CIA Leaker funded Kerry

So you don't care if people are killed by terrorists. I'm glad you've made your stance clear. I'm done now. Good day, then.

UpTight wrote:

Senator Shelby of Alabama leaked sensitive information to Fox and CNN; the Justice Dept dropped the investigation. Orrin Hatch is also leaky but evidently safe from investigation. And, of course, BushCo leaks at will to gain what advantage they can. At least leaker Larry Franklin was convicted, but he's hardly on the level of Libby, Rove, Cheney and such.

Mary McCarthy has denied involvement, and given her location in the CIA it'd be surprising that she had knowledge of our terror prisons.

If that was the case why not just put them in Gitmo? It's quite naive to think that suspects being held abroad are receiving inconvenience as a form of interrogation. The Bush administration has made support for torture an official position; it's no surprise they'd put that view to use. In secret, out of the prying eyes of our representatives. A shadow government eschews oversight.
Well, they made a choice in life and now they live with the consequences. If they spill the beans fast, it'll be over quickly. If they don't then - again - that's their choice.

If the US is not ruthless, if it wrings its hands about the morality of these things, its enemies will be emboldened.
What will be over quickly? What proof is had of their culpability? I think the Founding Fathers would quail at the abandonment of their principles shown in this "torture is the American way" style of thinking.

-TTm

Ticktocker tsk tsk...don't you know it's all about unsubstantiated accusations, misrepresentations and pictires with lots of arrows? Don't get the neo-cons all confusermalated© with logic and reasoning. It gets them all flusterated©.

Pictures with lots of arrows!!







All "BushSpeak" © 2007 KRove Ent. LLC. Used without permission.

Since she was in IG there is every possibility she knew the info. If she couldn't know then it is absurd to believe she was "set up". You don't set someone up who has no access to the info. That also blows out the whole whistle blower defence because "she says she didn't do it".

I feel the need to add this after reading half the things UpTight has put in this thread:



Sorry, it's all I could imagine as I read.

Because CIA operatives should have the right to divulge whatever secrets they they?

[Edited on Apr 26, 2006 by UpTight]

No. But I'll put it this way: people would probably have less of a knee-jerk reaction to your views if you didn't present every tidbit you bring down like you think it's the hammer of truth that'll turn all us "crazy liberals" into complete Bush supporters (in other words: asking for people to get pissed off). But you don't bother with such manners, so you come off as nothing more than another Joseph McCarthy.

For one, you present the idea of political affiliations coming into play as something that affected her capability to do her job, when -- guess what? -- it's a job. She gets paid to do something, so she'll do it if she wants to continue to get paid. She probably has been a Democrat for most of her life (and there is no proof on whether or not she was a Republican or Democrat -- none that you've brought up anyway), or likely didn't agree with the policies of the administration at that time. I can't guarantee that to be true, but it still shouldn't prevent her, as a citizen of the United States, to choose freely what she donates her money to. Until there's valid proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that her donations to the Democratic Party and the John Kerry campaign fund were in direct connection to any acts of sedition and or treason against this country, I'll refuse the idea that you're attempting to make; that Democrats -- and especially liberals -- are destroying this country, and that we should just be rid of them. You're drawing a line between facts that are actually opinions:

Notice that these opening opinions are stated as facts. These are not facts, however; this is a conclusion you came to based on your own bias. If you had more proof than some money given to the Democrats, I could see where you could arrive at such a conclusion. But you really don't.

I'd also like to know what's wrong with the ethical treatment of prisoners of war and how that could possibly be detrimental to America's standing on the world stage. Care to enlighten us?

jeez

That's no excuse to go around blowing secrets to your buddies in the press. Nobody's political motivations should turn them into a security risk. If a Republican CIA officer divulged secrets to Little Green Footballs in an attempt to denegrate a Clinton, then they should also be arrested.

Prisoners should be interrogated. If that goes against your personal code of ethics, then it's a fucking good job, you aren't a CIA officer...

[Edited on Apr 26, 2006 by UpTight]

This is the noise Upbion/Albitight makes when someone speaks the truth about him.

Perhaps she has not been arrested because there is no conclusive evidence that she has committed a crime. But then again, why would it be a crime to report the nation's illegal activity to the press.

Interrogation does not include torture in the US code of laws. Interrogation does not include torture according to the Geneva conventions. Nor are kidnapping, or false imprisonment considered legal in either of those codes.

This is not about the US getting information - it is about the US violating human rights to do so.


[Edited on Apr 26, 2006 by NickFaust]

These are the pictures Upbitight posts when someone speaks the truth to him.

Bones_708 said:

There's every possibility she knew the info while in the IG if the info was already being investigated, yes. I don't believe she was "set up" any more than I believe she was part of some elaborate conspiracy to "get Bush." My reading on the story's background is that Dana Priest had multiple sources, many of them in Europe (but not necessarily European) rather than a lone conspiratorial functionary.

-TTm

only if they read the Washington Post

you didn't answer my question about your funny mask

Mary McCarthy is a scapegoat of the CIA. How anyone can't see this eludes honest intellectualism. But, don't take anything I say seriously... I'm an anacronism.

Exactly.

UpTight: You really need some consistency in this argument of yours. Identify your standards and apply them consistently to the issue at hand, regardless of partisan bullshit. As it stands, there's no logical structure or consistency in your post at all.

[Edited on Apr 27, 2006 by Necia]

Woooooaaaaahhhh a story saying exactly the opposite turns up a few days later. What are the odds eh?

Edited to add that

here'sthe story in the Times before anyone points out that Guardian can't be trusted because its 'librul'. I don't think anyone has ever accussed Rupert Murdoch of being left wing have they?


[Edited on Apr 27, 2006 by Fry]