Attorney General Eric Holder recently told intelligence community lawyers that he wants them to continue the Administration’s crackdown on leakers and media sources despite calls for his termination and the controversy on the attack on the free press. The message is clear: there will be no quarter given those who disclose classified information. Well not everyone. This week it was revealed that former CIA Director Leon Panetta disclosed classified information to “Zero Dark Thirty” filmmaker Mark Boal. According to an inspector general report, the disclosure of the name of the Navy SEAL unit that carried out the Osama bin Laden raid and the unit’s ground commander at a 2011 ceremony. Some of the information was marked as “top secret.”
The wonderful thing for Holder is that this leaker is known and there are witnesses. He made the disclosure in front of 1,300 people in a tent at the CIA complex on June 24, 2011. So Panetta is now being housed next to Bradley Manning, right? Not quite. The Administration leaks classified information on a regular basis. On Obama Farm, all leakers are equal but some leakers are more equal than others.
Notably, this disclosure helped a filmmaker who was developing a controversial film that seemed to herald the value of torture by CIA employees. Like many, I was surprised by the degree to which the movie made it look like it was torture that led to the killing of Obama in direct contradiction to what we know about the various sources used in the operation. Giving top secret information to a filmmaker for such a film does not appear to be a matter for prosecution. Now, the Associated Press or Fox News? That is an entirely different question. In that case, the reporters are viewed by the Administration as an possible criminal co-conspirator. In the case, of Boal, he was not a co-conspirator . . . just part of the creative enterprise.
Source: Politico
That depends entirely upon your actions going forward, nick. Should this become an escalated matter involving banning, your open recalcitrance to the rules of this community in the face of multiple warnings of compliance failure will be part of the pattern evidence presented against you.
Again, if you don’t like how this blog is administered, your participation here is entirely voluntary. You seem to persist in thinking this is personal when from my side it isn’t. I don’t care what you think of me or Mike personally. That’s irrelevant. It’s about you breaking the rules. Our rules are not secret. You’ve been informed of them – and you violations thereon – on numerous occasions. That you failed to heed those warnings and now don’t like the consequences is entirely your fault.
I could have simply left you in moderation and not approved any of your comments. I could have left you in moderation until we’d escalated and resolved the issue of your behavior with our host. I could have done a lot more than I did. Instead, I gave you a rap on the knuckles and released you back into the wild.
Considering your repeatedly bad behavior and your bad attitude about the rules, your treatment has been both fair and equitable.
Yet you still refuse to learn the lesson.
Interesting.
Interesting in that it is further evidence of an uncontrollable pathology that is.
Please, do continue.
I’d offer you a shovel, but you seem to be digging in just fine by yourself.
Oh, and all of these comments I just wrote would have been deleted yesterday. What’s changed??
Bron, They can’t move on because in spite of all their professing, they are obsessed w/ me. They write multi paragraph screeds about me. It’s Fatal Attraction like. I hope I don’t find a boiling rabbit in my kitchen.
AY, The Stasi and Savak had secret rules.
OS, I don’t buy the “secret rules” and being an honorable person how could you expect me to? As stated previously, I have heeded your advice as well as others. Your buddy flat assed lied about what he deleted yesterday. I called him on that and his non response is tantamount to an admission of guilt. Neither of your buddies have the moral authority to lead. I will not heed their advice until they show the character leaders must have, like the other Guest Bloggers show daily. Until that time they can kiss my ass right downtown. I think that’s pretty clear. It was personal between myself and Gene yesterday and he should have recused himself from being judge, jury and executioner. That’s the moral authority of which I speak.
Darren, I have always had problems w/ unjust authority. Most consider that a strength. Have I ever offended you? I think not. What is being lost here is there are too prissy people who see themselves as elevated. I just take them down a peg or two once in awhile. I poke when I see fit and they’re whining about it like middle school girls. Do you see anyone else here complaining about what I’ve done to THEM? I know you like these two, I respect that. We don’t have a beef, let’s just leave it @ that.
I hope this doesn’t go on my permanent record, Barney.
Mmmmmmm . . . banana cream.
OS,
I missed the class that explained the DBAD rule. What is that? 🙂
If we are going to start any pie fights, can we make them banana cream?
Ay:
I agree that it is good to have the rules that you have spoken of. But what I was trying to convey that this is a person’s web log and the rules and the posts are at the pleasure of those who own the blog. That is why one has to be careful about upsetting the host.
nick,
Professor Turley seldom comments or intervenes. However, when he invites any person to be a front page writer, aka guest blogger, he explains the rules in some detail. He doesn’t explain them to everyone who logs on and wants his personal attention. Not going to happen except in the rarest of occasions.
Gene, Mike and others have explained what you are doing wrong. They know the rules as set forth by Professor Turley. You can take that for what it’s worth, but my suggestion is that you pay attention to the advice. You are not the first person to receive these admonitions, and will not be the last. Some changed their style and are still here. Others….well, we don’t see them around any more.
Lively debate is fine. Disagreements are fine as long it is substantive and not personal. Personal insults and starting pie fights violate the basic DBAD rule.
AY,
And the ultimate decision to ban still rests where it has always rested. Nobody has been banned. Yet. Whether somebody is or not remains to be seen and is based on their behavior. What just happened was a more severe warning about breaking the rules having eventual consequences, nothing more, nothing less.
Darren,
I totally disagree… You may see it that way… But I disagree… Jonathan has the sole authority to decide who to ban or bar…. If this rule has changed then we need a list of rules posted…. I am for that anyways… One of the nice things about this blog is the freedom if expression even if you disagree with the other poster….
I’ll say this… Too many chefs screw the stew…
Nick:
It might be beneficial to recognize that others hold absolute authority over whom to permit to post on this blog and that the decision to ban or permit someone can be binary in degree. The warnings you have been made aware of should not be considered to be a sign of granting permission to engage in the actions that the warnings are based upon. They are not conveying that you or any of us have have a right to any due process or ownership right of the blog. They are essentially gifts to provide you with an opportunity for you to change your approach here. And like any gift it can be cancelled at any time. It should be considered fortunate that any person gets the leeway they might.
It is also unwise to upset the persons who hold the keys because it can risk being not let in.
Bron,
Not the point. There is a difference between insult and ad hominem attacks, not the least of which is that the later is impermissible. Perhaps you missed the same point nick keeps missing: to be insulted, the insulted must care what the insulter thinks. In this instance, I don’t and neither does Mike. The issue isn’t insult. Nor is the issue disagreement. The issue is not following the few rules we have in this forum, something you and the vast majority of posters have no issue with doing. nick, on the other hand, has a confessed self-control problem with the issue of ad hominem attacks. That’s the sole issue – his inability and/or unwillingness to follow the rules that bind this community. You yourself ran afoul of the rules in the past, but you reformed and made amends for your behavior and were allowed back in to the community. Since then, you’ve become a rarely agreed with but nonetheless valued member of the community. Nothing is being asked of nick that is/was not asked of you or indeed anyone else as part of participation.
I dont know, if Nick insulted me, I would just insult him back and move on. Or better yet I would ignore it and move on figuring he doesnt know me in this very one dimensional world.
Or you could realize you have no say over what goes on here vis a vis blog administration and simply follow the rules, nick.
Or you can continue on the path you’re currently on.
Like I’ve said dozens of times, I know how this story ends.
AY, You would be a good arbiter. I listen to people I respect and try my best to blow off idiots. But I’m human and flawed. If you see me getting too heated, tell me. SWM, mespo, OS, and maybe others I respect have. And I have always thanked them and taken their advice.
I have NEVER..NEVER been told directly by Mr. Turley to adhere to the “rules.” Mr. Turley asked that the volume be turned down on a thread in which SEVERAL people, including you and me, were going toe to toe. I apologized because I accepted my complicity. The fact that you didn’t says nothing about me and everything about you. It’s on the record. That’s what I love about this type of forum. And of course, unless you’re a mind reader you have NO IDEA to whom Mr. Turley was speaking.
Now, why don’t you get back to being a Guest Blogger instead of playing Barney Fife. This is boring to me and everyone else. Write a column, do something productive. Basta!
There is no conflict of interest. The beef is between you and the rules, which you’ve been told to adhere to by our host and yet persistently refuse to comply. Your mistake is in thinking this is personal, nick. That is probably because for you, it is. As I’ve said previously, your choice in targets is irrelevant. You have no demonstrated ability for detachment. I, on the other hand, do and in spades. That you repeatedly attack people and then act like a victim when they respond is simply more evidence of your pattern of bad behavior. What you should know is this: had you not been attacking a GBs but a garden variety poster, you’d have likely been banned long ago for your shenanigans.
You also miss the point of this exercise.
We have the tools to force your compliance with the rules. You’ve been shown the futility of your tactic, you’ve been asked to stop, you’ve even been told to stop by our host. You refused to comply. While we exercise restraint, you responded with such warnings with open defiance apparently under the misguided impression your actions would not have eventual consequence. And just like a bully poking someone in the chest, you seem shocked that despite many warnings to stop, when the person you are poking elects to grab your finger and bend it into an unnatural and painful position (even though they could break it should they so chose). A very minimal amount of force was used to prove the point about the rules around here being enforced although they may be few. Whether you choose to learn from this lesson or not is up to you.
The lesson you should take away is that it is easier to simply follow the rules than to risk escalation to the point where you do actually get banned.
I understand that you don’t like me (or Mike), but what you fail to understand is that neither of us care. What we do care about is the forum. The forum has just a few rules. You should learn to follow them if you wish to be a member of this community.