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.
Originally posted by onlyinmydreams
...just as a sworn servant of the government should be dragged through the mud when he turns on the decisions of the government itself.
Sorry, but when someone decides to become an employee of the CIA they have to realize that the person in the white house -- be he Republican or Democrat -- is the person in charge. The CIA exists to execute the commands of this country's political leadership... it does not get to 'decide' policy on its own (nor do its members). In the same light, an agent of the intelligence services should realize that his job is to execute orders, not undermine them (do you want privates who disobey sergeants on the battlefield?).
When asked to confirm or deny his identity in an interview with the Phoenix, Anonymous declined to do either, explaining, "I've given my word I'm not going to tell anyone who I am, as the organization that employs me has bound me by my word."
Jonathan Turley, a national-security-law expert at George Washington University Law School, told Vest, "The requirement that someone publish anonymously is rare, almost unheard-of, particularly if the person is not in a covert position. It seems pretty obvious that the requirement he remain anonymous is motivated solely by political concerns, and ones that have more to do with the CIA."
Originally posted by mwm1331
Regardless of what name he took the oath under if the writer known as anonymous is the same entity as the C.I.A. employee known as Michael Scheuer then both are bound.
The idea that he can shirk his obligations by changing HS name is about as ridiculous as Clinton arguing the meaning of the word "is"
Originally posted by mOjOm
If that still doesn't make sense and some 'Authority' or 'Law' is still required to show Justification for all this, although depressing as it may be, it can still be done as well. Read Carefully:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Anonymous took an oath to defend this country against enemies both foreign AND domestic. Most people skim over the latter, thinking it unlikely or impossible that anyone in our government would be a traitor. Anonymous correctly sees traitors in our midst and he is calling them on it. Traitorous actions take many forms. Illegally invading and occupying Iraq has placed our nation and our citizens at grave risk, like never before. Our actions have inflamed the Islamic world to an untold degree, creating even more would-be terrorists. This is a national security threat of the highest order. War crimes have been committed, stemming from directives issued from the very top (Rumsfeld) of the chain of command. And on and on.
As someone who has taken an oath in the military, I can tell you, it is up to every servant who takes it, to disobey unlawful orders, come what may, and to uphold the rule of law and US constitution. That comes before bowing to the desires and demands of any administration.
It's about damn time the good soldiers started coming forward to set the record straight. Our Republic's very life may depend on it.
Originally posted by Raphael_UO
Read carefully or read the way you want it interpreted?
Reading carefully one would follow this diagram.
Originally posted by mwm1331
so let me se f I understand your logic. If I kill a man as mwm1331 and then change my name to bob the odd I'm no longer a murderer?
Originally posted by mOjOm
Originally posted by mwm1331
so let me se f I understand your logic. If I kill a man as mwm1331 and then change my name to bob the odd I'm no longer a murderer?
Well, I guess that all depends on YOUR RULES doesn't it. It has nothing to do with MY LOGIC either. Regardless of what I say about YOUR NAME or how YOU CHANGE IT or how YOU DEFINE MURDER, makes NO DIFFERENCE does it.
I think you're 'Making Things' complicated for yourself. There is no logic or mystery behind it. It is just that simple 'REALLY'.
Originally posted by mwm1331
your wrong. What is, is, what isn't, isn't. Your definition of things is irrelevant, and whether or not you agree with the "rules" is as well. What is, is whether you choose to reconise it or not. To say that the rules in language are irrelevant is Idiotic at best, as an agreed upon structure is needed for language to accomplish its purpose (communication) Changing the name of a thing does not change a thing, you can call a rose a lump of # but its still a rose.
[edit on 2-7-2004 by mwm1331]
Originally posted by Voice_of Doom
I dig what you're saying...but you're confusing the levels for him.
Since it mixes its identity with the judeo-Christian myth so closely, it has no choice. For them there was ONE revelation...and there can be ONLY one. Anything else is blasphemy and treated as such.
Congrats on your exploration of the inner/outer universe. Its not true unless it makes you laugh...those who are convinced that a "rose is always a rose" won't allow themselves to know that, at the moment.
There is no enemy anywhere - Lao Tse