It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

TERRORISM: American Government Intent on Plugging CIA Leaks

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Some of the more sensational news items of late have been the result of leaks from within the CIA and the Special Forces - and presumably other individuals privvy to classified information. Whether it's pictures of detainee abuse, or secret prisons in Europe, or NSA warrantless wiretaps, classified has been a somewhat relative term as of late. The administration is serious about stopping the flow of information, and they've taken a number of steps towards that goal.
 



news.yahoo.com
The Bush administration has launched several investigations to discourage government employees from leaking classified information to news reporters, The Washington Post reported in its Sunday edition.

FBI agents have interviewed dozens of employees at the CIA, the National Security Agency and other intelligence agencies in recent weeks as they investigate possible leaks that led to reports about the NSA's domestic spying program and secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe, the Post said.

Employees at the FBI, the CIA, the Justice Department and other agencies have also received Justice Department letters prohibiting them from discussing the NSA program, the Post said, citing anonymous sources.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Now, classified information is classified for a reason, and the law is clear when it comes to airing this stuff in open court or to the media. So..the penalties are harsh, and reasonably so, given the current environment of loose lips. The push is now to increase penalties, and I say why not?

Anybody who thinks it's their moral duty to leak classified information won't be dissuaded by the spectre of punishment. The law should not make exceptions for morality, for virtue - the law needs to remain emotionless to function for the good of everyone. The men who broke the law and released sensitive, damning information to show people what's going on in their name overseas, they did break the law, make no mistake about it. What they did was criminal...

Also totally necessary, and right. They did the right thing. They know that. We know that. The government knows that. The crime of leaking classified information should be prosecuted dilligently, to dissuade people from doing it lightly, or for profit. It's vital to national security, right? The great thing about the law is that it can remain heartless so we don't have to be. We should all thank these particular criminals, for being brave enough to condemn themselves for the good of us all. If anybody sees it differently, I'd like to hear about it.




posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   
I agree with you 100%. There are good reasons for information to be classified, but when the classification is used to cover up illegal or immoral activities, it takes guts to step forward and risk personal and professional loss to right the wrong.

I am grateful that there are still people who will take that risk.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   
I disagree with your contention that what the various "leakers" of classified information are doing is something that is totally right and necessary. Jeopardizing the security of the U.S. and the safety of it's citizens is not the right way to go to draw attention to something one personally disagrees with.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 02:07 PM
link   
You're entitled to your own opinion, but I don't think that your introduction is a summary of the article. You make statements that need some corroboration that is not provided in the source.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Plugging CIA leaks,

You mean putting a gag order on anybody that wants to warn the American public of the illegal deals against the population of the US by the ones in power, that are after all elected by we people.


Yeah they need to keep the population dumb, daft and ignorant so they can control us better.


Then it will be easier to take the trouble makers away to concentration camps for becoming a national security threat.

Yes our country is becoming a dictatorship drag queen in democratic costumes



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 02:57 PM
link   
i would hardly say abuse of detainees is a means of national security unless the government is afraid of the repercussion that will come from it by terrorist nations for their actions. anyone that leaks info about abuse or illegal activity i am proud to call them american because they still exercise some freedom of belief and speech. they still exercise the right to act for the good of the people rather then the good of the rich.

homeland security? more like rich-man security



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   

from marg
You mean putting a gag order on anybody that wants to warn the American public of the illegal deals against the population of the US by the ones in power, that are after all elected by we people.

Illegal deals against the population? Can you name a few of these deals?


Then it will be easier to take the trouble makers away to concentration camps for becoming a national security threat.

Here you go with the concentration camps again!


One more point: Once again, I find the duplicity here to be amazing. People flip-flop back and forth in support of whistleblowers, depending upon who is most likely to be harmed by the leak.:shk:



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Information is compartmentalized. A whistle-blower leaks classified info, thinking he is a hero. What he doesn't know is the whole story, and after the story comes out, YOU don't know the whole story, either. At the end of the day, the government bites the bullet and looks like a bad guy so as to protect the rest of the information and you think you are so damned smart.

Try thinking a couple steps down the pike rather than entertaining puddle-deep thoughts.

Or, then again, maybve it is no deeper than it appears.
We don't know, do we?

[edit on 5-3-2006 by Thomas Crowne]



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Maybe the gist of the article is to control just those "unplanned" intelligence links.
Cheney 'Authorized' Libby to Leak Classified Information
-National Journal
Libby says he got OK on leak
-Newsday
The dichotomy of intelligence leaks
-Christian Science Monitor

Controlling CIA leaks, a tip on the old censorship iceberg:
Thousands of Federal Cases Kept Secret -
-Associated Press
Senators Vote to Restrict Free Speech for Citizen Activists
-LobbySense

Flashing back to the old leak game:
Leaks Came Against Backdrop Of a Post-Hoover Power Struggle
-Washington Post
Nixon plumber who went to prison tells story
-Seattle Post Intelligencer



Accept no substitutes, get the original!
A message from the Drunk with Power Club™

Pentagon 'Leaks' Iran War Plans -ThreatsWatch.Org



[edit on 5-3-2006 by Regenmacher]



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 07:03 AM
link   
Regen
Great post.
And yes, I think this is about stopping the unplanned leaks, although doubtless it will never be presented as such.

Thomas Crowne
Who ya' talkin' to, just out of curiosity?

Jsobecky
Where's the flip-flop? Usually people support whistleblowers.
We know there's a lot we're not being told in any given situation, and it's nice to see someone risk their own hide to bring the American people necessary information.

We make enough bad decisions with good information, we really don't need bad information to make the situation even worse.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 07:22 AM
link   
On the other hand, Richard Keeble, (Professor of Journalism), among many others, claim that all the major news agencies are full of CIA/MI6 operatives both currently and historically releasing info at the direction of their handlers.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 07:58 AM
link   
When this topic is discussed, what is never, ever mentioned is that there are authorized and approved internal channels within every government agency to expose and identify fraud, waste, and abuse. That includes programs that are heavily compartmentalized and controlled, even in the intelligence community.

I have no problem with an individual going to Congress if he/she has attempted (and failed) to report fraud, waste, and abuse within the approved system to no avail.

I have no sympathy whatsoever for people who break their oaths of secrecy and speak to the press or any other unauthorized persons about classified information without first at least trying to resolve it through the system first. I say throw the book at them and throw away the key.

An please, do not give me that horse shinola about "no one inside the system would have listened to me" or "I would have been silenced by the insiders". Thats a load of meadow muffins and its a cowards lame excuse.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 09:16 AM
link   

from WyrdeOne
Jsobecky
Where's the flip-flop? Usually people support whistleblowers. We know there's a lot we're not being told in any given situation, and it's nice to see someone risk their own hide to bring the American people necessary information.

There were several threads recently about a 16 yr student in Colorado who complained about his geography teacher; I don't know if you read them. Anyway, there were about a half-dozen people who defended the teacher and ostracized the kid, calling him names and generally blaming the kid for the incident, questioning his motives, etc. The kid's political stance was even questioned/blamed, and was, imo, the main reason for their blaming of the student. Yet some of these people were vocal in their support of Heller, the "whistleblower" in the Diebold/Ca. case, mainly because, imo, the alleged role of Diebold in the 2004 election (and who won) and the "bring down the fat cats" credo. I see some of the same people popping up here.


from Pyros
When this topic is discussed, what is never, ever mentioned is that there are authorized and approved internal channels within every government agency to expose and identify fraud, waste, and abuse. That includes programs that are heavily compartmentalized and controlled, even in the intelligence community.

Pyros, that post was excellent!
I gave you a WATS for that. Too many times, Samuel Johnson's quotation that "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" comes to mind. Of course, he was referring to false patriotism.





posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 10:39 AM
link   
It's interesting to me that some of these issues are seen as so black and white.

The whole point of the original poster is that there is a gray area. Yes, sometimes people break the law, take the risk in order to bring down a greater evil than breaking the law.

In the case of this thread, if the government is keeping information secret specifically so it can operate illegally or immorally, the whistleblower (or leaker) ends up becoming the hero, because he exposes a threat to the way our country is supposed to run. Regardless if he broke the law or not, he did it for the good of the people. Exposing true corruption of those in power is more important than making sure you don't break any laws, in my opinion.

Same with the Diebold case. Who cares if he stole some documents? The integrity of the whole voting system of the USA is at stake. That's a big deal. Breaking the law by stealing the evidence to prove that, is acceptable to me. There is corruption afloat protected by the law and someone has to take the risk to expose it.

The case of the Colorado student doesn't even compare to these. No one broke the law, no one was doing anything corrupt. And the kid has every right to do what he did. And so does the teacher. Yes, the teacher is a passionate left-wing liberal. Yes the kid is probably enjoying the hell out of his fame. But there was no corruption involved.

My point is that there comes a time when the law that is protecting the corruption must be broken for the good of the people. It's easy to follow the rule of the law, but it requires a thinking populace to determine if that's always the best thing to do. It requires us, not to follow blindly, but to evaluate and discriminate.

That's why a blind following is preferable to those in power who are corrupt.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Yes, the teacher is a passionate left-wing liberal. Yes the kid is probably enjoying the hell out of his fame.

The liberal is passionate while the Republican student is an attention whore?

Did I hear "blind followers" mentioned?



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 05:24 PM
link   


My point is that there comes a time when the law that is protecting the corruption must be broken for the good of the people. It's easy to follow the rule of the law, but it requires a thinking populace to determine if that's always the best thing to do. It requires us, not to follow blindly, but to evaluate and discriminate.


Nice rhetoric here. Sounds real nice. The only problem is, the person doing the leaking often times doesn't know or give the whole story. It's often times them just making a personal judgement on a matter, as well. Have the # that comes from annonymous sources isn't illegal.

That is why there are proper channels to do all this through. There is no damn need to go the public unless it's a last resort.

I'm going to bet people like you were ready to impeach Bush during the leaking of Plame's identity. You could care less when something that could be used against Bush is leaked to the public, though. It's all about your political agenda.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
I'm going to bet people like you were ready to impeach Bush during the leaking of Plame's identity.


I was ready to do it long before that.




You could care less when something that could be used against Bush is leaked to the public, though.


You are mistaken. I care very much. If he is breaking the law, then I am all for that information being made public. I prefer it come through 'proper channels', but a leak works, too.



It's all about your political agenda.


And what might that be?



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

My point is that there comes a time when the law that is protecting the corruption must be broken for the good of the people. It's easy to follow the rule of the law, but it requires a thinking populace to determine if that's always the best thing to do. It requires us, not to follow blindly, but to evaluate and discriminate.

That's why a blind following is preferable to those in power who are corrupt.


Very wise words, more often than not people are under the impression that governments are like monarchies and presidents like kings.

But in the US these people are elected by we the people, and they come and go, and every single one of them bring their own personal agenda with them to the white house.

They are not kings, dictators or absolute rules, they are nothing more than a temporary figure.

We the people have the right to spot corruption and dishonesty or to have real patriots to point them for us, something corruption and self appointed powers seems to be going rampant in the white house for quite some time and it seems that many Americans have to no problem with it.


Well I am an American and I have a big problem with it.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

... if the government is keeping information secret specifically so it can operate illegally or immorally, the whistleblower (or leaker) ends up becoming the hero, because he exposes a threat to the way our country is supposed to run. Regardless if he broke the law or not, he did it for the good of the people. Exposing true corruption of those in power is more important than making sure you don't break any laws, in my opinion.






And "Evil prevails when good men do nothing."

Me, I'm glad we still have a few people left in the world who are not afraid to stand up for right, truth and justice. Instead of just spout off about how values are important while they pick your pockets, I mean.





posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 09:23 PM
link   
I posted this elsewhere today but I think it should be here in this thread as well.
Yes I know Doug Thompson from Capitol Hill Blue wrote it, some of you may take it as crap, oh well.




Bush declares war on freedom of the press


By DOUG THOMPSON

Using many of the questionable surveillance and monitoring techniques that brought both questions and criticism to his administration, President George W. Bush has launched a war against reporters who write stories unfavourable to his actions and is planning to prosecute journalists to make examples of them in his "war on terrorism."

Bush recently directed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to use "whatever means at your disposal" to wiretap, follow, harass and investigate journalists who have published stories about the administration's illegal use of warrant less wiretaps, use of faulty intelligence and anything else he deems "detrimental to the war on terror."

Reporters for The New York Times, which along with Capitol Hill Blue revealed use of the National Security Agency to monitor phone calls and emails of Americans, say FBI agents have interviewed them and criminal prosecutors at the Justice Department admit they are laying "the groundwork for a grand jury that could lead to criminal charges,"

~~

Political scientist George Harleigh, who worked in the Nixon administration, says such use of federal law enforcement authority was illegal when Nixon tried it and still so today.

"We're talking about a basic violation of the Constitutional guarantee of a free press as well as a violation of the rights of privacy of American citizens," Harleigh says. "I had hoped we would have learned our lessons from the Nixon era. Sadly, it appears we have not."



All these clowns are from the Nixon era, and there back.

[edit on 7/3/2006 by Sauron]



new topics




 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join