Skip to main content

View Diary: Petraeus-gate: It's Not About the Affair, But Leaking of the Highest Order (634 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So you have no problem with administration use (6+ / 0-)

    of the act in cases you admit to knowing nothing about.

    I.e. you admit to being a blind authoritarian who unquestioningly supports his or her superiors under all circumstances.

    And you don't believe in the moral righteousness of leaking evidence of criminal activity. We must all follow orders without question.

    Duly noted.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 06:35:01 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  You are really leaping to conclusions (10+ / 0-)

      Duly noted.  While I don't know anything about the cases the diarist noted I can tell you that I am briefed constantly about unauthorized disclosure policy and am required to attend training regularly on the matter.  There is NO WAY anyone who has authorized access to classified info is unaware of the rules, regulations, policies and laws that govern classified info.  Leaking it is illegal. I do, however, firmly believe that whistleblowers should be protected.  I also am aware that the government does not always get it right.

      Experience required, ovaries desired.

      by bulldog on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 06:43:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Then why did you write the above (8+ / 0-)

        In which you appeared to make it clear that you fully supported the Obama's enforcement of the EA in all cases, including ones you knew nothing about and/or ones that might potentially be prosecuting legitimate whistleblowers?

        If you didn't really mean what you said, why did you say it? Aren't people in your line of work taught to be very, very careful in what they say, for obvious reasons?

        IMO the true test of one's belief in what's right is one's ability to acknowledge when people you otherwise like and respect have not being doing right. It was easy for all of us to attack BushCo when they were violating all sorts of laws and principles. The real test is doing the same with Obama & Co. when they do that. And they have. They are attacking the messengers while continuing many of BushCo's worst policies--which clearly don't work, btw.

        I'm not going to put my "loyalty" to Obama or any other person or party above my loyalty to the US and its principles.

        And no, in case you're going to ask, I did not prefer or vote for Romney.

        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

        by kovie on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 06:51:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Why would you assume I would ask if (9+ / 0-)

          you vote for Romney?  We are a nation of laws. When I entered in to federal service I swore an oath to defend, uphold and obey the laws of this Nation.  

          Experience required, ovaries desired.

          by bulldog on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 07:15:04 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It remains the right of anyone (4+ / 0-)

            to disobey an unlawful order.

            It would be unlawful to be ordered to remain silent about illegal activity.

            I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
            but I fear we will remain Democrats.

            by twigg on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 07:55:19 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  So did Daniel Ellsberg and Major Calley (7+ / 0-)

            Same oath, profoundly different interpretations of that oath.

            40 years later and we have the exact same situation. Yeah, those helicopters did exactly the same thing and the people who revealed it were patriots, not those cowardly pilots and the cowards who ordered them to shoot unarmed men, even if, technically, revealing this was against the law and some arbitrary "oath".

            Perhaps you objected to the sit ins during the civil rights era? They were illegal too. And what about the egregious crimes committed by people in power, who abused that power, from the Dulles brothers to, well, you know? Sorry, but you still sound like a blind authoritarian hiding behind some arbitrary words to me.

            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

            by kovie on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 07:57:18 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  As for why I'd assume this (5+ / 0-)

            It's a typical, and typically lazy and silly, reaction I get to daring to criticize He Who Must Not Be Criticized just because he's obviously better than the other side.

            I don't see the world as an either/or proposition.

            "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

            by kovie on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 07:59:05 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You know Kovie (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              doc2

              your hatred for Obama is evident in every one of your posts and you're way quick to attack harshly anyone that disagrees with you.  I would hope Kos is keeping a close eye on your messaging.  I find it distasteful.  Nobody is free from criticism but if it's unbalanced it borders on trolling.  

              "A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism." -- Carl Sagan

              by artmartin on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 10:55:43 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Why thank you, Senator McCarthy! (0+ / 0-)

                Your thoughtful observations have been duly noted. Say hi to Dick and Roy!

                "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                by kovie on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 02:11:36 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site