Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?  
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1777 times:

In WWII, the editor would have been tried and convicted for treason and espionage. Now nobody cares.

So, are newspapers allowed to print anything they want, even if it has "top secret" stamped all over it?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/05/bush_authorizes.html

Quote:

The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a "nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions.

Of course this disclosure will make it all the more justifiable whenever the Iranians crack down on Iranian reformers and execute them.

So, how many pro-democracy liberals have you killed yesterday, ABC.news?

53 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineORFflyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1746 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Thread starter):
The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity

Imagine that.... if these sources are in fact leaking classified information, then they need to be identified, tried, and dealt with accordingly. ABC news is reporting what they think will get viewers to watch. CBS, NBC, CNN and all the others would be all over this too if they were "leaked" this information.

Quoting Cfalk (Thread starter):
Now nobody cares.

Sad, but true.


User currently offlineDoona From Sweden, joined Feb 2005, 3769 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1735 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Thread starter):
So, how many pro-democracy liberals have you killed yesterday, ABC.news?

So the way to go is to not practice the very same ideals and principals that one wishes to promote? Do as we say, not as we do? Whatever happened to transparency in government?

Cheers
Mats



Sure, we're concerned for our lives. Just not as concerned as saving 9 bucks on a roundtrip to Ft. Myers.
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1724 times:

Quoting Doona (Reply 2):
So the way to go is to not practice the very same ideals and principals that one wishes to promote? Do as we say, not as we do? Whatever happened to transparency in government?

Are you saying that government should not have any secrets?


User currently offlineAsstChiefMark From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1724 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Thread starter):
So, are newspapers allowed to print anything they want, even if it has "top secret" stamped all over it?

If the current Bush-league government is stupid enough to make stupid decisions, then yes. That's a duty of the press.

They're just keeping a dishonest administration in line.


User currently offlineDoona From Sweden, joined Feb 2005, 3769 posts, RR: 13
Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1704 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 3):

Are you saying that government should not have any secrets?

When it comes to attemted topplings of other goverments, no.

Cheers
Mats



Sure, we're concerned for our lives. Just not as concerned as saving 9 bucks on a roundtrip to Ft. Myers.
User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3934 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1699 times:

In a free country, the press should have no boundaries as to what they can print - once you have boundaries, you no longer have a free press.

This is especially true when we are talking about the questionable act of a government interfering in the internal affairs of another government (I don't care that in this case it is Iran, I would be saying the same whomever the CIA was granted permission to operate against).


User currently offlineORFflyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1686 times:

Quoting Doona (Reply 5):
When it comes to attemted topplings of other goverments, no.

What if those other governments need toppling? Are you say there is absolutely no case where interfering is appropriate?


User currently offlineDoona From Sweden, joined Feb 2005, 3769 posts, RR: 13
Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1675 times:

Quoting ORFflyer (Reply 7):
What if those other governments need toppling? Are you say there is absolutely no case where interfering is appropriate?

Interfering or intervening may be appropriate in some cases. However, if it is appropriate (ie: legitimate), why do it in secret?

Cheers
Mats



Sure, we're concerned for our lives. Just not as concerned as saving 9 bucks on a roundtrip to Ft. Myers.
User currently offlineAsstChiefMark From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1671 times:

Quoting ORFflyer (Reply 7):
What if those other governments need toppling?

That worked swimmingly in Iraq, didn't it.

Quoting ORFflyer (Reply 7):
Are you say there is absolutely no case where interfering is appropriate?

Only when things start looking like Germany in the late 1930's.


User currently offlineORFflyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1671 times:

Quoting Doona (Reply 8):
why do it in secret?

Not doing it in secret could, and probably would interfere with the interfering....  Wink


User currently offlineEmirates773ER From Pakistan, joined Jun 2005, 1449 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1664 times:

Quoting ORFflyer (Reply 7):
What if those other governments need toppling? Are you say there is absolutely no case where interfering is appropriate?

The toppling of a goverment should be left on the people of that very country, not someone who lives a thousand miles away from it and has a long history of screw ups.



The Truth is Out There ---- Face It!!!!!
User currently offlineDoona From Sweden, joined Feb 2005, 3769 posts, RR: 13
Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1649 times:

Quoting ORFflyer (Reply 10):
Not doing it in secret could, and probably would interfere with the interfering....

Of course it could, but why not interfere (publicly) in a way that it won't fall apart from a little... interference?

Cheers
Mats



Sure, we're concerned for our lives. Just not as concerned as saving 9 bucks on a roundtrip to Ft. Myers.
User currently offlineManuCH From Switzerland, joined Jun 2005, 3011 posts, RR: 47
Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1646 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

IMHO the government should be able to sue ABC.news in order to have them reveal the source's name. At least that's how it worked in Switzerland last time a newspaper published "secret" information.


Never trust a statistic you didn't fake yourself
User currently offlineORFflyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1639 times:

Quoting Emirates773ER (Reply 11):
not someone who lives a thousand miles away from it and has a long history of screw ups.

Like France maybe...  Wink

Quoting Doona (Reply 12):
but why not interfere (publicly) in a way that it won't fall apart from a little... interference

You answer that question, you can be a hero to the world.

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 9):
That worked swimmingly in Iraq, didn't it.

Not yet. But ya can't fail until you try.  Silly


User currently offlineAirTranTUS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1586 times:

If the government would sue ABC, everyone would claim the Bush administration is taking away more freedoms, no matter if that would have occurred in WWII.

User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3934 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1577 times:

Quoting ORFflyer (Reply 7):

What if those other governments need toppling? Are you say there is absolutely no case where interfering is appropriate?



Quoting Doona (Reply 8):

Interfering or intervening may be appropriate in some cases.

Who gets to decide which governments 'need' toppling? Which government or country gets that power of dictatorship ('you aren't good enough, goodbye') over all other countries?

Its a question that has no reasonable answer, because there are no absolutes in the world.

Thats the problem with this, its can of worms that, once opened, has massive world wide repercussions for every country that someone, somewhere disagrees with in some way.


User currently offlineORFflyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1506 times:

Quoting Moo (Reply 16):
Who gets to decide which governments 'need' toppling?

Don't know - that's all done in secret.  Wink

Quoting Moo (Reply 16):
Its a question that has no reasonable answer, because there are no absolutes in the world.

 checkmark 


User currently offlineConfuscius From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 3855 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1500 times:

Are No Secrets Safe Anymore?

...except for Karl Rove's emails.



Ain't I a stinker?
User currently offlineDoona From Sweden, joined Feb 2005, 3769 posts, RR: 13
Reply 19, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1497 times:

Quoting Confuscius (Reply 18):
...except for Karl Rove's emails.

And German Chancellor Angela Merkel's attempts to revive the EU constitution!  silly 

Cheers
Mats



Sure, we're concerned for our lives. Just not as concerned as saving 9 bucks on a roundtrip to Ft. Myers.
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1456 times:

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 4):
If the current Bush-league government is stupid enough to make stupid decisions, then yes. That's a duty of the press.

They're just keeping a dishonest administration in line.

Are you saying that the press will decide, on its own, whether or not to obey the law?

Quoting Doona (Reply 12):
Of course it could, but why not interfere (publicly) in a way that it won't fall apart from a little... interference?

How would you do that, exactly?

Quoting Doona (Reply 5):
When it comes to attemted topplings of other goverments, no.

The fact of the matter is that this sort of thing has been going on for thousands of years. It is an alternative to all-out war, when you have a country which is too dangerous to have around. Iran is one of those nations. We have been essentially in a state of cold war with them for nearly 30 years (which they started, I remind you), and now they are on the verge of getting nukes.

So, what do you propose to do about them?

- Go to war with them?

- Wait until they give a nuke to Hezbollah or Hamas and it goes off someplace?

- Try to push out the hostile government without resorting to war?

Governments need to be able to keep secrets, which is why laws respecting that have been put in place. It sounds like you think the press is above the law.


User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1448 times:

Christ, people get bent out of shape when the government listens to the phone calls of people calling the Middle East... they whine about invasion of privacy and all the drivel... but when it comes to military / foreign affairs secrets?? The same people demand that they have a "right to know."

Who cares if publicizing the information puts lives in danger... it's not their lives. Why the hell should they care?

-UH60


User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3934 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1423 times:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 21):

Who cares if publicizing the information puts lives in danger... it's not their lives. Why the hell should they care?

If the paper has the information, its probably already plastered across a few dozen intelligence briefings in both 'unfriendly' and friendly countries dated a few weeks ago.

In other words, if the news media is getting it, its not exactly secure information.


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1415 times:

Quoting Moo (Reply 22):
In other words, if the news media is getting it, its not exactly secure information.

You have it backward. One of the most valuable sources of information for any intelligence organ is the Press! If you were in Chinese Intelligence, for example, you have hundreds of thousands of Americans running around the country trying to find out stuff and put it in the newspapers or somewhere on the web. You might have to wade accross a lot of Briteny and Paris stories, but you find gold too, such as this article.

The main purpose of intel, above all else, is to identify the objectives and means of other countries. For thousands of years, nations have tried to keep their objectives and the means they would use to achieve them secret, because if you know what the enemy wants and how he wants to get it, you can easily block him.

This article put US objectives and means over Iran and served it up on a platter. I'd call it treason.


User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1404 times:

So I assume that we will soon here calls for a Plame style investigation into this matter?

Right?


25 Moo : Its up to the government to bring the case this time - the reason there was an uproar about the Plame outing was because it looked to be a tit for ta
26 DavestanKSAN : The sad part is, my friend, that the answer to that question will depend on which political party one affiliates themselves with. Dave
27 UH60FtRucker : Cfalk is exactly right. There largest wealth of information in free societies is the press. Trust me, I've dealt with the press numerous times in Ira
28 Moo : Just because he is right (and I did not dispute that) does not mean I am wrong - this information was for the taking, and its only right to assume th
29 UH60FtRucker : Negative. Freedom of the Press does not include the right to publish material that will directly endanger the welfare of American soldiers/citizens..
30 Yellowstone : First, I think that the CIA needs to check to see who leaked this information. While I'm not usually one to argue for government secrecy, these sort o
31 ORFflyer : Without question. The press has an obligation, a right, and the ability to get the story out - correctly. But when they divulge information that is o
32 Tbar220 : and Alberto Gonzalez's memory apparently...
33 Doona : So has torture, ethnic cleansing, and genocide, but that still isn't something most people approve on nowadays. It is not an alternative to all-out w
34 MCOflyer : Totally agree. Know this first hand from my last job. My friend told her boss a secret and she spreaded it. MCOflyer
35 Cfalk : WTF do you think we are worried about??? It's the religious kooks at the top who have been feeding their young people for over 30 years that the US i
36 QR332 : Yeah, and we all saw how well it worked out last time the US toppled an Iranian government. Then you wonder why the world hates the Bush administratio
37 Post contains links Cfalk : Saddam destroyed Iraq. He had this little habit of invading his neigbors, and even after he got slapped down in 1991, he continued to shoot missiles
38 AsstChiefMark : That's because we refused to stop oppressing and overflying his country after the war ended. And the USA had the right to tell him how to run his cou
39 Post contains images QR332 : A) The US didn't seem to mind when the neighbour was Iran. Hell, they supplied him with the chemical weapons he used against Iranian civilians and hi
40 Cfalk : You seem to forget about the hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Sunnis Saddam massacred after Gulf War reel 1. I suppose that we should not bother tr
41 AsstChiefMark : Oh really? So where were all the other UN-members' air force patrols? It seems we always muscle in on doing work the rest of the world should be doin
42 Cfalk : You had better check up on that. As I recall, the chemical weapons and components mainly came from Germany and the USSR. The US supplied some money,
43 Santosdumont : The relationship between the US press and the US government -- especially within Washington circles -- is like an incestuous dance where, to paraphras
44 Moo : The no fly zones maintained by UK and US airforces after the first gulf war were a grey area under UN mandate - the US and UK maintain that they were
45 Cfalk : We were pissed, of course. But it was an understandable situation, whenever ransom is involved. Whenever someone is held hostage, you have a temptati
46 Santosdumont : Firstly, Reagan did not send the weapons as a type of ransom for the hostages held at what was the US Embassy in Tehran. Those hostages were freed af
47 Cfalk : That's what I was talking about. The Embassy hostages had nothing to do with Reagan. True, but Reagan's motivations for the deal were the hostages in
48 Post contains links QR332 : You should brush up on your history. Yes, Iraq did have a military agreement with the USSR, but during the Iraq-Iran war Saddam turned to the West fo
49 Emirates773ER : Thanks for the brush up on my history!
50 Santosdumont : No argument with your first point -- too bad the planners of such things never end up having to pay the price. As for Sadam having to go, I actually
51 Cfalk : The US cozied up to Saddam right after the Iranian revolution because they were scared of Khomeini exporting his form of Islamic revolution and law S
52 QR332 : Its interesting how you completely ignored my post Charles. And Iran didn't pick a fight with the US for no reason. The US did plenty of damage to Ira
53 Cfalk : Apart from the restoration of the Shah in 1953, how else did the US hurt Iran? (And I do not think that the restoration hurt the country). And as I e
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Germans Are No. 1! posted Wed Jul 21 2004 16:52:29 by FraT
Johan - Bright Flashy Ad.s Are No Good! posted Wed Jun 13 2001 22:02:03 by 747-600X
Are Greek Ferries Safe? posted Sun Oct 1 2000 01:48:11 by SVG
Oh No. It Looks Like Chelsea Are Going Out posted Tue Mar 7 2006 22:34:36 by Cosec59
Why No Radical Right-wing Lunatics Are Identified? posted Wed Jun 30 2004 19:39:28 by ConcordeBoy
New Car Purchase. Are You Nationalist(NO GERMANS)? posted Sun Nov 24 2002 10:06:34 by F.pier
Sniper Says, "Your Children Are Not Safe..." posted Tue Oct 22 2002 23:27:41 by B747forlife
Cartagena, Colombia-Safe Or No? posted Sun Dec 2 2001 18:55:30 by USAFHummer
Are Neozep Cold Tablets Safe? posted Wed May 2 2001 19:32:32 by United Airline
What Book Are You Reading--me: Inviting Disaster posted Tue May 22 2007 02:13:57 by ScrubbsYWG