Navy SEAL Author Rejects the Pentagon's Legal Threat, page 1

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 16 times

Topic started on 1-9-2012 @ 12:58 AM by Swills

Navy SEAL Author Rejects the Pentagon's Legal Threat

www.theatlanticwire.com

Former Navy SEAL Matt Bissonnette is going to tell his version of events surrounding the death of Osama bin Laden, even if the Pentagon sues him for every last penny.

Last night, the Defense Department's top attorney wrote a letter to Bissonnette threatening to use "all remedies legally available" against him for the publication of No Easy Day, his firsthand account of the mission to kill bin Laden in Pakistan. "You are in material breach and violation of the nondisclosure agreements you signed," wrote Pentagon general counsel Jeh Charles Johnson. The letter hinted at a criminal pros

(visit the link for the full news article)

reply posted on 1-9-2012 @ 12:58 AM by Swills

Sounds pretty serious for the SEAL. The Non-Disclosure Agreement is no joke and pretty much is a catch all. I've had to sign them and I'll always keep my mouth shut. When this story first came out I wondered how true it was because I thought there was no way this SEAL could tell the story of what happened that night, even providing enough information to fill a book! The Pentagon did read the book looking for any disclosure and apparently they found things they don't like. So this does give weight to the SEALS story? But then again the Federal Gov't will do anything and everything to get its way, no matter how trivial or severe.

I have a question for the conspiracy surrounding OBL, was he already long dead or is the SEAL telling the truth, or what he thinks is the truth?

www.theatlanticwire.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 1-9-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 1-9-2012 @ 01:01 AM by milkyway12

reply to post by Swills

I thought his attorney said nothing was in the book not already leaked by Obama Hussein and there was nothing violating his non disclosure agreement.

edit on 1-9-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 1-9-2012 @ 01:06 AM by Swills

reply to post by milkyway12

Of course that's what his lawyer says but the Pentagon sees things differently. They had to see this coming and probably have been preparing for a fight with them. When does this book come out because the Pentagon is gonna send this sucka to the NY Times Best Seller List

edit on 1-9-2012 by Swills because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 1-9-2012 @ 01:13 AM by milkyway12

reply to post by Swills

I think it has been rushed to publication already. However, he is utterly screwed if he goes before a Military Tribunal. Even if operational events are public knowledge, he still remains under the agreement. I have also heard his lawyer has reviewed several other sensitive publications without error.

Again, I think he is screwed in the end, even with a top notch lawyer because this will probably be pursued through the military which has zero tolerance for any policy breaches, no matter how noble.

edit on 1-9-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 1-9-2012 @ 01:15 AM by VariableConstant

Originally posted by Swills
I have a question for the conspiracy surrounding OBL, was he already long dead or is the SEAL telling the truth, or what he thinks is the truth?

Hmm, good parting question. If he was already dead in 2001, as many have claimed, then everything else in the story is pointless.

Hard to imagine this SEAL squaring off with the upper brass over a lie. Then again, nobody wants to read a story about how they shot some random guy who was totally not bin Laden.

Sucks to never know what is true.

reply posted on 1-9-2012 @ 01:15 AM by Sublimecraft

If this is how the US government treats its military elite then I hope he takes a leaf out of Assange' book and spills the beans on what else he is aware of - non disclosure agreement or otherwise - lying through your teeth for political purposes time and time again has its limits.

He wouldn't be the first to breach that agreement either.

IMHO.

edit on 1-9-2012 by Sublimecraft because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 1-9-2012 @ 01:21 AM by ladyteeny

perhaps if our governments stopped lying to us about newsworthy events there would be no need for secrecy agreements and continued, relentless persecution and hounding of those that seek to expose them. yet another travesty of justice and a waste of public money.

reply posted on 1-9-2012 @ 01:31 AM by milkyway12

reply to post by Sublimecraft

Lying isn't illegal. Telling the truth is.

Welcome to the United States Armed Forces.

reply posted on 1-9-2012 @ 02:12 AM by inverslyproportional

Why does the .gov believe they have a right to lie to the public, and at the same time prosecute an honest person for telling everyone the truth?

This all just reminds me of obama claiming executive priveledge to cover up evidence proving his administrations illegal acts in fast and furious.

Didn't nixon try that and they told him to shove it during the watergate scandal?

reply posted on 1-9-2012 @ 02:15 AM by boncho

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by Sublimecraft

Lying isn't illegal. Telling the truth is.

Welcome to the United States Armed Forces.

And what is reneging on contracts?

You really have to look at all sides of the coin. If no one stood up to contract there would be equal chaos. Not really sure if this would even be considered "whistle blowing" since it may be a mundane account of a high profile operation, and in this case, the author is looking to cash in on it...

reply posted on 1-9-2012 @ 02:54 AM by Sublimecraft

reply to post by boncho

You really have to look at all sides of the coin. If no one stood up to contract there would be equal chaos.

Yes, that's a fair call and applies across the board - militarily, commercially or otherwise yes? So lets not forget the largest breach of contract in US history made manifest back in 2008 and handed down by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims - perpetrated by none other than the US government.

U.S. Owes $1.1B for Contract Breach

Yes yes I know two wrongs do not make a right but since we are talking contract breach let's air all the dirty laundry shall we, after all, your government appears very adept in ignoring such matters when it suits their masters' agenda, imho of course.

edit on 1-9-2012 by Sublimecraft because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 1-9-2012 @ 03:32 AM by boncho

reply to post by Sublimecraft

As you said. Two wrongs don't make a right...

reply posted on 1-9-2012 @ 03:38 AM by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Sublimecraft
U.S. Owes $1.1B for Contract Breach

Yes yes I know two wrongs do not make a right but since we are talking contract breach let's air all the dirty laundry shall we, after all, your government appears very adept in ignoring such matters when it suits their masters' agenda, imho of course.

“Under these circumstances, where both parties have participated in apparent good faith for the better part of 20 years, the purpose of restitution is adequately served by having the government return the initial payments,”

Both parties acted in apparent good faith. So oil companies paid money to the government to drill off the California coast, the government accepted the money, then changed its mind (via different lawmakers who weren't in power when they took the money) and said they can't drill after all, and now it's going to refund the money it collected.

But regarding the Seal book, the military contract says they have to pre-approve books for publication as specified in the contract. Plenty of other authors have followed this contract and obtained defense permission to publish. But this seal apparently chose not to do that so it sounds to me like he's not acting in good faith regarding the contract...isn't that quite different from the case you cited where both parties acted in apparent good faith?

edit on 1-9-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

reply posted on 1-9-2012 @ 03:43 AM by jcarpenter

Originally posted by Swills
Sounds pretty serious for the SEAL. The Non-Disclosure Agreement is no joke and pretty much is a catch all. I've had to sign them and I'll always keep my mouth shut.

You've just cited of of the major causes why we have lost control of this government. We have government committing massive crimes, lying thru their teeth and the participants can salve their conscience with the non-disclosure agreement and some notion of honor.

About the "Bin Laden" character -- why did they hide the body either at sea or "smuggled" back to the states? Was this man a body double for the now dead original?

reply posted on 1-9-2012 @ 06:43 AM by Sublimecraft

reply to post by Arbitrageur

I respectfully disagree.

Good faith must, by definition, include the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Acting in good faith, on this particular issue is yet to be seen. If the Navy Seal has a hidden agenda it will be exposed in court during the trial, as too will the US Governments'. If the US Government wants to maintain the moral high ground here why have they not granted permission to the author/publisher? What contents are in that book that they are concerned about - if its lies let the Seal fall on his own sword, imo.

One of their own military elites has deemed it necessary to go ahead with this book - the government can go ahead and sue him - no argument there.

the military contract says they have to pre-approve books for publication as specified in the contract.

I will take your word on that - I've no doubt that such a clause exists in one way, shape or form, however we all know employment contract clauses are designed to benefit the employer.........not so much the employee.

Failure to obtain permission to publish is one thing - but it appears the US Government is not so concerned about his disobedience in that matter as much as they are concerned about the contents of the book and the consequential effect resultant from its public release.

Has there been any previous case in history where US Government agendas have been proven to be in stark contrast to what they have publicly stated?

This book appears to be about lies, deception and political posturing towards the US and international community - that, imo, outranks any contract and it seems the Seal feels the same - surely the Government can get the remainder of his team to expose this Seals lies - or is that easier said than done given what we know about the life that these individuals lead as a team watching each others back like brothers?

In regards to my aforementioned statement about two wrongs not making a right - that is a moral absolute.

However, morals seem to have fizzled here and the gloves appear to be off on both sides so let history record the truth and the individual make up his or her own mind as to the validity of each parties claims.

reply posted on 1-9-2012 @ 08:44 AM by PhoenixOD

This whole affair is a red herring IMO. Its a physiological smoke screen.

Think about it...how do you fool a conspiracy theorist? You feed him another conspiracy that backs up the first lie.

By having a Seal come out with this story against the governments wishes they are making him an underdog and everyone will focus of the injustice of not being able to publish his book or arguing about whether he has the right to tell his story in the first place they are focusing less on whether the government actually did take out Osama on that day.

This stinks of psy-op and I'm sure most of the sheeple will eat it up without a second thought.

edit on 1-9-2012 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 1-9-2012 @ 08:46 AM by syrinx high priest

so this genius goes against a disclusre agreement he signed, and makes his name known to the enemy in the process

nice money grab einstein

reply posted on 1-9-2012 @ 10:08 AM by jaynkeel

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
This whole affair is a red herring IMO. Its a physiological smoke screen.

Think about it...how do you fool a conspiracy theorist? You feed him another conspiracy that backs up the first lie.

By having a Seal come out with this story against the governments wishes they are making him an underdog and everyone will focus of the injustice of not being able to publish his book or arguing about whether he has the right to tell his story in the first place they are focusing less on whether the government actually did take out Osama on that day.

This stinks of psy-op and I'm sure most of the sheeple will eat it up without a second thought.

edit on 1-9-2012 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)

Well if he isn't a plant then I fully expect him to be assuming room temperature any time now. Seems whenever someone with info in the govt tries to leak it, they wind up missing, turn up in a dumpster, or commit suicide by impossible means.... The clock is ticking.

reply posted on 1-9-2012 @ 10:41 AM by The X

Good on the guy, How many people are holding onto information that has relevance to the government using programs to soft kill the public, because of NDA's and a distinct lack of testicular fortitude, or, the inability of cretins to do what is right for the benefit of EVERYONE, the government has and will maintain projects that are not in the public best interest.

At least one guy has the nuts to tell the truth, if everyone started doing this, well hell, we might just begin to get the government everyone needs.

Pages: << 1 2 3 >> ^^TOP^^