Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 116
  1.    #41  
    I just heard about this. There has been rumor for some time that the Administration was going to start up a Clintonesque war room to start fighting back. Hopefully this is the first salvo, and it is aimed at the CIA.

    I'll say it again. Goss needs to fire everyone over there GS-13 and above that hasn't spent at a year or more overseas in the last five years.
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    I'll say it again. Goss needs to fire everyone over there GS-13 and above that hasn't spent at a year or more overseas in the last five years.
    Why? Why not if they have been overseas?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2l.htm

    **Exclusive**

    Sources tell Drudge that early this afternoon House Speaker Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Frist will announce a bicameral investigation into the leak of classified information to the WASHINGTON POST regarding the “black sites” where high value al Qaeda terrorists are being held and interrogated.

    MORE

    Said one Hill source: “Talk about a leak that damaged national security! How will we ever get our allies to cooperate if they fear that their people will be targeted by al Qaeda.”

    According to sources, the WASHINGTON POST story by Dana Priest (Wednesday November 2), revealed highly classified information that has already done significant damage to US efforts in the War on Terror.
    Well, Hobbes, there is the answer to your question. Not only did they know about the secret prisons, they are complicit in them. They are much more concerned that we found out about them than about their legitimacy. Whether or not they are, as President Bush insists, legal, they are clearly unethical. One test that an act is unethical is that one wishes to conceal it.

    The proposition that if my enemy does it, it is clearly ethical (for me to do it) is specious. Down that path lies anarchy and chaos.
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    One test that an act is unethical is that one wishes to conceal it.

    The proposition that if my enemy does it, it is clearly ethical (for me to do it) is specious. Down that path lies anarchy and chaos.
    I think this is oversimplifying the problem quite a bit, and clearly the "concealing it makes it unethical" theory in the intelligence community is just plain wrong.
    I'm back!
  5.    #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Why? Why not if they have been overseas?
    Then they are headquarters pogues who have spent far too much time insulating themselves into the DC culture.
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    I think this is oversimplifying the problem quite a bit, and clearly the "concealing it makes it unethical" theory in the intelligence community is just plain wrong.
    Sorry, I do not equate concealing with unethical but only suggest it as a test. I doubt that we will agree here that secret prisons are inherently evil. I think that we can agree that they are evil when used by one's enemy. For example, we all pretty much agreed that the USSR was an "evil empire," at least in part because of the Gulag.
  7. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Sorry, I do not equate concealing with unethical but only suggest it as a test. I doubt that we will agree here that secret prisons are inherently evil. I think that we can agree that they are evil when used by one's enemy. For example, we all pretty much agreed that the USSR was an "evil empire," at least in part because of the Gulag.
    What about the prisons are evil? If the terrorist do not know where the imprisoned leaders and/or followers are they are less likely to attempt terrorist acts to free them, or reign terror on the citizens where their comrades are being held in captivity. Did I miss something about what is going on at the prisons that is not legal?
  8. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2l.htm

    **Exclusive**

    Sources tell Drudge that early this afternoon House Speaker Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Frist will announce a bicameral investigation into the leak of classified information to the WASHINGTON POST regarding the “black sites” where high value al Qaeda terrorists are being held and interrogated.

    MORE

    Said one Hill source: “Talk about a leak that damaged national security! How will we ever get our allies to cooperate if they fear that their people will be targeted by al Qaeda.”

    According to sources, the WASHINGTON POST story by Dana Priest (Wednesday November 2), revealed highly classified information that has already done significant damage to US efforts in the War on Terror.
    Let's see if he keeps it up, that now, it looks like a repub may be responsible for the leak. :shrug:
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    I think this is oversimplifying the problem quite a bit, and clearly the "concealing it makes it unethical" theory in the intelligence community is just plain wrong.
    It is clear that secrecy is required in the intelligence. It is equally clear secrecy results in an absence of accountability and that an absence of accountability invites abuse. Let's face it; an absence of accountability makes abuse almost a certainty.

    At the time that the USA PATRIOT Act was passed, many of us argued that abuse of "national security letters" was inevitable. We argued that they would be used for fishing expeditions and that hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens would be swept up in the nets. We now know that we were all too correct. The FBI admits to 30K such letters. Of course, we cannot know with confidence what such secret letters say. However, with such a large number, leakage is inevitable; the leaks suggest that they do not target individuals but classes. We feared that they would be served on libraries; we now know that they have been served on ISPs that serve multiple libraries. Not only have innocent civilians been "identified" but they are now in permanent secret databases that they cannot even know about, much less challenge.

    Secrecy is anathema to democracy; it must be kept to an absolute minimum. Out of disproportionate fear, we are now erring to a destructive degree.
  10.    #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Let's see if he keeps it up, that now, it looks like a repub may be responsible for the leak. :shrug:
    Do you have a name go to with that accusation?
  11. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Do you have a name go to with that accusation?
    No, I don't but maybe Trent Lott does? It was him that suggested it. Still waiting for the transcript to be posted at CNN.

    Edit:
    I know it is a biased source but we will see how this plays out. My guess is we won't hear anything about this anymore from the right.

    http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Senato...ican_1108.html

    Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) told CNN's Ed Henry Tuesday afternoon that he believed it was a Republican senator who gave information about secret CIA jails abroad to the Washington Post, RAW STORY can report.

    Lott said that much of the information contained in the Post report -- which stated that the U.S. was holding terrorist suspects in secret CIA jails overseas -- was discussed at a meeting of Republican senators last Tuesday.

    The revelation appears to torpedo the political gambit of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) who called on the Senate and House intelligence committees to investigate who leaked the information to the Post.

    -snip-
    Still want that investigation 1911 or is it no big deal now?

    Also this just in, the CIA has asked The Justice Department to investigate the matter.
    Last edited by NRG; 11/08/2005 at 04:54 PM.
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Secrecy is anathema to democracy; it must be kept to an absolute minimum. Out of disproportionate fear, we are now erring to a destructive degree.
    Determining the "absolute minimum" is always going to be where the rubber meets the road. I do not doubt the goodwill of either side of the civil liberties vs security debate.

    I do, however question how "disproportionate" the fear is. The simple fact is we face a foe who has professed a willingness (and whose attempts to gain the ability have been well-documented) to use weapons of mass destruction in large American cities for the purpose of murdering as many people as possible. This is not some right-wing fevered fantasy. This is the world we live in.

    The tension between security and liberty is compounded by the stakes - the possibility of an attack that kills hundreds of thousands vs the FBI looking at someone's library selections.

    We have a legal and democratic process as well as checks and balances in our goverment to correct abuses in civil liberties. Where is the redress for the victims of a future attack that might have been prevented?
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Determining the "absolute minimum" is always going to be where the rubber meets the road. I do not doubt the goodwill of either side of the civil liberties vs security debate.

    I do, however question how "disproportionate" the fear is. The simple fact is we face a foe who has professed a willingness (and whose attempts to gain the ability have been well-documented) to use weapons of mass destruction in large American cities for the purpose of murdering as many people as possible. This is not some right-wing fevered fantasy. This is the world we live in.

    The tension between security and liberty is compounded by the stakes - the possibility of an attack that kills hundreds of thousands vs the FBI looking at someone's library selections.

    We have a legal and democratic process as well as checks and balances in our goverment to correct abuses in civil liberties. Where is the redress for the victims of a future attack that might have been prevented?
    We have had this discussion before and it is unlikely that either of us will convince the other. However, I am a professional in security and a leader among my colleagues. We do risk assessment and the principal of proportionality is fundamental to what we do.

    As I have conceded to you on numerous occasions, though you have never acknowledged that you heard me, we have an implacable and determined enemy. However, when assessing threat, one must go beyond the intentions of one's adversary to his capability. The fear in this case is based in large part, not on the capability that the adversary has but on speculation about what he may acquire in the future.

    It is also based upon the arguable concept of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). This concept is usually defined to include nuclear, chemical, and biological agents and assumes that they are equal. However, one of these is orders of magnitude more destructive than the other two. In fact, there is only one WMD and that is a nuclear bomb. As bad as the other two may be it, it dwarfs them.

    The speculation, and it is only that, is that terrorist will obtain a bomb and will use it. It is true that if he can obtain one, he will attempt to deliver it. However, while there is a presumption, there is no guarantee of his success. That he has some success and need only succeed once is a given. I grant you all that.

    Now, let us try to put that in some context. First, the worst that he might do is to deliver a handful of such weapons. Terrible; I do not intend to minimize it, to minimize Nagasaki or Hiroshima. Still, it is a tiny fraction of what might be delivered by a nation state. We act as though he might make the kind of war that a nation state might. I listened to Colin Powell attribute all kinds of powers to Sadaam Hussein. I assumed that he was correct. I concluded that, in my professional opinion, it did not justify pre-emptive war, the very right that we had denied to him, Hussein. I do not want to live in a world in which any state can begin a war and not be subject to retaliation, not his state, not mine.

    Second, the worst that he might do is dwarfed by nature. Consider 2005. Consider the Tsunami 2005, Katrina, one of many storms, and the Kashmiri earthquake. Is there a terrorist who even pretends to such power? Is there even a nation state, perhaps save ours, that does?

    You argue as though the worst we can do is justified by what he might do if he could.

    I do not intend to minimize either the intent or the capability of the terrorists. I do intend to put the threat in proportion. I will build in the face of storm and earthquake; I will clearly do so in the threat of terrorism. I will not kill in the face of terrorism; if I do, then, by definition, the terrorist wins. If my fear is not proportional to his threat, then, by definition, he wins. If he reduces me to adopting even the least of his weapons or methods, then, by definition, he wins.

    I do not intend to suggest that the adversary is not fearsome, but I am not so fearful that I will approach him either on my knees or on his terms. He is not so fearsome, and I am not so fearful, that I will consent to the killing of innocent civilians to resist him. He is not so fearful, and I am not so fearful, that I will rationalize torture or secret prisons in the name of resisting him.

    What does he hope for? Does he hope for capitulation, for unconditional surrender? A military victory? A treaty perhaps? No. No, what he will settle for, the very best that he can hope for, is that I will agree with him, that I will agree with you, that the end justifies the means, that any end justifies any means.

    As I have said, I do not expect to convince you. Perhaps I may move one or two others.
  14. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    As I have said, I do not expect to convince you.
    No, nor I you. I do, however respect that you have come to the conclusion you have through a reasoned and rational analysis of the facts available. We disagree, but I would most certainly not count you amongst those who assume whatever position party or creed would dictate. In this forum we choose to discuss the topics we feel most passionately about (well, I can only speak for myself) and no one here presents a complete picture of who they are and what they believe. I know I'm disproportionately represented by the few topics I have chosen to discuss here - but that's my choice, of course. It's really been getting me nothing but heartburn ( ) so I'm going to be retreating to the more Treo-specific forums.
    Perhaps I may move one or two others.
    I have had the same hope, but alas, few are persuadable.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  15. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    .....No, nor I you. I do, however respect that you have come to the conclusion you have through a reasoned and rational analysis of the facts available.........
    I cannot expect or ask for more than that. Indeed, I find it quite flattering.
  16.    #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    No, I don't but maybe Trent Lott does? It was him that suggested it. Still waiting for the transcript to be posted at CNN.

    Edit:
    I know it is a biased source but we will see how this plays out. My guess is we won't hear anything about this anymore from the right.



    Still want that investigation 1911 or is it no big deal now?

    Also this just in, the CIA has asked The Justice Department to investigate the matter.
    It is a huge deal and I want the traitorous weasel(s) hung from the gates into Langley..
  17.    #57  
    My bet it is McCain. I'd love to see that RINO dehorned!
  18. #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    My bet it is McCain. I'd love to see that RINO dehorned!
    Would you, indeed? How much are you prepared to grant him for the six years he spent on your behalf in a North Vietnamese prison?

    You do not embarrass yourself. You disgrace yourself.

    Perhaps you would like to go back and delete that post.
  19.    #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Would you, indeed? How much are you prepared to grant him for the six years he spent on your behalf in a North Vietnamese prison?

    You do not embarrass yourself. You disgrace yourself.

    Perhaps you would like to go back and delete that post.
    I respect his service. I despise his politics, particularly his reference to the media as his "base".

    I think he is self-serving enough to have leaked something like this. We'll see soon enough.
  20. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    I respect his service. I despise his politics, particularly his reference to the media as his "base".

    I think he is self-serving enough to have leaked something like this. We'll see soon enough.
    I might be missing something but what would he gain by leaking this information? Is it really in his best interests to embarrass the current administration, this country and alienate the far right base that he would most likely have to rely on for any future political opportunities?
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions