Loose Lips Sinks ships.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Stelliform, Aug 9, 2004.

  1. Stelliform macrumors 68000

    Stelliform

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    #1
    I think it is time to lock down all of these leaks. Our government has more leaks than the Titanic. Where are those good ole treason charges when you need them.

    CNN article on Government Leak messing up Pakistani informant

     
  2. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #2
    does it qualify as a leak? i thought the administration simply confirmed he was undercover, when asked by the press.
     
  3. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #3


     
  4. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
  5. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #5
    Over at Josh Marshall's site there is a discussion of the latest excuse for the outing of this informant. It seems that Condi Rice is saying they only gave out the information on background.

    CNN

    As Marshall points out, background information is used to protect the identity of the person giving the information not to protect the information being leaked. Of interest is the claim, by Rice, that she didn't know whether the Khan was working for the Pakistanis. Is incompetence of a National Security Advisor now a legitimate excuse for hurting national security?
     
  6. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #6
    I thought she had more sense...
     
  7. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #7
    What is ANY administration to do? If they don't talk, in the name of "national security", they're accused of hiding stuff and/or lying. If they say much of anything at all, they're accused of "outing" or some such.

    Administrations and the public both want a both-ways deal. Secrecy/security on one hand, in order to achieve national goals, and an open society where everybody knows not just the "what" but the "how".

    'Rat
     
  8. trebblekicked macrumors 6502a

    trebblekicked

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago, IL, USA
    #8
    in this case, all they had to do was not name names. i don't see the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" here. considering police action and undercover work should be priority one in fighting terrorism, not knowing whether or not someone was turned or working undercover is inexcusable.
     
  9. 3rdpath macrumors 68000

    3rdpath

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    2nd star on the right and straight till morning
    #9
    i don't see it as a balance of information issue...

    it's a credibility issue brought about by a steady stream of lies and deception.

    we've all read the story about "the boy who cried wolfowitz". ;)
     
  10. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #10
    This administration has proven it has no qualms about using the "priveleged information" excuse in cases far less volatile than those central to the war on terror (see Cheney, Dick and Energy policy).
     

Share This Page