SilverNRed Posted November 6, 2005 Share Posted November 6, 2005 You're comparing apples and oranges. In the case of Plame, senior administration officials leaked her name to the press to discredit her husband; in the current case, apparently senior CIA officials leaked the "gulag story" because of their disagreement with the policy--which was also established by the Cheney-Rumsfeld "cabal." 496178[/snapback] OK, and the difference is what? You're saying "CIA officials" are allowed to leak classified information if they really, really want to? They disagree with the President's policy so it's OK to compromise national security? Oh, alright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted November 6, 2005 Share Posted November 6, 2005 OK, and the difference is what? You're saying "CIA officials" are allowed to leak classified information if they really, really want to? They disagree with the President's policy so it's OK to compromise national security? Oh, alright. 496180[/snapback] Nope, not saying that. In the case of Plame, it could be a criminal offense to leak her name; in the case of the gulags, the leak concerns a "policy" that breaks international law (Geneva Convention). Maybe some of those people at the CIA have a conscience... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted November 6, 2005 Share Posted November 6, 2005 Nope, not saying that. In the case of Plame, it could be a criminal offense to leak her name; in the case of the gulags, the leak concerns a "policy" that breaks international law (Geneva Convention). Maybe some of those people at the CIA have a conscience...496208[/snapback] That, I doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted November 6, 2005 Author Share Posted November 6, 2005 Nope, not saying that. In the case of Plame, it could be a criminal offense to leak her name; in the case of the gulags, the leak concerns a "policy" that breaks international law (Geneva Convention). Maybe some of those people at the CIA have a conscience... 496208[/snapback] Ah yes, the leak is merely a noble effort of a man (or woman) of extreme conscience and not the result of a disgruntled employee who doesn't like the new boss for trying to change the way things are done. Either way it does not explain why the righteous indignation we saw in the "Plame affair" is not emanating from the Democrats in this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted November 6, 2005 Share Posted November 6, 2005 Nope, not saying that. In the case of Plame, it could be a criminal offense to leak her name; in the case of the gulags, the leak concerns a "policy" that breaks international law (Geneva Convention). Maybe some of those people at the CIA have a conscience... 496208[/snapback] Fitzpatrick has spent two years investigating whether or not a crime was commited in Valerie Plame's job becoming public knowledge. The result: a perjury indictment for statements made during the investigation. I love how you state that some CIA leaks are good because you like them and others are bad because you don't. Did you ever think that Plame's name may have been leaked because she was abusing her power at the CIA to send her husband on a trip to Niger that he had no business going on? So that he could make accusations (that contradict his own findings on the trip) against a President he doesn't like? The people reporting her identity probably thought they were doing the right thing too. CIA leaks are bad. Unfortunately, they happen constantly and usually for political reasons. It'd be nice if everyone just did their jobs. It'd also be nice if newspapers didn't exploit some leaks and act outraged at others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts