.


The term "whistleblower" being used here demonstrates a huge failure on the part of those using it- whistleblowing exposes a crime, and everything the NSA has been doing is perfectly legal and has been for some time even before the Patriot Acts (and frankly no one in the court system- whose opinions are the only ones that count, who can order you arrested by law enforcement officers and the like- disagrees with the Supreme Court on this. No one cares that you don't respect that fact; people with MP5s and badges do). I'll agree with you that PRISM's existence is a huge failure of the government to fulfill its promise to create a better society for us all, and that it would appear to give the finger to the many general concepts presented in the Constitution, but just because a law should not be a law does not mean it isn't an actual law, and that government acting in compliance with it constitutes something that needs "whistleblowing"; you can expose perfectly legal yet terrible practices to the public and this would NOT be whistleblowing, even though you're still a concerned citizen trying to make the world a better place.
 
2013-08-12 04:20:12 PM

coyo: vygramul: firefly212: vernonFL: The first amendment doesn't cover espionage or treason.

Words have farking definitions, and I'm goddamn tired of farkers throwing around TREASON as synonomous with "dissidence that I don't like."

Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term  aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information.

(sorry, copy pasta from legal dictionary, underlining not added)

The reality is that from Snowden through this guy, we're just tossing the term Treason around lightly... it isn't a farking light word. We're not talking about people waging war against our country or running to our enemies and giving them information to overthrow us, we're talking about people having substantive conversations with members of the press about ways in which the government is potentially violating our constitution. People attempting to force the government to adhere to the constitution are not attempting to "overthrow" our government, "levy war" against it, or give aid and comfort to the hypothetical enemies of state the government scapegoats as reasons for the questionable practices in the first place.  These are people who want to make a constitutional government, not dismantle it. Under this looser, new definition of "Treason" advocated by the fascists among us, "Treason" now means doing anything illegal, as breaking the law is inherently anti-state... whether you mishandle sensitive data, disclose obviously illegal practices by the government (if they have not yet been ruled illegal by the courts), or jay-walk, they contort the definition of the term such that any act constitutes a little war against the government, and as such is treason.

Treason is a r ...


I think where the story goes is that a loyalist to the constitution can still be considered a traitor to the government once the government has strayed far enough from the constitution.
 
Displayed 50 of 337 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report