Redstate

Well, it's a good thing we don't really need the help of THESE countries in the Global War on Terror.

Hat tip to The American Thinker

EASTERN European countries were yesterday scrambling to distance themselves from the CIA as officials in Washington searched for the source of an embarrassing leak that exposed a programme of secret jails for terrorist detainees.  Claims that the CIA has been hiding prominent Al-Qaeda members at a so-called "black site" facility in eastern Europe have prompted angry denials from Romania, Poland and Albania.

As details emerged yesterday of CIA flights to remote military airfields in northeast Poland and southeast Romania, George W Bush's administration ordered an internal inquiry into how classified data was leaked to The Washington Post and Human Rights Watch, a New York-based group.

you had seen zell's piece

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/1105/02edmiller.html

because I am far more concerned (p*sseds off actually) about some folks at the CIA thinking they have the right to run their own foreign policy than I am about the 'secret' incarceration the b*astards who are trying to kill me.

Where is the demand for an investigation? We went around in small circles for two years to find the miscreant the might have spilled the beans about a maybe-once-upon-a-time-undercover CIA desk-jockey. And after two years what did we end up with? An indictment for testimony that disagreed with some d*mned reporter about a non-crime. But for some reason we can't seem to muster a full fledged investigation into the illegal conduct of people at the CIA leaking classified information and the press and Human Rights Watch for receiving classified information. One or more people at the CIA need to be stood up against a wall and shot.

Does anyone on the other side of the aisle give a rats-*ss about this country?

As always, smagar. Bumped.

Don't blame the media for doing its job.  This is a democracy and it is the press that keeps us informed.  If you want to censor the media I suggest you lobby lawmakers to pass legislation to do so.  Until that sad day comes, it I hope the press continues to tell is what is being done around the globe in our name.

If any person irresponsibly aid the nation's enemies in war, they will be blamed whether they are in the "media" or not. What is il;;lustrated by thei and their behavipor since wa;lter cropnkites tet ;lie, is that mpost in the media are enemies themsel;ves. Just ask them.\ they are "woprl;d citizens" first, nopt americans.\

well, the "world" is indifferent to good, evil, justice, and the slaughter of innocents. The world is amoral, unaccountable and aloof, and so serves the evil powers that profit from ignorant moral relativism.

the remedy is, partially, what we are doing now at redstate and the alternative media

we need aggresive conservative broadcast tv news and a better fox!!

BUT, an argument can be made that, given the blood many msm hands in this war, that action should be taken like that in ww2 to censor info that aids the enemy and us lives

freedom of the press is not a suicide pact

Show me where in the Constitution it says it is the job of the press to damage our security. All that these stories accomplish is to make it harder to protect the country and the press doesn't seem to give a d*mn so long as some so-called journalist breaks the story first.

The diary author didn't call for censorship.  He asked if the reporters care what their reporting does to America.

These MSM people are constantly claiming that they are the "guardians of the First Amendment," that they are an institution of this society.

If so, doesn't that mean they have an obligation to act in our long-term best interests, taking into account all possible effects of their reporting?

After all, these reporters are constantly harping on the virtues of keeping anonymous sources secret, so they do understand the principle that sometimes there are things left secret.

simply put: well said.

I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who said that if he had to pick between a free press and a government, he'd pick a free press. I see his point.

The day that the prevailing attitude is "go upstairs and play with you toys, kids.", we're in a lot of trouble.

This ofcourse is no excuse for irrepsonsible or yellow journalism that misinforms and misleads but I don't ee this as being the case.

I'll add that I think many disgruntled people here, for perverse partisan reasons, wouldn't be as angry if the Dems were in power.

It's worded as "freedom of the press" without passion or prejiduce to whom it pisses off.

leaks.

Seems to me, the damage caused by leaks like this are far worse than Novak printing Valarie Plame's name.

I also agree, that a leaky CIA will make countries reluctant to help us.  

Seems to me that the media should be more responsible, and the administration should investigate and fully prosecute these leaks.  

The press was censored during the Second World War - and for good reason.  And, frankly, they need it more than ever today, given the generally unpatriotic behavior of the press.

doesn't make it right to do it.

Just because it isn't illegal for the press to print info leaked to them, that doesn't mean it is ethical or wise for them to do so.

that's your opinion and is controlled by what you think is patriotic. Questioning authority and putting them under the test of scrutiny IS patriotic. I like it.

Politicans of all stripes should be careful how they handle the public trust (or squander it).

Yes, the press has done nothing criminal but as the Left's Eliot Ness pointed out, they are "witnesses to a crime".  And as the court has ruled, journalists do not have a special privilege that allows them to protect the identify of such criminals, the Left's Eliot Ness drove that point home quite well as Judith Miller can testify.

So make these reporters give up these criminals from the crime scenes they have witnessed, or hold them in contempt until they do... or until they rot... whichever comes first.  The administration needs to learn to throw domestic fastballs.  Their opponents do so every day.

expect to keep secret forever CIA prison camps in Poland and Romania?  The truth would eventually come out.  Perhaps a Polish farmer disgusted by our prison in his country or a CIA jailer who grows a conscious.  In an open society (we are still an open society, aren't we?) you can't hope to keep such things secret.

There are other questions.  Are these CIA prison camps in accord with U.S. law?  Are they in accord with Polish and Romanian law?  Do they violate international treaties such as the "Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment?"  

a secret CIA prison in Eastern Europe, outweigh the cost of potentially losing that prison, along with the cooperation of the nation who hosted it?

I don't get the sense the MSM thinks much about that.  They report whatever they can get their hands on, and let others deal with the problems that creates.  They leave (at least with me) the impression that they don't much care what they screw up, or who they imperil, with their reporting.

Has anyone, for example, seen any probing self-analysis by the MSM as to whether the benefit of outing the CIA's secret airline in Iraq (as the NYT did this past summer) outweighed the cost of imperiling those who worked for that airline?

Or, did you get the same feeling that I did:  That the NYT really didn't get a hoot if anyone got hurt.

I don't have a black/white view on the question on what the MSM should/shouldn't report on intelligence.  I value living in a country with a free press.  

But I also know that most useful intelligence partnerships are confidential ones.  Especially in today's touchy world.  And, without good partners in the Global War on Terrorism, we are much less effective and, most likely, much less safe.  

I just get the sense that the MSM doesn't care as much as it should about who gets hurt.  And they should.  Because that "who" could easily be us.

But the press has this wacky idea that "the public has the right to know."

Oddly, in spite of the MSM's constant bellowing to the contrary, this concept is not and never has been part of the bill of rights. You and I, frankly, don't have the "right" to know anything. And in some cases, I don't care if I know, but I hope you (the proverbial 'you') don't find out.

If the CIA were doing its job and keeping a tight lid on operations, the MSM would have nothing to work with.

Do I believe the MSM to be largely peopled with traitors or morons? Sure. The best way to fight back, though, is to simply black out the information coming their way. And I absolutely believe that, when it comes to certain information (CIA ops, prison camps, strategy, etc) this ought to be done.

You'd be surprised what the bad guys NEVER find out about.  Often, things you'd think they'd figure out--they don't.

Remember, during the Gulf War, the "Hail Mary" maneuver of the 24th Infantry Division.  It crossed the western Iraqi desert to cut off the Iraqi escape routes from Kuwait to Baghdad.

No one expected that an Army tank division would catch the Iraqis totally by surprise.  But, in a very real sense, it happened.  The lead tank companies of the 24th Infantry encountered columns of Iraqi heavy-equipment transporters (HETs) driving to Baghdad, with tanks tied down on the backs of the trucks.  As if they were cargo.  

Now, no one puts a tank on the back of a truck, with the barrel tied down, if you think you might, just possibly, run into the enemy.

But the Iraqis did.  Many were indeed fooled.

If the bad guys figure it out, fine.  We'll react.  But, make them do the hard work.  Make them figure it out.  Let's not make it easy for them.  

so, would it be in better conscience to know that a prisoner has vital information that could save hundreds or thousands of lives, but simply let it go, becuase you might have to hurt the guy to find out?

Seriously, we didn't actually torture prisoners in abu graib or guantanamo... humiliated, absolutely, but there was no real torture; and the left screamed bloody murder.

But what if we did have to resort to torture? I'm a Christian, and the thought of hurting another human being disgusts me. But the thought of letting many people die rather than harming one... that, to me, is unconscienable.

Even humiliating prisoners is against treaty law. And it is against EVERYTHING our country was founded upon.

If we begin with the philosophy that WE have no morality in this war. When we have secret prison camps (I seem to recall when the communists had them we thought it was evil) and a Vice-President urging Congress to permit torture, justifying it all as pursuit of the greater good, then what have we become?  You are a Christian.  Since when did Christians begin beliving in situational morality?

One big reason to be against torture -- I just did a post on this here -- is that torture is very likely to lead to false information.  People being tortured tend to say whatever they think will end the torture, not what is true.  As a matter of fact, some key false information about an Iraq-AlQaeda-WMD connection was received from an Al-Qaeda member who was being tortured.  Given that false information is often worse than no information at all, I don't see a good reason to have a policy of torturing people for information.  

Really. I'm not a huge fan of torture. I mentioned in another post that I was pro-assassination. Believe it or not, I'm not a huge fan of that either. But are there occassions when morals (Yes, morals!) and ethics call for either? In some situations I think so. It's called the lesser of two evils.

You're right... I don't like situational ethics, and I really do have a hard time with things like this. But the question you have to ask is, which is the more moral option? Is it more moral to let the hundreds or thousands die? Or to let one terrorist get knocked around a little?

"Hail Mary" was kept secret for a few weeks.  "Operation Overlord" was kept secret for a few months.  "Enigma" was kept secret for five years, and many people lost their lives keeping that secret.

The CIA prison camps were kept secret for a couple of years.  That is a long time.  This is the kind of secret that would have to be kept FOREVER.  That is impossible.  Also, it's unfair to blame the MSM.  European countries were beginning to suspect.  They were filing complaints about CIA prisoner overflights.  The s*** was going to hit the fan on this soon no matter what the MSM did.  Unless we propose censoring the entire world.

Here's a question for the readership: what do you think would constitute grounds for intelligence personnel to speak out about a policy or program they found objectionable?  Anything in particular? Nothing at all?

If not gulags on our tax dollar operating without legal oversight and potentially employing abduction and torture and producing destabilizing embarrassment to host nations, then what?

How about if you knew of specific violations of law?  What if you were aware of intelligence collections against American citizens in contravention of intelligence oversight laws?  What if financial fraud was being committed?  How about if you were ordered to perform actions that you knew to be illegal or destructive?

In short...what, if any, are acceptable grounds for one to "blow the whistle" on such activity?  And where on the continuum between minor violations of regulations and comitting mass slaughter would be the threshold where you'd feel compelled to take action?

I find these arguments for moral relativism and the ends justifying the means disturbing, particularly when coupled with the insinuation that any who'd object are somehow treasonous or abetting the enemy.  Dubious acts that flout our laws and values for short term gain and long term damage to our security strike me as the real crime and un-American conduct.

it prohibits "degrading" treatment

we can't tie our hands with such a word and telegraph our limitatins to the  enemy

mccain proves pow experience does not guarantee war wisdom

he also wanted lawyers for gitmo terrorists, incl UBLs bodyguard!!

thats madness

we had hundreds of thousands of pows in wwii

hes not qualified to be president thinking like that

Under the "Uniform Code of Military Justice" personnel have an obligation and a duty to obey lawful orders and have an obligation and duty to disobey unlawful orders.  It was under this concept that the the Nuremberg trials disallowed the "just following orders" defense.

If FDR, or JFK or WJC were still president, the MSM would not bring out info about things like this.  The democrats can do no wrong.  The Liberal, Socialists, Communists brethern in West Europe are the be all and end all for the American MSM.  The MSM in the U.S. and to some extent, even Fox News Channel, are THE FIFTH COLUMN that will bring this country to its knees! When there is an autocratic, dictatorship in the U.S., either be it a left wing or right wing regime, the so call "freedom of the press" the MSM thinks it is promoting will be non-existent.  One of the first things an authoritarian government will put a stop to is the "free press" and start a tight control of all media.  The "unidentified source" will bring this country down more and more each day.  I could say anything harmful about our government, our military, our intelligence services, our FBI or any operation trying to protect this country from terrorism and with the hate driven MSM personnel not willing nor able to check out my statements and would publish or report my statements as fact, just to scoop the story and make the USA look bad.  This is not my conspiracy theory, it is my firm belief.

it's time to investigate the CIA.  Something is seriously wrong at Langley, and the men in black have got to be forced into line--or forced out.

We need the media to do what we want, like the Swift Boat ad. We need the media to uphold our values, not the values of every american.

All right.

Good job.

:)

At the risk of asking a stupid question, what does a response of "5" mean?

and should be prosecuted if committed. That answers your question.

innocent opposers of communist oppression were put in gulags

want to re-phrase

oh, and I know, you love the troops and america...but no more than any other country right, citizen of the world?

when we go to war, we authorize the president to KILL

the means: kill

thats the most extreme means

get it

ends:  freedom

Let's say you're a jailor, and you have a prisoner who you know has info that will save hundreds or thousands or millions. Do you sit back and not torture them , if that's required? No, you do it... and take the consequences.

The consequence could be that a jury of your peers will let you off... or rot in prison for 20 years. If you saved the people, though, I suspect you could live with yourself.

We managed the flow of information very well in the first gulf war.  In his daily briefings, General Schwartzkopf only gave away crumbs to the media.  The media hated it, but it was all they had to go on.  As you recall, CNN's Peter Arnett got so mad about it that he cozied up to the Iraqi's to get more info.

For whatever reason, we tried this Glasnost with the media this time around, even allowing embedded reporters.  I admire President Bush for extending olive branches to his enemies, but each time he's done that the olive branch has turned into a switch with which his enemies welt his backside.  Kennedy writing the education bill.  Allowing the media more war access.  Allowing Harry Reid to "suggest" Harriet Miers.  Thank you sir may I have another!  Might be time to switch strategies.

Ed Murrow should have blabbed all of D-Day's secret plans to the whole world.

Or it was fine for Judy Miller to tip off Islamic Charities they were under investigation for funneling money to Al Qaeda.

Or it's fine to phone up a suspected Serial Killer so he can hide the evidence. Or trumpet confidential details about murder investigations just to impede investigations.

At a certain level, the Free Press depends on restraint based on shared interest of all citizens: military operations should succeed at time of War; terror and murder investigations should be allowed to finish before blaring info; and that journalists are US citizens with US interests first and journalists second.

Operating according to Mike Wallace's famous dictum that he was a journalist first and would not warn Marines of ambush so he could get the story is a sure fire way to erode freedom of the Press. The People will not long tolerate an institution actively hostile to it's larger interests, no matter what the monied, hereditary, elite say. Ala Anderson Cooper being Gloria Vanderbilt's kid.

I am neither a republican nor a democrat, I am an active duty Staff Sergeant and Iraq war Veteran. I love my country, I would do anything for it. I arrived in Iraq in April 2003, I originally believed in the Weapons of Mass Destruction reasoning to go into Iraq. I admit, i bought into the "fear" that this administration and the extremly weak media sold on the american people. Stupid me. While in Iraq, I discovered that we were not only in Iraq to remove Saddam of WMD, it wasn't only to liberate Iraq from Saddam, it wasn't only to "spread freedom", nor was it to "fight them there, so we don't have to fight them here". I am a mechanic that worked for a construction engineer battalion, our job was to build permanent military bases in northern iraq. Yes I said "permanent", bases that included PX, shoppettes, phone centers, internet cafe's, chow halls, churches, and Air-Assault centers. Why would we build these places if American soldiers were only going to be in Iraq until Iraqi's can take care of themselves? Notice the downsizing of S. Korea, Maybe thats because we will now have american servicemen and women stationed in Iraq forever. Just like we did in Korea for the last 50 years. You know maybe I would be fine with this today, if the administration had told me this from the beginning, just maybe. Know I'll wait for the responses to this post, just maybe one or two of you will call me a liar for what I've said, or maybe you'll even doubt my service all together. Keep supporting the troops.

...thinking in you analogy is that you KNOW they have info.

Now what if your a jailer and you think he might know some information, do you beat him, electrode him, flush him via enema, force feed him, urinate on him, cut him, leave him close to death and he give up some info.

GREAT! It worked. Only the info that he gave you is bogus, and now you are even madder and you beat him more.

Start using the fold, if you would. Makes the bumping of diaries much easier.

The extent of the radio decrypt effort in the Pacific, which tied in diplomatic (including our allies) and military radio traffic and had an army of analysts doing essentially data mining without computers (the entire "Magic" codebreaking effort in the Pacific which was much larger than just breaking codes) was concealed for decades by Truman and his successors.

Even when the totality of the data allowed Truman to rebut arguments that he was bloodthirsty and ignorant in dropping the Atomic Bomb. The totality of the "data mining" showed the Japanese to be unwilling to surrender until after the second bomb.

The effort and ability to co-ordinate and collect this intelligence, which was highly technical, was the decisive advantage throughout the Cold War and the Soviets never matched it. It was protected for approximately 30 plus years until disclosed in the Early 1980s.

So...if it's that simple...could the President just borrow a sidearm from an agent, walk out of the White House, and shoot someone in the street he regards as an enemy?  Are there no limits on the power of the executive branch and its conduct?

We're a nation of law.  It defines us and our civic culture.  If we simply dispense with it when it's inconvenient, what distinguishes us from banana republics and African juntas?  Lots of countries have fabulous sounding Constitutions on the books.  What makes us special is that we take ours seriously.

First of all, thanks for your service to our country. Believe it or not, it's actually perfectly well within the range of our imagination that someone who has gone over and fought in the war could be: (a) a Democrat and/or (b) disillusioned with the current administration. So no, I've got no reason to doubt what you are saying or your service.

Second, it's a bit disingenuous of you to imply  that you're a disinterested non-partisan by saying that "you're neither Republican or Democrat," when your posting history on other blogs (Huffington Post, for example - RadioEqualizer for another) indicates that this is anything but the truth.

FTR, we welcome Democrats and Liberals here, but one thing we frown on is Democrats and Liberals pretending they're not Democrats and Liberals. That's called trolling.

Be what you are and who you are, be respectful of others, and welcome to RedState.

Former POWs who WERE tortured admitted it worked. So do former Soviet Torturers in the Great Patriotic War. It does indeed work. It's why it's used. It can also be used to make POWS make statements against America (which happened all the time in Vietnam; former POWS don't blame those who finally cracked because they understand the horrible tortures, every man had his own limits).

There are sound reasons morally not to torture; but that it does not work is not one of them. It certainly does. It is also wicked and we should not do it. All else is PC blather.

Your comment had nothing at all to do with the post to which you responded. Please try and keep it on-topic. Thanks!

but not a liar.

We might, for example, point out that this diary is about how the Mainstream Media seems indifferent to the impact of broadcasting leaks on intelligence.  As your comments seem to be off that topic, you might want to consider writing your own diary, instead of pulling this one off topic.

I'm sorry you felt deceived, and you feel embittered.  But, many American and foreign leaders felt that Hussein had WMD, and we couldn't wait for him to fire some missiles and prove it.

As for the permanent bases, I remember many of our leaders saying that we could easily be in Iraq for a long time.  There were some who thought we could leave soon after Hussein was toppled, but most (e.g., former SecState Colin Powell) predicted we'd be there for several years, while the Iraqi government got on its feet.  So, if that's turned out to be the case, then why shouldn't we build some more permanent facilities.

As for anyone here doubting your service or calling you a liar---well, is that what you want?  Are you looking to be insulted?  Are you here to play the martyr and the victim?  I hope not.

We all honor your service.  Your country is proud of you, and grateful for what you did.  But, no one was trying to mislead you.  With all due respect, if you'd paid attention, the warnings of a long and hard slog ahead were there for all to see and hear.

you can take this faux naivete down the hall. The fact that the press can report something does not mean that they should. I suppose you'd think it just peachy for them to print the security plan for the nuclear plant down the road? Or the guard schedule for the Pantex nuclear weapons plant.

We aren't taling about passion, prejudice or who ti p*sses off, we are talking about the safety and security of this country and everyone in it, including you and your wife, kids and parents.

The Constitution of the United States is not a suicide pact.

Are not the same as crimes against the status quo ante policy.

MOST/ALL of the CIA leaks are driven by personal and bureaucratic politics not genuine human rights abuses.

The same agency that happily aided Iran-Contra; various paramilitary schemes throughout Central America, complicity in the assassination of archbishops and nuns throughout Latin America, the assasination of Drug Kingpin Pablo Escobar, various paramilitary death squads in Columbia etc suddenly has a crisis of concience? Please, my laugh meter only goes so far.

The way to respond to these genuine abuses of human rights is to resign, and when legally able to do so, speak out as much as you can on the abuses.

President Clinton started the practice of "rendering" terrorists that the US was unable to deal with legally (crimes outside the US and not directly against US citizens) but who nevertheless presented a mortal threat to US lives. It was only when Bush started policies that threatened the CIA's ability to move up and find employment post-CIA that the leaks started.

The leaks started with the Afghan War? Why? Because the CIA depends on friendly relations with even overtly hostile intelligence services (Syria being a good example) to get work product and thus move up. It matters not that the intelligence is often worthless, only that you HAVE some. As a practical matter if foreign intelligence services stop handing CIA agents information they stop advancing. They don't get promoted. They have post Iran-Contra no way to run any direct spies etc. so they depend on foreign intelligence services that were enraged by the Afghan War and livid over the Iraq War.

In addition, CIA and State Dept folks post-career depend on brokering various shady deals that would otherwise fall apart with often hostile regimes. Bush also threatens this with the war on terror or whatever he calls it. This is why the CIA leaks, the could care less about human rights or policy, they only care about promotions and lucrative consulting post-government.

There is a political case to be against renditions. That case is in the Congress and op-eds by professional politicians who are accountable for risking our National Security, not leakers in the CIA. If you think we should openly hold dangerous Al Qaeda terrorists and leave ourselves open to reprisals (including the WMD kind aimed at cities; let KSM go or we kill NYC for example) then that is a political case to be made in the halls of Congress.

That it's driven by anon leaks is an indication that the case is a loser politically and no one wants to back it.

as interrogation tools, would you support that?

Not torture.  Not the gratuitous infliction of pain.  I'm referring to the practice of making a prisoner uncomfortable, disoreiented and scared, in hopes of making him more likely to talk.

You seem to be implying that any information gathered from a coercive interrogation is per se faulty, and thus worthless.  If that were true, why would the intelligence community still be interested in using coercive interrogation techniques?  Because our CIA agents are sadists who enjoy inflicting pain?

I'm presuming that, because this discussion is still going on, more than four years after 9/11, there must be some value in these techniques.  If not, then why would there still be such intense interest in them?

that journalists as a special class of human beings. They owe no allegiance to the country that makes their d*mn work possible.

They are 'reporters', not 'participants.' One wonders how they'll see that relationship when some Jihadist SOB blows up the local shopping mall taking their spouse and kids with him/herself

I know Clayton's overworked, but I think it would be hilarious if RedState could add in a feature to display a little whale icon next to the usernames of this type of commenter -- possibly adapting one from this blue (heh) whales minigallery.

"wilco" is short for "will comply."

Getting people to make statements against America isn't relevant here.  I couldn't care less if we get some terrorist to make statements against Osama.  

What we want is to get a high percentage of correct information that will prevent future terrorist attacks or effectively guide foreign policy.  I don't see any reason to think that torture will get us any information with that sort of content or quality.  

may choose begin with the premise

If we begin with the philosophy that WE have no morality in this war

On the otherhand I prefer to begin with the premise that we are morally superior in every conceivable way to people who make it their religious duty to slaughter innocent men women and children.

Unlike liberals, I am not a moral relativist.

is torture and there is torture. Pulling someone's fingernails out is most likely counterproductive.

... and was mostly referring to these techniques in talking about "torture." Because, in a sense, it is... one need not be brutalized to be coerced.

they have no obligation to obey an unlawful order does not give them the right to actively work to undermine those giving the orders. Resignation still works.

If the people leaking to the media were so outraged, there are appropriate channels to go through to lament the policyand seek its exposure.

They could go to the CIA inspector General.

They could go to the DoD Inspector General.

They could go to the Attorney General.

They could go to the House or Senate Intelligence Committee Republicans.

Or, finally if all else fails, they could go to the House or Senate Intelligence Committee Democrats.  (I'm relatively confident that they would give fair hearing to anyone alleging illegal or unethical behavior by the Administration and would do their utmost to put a stop to it.)

All of those people are authorized to review classified government information and actions.  All of those people are in a position to directly impact the continuation or cessation of government policy.  All of those people are authorized under law to protect the identity of any 'whistle blower' that comes forward with financial malfeasance, illegal action, or un-Constitutional behavior by the Executive Branch.

But no, Anonymous decided to go to Dana Priest or whoever else to leak damaging information about Administration policy that they disagree with in clear contravention of the law as it regards the handling of classified information.

They do not deserve our praise or adulation for breaking the law and putting us at risk of further danger unless they are willing to put their name out there as well and take a stand.  Otherwise they might as well just be a disgruntled peon who's upset that their wife didn't get to send them on a junket to drink tea with other diplomats.

He is not to be blamed for the failings of his pupils - most especially me.

that 'relationship' immediately following the attacks on 9-11 and were quick to condem al-qaeda.

Problem is, that relationship was quickly forgotten, or intentionally ignored, when MSM purposely inserted itself as a willing participant, or primary source, in a whole host of far-reaching leftist conspiracy theories.

The 'fifth column' is alive and well in America, and unfortunately, extremely detrimental to our national security.

 It is worth pointing out, that most of the "harm" that is being done to the United States is not because the media has leaked info helpful to the enemy in military matters, which is why they didnt leak the name of the nation.

 Rather the "harm" is because the US is doing something that many people are upset with. The media should not be in the business of covering for the Government if it does something that is controversial.

 In essence, if this is hurting the US, is it because people dont think we should be doing it, which means you should blame those implementing the policy.

 Now, if you are afraid this will aid the enemy in some kind of military way, that is different.

The mainstream media will never settle for being a tool for democracy, even if they become a tool for terrorism, communism, or some other sort of evil in the process. It is America -- not propaganda -- that the MSM have abandoned.

We used to have a ratings system where we gave ugly, stupid comments a 1 and excellent comments a 5 (and average comments a 2,3 or 4).  It caused more consternation and disagreement than  it was worth, so it was discontinued.

Occasionally when we really agree with a comment, we will still "give it a 5".

First, the media did nothing to promote the Swift Boat vets, but if they had, there is no possible implication to our national security or to the confidence of our allies by disclosures of bad actions of an infantryman that occurred 30 years ago.

The idea that you can be so cavalier about the fact that our CIA cannot be trusted to keep the secrets that it has sworn to protect is amazing.  Do you realize that people from other countries put their very lives at risk by cooperating with us?

We have lived in relative security for so long, we have developed a certain fatalism about it.  It is as if it will always be thus and cannot be lost.

You apparently missed the point of the entire diary.  It is not your right to know every dot and tiddle that our intelligence services do.  It is your right to elect the people who hire them, fund them, monitor them, and control them.  

It is our right to expect the people we have hired to protect us to refrain from deliberately sabatoging our safety and the safety of our allies.

The idea that the Democrats can't understand this never ceases to amaze and chagrin me.

Excellent post.  There is a chain of command in all our gov't agencies.  The WaPo is not anywhere in any of them.  

Press leaks are an avenue for cowards and traitors who know that their superior officers have the right and duty to make a decision, but the coward disagrees with the decision.

They have sworn an oath to maintain confidentiality.  A man who will disregard his oath is lower than whale poop.

one is able to bootstrap the UCMJ in to this argument as civilians, who constitute the overwhelming majority of the intelligence community, are not covered by the UCMJ (and military persons in the US are only covered if it is a distinctly military offense or there is a military connection, like the offense took place on an military installation) and the UCMJ did not exist at the time of the Nuremburg trials.

It is worth pointing out, that most of the "harm" that is being done to the United States is not because the media has leaked info helpful to the enemy in military matters, which is why they didnt leak the name of the nation.

Let's see, Eastern European-it doesn't take too much difficulty for our enemies to wittle things down and figure out which country that might be.  The list just isn't that long.

Also, as said up thread, there are avenues for somebody troubled by things that happen to take within their chain of command-and the press isn't part of the chain of command.

Also, I admit I am not too bothered by the concept of keeping some of these prisoners secret.  If the enemy doesn't know exactly who we have and where we have them, it makes it harder to hide the trails, and it makes reprisal a bit more difficult.

Does anyone think that the leaks would be occuring, or the MSM would we reporting them if there were a Democrat administration in power?

Just keep working as hard as they can to see that we lose this war.

Their fury at not having done so yet shows in everything they write, every show on the legacy networks, and in every comment they make.

...there are plenty of military in intelligence activities.  Each service branch has its own intelligence agency and corresponding production center, plus the overall Defense Intelligence Agency.  DoD is very heavily vested in intel.

preceeding the UCMJ (1951) contained this philosophy.  

"In January 1944, the newly formed United Nations War Crimes Commission took up the issue of obedience to orders. Unlike its stance after World War I, the United States now was squarely behind a recommendation that the defense be rejected: "[t]he plea of superior orders shall not constitute a defense . . . if the order was so manifestly contrary to the laws of war that a person of ordinary sense and understanding would know or should know . . . that an order was illegal." - OBEDIENCE OF ORDERS AND THE LAW OF WAR: JUDICIAL APPLICATION IN AMERICAN FORUMS, Gary D. Solis (West Point law professor)

At Nuremberg, this concept was applied to civilians.

Anonymous decided that he/she was smarter than everyone else. Anonymous appointed themselves the arbiter of what is right and wrong in the conduct of the country's business. Anonymous decided that their foreign policy is decidedly smarter and/or superior to that of the elected government.

I'm not asserting specifically that if someone leaked knowledge of these prisons, they leaked the information out of some patriotic zeal.  Who knows what's in "their" head if "they" even exist; I've been reading articles in the open press about people around the world tracking the flights ferrying detainees to and from these supposed places for at least a year now.  I'm not sure how much leaking you'd need to fill this bucket, anyhow.

I'm asking the broader rhetorical question: are there really no circumstances under which one would feel compelled to speak out in some way? Do you really trust that the change of command as outlined above is infallible?  That the respective IG's are fully impartial, or that congressional staffers will have access, say, to a black program in which you're involved?

C'mon, I don't have to stretch my imagination too much to blue-sky a few scenarios.  How about these:

1. You've obtained information from a source you feel is highly reliable that a terrorist attack of significant magnitude is imminent on the NYC subway.  Your superiors dismiss the credibility of the source and order you to cease work on the matter.  Do you leak the info in some way, or do you remain quiet despite knowing that in a few months you'll probably be chapter 5 in a post-event tell-all book on intelligence failures?

What do you do?

2. You're working in a black program at an isolated, undisclosed location doing parts fabrication.  Your superiors order you and your team to machine components from toxic berillium without the necessary safety precautions.  Inspectors who could corroborate your claims of danger to the workers can't get to the site, let alone into the facility.  What do you do?
   
3. You're managing a source in a foreign design bureau who's passing on computer software through drops that he's taking home from the facility.  He has limited access and the material is junk, but your superior loves it and thinks it'll get him promoted.  Through your surveillance work, you discover that he's a serial child molester, and his work at a local charity hospital gives him access to dozens of children.  Revealing his crime will destroy him as a source.  What do you do?

Sure...straw men, and maybe not likely, but then again...  My point is that in this gray world, can we really be so sure there are never, ever any situations where one couldn't trust the system or based on profound personal conviction thought that circumstances warranted disclosure?

don't think we should be doing this.

Not everyone agrees with you. Some of the rest of us don't think that locking these S*Bs up incommunicado is neceddarily immoral, illegal or even fattening.

CIA dissenters are no more entitled to an independent foreign policy than are you.

for why the press "enjoys" the lowest approval and credibility standings in history and their business is evaporating before their eyes. They even rank below Congress and thats an accomplishment.

they stopped us in Vietnam so they see no reason why they should not have the same kind of power today.

Yes there are plenty of military intelligence activities and even within most of them the majority of staff are DoD civilians. When one addresses the intelligence community in general, the overwhelming majority are civilians. Hence the rather dubious nature of the UCMJ reference.

the Constitution contains the philosophy of the Articles of Confederation but to say that the Constitution had applicablity to the Treaty of Ghent based on this is wrong. Ditto with your point on the UCMJ.

The Articles of War did not apply at Nuremburg. Details here and here.

Didn't Orwell write that.  Related to leaks; a federal appeals court rejected a request from four journalists that they not be required to identify their sources in the Wen Ho Lee "espionage" case.  As we are talking about atomic related information in a case that occurred during Clinton's watch a sane person would think that their would be some interest amongst the Plame for Sainthood crowd.  But  that's your problem, you're sane.

regardless of your politics thanks for your service!!   May I suggest two possibilities.  One, at the run up to the war and shortly afterwards is it not possible that a time certain for withdrawal was unknown, and may still be.  This however doesn't preclude reduction in force over time.  Two, and related to the first, is it not possible that the permanent facilities you reference will be used ,in part or in whole, by and expanding Iraqui Army.  A rule of warfare is to be adaptable to the contingent although that adaptation may not be as perfect or as rapid as one would like.  Apropos of which, I just finished reading John Eisenhower's Bitter Woods,the best available book on the Battle of the Bulge.  You may wish,particularly as a military man, to read it. It has much to say about the unpredictable and contigency.

On the off-chance that I might ever write a diary entry or story that deserves the front page, perhaps you could explain what the Fold is?

It is quite common for the press to hold off reporting on military movements before they happen, or as they are happening, or on troop positions, etc.   We have seen examples of this time and time again with the fine reporting done by reporters traveling with the troops in Iraq.

Name one group that has broken the WindTalker Code.  It's been 60 years...

future of our country. The vast majority of journalists do not share or support the ideals on which this country was founded and which has made the country the light of the world. They seek to destroy every institution that provides stability to our society from the concept of the nuclear family to the maintenance and support of our armed forces. This is the agenda of the liberal left and the MSM is its champion. Its slogan should be Vive le France.

'Anonymous' has no convictions.  An individual with a name does.

Anonymous has no morals.  An individual with a name does.

Anonymous has no ethics.  An individual with a name does.

All of your strawmen are fine and dandy and your scenarios quite cute, but the reality of any situation is dependent on the facts.  More importantly, however, is the concept of personal responsibility.

If 'Anonymous' feels so dang strongly about his source or the situation that no one else believes (dare I say that 'Anonymous' thinks it to be a slam dunk) then 'Anonymous' should go through the appropriate channels.  If the channels don't feel that it is valid or that Anonymous is wrong, but 'Anonymous' feels so dang strongly that he's right and every other expert is wrong, well he should go public with both the information and his name.  

Yes his career as an analyst would be impacted, but if everybody else disagrees with Anonymous and Anonymous feels he's right, it's not acceptable to slither off quietly to the WaPo or NYtimes and lay out some nightmare scenario that everyone else has discounted.  Accountability means taking a stand, and you can only take a stand in the disinfecting rays of sunshine.

To hide behind the cloak of anonymity while leaking classified information that you, as an individual analyst, are not necessarily in the best position to see the whole picture is the height of arrogance.  That's why the system of checks and balances are in place.  That's why we have IGs, laws, regulations, and Congressional oversight.

When you take the oath of office to serve the government, you agree to certain restrictions, certain prohibitions on your own personal conduct.

If the situation is so eggregious, so blatantly unethical or immoral or illegal, I will concede that you have the right and the responsibility to come forward.  But you have the obligation to do it publicly so that we can evaluate your motives at the same time as we evaluate the information appropriately.

What if Anonymous is wrong, as the channels realized as soon as Anonymous presented the information?  He has now exposed methods of intelligence, sources of information, operations, locations, names, etc.  None of that can be put back in the bottle.  If it's so vital that the MSM needs to have it above all else, then it is only fair and reasonable to ask 'Anonymous' to stand in the sunshine and explain why.

If, in any way, shape or form, at any time or location, a soldier is given an illegal or immoral order, he has an obligation to refuse to obey said order.  period.

However, this does not apply to the CIA or any other Civilian.  Civilians have no legal obligation to follow any orders not expressly mentioned in a contract which they sign.

Hitler was too stupid to learn to manipulate the MSM of his day, or we would speaking German.

... are there really no circumstances under which one would feel compelled to speak out in some way?  Yes, there are no such circumstances.

Do you really trust that the change (sic) of command as outlined above is infallible?  Yes, I do.

That the respective IG's are fully impartial, or that congressional staffers will have access, say, to a black program in which you're involved? Yep, and all oversight committees either have the same clearance as said "patriot" or can be granted them on a case-by-case.

As a cleared employee of the federal government you have the responsibility to safeguard classified information.  You swear an oath to that effect, by the way.  If you violate that responsibility, that oath - and selective leaking of information to the press is a direct violation - then you should be terminated and prosecuted, immediately and harshly.

Lastly, it is not your job as a civil servant to make policy - people are elected to do that.  As an individual civil servant you do not have access to all the pieces of the puzzle - you are but a small cog in the mighty machinery of government.  You are in no position to make policy, but by leaking selective information to the press you are doing just that - putting your judgment ahead of those whom have been elected to make such calls.

If you cannot handle that arrangement you have two choices: 1) leave the civil service and run for office, 2) learn to salute smartly and shut your d*mned pie-hole.

Yes, it really is that simple.

The fact that the press can report something does not mean that they should. I suppose you'd think it just peachy for them to print the security plan for the nuclear plant down the road? Or the guard schedule for the Pantex nuclear weapons plant.

If it's newsworthy they should report on those topics you mentioned.  This is the point of security, if the press can get ahold of this information, then less savory people can also get ahold of it.  Should they use discression in what they print, absolutely, but they should definitely report enough to call attention to the problem.  This is of course, after they have consulted with those in charge of such security.




Security through obscurity is NOT security.  And yes I also agree that if any leak to the press is a criminal offense, then the press should be hauled down for testimony, no exceptions.    

 The point isn't whether we should or should not be doing this, (personally, the fact that there are secret prisons isn't too troubling for me) the issue is what is the point of having a media if all it is going to do is cover-up for government.

 Whether you agree with the prisons or not, we as members of a democracy get to have that debate, we have a right to know what our government is doing.

 Otherwise, why even have an independent media at all? We can just have the President/Congress/Court send out press releases.

 The POINT of the press is to let us know what our Gov is doing, whether they want us to know or not.

Where do I go to view THOSE ratings?

 The point isn't whether we should or should not be doing this, (personally, the fact that there are secret prisons isn't too troubling for me) the issue is what is the point of having a media if all it is going to do is cover-up for government.

 Whether you agree with the prisons or not, we as members of a democracy get to have that debate, we have a right to know what our government is doing.

 Otherwise, why even have an independent media at all? We can just have the President/Congress/Court send out press releases.

 The POINT of the press is to let us know what our Gov is doing, whether they want us to know or not.

But then Orwell was talking about a higher life form,pigs, not American journalists speaking truth to power as they so quaintly put it.  The devil made me do this.