Skip to main content

View Diary: Anonymous Government Officials Leak Defense of DOJ's Spying on Reporter (187 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  never thought i'd live to see the day that people (0+ / 0-)

    on this site would defend fox "journalists" as being actual, like, ya know... "journalists"

    my god - the contortions - they BURN!!!

    or...

    is it that there is a small core group of people here who will align with ANYONE to slam this administration?

    my question is why?

    (not holding my breath for an honest answer, btw)

    EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

    by edrie on Wed May 29, 2013 at 12:02:57 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  We don't get to pick and choose (5+ / 0-)

      who freedoms apply to.  Same principle as the ACLU defending the right of KKK assholes to march.

      “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

      by jrooth on Wed May 29, 2013 at 01:27:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  defending the law and defending the indefensible (0+ / 0-)

        are two totally separate issues.

        EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

        by edrie on Wed May 29, 2013 at 01:52:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Except when one group's idea (4+ / 0-)

          of "indefensible" imposes on the ability to "defend the law" as applied to everyone.

          A lot of bigots think LBGT rights are "indefensible."

          So unless I'm misreading your comment, I'd have to say they actually ARE very related issues.




          Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
          ~ Jerry Garcia

          by DeadHead on Wed May 29, 2013 at 02:33:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Except we were outraged at Cheney outing a CIA (0+ / 0-)

        operative, and demand his prosecution, then turn around and defend leaking info on our NK inside sources as "whistleblowing".

        •  Actually, my objection is primarily (0+ / 0-)

          to the characterization of Rosen as a suspected criminal, a co-conspirator.  I don't object to any and all prosecutions for revealing classified information - although there's a good argument to be made that all such prosecutions are illegitimate on the basis of their selective nature.  Members of the government leak classified information to reporters on practically a daily basis but face no investigation whatsoever simply because the leak serves the administration's agenda.

          I think my position on this is entirely consistent:

          1) Declassify everything that isn't truly vital to national security - in my estimation that's at most 5% of what's classified today.

          2) If, going forward, people improperly classify information - fire them (maybe after one or two warnings/reprimands.

          3) Don't go after reporters for doing their jobs - jobs which include soliciting classified information from time to time.

          4) Do prosecute leakers of properly classified information - but do so in a strictly uniform manner for all such leaks - even if they come from "senior administration officials" and were leaked to serve the administration's political agenda.

          “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

          by jrooth on Wed May 29, 2013 at 05:30:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Your proposal might cause a chilling effect wrt (0+ / 0-)

            diplomatic communications.

            If, for example, a diplomat overseas can't send a candid cable to the State Dept because it will be automatically declassified and therefore eligible for release to the public (because the cable doesn't meet your "truly vital to national security" threshold), then that damages that diplomat's ability to do the job.

            For example, one of Manning's leaked diplomatic cables was a message from an overseas diplomat to the State Dept saying that that the overseas diplomat didn't find some foreign official he/she was dealing with to be trustworthy.  Now, what possible good does it do to release that message to the public?  (I remember some nonsensical posts to progressive blogosphere saying that even writing that message was an outrage in and of itself, and the public had a need to know of that message so that the public would be aware of the "insult" that our diplomat had made in an undisclosed message.)  And if diplomats were concerned about messages being released, then the diplomat wouldn't use candor in his/her messages to the State Dept, thus the chilling effect.  And diplomacy is what we try to use use instead of wars; handicapping our diplomatic efforts by declassifying nearly all communications would be counterproductive, IMO.

            •  Obviously we disagree. (0+ / 0-)

              I think the benefits far outweigh the costs.  

              “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

              by jrooth on Thu May 30, 2013 at 05:25:14 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Dick Cheney isn't a journalist. (0+ / 0-)

          By outing Valerie Plame, he, and others, did break the law in order to discredit her husband, Amb. Joe Wilson, to facilitate the start of the illegal invasion of Iraq.

          Cheney had no authority as vice president to disclose classified information.

    •  What kind of answer (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      4kedtongue, Nada Lemming

      would meet your definition of an "honest" answer?

      Would it be something like:

      "Yes, you caught us. The singular goal of our small core group here on Daily Kos is to take the side opposite the Obama Administration no matter what, because Obama."

      Nevermind the fact that some people might have a legitimate reason to do so, like, you know, the Obama administration might actually be on the wrong side of an issue, perhaps?

      Has it crossed your mind that the Administration, and the guy who heads it up, might not be infallible?

      Do you support rubber-stamping of any policy put forth by this Administration, regardless of the potential consequences that policy might have? As in, AFTER Obama leaves office? Or next time a Republican gets in the White House?

      That you imply this is a non-issue that is nothing more than the Left, or at least a "small core group" here on DK that might be categorized as such, supporting Fox News just for the sake of opposing Obama because they just hate him so much or something, is truly breathtaking.




      Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
      ~ Jerry Garcia

      by DeadHead on Wed May 29, 2013 at 02:21:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Obama isn't infallible, and I can prove it. (0+ / 0-)

        1. It's a given axiom that the purist left is infallible.
        2. Anyone that ever disagrees with an infallible entity cannot be infallible.
        3. President Obama has disagreed with the purist left from time to time.
        4. Therefore President Obama is not infallible.
        Q.E.D.

        •  Um...News flash (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Nada Lemming

          The "purist left" do not hold elected office. Only in your mind and others with a similar level of unwavering reverence for the president can this constituency be a threat to his agenda/mid-term electoral victory and at the same time be merely a minor irritant to be brushed aside.

          And President Obama has disagreed with this "purist left" more than just "from time to time." It has been the rule, not the exception.

          But your ridiculous attempt at an answer to my above question is duly noted. That you offer nothing substantive in reply comes as no surprise.




          Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
          ~ Jerry Garcia

          by DeadHead on Wed May 29, 2013 at 06:02:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" syndrome. (0+ / 0-)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site