It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: NobodiesNormal
a reply to: Grambler
#1 i am not personally attacking you, it just (clearly) feels that way to you because you are invested in your opinion and thus are defending attacks on it, you are not your opinions, they are separate from you, an attack on them is not an attack on you, accept that and you'll find the truth becomes easier to discern.
#2 your thread is about free speech and not censoring people yet you are trying to label my posts as attacks for the very specific purpose of trying to get them censored. how ironic.
#3 the NDA did not prevent the informant at all, it merely frightened him into silence for a time due to the same ignorance you are operating on with this thread topic. it also forced them to determine that what he is reporting on was actually a crime, which was their due diligence regardless of the nda, thus it did not effect the case the way you think it did.
eta: btw, this "One-upmanship" you are trying to apply to your perceived hostilities just makes you look petty and small minded.
the issue at hand is not your feelings or who can hurt whos,
its nda's and there effects on reporting crimes, which is nothing, no effect at all, the topic itself then is moot.
originally posted by: Grambler
... The threat of the NDA was suuficient to stop him from speaking until it was conevenient.
"My legislation would clarify that any non-disclosure agreements signed by White House employees do not cover actions protected by federal whistleblower law."