Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Some Guy)   Two anonymous sources tell Associated Press that the government is taking steps to stop all leaks to the press   (apnews.myway.com) divider line
83
    More: Ironic  
•       •       •

5004 clicks; posted to Main » and Politics » on 24 Apr 2006 at 8:01 PM (16 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



83 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
Shadowspawn
2006-04-24 4:45:19 PM  
Ironic tag trumps unlikely, methinks.

"The press is tipped by a leak that the government is taking stoeps to stop all leaks to the press."

/me head explodes
 
ComicBookGuy
2006-04-24 4:56:14 PM  
Well, the Bushies only want leaks when it suits them.
 
The RIchest Man in Babylon
2006-04-24 5:13:53 PM  
ComicBookGuy
Zing!
 
Party Boy
2006-04-24 6:10:54 PM  
Two anonymous sources tell Associated Press that the government is taking steps to stop all leaks to the press on the constitution.

Damn piece of paper.
 
Shadowspawn
2006-04-24 6:29:44 PM  
w00t
 
Weaver95
2006-04-24 7:58:53 PM  
On one hand, it's wrong to violate the agreement you signed when getting your security clearance. On the other hand, the fedgov has been doing some dodgy things lately under the aegis of 'national security'....things that make it clear THEY violated THEIR oaths.

So I dunno. Do two ethical violations make a right? I mean, if your bosses are spying on US citizens in violation of US law, do you violate your secrecy oath to rat 'em out?
 
elpepe55
2006-04-24 8:05:16 PM  
Now that is irony and I defy anyone to tell me it isn't
 
Teucer
2006-04-24 8:06:38 PM  
Not ironic as knowledge of this stronger policy is not classified. Why would it have to be?
 
DarkSoulNoHope
2006-04-24 8:06:50 PM  
Weaver95 asked: "So I dunno. Do two ethical violations make a right? I mean, if your bosses are spying on US citizens in violation of US law, do you violate your secrecy oath to rat 'em out?"

Good question, and that's why they do have the whistleblower act extended by law to intelligence agencies. Only problem is, unlike a business, it's a little harder to get the CIA to cooperate to a corruption investigation.
 
mrexcess
2006-04-24 8:08:09 PM  
Weaver95
I mean, if your bosses are spying on US citizens in violation of US law, do you violate your secrecy oath to rat 'em out?

I suppose that depends on whether your allegience is to the US or to your bosses.
 
punta_gorda_allstar
2006-04-24 8:08:31 PM  
On a lighter note, I actually contemplated not bashing the federal government anymore out of true fear of being dragged away while I slept.
 
Jack31081
2006-04-24 8:11:06 PM  
punta_gorda_allstar: On a lighter note, I actually contemplated not bashing the federal government anymore out of true fear of being dragged away while I slept.

if you're not saying anything accusatory, you have nothing to fear.

just keep an eye out for the finger men on your way home after dark.

\America prevails
 
Nibbled to death by gerbils
2006-04-24 8:11:35 PM  
Ah yes, control the information that the people have, and then you can control what they think.

Hitler has been reborn...
 
Prospero424
2006-04-24 8:12:52 PM  
So, have they deployed the "plumbers" yet? Is Liddy being called back to "active duty"?

Weaver95: So I dunno. Do two ethical violations make a right? I mean, if your bosses are spying on US citizens in violation of US law, do you violate your secrecy oath to rat 'em out?

The Constitution trumps any contract you might sign with an employer, even if that employer happens to be the united States government. So I'd say yeah.
 
dognose4
2006-04-24 8:12:57 PM  
Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) echoed Harman, saying, "A CIA agent has an obligation to uphold the law, and clearly leaking is against the law. And nobody should leak." But he added: "If you're leaking to tell the truth, Americans are going to look at that, at least mitigate or think about what are the consequences that you . . . put on that person."

Aren't all the real leaks truthful? Otherwise, they aren't real leaks! I think Kerry only supports leaks when it supports his agenda.
 
coma
2006-04-24 8:13:08 PM  
Thank god we have V. With the current administration, the 1984 references we're getting stale... verily stale.
 
Dubya's_Coke_Dealer
2006-04-24 8:13:11 PM  
Yeah, stupid citizens, they think THEY rule America.
 
Underwater Bystander
2006-04-24 8:15:14 PM  
Annonymous sources, government coverup, Plamegate.

There's something familiar about this....
 
coma
2006-04-24 8:16:13 PM  
dognose4

Congradulations, you have officially instated the "But Kerry..." defense. That is so new millenium of you.
 
Reverend Otis
2006-04-24 8:16:51 PM  
The laws of God supercede the laws of Man. Breaking the rules is necessary in the media climate where deceit and subterfuge distort the truth.

It is in the same vein of soldiers following unethical orders from their superiors, and being held accountable for their part in atrocities. One must do right by humanity, or risk becoming monstrous.

/agnostic
 
windowseat
2006-04-24 8:18:34 PM  
I've never understood why a freely elected government should keep secrets from it's people in the first place. Is it possible they might be up to something we wouldn't like?
 
Remfin
2006-04-24 8:18:35 PM  
On one hand, it's wrong to violate the agreement you signed when getting your security clearance. On the other hand, the fedgov has been doing some dodgy things lately under the aegis of 'national security'....things that make it clear THEY violated THEIR oaths.

So I dunno. Do two ethical violations make a right? I mean, if your bosses are spying on US citizens in violation of US law, do you violate your secrecy oath to rat 'em out?

Well there's 2 things...#1 whistleblowing is a moral imperative, considering you also give an oath to defend the Constitution, which trumps all, and #2 many of these leaks have been leaking things that are ONLY classified because they are illegal or embarassing - which are not reasons for classification. That the CIA or someone secretly captures and talks to suspected terrorists? The NSA taps phone lines? Duhhhhhhhhh. It's the illegal parts that are causing these programs to be classified, not because the power is secret

Not that there aren't grey areas, obviously one person could think something is illegal/immoral and others don't, but 95% of these leaks have been not even close to a judgement call, they have been pretty clearly illegal/immoral stuff
 
skinink [OhFark]
2006-04-24 8:18:55 PM  
All I want to know from the Bush Administration is, are we at war with Eurasia and friends with Eastasia this week, or at war with Eastasia and friends with Eurasia ?


[image from oilempire.us too old to be available]
 
Charmaniac
2006-04-24 8:27:29 PM  
[image from photopile.com too old to be available]

Our government is a little dutch boy!

They will never stop leaks to the press though, try as they might.

Secrecy is George W. Bush's best friend, otherwise people will find out about how farked up his method of governing really is.
 
trancemission
2006-04-24 8:27:38 PM  
I'm no irony expert, but damn it this just feels right.
 
Miles D Davis Jr.
2006-04-24 8:32:06 PM  
This is just sad.

Sounds like our departed Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner feels the same way.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5255712

//Why does NPR hate America?
 
ZipBeep
2006-04-24 8:37:43 PM  
Well, everybody knew Porter Goss was just going to be a Bush hatchet man.

/Surprising it took this long.
 
Miles D Davis Jr.
2006-04-24 8:38:36 PM  
ZipBeep

Uhh... it certainly hasn't been this long, Goss has been an asshat since he was "promoted".
 
ukparrothead
2006-04-24 8:42:20 PM  
As well as it should be, whoever leaks needs to go to jail. I'm guessing they signed a NDA and knew what they were geeting into with that clearance and programs they were read into.
 
stiletto_the_wise
2006-04-24 8:51:55 PM  
If you signed a contract saying you'd never discuss what happens at work outside of work, but then witnessed someone murdered at work, do you call the police?
 
Mouser
2006-04-24 8:52:36 PM  
windowseat
I've never understood why a freely elected government should keep secrets from it's people in the first place. Is it possible they might be up to something we wouldn't like?

The US government keeps secrets from its people by the peoples' consent. The American public is savvy enough to know that some of its members can't be trusted with certain pieces of information, pieces that if our enemies knew them could be used to harm our country. So the public, through its elected represtatives and the intelligence services those representatives created, hides some information from itself, for its own safety.

Having a security clearance and access to that information is a position of special trust granted by the American public to individuals its elected officials deem trustworthy. People like our so-called "whistleblower" here abuse that trust, threatening yours and my safety to satisfy their own egotistical sense of what's right and wrong.

Firing is not enough punishment. People like that should be taken out and shot.
 
cashman
2006-04-24 8:59:33 PM  
[image from gamersmafia.com too old to be available]
 
Weaver95
2006-04-24 9:03:13 PM  
I've never understood why a freely elected government should keep secrets from it's people in the first place.

Because like it or not there are some very unpleasant things that have to be done to ensure security. There are also operational details and technological secrets that would not do anyone any good should the bad guys get ahold of them. So secrecy is important - and that's the kind of thing I've got no problem with.....

My problem is that from what I can see, this adminstration is abusing it's authority to hide everything from mistakes and potential embarrasments up to potential criminal acts under the cloak of 'national security'. Not only does this undermine the public trust, it's also bad for REAL cases of national security as well as damaging the public good. How can we EVER be sure now that anything our national security folks do is really in the national interest? There will always be the tiny doubt that maybe they're doing something dirty for the political ends of people in charge and not doing their actual jobs. THAT'S what I despise.

Firing is not enough punishment. People like that should be taken out and shot.

I'm hoping that was some sort of twisted parody.
 
TheGoblinKing
2006-04-24 9:09:10 PM  
In a highly unusual move, the CIA has fired an employee for leaking classified information to the news media, including details about secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe that resulted in a Pultizer Prize-winning story, officials said Friday.

Highly unusual? They leaked top secret information that damaged the war effort, how the fruck is it highly unusual that she got fired? Because someone won a pulitzer for aiding and abetting it??
 
yotta
2006-04-24 9:10:49 PM  
I sure hope Georgie doesn't choke on that sock. Especially in view of his choking history.
 
stiletto_the_wise
2006-04-24 9:13:25 PM  
Weaver95

I'm with you... it's a tough call though: Who has to decide what are strategic military secrets and what are mistakes/embarrasments/crimes? Who even CAN decide this if they are all secret from the public?
 
Pierogie
2006-04-24 9:16:23 PM  
Oops...I leaked....
WHAA!
Wha?
An Israeli strategic airstrike on suspected nuclear research sites all across Iran?
WHAAAAAAAHHHH!!!!!
 
brgn87
2006-04-24 9:17:34 PM  
Best Headline EVERRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!

Bravo Submitter.
 
SchlingFo
2006-04-24 9:20:32 PM  
Weaver95,

I mean, if your bosses are spying on US citizens in violation of US law, do you violate your secrecy oath to rat 'em out?

You do.

And, then, you take the punishment for breaking the oath you took.

Doing the right thing is rarely ever painless.
 
RavynWiald
2006-04-24 9:20:56 PM  
Weaver95

I have come to sincerely respect you over these past weeks. While I have always respected your intellectual prowess, in the past your posts have made me shudder, (which may indeed be a function of my own ideological fallacy).

But I feel that your opinion has transcended mere partisanship and has entered the level of the open and well-informed, a level that I'm probably not at yet myself.

Because like it or not there are some very unpleasant things that have to be done to ensure security. There are also operational details and technological secrets that would not do anyone any good should the bad guys get ahold of them. So secrecy is important - and that's the kind of thing I've got no problem with.....

My problem is that from what I can see, this adminstration is abusing it's authority to hide everything from mistakes and potential embarrasments up to potential criminal acts under the cloak of 'national security'. Not only does this undermine the public trust, it's also bad for REAL cases of national security as well as damaging the public good. How can we EVER be sure now that anything our national security folks do is really in the national interest? There will always be the tiny doubt that maybe they're doing something dirty for the political ends of people in charge and not doing their actual jobs. THAT'S what I despise.

Private detainment camps on foreign soil. Does that fall under your 'potential criminal acts?' I'm not looking for a flame war, just a clarification.
 
RavynWiald
2006-04-24 9:21:57 PM  
Well it's clear I have no concept of HTML. Can some kind soul quickly enlighten me as to the appropriate tags?
 
Miles D Davis Jr.
2006-04-24 9:23:08 PM  
Hey, I have a question...

Why the *$ isn't this a flame war?

if anything should be... it should be this.
 
Prospero424
2006-04-24 9:23:25 PM  
stiletto_the_wise: I'm with you... it's a tough call though: Who has to decide what are strategic military secrets and what are mistakes/embarrasments/crimes? Who even CAN decide this if they are all secret from the public?

It really is a tough call and could be the subject of a LONG discusssion. However, I can't think of a single justification for keeping something, anything a secret from the public for more than 25 years after the fact, as is the case with most "state secrets" these days. There is just a HUGE amount of information out there that is to be kept classified in perpetuity.

I don't care who you are or who you work for; that's wrong, and there's no good justification for it other than wanting the government and those in it to be unaccountable to the American people.

And guess who's been the most obsessed with this kind of secrecy, lately; extending the classification of not only current, but PAST Presidential records into infinity.

I think you can guess.
 
itsfullofstars
2006-04-24 9:25:16 PM  
[image from ilovebacon.com too old to be available]
 
Thenixon
2006-04-24 9:28:00 PM  
TFA:"No Post reporter has been subpoenaed or talked to investigators in connection with this matter[that we can tell you about]," Post spokesman Eric Grant said Friday.


/yay patriots!!!1!
 
Epinephy
2006-04-24 9:30:08 PM  
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/20/news/rendition.php
 
clayndwoods
2006-04-24 9:40:13 PM  
Yeah, right. In other news, they are rounding up illegal immigrants for deportation. Yeah Right... In other news...
 
Thenixon
2006-04-24 9:42:08 PM  
Epinephy - apparently Gijs de Vries was convinced by his brother Piter to keep quiet about the infamous Harkonnen techniques.
 
mrexcess
2006-04-24 9:43:19 PM  
"We aren't keeping anyone in secret prisons. By the way, we're firing and prosecuting a CIA agent for leaking information about them."

/With every swig of Kool-Aid, our nation dies a little more
 
atomsmoosher
2006-04-24 9:46:17 PM  
Epinephy

In the (mangled) words of Mayor Barry: They set the biatch up.

Of course, whenever the media screws something up, it's Rove's insidious doings.
 
Displayed 50 of 83 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all



Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

Want to see behind the curtain? Try

TotalFark

It's how we feed the squirrel

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.