….there is the fact that Snowden took an oath not to do so (and so did the Obama admin IC official who leaked Flynn's name).
But aside from that, why can the press release classified info that is harmful to the country if others can't.
What defines a journalist? Buzzfeed has "journalists". The NYT has "journalists". The Toledo News has "journalists". Blog sites have "journalists".
Why can't Snowden could easily claim journalistic status as informer to the public if these people can?
(Understand, I am not supporting Snowden, but rather questioning the bona fides of the media).
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Honestly, I had to look this stuff up, because I wasn't following the Plame thing back then. But later reports all confirmed (even by Novak, the author of the article in question) that the source was Armitage (who also confirmed it in several interviews). Is there some kind of theory that Armitage and Novak were lying?
That's why Cheney was looked into by the FBI. His interview with the FBI was contradictory to Libby's interview. In fact, he seemed unable to recall much of the information and conversations he clearly couldn't have forgotten because he was involved in the meetings Libby talked about. He is known for his incredible memory but somehow it all went south when Plame's name was brought up.
How do you think Armitage would have known Plame's identity? He was given it by someone who knew it and the only person to know it and identify who she was, was Cheney. He and Libby took the fall but it is known Cheney had to have been the source. All roads to that scandal lead directly to Cheney.
Please - get off the MSM bullshit. It's just stupid.
The authorities just didn't think it was important to correct people like you.
Armitage admitted to it but he couldn't have known or have been free to pass out the info without being ordered to.
We can argue this till the end of days, but it is known Armitage and Libby took the fall for Cheney - they're good foot-soldiers. Cheney just used the "I cannot recall" phrase and was never interviewed again.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
is the deciding factor in whether you can release classified information. It is still harmful to the country.
And we all know that many journalists simply tell there sources "Hey, if if you come across any info and it happens to show up in my mailbox, nobody will be able to say otherwise".
Leaking classified info has two sides - the source and the publisher, but they both have equal roles in releasing info that harms the country. They are both equally involved.
I know this will irritate the Pentagon Paper hippies, but it's true. It appears to me that these leaks are acceptable to people based on whether their political ox is getting gored or not.
Either way, the country loses every time it happens.
(no message)
Technically yes, but backgrounds were so different and content of material had an impact. Snowden was a guy with computer skills who stole and began releasing information that could prove harmful to the country. Ellsberg was a marine officer who loved the marines. He was asked his favorite time in life and answered that leading an infantry company was it.
He went back to Viet Nam as a civilian and actually traveled with marines in combat. He was gung-ho but began seeing things that bothered him, false body counts, cover-ups, etc. Also the history of Viet Nam is disturbing to anyone with research skills.
He was asked to research VN and America's involvement. What he learned disturbed him. Administration after administration lied to America, padded stats, back dictators and killed thousands of innocent people. Numerous American lives were being lost and the deception continued. He tried to get people to listen but it was too entrenched, too many deaths for anyone to put it out there.
He eventually turned it over to the media. Was in right? Not within the law it wasn't but maybe he heard about a "higher authority"-itself a slippery slope-and decided the problem had to stop somewhere.
(no message)
(no message)
I understand that most advanced countries feasted on the secrets and that most definitely hurt us, but I am not aware of the media releasing classified specifics. Which classified info are you referring to?
If it's classified, then I don't like it. In fact, I was more than a little pissed that my govt secrets found their way onto the sleeze Weiner's laptop. But I don't recall the info itself being released. Enlighten me.
(no message)
(no message)
You want to answer the question now?
For example, if someone leaks a dispute among WH officials over policy which isn't classified, do you have an issue with that? Do you have an issue with leaking how our govt officials communicate information?
(no message)