Author Topic: the onion, every now and then their humor gets very close to being the truth. (Read 962 times)

capt. apathy · « **on:** October 23, 2003, 02:33:19 PM »

on the cia identity leak

Quote

"We're doing everything we can," Attorney General John Ashcroft said. "I have assured the president that I will let him know the second we find either the leak or a decent scapegoat. It will happen. He's out there somewhere."

Quote

"The team is hard at work, but the process of finding the perfect scapegoat is very time-consuming," Bush said. "While we can assume that this person will not be a member of my senior staff, we have few other concrete ideas about his identity. Why, the scapegoat may turn out to be someone who knew absolutely nothing about the leak. You can see how difficult the job is."

Last week, Bush ordered 2,000 staff members to turn over any documents that may help the Justice Department choose a scapegoat.

link

ra · « **Reply #1 on:** October 23, 2003, 02:37:38 PM »

Can't you write your own?

DmdNexus · « **Reply #2 on:** October 23, 2003, 02:57:54 PM »

Isn't Clinton available as a scapegoat any more?

Novak said the leak came from a high level White House officials... he didn't say it came from this Administration.

Yeager · « **Reply #3 on:** October 23, 2003, 05:12:00 PM »

No, I think Clinton is clean on this one. Cant say for sure about Bill though.

Time will tell, but by damned, someone better swing for this.

Doesnt have to be the guilty party either. A good "jerk to jesus" on the account of an innocent man will sure as hell straighten out the perp. Thats fer sure and fer certain.

And besides, the innocent guy gets a free pass to heaven. Everyone comes out a winner! Its a win-win scenario.

Maverick · « **Reply #4 on:** October 23, 2003, 05:58:40 PM »

Seems to me this is all a media circus from the start. Why have a freaking investigation when the "reporter" who got the alleged story and the paper that printed it already know the answer. By hiding the source, if any exists, the artificially created situation can be extended indefinately creating more sales of papers. The media have absolutely no reason to want to end it, it's job security.

capt. apathy · « **Reply #5 on:** October 23, 2003, 06:13:50 PM »

who cares what the media wants or gets from it. we need an investigation because it would apeare someone has comitted treason. IMO that would warrent an investigation.

btw- that reporter should be doing some time too.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #6 on:** October 23, 2003, 07:12:32 PM »

Quote

btw- that reporter should be doing some time too.

A pesky little problem tho....

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Lazerus · « **Reply #7 on:** October 23, 2003, 07:54:32 PM »

Quote

A pesky little problem tho....

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Another pesky problem.........

Sec. 2381. - Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States

It could be argued that by revealing the identity of a member of the CIA in a published medium, the publisher is giving aid to the enemies of the United States.

Either way, I think the 'journalist' could have had more common sense in his reporting. Revealing the identities of the people in question wasn't neccesary. The fact that the information was given to him would have sufficed.

IMO of course.

Twist · « **Reply #8 on:** October 23, 2003, 10:49:29 PM »

The journalist and his publisher knew better. Free speech and other rights come with responsibilty, which in this case should mean their little goose is cooked.

They always have to push the envelope, I hope this time they are used as an example to others who would be tempted with similar information.

Idiots.

Gadfly · « **Reply #9 on:** October 23, 2003, 10:59:27 PM »

Why spend the time and effort on an investigation, when the reporter knows who the leak is? Why not just compel him to say whom, if the fact of the release was illegal?

It is not making him incriminate himself, but by NOT saying, in front of a federal jury, he is commiting perjury.

As an example, say that a reporter interviewed a terrorist, who provided the reporter with the specific information of an attack, in advance. The reporter reported the story, but with no specifics or names, and the attack took place. Would he then be protected? I don't think so.

AKIron · « **Reply #10 on:** October 23, 2003, 11:00:42 PM »

And I thought it had been turned over to the DOJ. Glad the Onion cleared this all up.

AKIron · « **Reply #11 on:** October 23, 2003, 11:07:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Lazerus
It could be argued that by revealing the identity of a member of the CIA in a published medium, the publisher is giving aid to the enemies of the United States.

That exact claim has been made over and over. If it is true that a CIA operative was compromised and lives endangered then why haven't charges been filed against Robert Novak? If criminal charges aren't made against him then I have to believe that all these claims are bull**** and the ones making them liars.

Montezuma · « **Reply #12 on:** October 24, 2003, 12:00:18 AM »

It isn't a crime for a journalist, or any private citizen, to name a CIA agent.

It IS a crime for someone who has authorized access to classified information to name a CIA agent.

Gadfly · « **Reply #13 on:** October 24, 2003, 12:09:46 AM »

If the journalist uses privileged information, why is he exempt?

edit-Exempt form disclosure, not prosecution, that is.

majic · « **Reply #14 on:** October 24, 2003, 12:14:20 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Montezuma
It isn't a crime for a journalist, or any private citizen, to name a CIA agent.

It IS a crime for someone who has authorized access to classified information to name a CIA agent.

Can you substantiate that?