Security Leaks

#1
volinbham

volinbham

VN GURU
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
67,719
Likes
55,281
#1
I thought we might want to come at some of the "war on terror" issues from another angle.

We've had several leaks (NSA programs, CIA programs).

Are these a problem? They appear to be against the law.

Regardless of you politics - is it right for those that don't agree with current policies to undermine them by leaking to the press?
 
#3
#3
(GAVol @ May 15 said:
I've always had a BIG problem with that.
Click to expand...

:stinker2: <~ We&#39;re not talking about that kind of leaking.. :shakehead:
 
#4
#4
We&#39;re not talking about that kind of leaking..
Click to expand...

Typical liberal skirting the issue :air_kiss: ..........bed wetter..... :cry:

Seriously, it is the same old, same old. Republicans demonize Clinton claiming every thing from Marxist socialism/communism, giving up critical information to China and who else would pay for his re-election.........

Now the democrats are taking the Republican play book on Bush. Any stance he makes you have to be against.

Politicians bore me, we need another Civil War....where is a good libertarian when you need one? :gun: :dunno:
 
#5
#5
(Orangewhiteblood &#064; May 15 said:
:stinker2: <~ We&#39;re not talking about that kind of leaking.. :shakehead:
Click to expand...

Sharting is such sweet sorrow.
 
#6
#6
What do I think about Leaks? CJ was a no talent hack and Chris is overrated.
 
#8
#8
Considering you have unlimited power in these agencies to gather info cleary in violation of the Constitution, someone has to provide oversight. I get nervous when a government agency basically says "trust us". Our system of government is a checks and balances system. This is a system to ensure no branch or no section violates the rights of its citizens.

Now we have agencies saying screw the 4th amendment and the courts to oversee whether these actions are legal or not. If someone sees an abuse of government or the government acting unconstitutionally, why would we call these people traitors?

My problem with all of this is that we are rapidly becoming the governments we despised throughout history. Slowly we see a police state where in the name of security, we are eroding our rights. This notion of what our government was founded on is what makes us different from these regimes we fight against. It is what sets us apart. It is why these others fear us. But now in the name of security, same reason the Nazis and Soviets and even some of the more tame regimes, we are willing to hand our rights that our Founding Fathers fought and died to create and preserve.
 
#10
#10
(CSpindizzy &#064; May 16 said:
Considering you have unlimited power in these agencies to gather info cleary in violation of the Constitution, someone has to provide oversight. I get nervous when a government agency basically says "trust us". Our system of government is a checks and balances system. This is a system to ensure no branch or no section violates the rights of its citizens.

Now we have agencies saying screw the 4th amendment and the courts to oversee whether these actions are legal or not. If someone sees an abuse of government or the government acting unconstitutionally, why would we call these people traitors?

My problem with all of this is that we are rapidly becoming the governments we despised throughout history. Slowly we see a police state where in the name of security, we are eroding our rights. This notion of what our government was founded on is what makes us different from these regimes we fight against. It is what sets us apart. It is why these others fear us. But now in the name of security, same reason the Nazis and Soviets and even some of the more tame regimes, we are willing to hand our rights that our Founding Fathers fought and died to create and preserve.
Click to expand...

However, there is congressional oversight as per the constitution. That is the check and balance. The NSA activities were known to both the Congress and the Administration.

At what point does a leak become politically motivated? These are political appointees with their own agenda. When the current administration&#39;s agenda doesn&#39;t match theirs, is leaking the appropriate action? Isn&#39;t it an implicit violation of the constitutional check and balance?
 
#11
#11
(volinbham &#064; May 16 said:
However, there is congressional oversight as per the constitution. That is the check and balance. The NSA activities were known to both the Congress and the Administration.

At what point does a leak become politically motivated? These are political appointees with their own agenda. When the current administration&#39;s agenda doesn&#39;t match theirs, is leaking the appropriate action? Isn&#39;t it an implicit violation of the constitutional check and balance?
Click to expand...

There is Congressional oversight. But are these agencies laying all of their acts out before the Congress? How do we know? It takes leaks for this all to come to light. We have no idea if these agencies are coming forth with all activities. They clearly are not abiding by the Constitution on Judiciary oversight. How many FISA approvals have been made on these spying acts? None. The Courts are completely disregarded, thus tossing out the 4th Amendment.

These are NOT political appointees leaking. Last I checked, no one knew where these leaks came from. Most leaks come from career agents NOT political appointees. These are people who have made it their career analyzing data. BUT the ones RUNNING these agencies and putting forth these programs ARE political appointees.

If you want to put your faith in a political appintees doing the right thing, be my guess. But I live under the Constitution and will work and vote to uphold that.
 
#13
#13
(CSpindizzy &#064; May 16 said:
There is Congressional oversight. But are these agencies laying all of their acts out before the Congress? How do we know? It takes leaks for this all to come to light. We have no idea if these agencies are coming forth with all activities. They clearly are not abiding by the Constitution on Judiciary oversight. How many FISA approvals have been made on these spying acts? None. The Courts are completely disregarded, thus tossing out the 4th Amendment.

These are NOT political appointees leaking. Last I checked, no one knew where these leaks came from. Most leaks come from career agents NOT political appointees. These are people who have made it their career analyzing data. BUT the ones RUNNING these agencies and putting forth these programs ARE political appointees.

If you want to put your faith in a political appintees doing the right thing, be my guess. But I live under the Constitution and will work and vote to uphold that.
Click to expand...


What I meant by political appointees is that many of the career agents have been elevated into positions during other administrations - so for example, during the Clinton-era, there were many people in managment that got there via appointments during the Reagan era, etc.

As for judicial oversight - it is not always required. The jury (literally) is still out regarding recent NSA activities and the requirement for judicial oversight. When a court comes back and rules that requirements for judicial oversight were violated, I&#39;ll be right there with you. Until then I&#39;ll assume the administration lawyers and congress know better than you.

As for Congressional oversight - not one of the Congressional members who&#39;s been briefed denies being briefed. Not one who should have known about the NSA activities has said they didn&#39;t know anything about it.

As for living under the Constitution - when a CIA/NSA agent takes "oversight" into their own hands - they are NOT upholding the constitution. It is not their role and that&#39;s why there are serious penalties for leaking classified information.

 
#14
#14
Judicial oversight is not required??? Have you read the 4th Amendment? It says nothing about national security or time of war. Where are those so-called GOP strict constructionists out there? Powers are clearly defined. It requires warrants. Warrants are always required to go through a judge. I guess no one cares about the FISA courts.

As for &#39;being briefed&#39;, they cannot say a word about what they&#39;re being briefed on. All of that national security regulation. So we have no clue what is being done legally or illegally. And who is to force the NSA to inform Congress of EVERYTHING in those briefings? Is there some device that forces the NSA to put in a folder everything they do and take it up the Hill? NO&#33; All we get, all that is reviewed, is what the NSA voluntarily gives.

I hope those phone companies that passed on this are prosecuted to the fullest of the law for violation of the 4th Amendment and the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

And let me add this to your comment on CIA agents breaking the law, where in the COnstitution does it say this is &#39;unconstitutional&#39; as you say it is? I guess leaking CIA agent&#39;s identities for partisan reasons to discredit an opponent is quite constitutional?
 
#15
#15
(CSpindizzy &#064; May 16 said:
Judicial oversight is not required??? Have you read the 4th Amendment? It says nothing about national security or time of war. Where are those so-called GOP strict constructionists out there? Powers are clearly defined. It requires warrants. Warrants are always required to go through a judge. I guess no one cares about the FISA courts.

As for &#39;being briefed&#39;, they cannot say a word about what they&#39;re being briefed on. All of that national security regulation. So we have no clue what is being done legally or illegally. And who is to force the NSA to inform Congress of EVERYTHING in those briefings? Is there some device that forces the NSA to put in a folder everything they do and take it up the Hill? NO&#33; All we get, all that is reviewed, is what the NSA voluntarily gives.

I hope those phone companies that passed on this are prosecuted to the fullest of the law for violation of the 4th Amendment and the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

And let me add this to your comment on CIA agents breaking the law, where in the COnstitution does it say this is &#39;unconstitutional&#39; as you say it is? I guess leaking CIA agent&#39;s identities for partisan reasons to discredit an opponent is quite constitutional?
Click to expand...

I&#39;ll just handle the last one. First the Valerie Plame (sp?) issue. If the leak was not of classified information (undetermined at this point but most say no -- including no charges by Fitzgerald) then it is not illegal and therefore constitutionality is not in question.

As for leaking classified information because you don&#39;t like the policies. 1) it is illegal, 2) it violates the spirit of the constitution since they are taking on an oversight role that is not theirs to use. You suggest we have no way of knowing that the NSA is telling the Congress so we need insiders to reveal it. Clearly not what the framers intended.
 
#16
#16
(volinbham &#064; May 16 said:
I&#39;ll just handle the last one. First the Valerie Plame (sp?) issue. If the leak was not of classified information (undetermined at this point but most say no -- including no charges by Fitzgerald) then it is not illegal and therefore constitutionality is not in question.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but didn&#39;t Bush conveniently declassify that so Rove could leak it? That doesn&#39;t make it right. Legal so to speak, but not right. We all know the intentions behind that leak.
 
#17
#17
(Orangewhiteblood &#064; May 16 said:
Yeah, but didn&#39;t Bush conveniently declassify that so Rove could leak it? That doesn&#39;t make it right. Legal so to speak, but not right. We all know the intentions behind that leak.
Click to expand...

I was referring to the leak of her name as a CIA agent. It appears that she was not the type of agent where such a leak would constitute classified information. No official ruling on this but Fitzgerald has not made this charge.

As for what&#39;s behind it, why shouldn&#39;t we know that Joe Wilson was misleading us with his comments about the Niger situation. Why shouldn&#39;t we know that his wife arranged/influenced his going. Why shouldn&#39;t we know that he tried to leave the impression that Cheney sent him which was completely untrue. Why shouldn&#39;t we know that his statements left out important information the bi-partisan Senate committee said were there?

Why freak out that you think W was misleading but have no problem that Wilson was? Oh yeah, he was a national security advisor for Kerry too. Is it okay for someone that supports your position to mislead?
 
#19
#19
Bottom line is that when you&#39;re wanting to mislead your country into war, no news is bad news.

They said that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger. We all know how that turned out. The CIA even warned Bush and his administration that the Italian information was "fragmentary and lacked detail."

So with hopes fading, Cheney sent Joe Wilson to Africa to further investigate. Wilson spent 8 days down there talking to anyone who could be involved with moving uranium and returned with no signs of Iraq bidding for uranium.

Did that make a difference? No. Bush and Cheney simply ignored Wilson&#39;s report and they hit the airwaves lying about Iraq and their attempt to get uranium.

Wilson decided not to keep his mouth shut on the subject, saying the President was "mistaken" and spoke clearly about how he believed that the administration manipulated intelligence in order to go to war with Iraq.

And the rest is history. You can talk all you want about Wilson saying this and saying that, but he had no reason to lie about his findings in Africa. Cheney obviously trusted him enough to send him to Africa and investigate.

This was nothing more than retaliation against a man who had the nerve to challenge Bush and tell people about what was going on.
 
#20
#20
(Orangewhiteblood &#064; May 16 said:
Bottom line is that when you&#39;re wanting to mislead your country into war, no news is bad news.

They said that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger. We all know how that turned out. The CIA even warned Bush and his administration that the Italian information was "fragmentary and lacked detail."

So with hopes fading, Cheney sent Joe Wilson to Africa to further investigate. Wilson spent 8 days down there talking to anyone who could be involved with moving uranium and returned with no signs of Iraq bidding for uranium.

Did that make a difference? No. Bush and Cheney simply ignored Wilson&#39;s report and they hit the airwaves lying about Iraq and their attempt to get uranium.

Wilson decided not to keep his mouth shut on the subject, saying the President was "mistaken" and spoke clearly about how he believed that the administration manipulated intelligence in order to go to war with Iraq.

And the rest is history. You can talk all you want about Wilson saying this and saying that, but he had no reason to lie about his findings in Africa. Cheney obviously trusted him enough to send him to Africa and investigate.

This was nothing more than retaliation against a man who had the nerve to challenge Bush and tell people about what was going on.
Click to expand...

Ahhh but you are falling into the "misleading" of Wilson. Cheney had absolutely NOTHING to do with Wilson going to Niger.

Wilson filed only an oral report with the CIA - no written report and no report to Bush and Cheney.

What Wilson went public with was a reduced version of his oral report to the CIA - leaving out key findings that the Senate committee uncovered from his talks with the CIA. These findings change the tone of what he went public with.

The 16 words were retroactively removed from the State of the Union speech because they didn&#39;t meet the "highest standard" of proof. However, the British still standby the findings and Wilson&#39;s own complete findings do not rule the Niger connection out.

Wilson also encouraged the thought that Cheney sent him - it worked&#33; Many believed it. You still do.

Wilson went public during the presidential campaign while working for Kerry.

In short, Wilson has all the characteristics of what Bush is being criticized for. Sounds like a double standard to me&#33; :devilsmoke:


 
#21
#21
(Orangewhiteblood &#064; May 16 said:
You can talk all you want about Wilson saying this and saying that, but he had no reason to lie about his findings in Africa.
Click to expand...

I forgot, only W has a reason to lie about findings :crazy:
 
#22
#22
Some findings from the Senate committee on pre-war intelligence regarding Mr. Wilson.

On at least two occasions [Wilson] admitted that he had no direct knowledge to support some of his claims and that he was drawing on either unrelated past experiences or no information at all.
For example, when asked how he "knew" that the Intelligence Community had rejected the possibility of a Niger-Iraq uranium deal, as he wrote in his book, he told Committee staff that his assertion may have involved "a little literary flair."

DIA and CIA analysts said that when they saw the intelligence report they did not believe that it supplied much new information and did not think that it clarified the story on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal. They did not find Nigerien denials that they had discussed uranium sales with Iraq as very surprising because they had no expectation that Niger would admit to such an agreement if it did exist. The analysts did, however, find it interesting that the former Nigerien Prime Minister said [to Wilson] an Iraqi delegation had visited Niger [in 1999] for what [the prime minister] believed was to discuss uranium sales.

Because CIA analysts did not believe that the report added any new information to clarify the issue, they did not use the report to produce any further analytical products or highlight the report for policymakers. For the same reason, CIA&#39;s briefer did not brief the Vice President on the report, despite the Vice President&#39;s previous questions about the issue.

"The former ambassador said that he may have &#39;misspoken&#39; to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were &#39;forged.&#39;" Also, he said, "he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct and may have thought he had seen the names himself."

"Some CPD [Counterproliferation Division] officials could not recall how the office decided to contact [Wilson]," its report says. "However, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador&#39;s wife &#39;offered up his name,&#39; and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador&#39;s wife, says, &#39;my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.&#39;"

During Mr. Wilson&#39;s media blitz, he appeared on more than thirty television shows including entertainment venues. Time and again, Joe Wilson told anyone who would listen that the President had lied to the American people, that the Vice President had lied, and that he had "debunked" the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. As discussed in the Niger section of the report, not only did he NOT "debunk" the claim, he actually gave some intelligence analysts even more reason to believe that it may be true. I believed very strongly that it was important for the Committee to conclude publicly that many of the statements made by Ambassador Wilson were not only incorrect, but had no basis in fact. . .

This from the guy that won the "Truth-teller Award" :biggrin2:
 
#23
#23
(volinbham &#064; May 16 said:
Ahhh but you are falling into the "misleading" of Wilson. Cheney had absolutely NOTHING to do with Wilson going to Niger.
Click to expand...

Wrong, Cheney was the one who pushed the CIA into sending someone to Africa.
 
#24
#24
(volinbham &#064; May 16 said:
Wilson filed only an oral report with the CIA - no written report and no report to Bush and Cheney.
Click to expand...

Well DUH, there was nothing to report. :crazy:
 
#25
#25
(volinbham &#064; May 16 said:
Some findings from the Senate committee on pre-war intelligence regarding Mr. Wilson.

On at least two occasions [Wilson] admitted that he had no direct knowledge to support some of his claims and that he was drawing on either unrelated past experiences or no information at all.
For example, when asked how he "knew" that the Intelligence Community had rejected the possibility of a Niger-Iraq uranium deal, as he wrote in his book, he told Committee staff that his assertion may have involved "a little literary flair."

DIA and CIA analysts said that when they saw the intelligence report they did not believe that it supplied much new information and did not think that it clarified the story on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal. They did not find Nigerien denials that they had discussed uranium sales with Iraq as very surprising because they had no expectation that Niger would admit to such an agreement if it did exist. The analysts did, however, find it interesting that the former Nigerien Prime Minister said [to Wilson] an Iraqi delegation had visited Niger [in 1999] for what [the prime minister] believed was to discuss uranium sales.

Because CIA analysts did not believe that the report added any new information to clarify the issue, they did not use the report to produce any further analytical products or highlight the report for policymakers. For the same reason, CIA&#39;s briefer did not brief the Vice President on the report, despite the Vice President&#39;s previous questions about the issue.

"The former ambassador said that he may have &#39;misspoken&#39; to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were &#39;forged.&#39;" Also, he said, "he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct and may have thought he had seen the names himself."

"Some CPD [Counterproliferation Division] officials could not recall how the office decided to contact [Wilson]," its report says. "However, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador&#39;s wife &#39;offered up his name,&#39; and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador&#39;s wife, says, &#39;my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.&#39;"

During Mr. Wilson&#39;s media blitz, he appeared on more than thirty television shows including entertainment venues. Time and again, Joe Wilson told anyone who would listen that the President had lied to the American people, that the Vice President had lied, and that he had "debunked" the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. As discussed in the Niger section of the report, not only did he NOT "debunk" the claim, he actually gave some intelligence analysts even more reason to believe that it may be true. I believed very strongly that it was important for the Committee to conclude publicly that many of the statements made by Ambassador Wilson were not only incorrect, but had no basis in fact. . .

This from the guy that won the "Truth-teller Award" :biggrin2:
Click to expand...

I feel sad for you volinbham. :( I see that they have already gotten to you. I&#39;m still amazed by how they get that chip in your head while you sleep, and they must be pretty good at it since you don&#39;t remember anything. :shakehead: Don&#39;t say that I never tried to save you. :cry:
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top