Skip to main content

When President Obama stated last year that his White House is "the most transparent administration in history," he acknowledged that this pronouncement did not necessarily translate to the national security arena.

What he failed to say is that, with regard to 'national security' concerns, this White House has become historically and bombastically opaque – so much so that articles such as this one require the "not satire" tag.

Per The New York Times:

The Obama administration is clamping down on a technique that government officials have long used to join in public discussions of well-known but technically still-secret information: citing news reports based on unauthorized disclosures.

A new pre-publication review policy for the Office of Director of National Intelligence says the agency’s current and former employees and contractors may not cite news reports based on leaks in their speeches, opinion articles, books, term papers or other unofficial writings.

Meaning: both current and former officials are now prohibited from mentioning the existence of a news report based upon leaked classified information. We're not talking here about a prohibition against leaking information or validating that a leak has occurred. We're talking about a prohibition against acknowledging that, say, a New York Times article about leaked information which everyone has read even exists.

The penalties for doing so – for neutrally citing the existence of a news report – include demotions and loss of security clearances. This policy is apparently part of the directive set in March by Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, prohibiting officials at 17 intelligence agencies from talking to the press without prior approval.

Experts and intelligence officials are finding the new policy not just absurd, but potentially a violation of former officials' First Amendment rights. Here's Timothy H. Edgar of Brown University talking to the Times:

It [goes] too far to retroactively block former officials from citing news reports in the public domain, as long as they did so neutrally and did not confirm them as factually correct. That would amount to a prior restraint on former officials’ First Amendment rights that they did not consent to, he said.

“You’re basically saying people can’t talk about what everyone in the country is talking about,” he said. “I think that is awkward and overly broad in terms of restricting speech.”

The Obama administration's move, after Edward Snowden, to hermetically seal intelligence officials from the press is symptomatic of a larger trend within the administration, making it one of the least transparent in our history regarding 'national security' issues.

And that lack of transparency relates directly to those actions – surveillance, drone strikes, torture – which themselves have legality and constitutionality issues (to put it mildly).

Now, the directives maintaining that lack of transparency themselves have questionable constitutional merit.

So much for transparency.

--§--

What Do You Buy For the Children
David Harris-Gershon is author of the memoir What Do You Buy the Children of the Terrorist Who Tried to Kill Your Wife?, just out from Oneworld Publications.


Originally posted to David Harris-Gershon (The Troubadour) on Fri May 09, 2014 at 06:45 AM PDT.

Also republished by Writing by David Harris Gershon.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (126+ / 0-)

    "If the Jew who struggles for justice for Palestine is considered anti-Semitic, & if Palestinians seeking self-determination are so accused...then no oppositional move can take place w/o risking the accusation." - Judith Butler

    by David Harris Gershon on Fri May 09, 2014 at 06:45:52 AM PDT

  •  So banning the process that got us into Iraq (25+ / 0-)

    Cheney would leak to the Press then site the leak on fox

    I want 1 less Tiny Coffin, Why Don't You? Support The President's Gun Violence Plan.

    by JML9999 on Fri May 09, 2014 at 06:53:14 AM PDT

  •  has always been the case - maybe not enforced (35+ / 0-)

    Anyone who holds a US Govt security clearance is obligated to protect, and not disclose, classified information.

    The fact that classified information has been leaked and has appeared in the public domain - in a newspaper or on a web site or a memoir - does not change the fact that the information remains classified information.  The leak was improper and illegal and does not change the security classification of the information that was leaked.

    The Administration is reminding those who hold security clearances that they cannot properly publicly cite or quote leaked classified information.  If the leaked information is later properly declassified, then it can be cited or quoted.

    I've been familiar with security clearance requirements since the 1980s and that has been the case for all those years.

    It appears the Administration is putting everyone with clearances on notice that it will begin enforcing the rules (or enforcing them more vigorously).

    •  This was not the prior directive, particularly (31+ / 0-)

      with regard to former officials. The acknowledging of the existence of a news report - not commenting upon whether or not it is valid or quoting from it - is what's at issue for both current and former officials in published materials.

      "If the Jew who struggles for justice for Palestine is considered anti-Semitic, & if Palestinians seeking self-determination are so accused...then no oppositional move can take place w/o risking the accusation." - Judith Butler

      by David Harris Gershon on Fri May 09, 2014 at 07:05:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Your position seems a little disingenuous. (6+ / 0-)

        You're saying that comment on an article always was forbidden and don't claim anything wrong with that.

        You seem to be saying that the mere acknowledgement of an article is now banned, and valuable.  Of course, it's not valuable; nobody wants official's admission about the existence of printed material in the NYT. What is desired is comment on content.

        A reading of the admin position and between your lines leads me to conclude you're both talking about the same thing: comment on substance someone thinks is okay because he thinks its already "out there".  Lets discuss that rather than some made up nothing.

        Schedule permitting, PROOF WILL BE PROVIDED ON HOW I AM BEING "CONSTANTLY CALLED OUT" AND "UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED" FOR BEING BAD. Moreover, the dossier on my activities during the Bush administration will have an appendix concluding that I am Wrong.

        by Inland on Fri May 09, 2014 at 08:02:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No. (16+ / 0-)

          Here is a link to the actual directive.

          Note on the bottom of page 2, A2: Sourcing.

          •  The link confirms my post. (7+ / 0-)

            The link shows that the issue is "sourcing".

            So let's stop talking about the non-issue of acknowledging that the NYT actually printed an article.  Nobody cares about that, either on DK or in government. It's about content.

            Schedule permitting, PROOF WILL BE PROVIDED ON HOW I AM BEING "CONSTANTLY CALLED OUT" AND "UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED" FOR BEING BAD. Moreover, the dossier on my activities during the Bush administration will have an appendix concluding that I am Wrong.

            by Inland on Fri May 09, 2014 at 08:54:01 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You're wrong. (9+ / 0-)

              "Sourcing" is, in this case, the NYT article.  The directive prohibits the "use [of] sourcing that comes from known leaks, or unauthorized disclosures of sensitive information.  The use of such information in a publication can confirm the validity of an authorized disclosure and cause further harm to national security."

              •  I'm right. USE OF the article, nothing about (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                sunbro, Drocedus, NedSparks

                acknowledging or not acknowledging article exists, as diary states.  

                The diarist's scenario of someone being unable to admit that the NYT has an article is not in there.  What's forbidden is someone using the content of the article as a source.  

                I don't know why someone would make a stretch to find an injunction against stating an article exists when a) it's not in there and b) who needs a former official to admit or deny the existence of an article?

                Looks like something that is close enough to secrecy for a round of Obamasux.

                Schedule permitting, PROOF WILL BE PROVIDED ON HOW I AM BEING "CONSTANTLY CALLED OUT" AND "UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED" FOR BEING BAD. Moreover, the dossier on my activities during the Bush administration will have an appendix concluding that I am Wrong.

                by Inland on Fri May 09, 2014 at 09:59:40 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  "Use of sourcing" means acknowledging (9+ / 0-)

                  that that sourcing exists; one can't use a source without acknowledging its existence. And if you can't use it, then it doesn't exist.

                  And frankly, this is nothing to do with Obamasux or rox, so I don't why you're bringing that in. But the fact that you have is just more reason for me to trust Edgar over you. Bye now.

                  •  It means asserting a fact and saying X is source. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    kharma, Drocedus, NedSparks

                    All the rule does is prevent someone from saying that he got info from a leak, not from his job.  It's the same rule we've always had.

                    Nothing says that someone can't say an article exists.  

                    But don't trust me.  Just read it the way a person who gave a shit would read it.

                    Schedule permitting, PROOF WILL BE PROVIDED ON HOW I AM BEING "CONSTANTLY CALLED OUT" AND "UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED" FOR BEING BAD. Moreover, the dossier on my activities during the Bush administration will have an appendix concluding that I am Wrong.

                    by Inland on Fri May 09, 2014 at 10:22:19 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You really are a hard worker. (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Kevskos, Johnny Q, JVolvo, fToRrEeEsSt

                      There isn't anything you won't defend is there?  It's entertaining watching you bounce around.

                      The most un-convincable man is the one whose paycheck depends on remaining unconvinced. -- H. L. Mencken

                      by kharma on Fri May 09, 2014 at 10:46:41 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Don't troll me. nt (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        freakofsociety

                        Schedule permitting, PROOF WILL BE PROVIDED ON HOW I AM BEING "CONSTANTLY CALLED OUT" AND "UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED" FOR BEING BAD. Moreover, the dossier on my activities during the Bush administration will have an appendix concluding that I am Wrong.

                        by Inland on Fri May 09, 2014 at 10:50:59 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Sounds like what a tea bagger would say... (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Johnny Q, JVolvo

                          Don't tread troll on me.

                          The most un-convincable man is the one whose paycheck depends on remaining unconvinced. -- H. L. Mencken

                          by kharma on Fri May 09, 2014 at 11:20:38 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Okay, don't say you weren't warned. nt (0+ / 0-)

                            Schedule permitting, PROOF WILL BE PROVIDED ON HOW I AM BEING "CONSTANTLY CALLED OUT" AND "UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED" FOR BEING BAD. Moreover, the dossier on my activities during the Bush administration will have an appendix concluding that I am Wrong.

                            by Inland on Fri May 09, 2014 at 11:22:04 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  ooh, threatening people now (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            kharma

                            Classy.

                          •  I guess. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            freakofsociety

                            Turns out, people who try to troll me are made to look like fools, by either themselves or by me.

                            Why, is there some sort of trolling protection unit that is being called into action?

                            Schedule permitting, PROOF WILL BE PROVIDED ON HOW I AM BEING "CONSTANTLY CALLED OUT" AND "UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED" FOR BEING BAD. Moreover, the dossier on my activities during the Bush administration will have an appendix concluding that I am Wrong.

                            by Inland on Fri May 09, 2014 at 12:02:29 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You would know about that better than (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            kharma, JVolvo, DeadHead

                            I would.

                            No War but Class War

                            by AoT on Fri May 09, 2014 at 12:04:06 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I guess. nt (0+ / 0-)

                            Schedule permitting, PROOF WILL BE PROVIDED ON HOW I AM BEING "CONSTANTLY CALLED OUT" AND "UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED" FOR BEING BAD. Moreover, the dossier on my activities during the Bush administration will have an appendix concluding that I am Wrong.

                            by Inland on Fri May 09, 2014 at 12:06:37 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Please stop accusing people of trolling when (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            poligirl

                            You are the one that keeps commenting to me.

                            The most un-convincable man is the one whose paycheck depends on remaining unconvinced. -- H. L. Mencken

                            by kharma on Fri May 09, 2014 at 12:20:41 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  But don't toss and HR his way (6+ / 0-)

                            Because that'll get you a warning even if he's outright lying or calling someone a troll.

                            Must have special dispensation from the management because I get HRed when I do that shit.

                            No War but Class War

                            by AoT on Fri May 09, 2014 at 12:26:43 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And I'll make him look like a fool. (0+ / 0-)

                            Don't forget that, while your handing out advice to someone who gives a shit.

                            Schedule permitting, PROOF WILL BE PROVIDED ON HOW I AM BEING "CONSTANTLY CALLED OUT" AND "UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED" FOR BEING BAD. Moreover, the dossier on my activities during the Bush administration will have an appendix concluding that I am Wrong.

                            by Inland on Fri May 09, 2014 at 12:32:36 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You don't know what the word 'national' means (5+ / 0-)

                            and you're going to make someone else look like a fool?

                            It hasn't happened yet.

                            You've mostly just trolled people and lied.

                            No War but Class War

                            by AoT on Fri May 09, 2014 at 12:35:33 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't know what word "national" means? (0+ / 0-)

                            Gee, I wonder who that statement makes look like a fool and a troll, me, or you?

                            You've mostly just trolled people and lied.
                            Yeah, that's what you said in order to scare me away from a diary.  Now you're saying it again just to BAD.  Whatever.

                            Schedule permitting, PROOF WILL BE PROVIDED ON HOW I AM BEING "CONSTANTLY CALLED OUT" AND "UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED" FOR BEING BAD. Moreover, the dossier on my activities during the Bush administration will have an appendix concluding that I am Wrong.

                            by Inland on Fri May 09, 2014 at 12:38:44 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Scare you? (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            kharma, poligirl, Johnny Q

                            Seriously?

                            That's hilarious.

                            Big old scary me.

                            No War but Class War

                            by AoT on Fri May 09, 2014 at 12:40:48 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yeah, it was pathetic. (0+ / 0-)

                            Not quite as pathetic as what you're doing here, but close.

                            Say, did I mention what happens to people who troll me?  

                            Schedule permitting, PROOF WILL BE PROVIDED ON HOW I AM BEING "CONSTANTLY CALLED OUT" AND "UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED" FOR BEING BAD. Moreover, the dossier on my activities during the Bush administration will have an appendix concluding that I am Wrong.

                            by Inland on Fri May 09, 2014 at 12:43:18 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You pretend they look like fools? (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            kharma, DeadHead, poligirl

                            and tell lies about them?

                            No War but Class War

                            by AoT on Fri May 09, 2014 at 12:46:05 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Maybe he types real hard with purpose. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            DeadHead, poligirl

                            The most un-convincable man is the one whose paycheck depends on remaining unconvinced. -- H. L. Mencken

                            by kharma on Fri May 09, 2014 at 12:51:06 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  From this diary, it seems they keep on trollin' (0+ / 0-)

                            and look like dopes doing it.  Thanks for asking though; you're kinda slow on the uptake.

                            Schedule permitting, PROOF WILL BE PROVIDED ON HOW I AM BEING "CONSTANTLY CALLED OUT" AND "UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED" FOR BEING BAD. Moreover, the dossier on my activities during the Bush administration will have an appendix concluding that I am Wrong.

                            by Inland on Fri May 09, 2014 at 01:14:05 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  seeing the world through your dope colored glasses (0+ / 0-)

                            must be an experience.  You see fools and dopes where ever you go I bet?  I  bet you have a lot of friends and close family too.  You seem like the charming sort.  Have a good angry bitter rest of your life.

                            The most un-convincable man is the one whose paycheck depends on remaining unconvinced. -- H. L. Mencken

                            by kharma on Fri May 09, 2014 at 01:19:35 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Heh. No, not everywhere. (0+ / 0-)

                            Unless you're planning on stalking me, too.

                            Schedule permitting, PROOF WILL BE PROVIDED ON HOW I AM BEING "CONSTANTLY CALLED OUT" AND "UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED" FOR BEING BAD. Moreover, the dossier on my activities during the Bush administration will have an appendix concluding that I am Wrong.

                            by Inland on Fri May 09, 2014 at 01:22:03 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Who would stalk you? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Johnny Q

                            Judging by your disposition here...I'd imagine you doing the stalking.  Either way. move along now.  Shooo.

                            The most un-convincable man is the one whose paycheck depends on remaining unconvinced. -- H. L. Mencken

                            by kharma on Fri May 09, 2014 at 01:25:58 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  A troll who thinks it's his job (0+ / 0-)

                            to decide who gets to be in what diaries.  Off the top of my head.

                            Schedule permitting, PROOF WILL BE PROVIDED ON HOW I AM BEING "CONSTANTLY CALLED OUT" AND "UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED" FOR BEING BAD. Moreover, the dossier on my activities during the Bush administration will have an appendix concluding that I am Wrong.

                            by Inland on Fri May 09, 2014 at 01:39:30 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Now here you are back again? (0+ / 0-)

                            Are you obsessed with me? Can't quit me?  Your place is over there -->>
                            The right is calling, they want their spokesman back.

                            The most un-convincable man is the one whose paycheck depends on remaining unconvinced. -- H. L. Mencken

                            by kharma on Fri May 09, 2014 at 02:44:29 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Um. You asked me a question. (0+ / 0-)

                            Then you asked me another in the latest post.

                            Take the trolling off autopilot.

                            Schedule permitting, PROOF WILL BE PROVIDED ON HOW I AM BEING "CONSTANTLY CALLED OUT" AND "UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED" FOR BEING BAD. Moreover, the dossier on my activities during the Bush administration will have an appendix concluding that I am Wrong.

                            by Inland on Fri May 09, 2014 at 03:13:39 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Shoo go away...done with the likes of you (0+ / 0-)

                            The most un-convincable man is the one whose paycheck depends on remaining unconvinced. -- H. L. Mencken

                            by kharma on Fri May 09, 2014 at 03:35:19 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Don't beg my attention by trolling me (0+ / 0-)

                            and you won't get it.  Up to you.  

                            Schedule permitting, PROOF WILL BE PROVIDED ON HOW I AM BEING "CONSTANTLY CALLED OUT" AND "UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED" FOR BEING BAD. Moreover, the dossier on my activities during the Bush administration will have an appendix concluding that I am Wrong.

                            by Inland on Fri May 09, 2014 at 03:58:01 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Why do you keep coming here and trolling me? (0+ / 0-)

                            Are you obsessed?  Leave me alone.  Bye

                            The most un-convincable man is the one whose paycheck depends on remaining unconvinced. -- H. L. Mencken

                            by kharma on Fri May 09, 2014 at 04:11:56 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Aren't you coy. (0+ / 0-)

                            Look, Scarlett o'hara, you've started "conversations" with me twice.  All you have to do is stop trolling me and I'll never have reason to care about you.  But beg my attention and you'll get my attention.

                            Schedule permitting, PROOF WILL BE PROVIDED ON HOW I AM BEING "CONSTANTLY CALLED OUT" AND "UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED" FOR BEING BAD. Moreover, the dossier on my activities during the Bush administration will have an appendix concluding that I am Wrong.

                            by Inland on Fri May 09, 2014 at 04:22:58 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Funny boy. Go away. (0+ / 0-)

                            The most un-convincable man is the one whose paycheck depends on remaining unconvinced. -- H. L. Mencken

                            by kharma on Fri May 09, 2014 at 04:31:32 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Look, I've asked you to leave me alone... (0+ / 0-)

                            many times.  Do yourself a favor and do so.

                            The most un-convincable man is the one whose paycheck depends on remaining unconvinced. -- H. L. Mencken

                            by kharma on Fri May 09, 2014 at 04:33:05 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Your doing the trolling here buddy... (0+ / 0-)

                            Maybe you should walk along

                            The most un-convincable man is the one whose paycheck depends on remaining unconvinced. -- H. L. Mencken

                            by kharma on Fri May 09, 2014 at 12:47:06 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  whoah... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            DeadHead

                            You have some serious anger issues here.  Don't start calling people fools with spittle flying out of your mouth...it make you look rather foolish.  This is a discussion here and if you can't hold your temper you might want to walk away for a bit.

                            The most un-convincable man is the one whose paycheck depends on remaining unconvinced. -- H. L. Mencken

                            by kharma on Fri May 09, 2014 at 12:45:58 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "This is a discussion here", he says. (0+ / 0-)

                            Your first comment to me was trolling.  What discussion did you want?

                            Why don't you take your "why don't you walk away" advice yourself?  Use a time machine and go back to your original trolling

                            Schedule permitting, PROOF WILL BE PROVIDED ON HOW I AM BEING "CONSTANTLY CALLED OUT" AND "UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED" FOR BEING BAD. Moreover, the dossier on my activities during the Bush administration will have an appendix concluding that I am Wrong.

                            by Inland on Fri May 09, 2014 at 01:21:11 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                •  There is no Obama sux/rox there is only.... (0+ / 0-)

                  "I am afraid if I am honest about the failing of the dems the repubs will win' and 'I refuse to be silent about the failings of the dems in hope of making them better'

                  Rox/sux is just a way to turn something with depth and meaning into a pie fight. Push both sides to an extreme that doesn't exist so it becomes a childish fight instead one of perspective and principle.

                  Join the DeRevolution: We are not trying to take the country, we are trying to take the country back. Get the money out of politics with public financed campaigns so 'Of the People, By the People and For the People' rings true again.

                  by fToRrEeEsSt on Fri May 09, 2014 at 06:18:43 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Hmm...so if someone claim that they have my PIN# I (6+ / 0-)

      should not go about citing the PIN# they claim they have in public?

      I see.... That Obama...smh....

    •  Correct (5+ / 0-)

      Just because something has leaked (no matter how), until it is formally unclassified, it is not to be discussed.  This is not new.  When Bradley Manning leaked the diplomatic cables, the same thing happened.  Federal employees even got reminders that they shouldn't read the material or visit the sites hosting the leaked material as it was still considered classified material.  

      Formal officials are still bound by non disclosure agreements and they cannot discuss classified materials once they leave the government service.

      I went into science for the money and the sex. Imagine my surprise.

      by Mote Dai on Fri May 09, 2014 at 09:23:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Feel free to comment (11+ / 0-)

      On what I detail in my comment here, including - if you please - the citations to news articles and government documents.

      While there are various long-standing policies on leaking classified information that apply to government employees and contractors, those policies are frequently flouted by Executive and Congressional officials when it is to their advantage with no repercussions (including by the present administration) and yet, the Obama Administrations has (a) reinforced those policies even going so far as to criminalize NOT reporting suspicious behavior by co-workers and (b) has vigorously prosecuted whistle blowers under the Espionage Act setting a new historical record for any administration.

      So I'd be genuinely interested in how mucho f this you think is just business as usual, because scholars, civil libertarians and the press now rank the Obama Administration as the most hostile in decades, so at the very least it has an image problem.

      Why does Cheny, a famous government leaker and advocate of torture walk the street with virtually immunity granted by the Obama Administration while John Kiriakou, who blew the whistle on the torture rots in jail after being prosecuted by Obama's Justice Department?

      Should not Cheney and other White house leakers be his cell mates?

      No one is coming to save us, the future is in our hands.

      by koNko on Fri May 09, 2014 at 09:50:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Anyone who holds a US government security (0+ / 0-)

      clearance is obligated to protect, and not disclose,  classified information.

      And when the government has clearly become corrupt and is using the US public to further nefarious schemes in the world, we should go along to get along, right?

  •  Brilliant (48+ / 0-)

    They'll look just like John Boehner yesterday refusing to answer questions about the NRCC fundraising off Benghazi, by repeating the same canned non-response over and over and over.  That's going to work.

    The Obama administration has been Edward Snowden's best ally, by being so cartoonishly evil and inept in its responses to his revelations.  Republicans have never made this administration look nearly as bad as it has made itself look over this subject, and it appears to only be doubling down.

    I can't wait for that robust debate the president promised us.  Wonder when he intends for it to happen?

    Douchebags.

    We have always been at war with al Qaeda.

    by Dallasdoc on Fri May 09, 2014 at 07:02:04 AM PDT

  •  George Orwell comes home to roost (19+ / 0-)

    I once thought that George W. Bush had conquered the whole Newspeak paradigm, but I was wrong the Obama administration has taken it to whole new level. Next we'll have Thoughtcrime. Just think of the possibilities, the complete supresion of independent thought.

     

      •  Oh boy. n/t (18+ / 0-)

        If there is any good in life, in history, in my own past, I invoke it now. I invoke it with all the passion with which I have lived. --Elizabeth Kostova,

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Fri May 09, 2014 at 07:33:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  better than nothing.... (11+ / 0-)

          but it is what we are left with.

          The candidates you'd want vs the candidates you have and all that.

          Legal means "good".
          [41984 | Feb 4, 2005]

          by xxdr zombiexx on Fri May 09, 2014 at 07:36:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  So a shit sandwich on rye is better than an ounce (8+ / 0-)

          of potassium cyanide, I guess that's the argument. Hold the poke in the eye with the sharp stick, the theft of all social welfare stuff, the failure to even enforce such law as there is against the tapeworms and cancers that have eaten and continue to eat at us...

          "You want fries with that?"

          "Is that all there is?" Peggy Lee.

          by jm214 on Fri May 09, 2014 at 08:40:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  See my comment above. (6+ / 0-)

            They want to do this shit, or at least cover for the predators who are doing it? They can do it without my consent.

            If there is any good in life, in history, in my own past, I invoke it now. I invoke it with all the passion with which I have lived. --Elizabeth Kostova,

            by SouthernLiberalinMD on Fri May 09, 2014 at 08:44:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Should have made it clear that I agree 100%. (3+ / 0-)

              But Real Progressives or at least Real Loyal Democrats More And Better That's How Change Follows Hope are supposed to hold their noses and take big bites, right? That's the only way "we" have a prayer of not being prey, right?

              stupid fucking humans...

              "Is that all there is?" Peggy Lee.

              by jm214 on Fri May 09, 2014 at 09:09:11 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's the choice we were given in '08 (6+ / 0-)

                Better Democrats?  Nef-fer Mind.

                More Democrats, even if they sound like Repukes?  Bring it on - even if they disappoint before they're ever nominated (voting for FISA '08 after saying he wouldn't being only one example).

                I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

                by NonnyO on Fri May 09, 2014 at 11:11:16 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  remember what candidate Obama said re: FISA? (4+ / 0-)

                  https://firstlook.org/...

                  The fact that Obama, in 2008, specifically vowed to his followers angered over his campaign-season NSA reversal that he possessed “the firm intention — once I’m sworn in as president — to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future” only makes that point a bit more vivid.
                  http://www.nytimes.com/...
                  Thousands are now using the same grass-roots organizing tools previously mastered by the Obama campaign to organize a protest against his decision.
                  In recent days, more than 7,000 Obama supporters have organized on a social networking site on Obama's own campaign Web site. They are calling on him to reverse his decision to endorse legislation supported by President George W. Bush to expand the government's domestic spying powers while also providing legal protection to the telecommunications companies that worked with the National Security Agency's domestic wiretapping program after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.
                  Many of them have seen the issue of granting immunity to the telecommunications companies as a test of principle in their opposition to Bush's surveillance program. "I don't think there has been another instance where, in meaningful numbers, his supporters have opposed him like this," said Glenn Greenwald, a writer for Salon.com who opposes Obama's new position.
                  For now, the campaign is trying to put a positive spin on the FISA fight among its supporters.

                  "The fact that there is an open forum on BarackObama.com where supporters can say whether they agree or disagree speaks to a strength of our campaign," said Bill Burton, a campaign spokesman.

                  I gotta add this part for those that won't click on the NYTs link...
                  Markos Moulitsas, a liberal blogger and founder of the Daily Kos Web site, said he had decided to cut back on the amount of money he would contribute to the Obama campaign because of the FISA reversal. "I will continue to support him," Moulitsas said in an interview. "But I was going to write him a check, and I decided I would rather put that money with Democrats who will uphold the Constitution."

                  Greg Craig, a Washington lawyer who advises the Obama campaign, said Tuesday in an interview that Obama had decided to support the compromise FISA legislation only after concluding it was the best deal possible.

                  "This was a deliberative process, and not something that was shooting from the hip," Craig said. "Obviously, there was an element of what's possible here. But he concluded that with FISA expiring, that it was better to get a compromise than letting the law expire."

                  (emphasis mine)

                  without the ants the rainforest dies

                  by aliasalias on Fri May 09, 2014 at 11:27:07 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I remember kos' quote from '08... (3+ / 0-)

                    I remember his blistering denouncement, too.  I got the impression he was so mad he was ready to spit tacks.  I felt the same.

                    I watched both the House and Senate votes on FISA fiasco '08.  The House moved SO fast I damn near lost my breath.  By noon the bill was voted on, signed, and hand carried to the Senate!  That was on a Friday.

                    Don't ever let anyone tell you Cretinous Congress Critters always move slower than a speeding glacier.  Occasionally their speed is supersonic.  I rather assume money was the great motivator, if not blackmail of Pelosi at the time since she knew about both the torture and wiretapping because she was one of the "gang of" (4 or 8?).

                    The only reason the Senate didn't handle it the same day is that most of them had already left to campaign for the weekend.  The following Mon/Tue was taken up with the death/funeral of one of their own (I keep forgetting the name of the dead politician), so they didn't get to the idiotic FISA vote until Wednesday.  Primaries were all done by then so Obama was the default candidate before the DNC convention.

                    Three days after that monstrously bad FISA vote which proved he was a liar before even being nominated and elected, Obama announced for the fundies that if he were elected he'd expand and increase the funding for Dumbya's 'office of faith-based initiatives.'  [Neffer mind that there was the teahadist faction that still insists he's a Muslim.]

                    That was a traumatic week for me with two extremely bad decisions on Obama's part.  I've never forgotten it, and because I had to change my mind about my write-in vote that I'd decided upon when Obama said he was looking forward, didn't favor impeachment, and seemed hesitant about investigating the lies and war crimes of the Bushistas..., just a bare few weeks later after the Tundra Tramp started her VP acceptance speech, I resented the hell out of having to vote against them and "for" Obama because I couldn't deal with the idea of the Ignorant One being within walking distance (literally and figuratively) of the Oval Office.

                    Forgiveness is not in my nature with things so egregious (which is why I'll also never forgive Pelosi for "taking impeachment off the table" - compounded by her bringing this FISA fiasco back to life after it had already been voted down).  I neither trust nor like Pelosi and I wish she'd retire to go bake cookies with her grandkids or whatever she currently does when she's not participating in ruining the US.

                    I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

                    by NonnyO on Fri May 09, 2014 at 03:50:26 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Your vote is not your consent. (0+ / 0-)

              GOTV? You seem to be working on KITV. Your criticism is very narrow, and seems to focus on personalities, not institutions.

              Of course Obama and the Obama administration do these things. He is a product of the Dem political machine, as is the administration. Any one who would have not do them would have been filtered out long ago. Even if by some strange circumstance a person of capability and integrity with deep and substantial ideological convictions was elected President, they would be marginalised and quickly become unable to act because of the existing institutions and other (elected and unelected) political actors that comprise them.

              Recall that Obama's argument was that Iraq was a dumb war. Not an immoral war. Not an illegal one. Dumb. Why are you disappointed? Why surprised? I can only conclude that your view of what the Dem party leadership is, and how the Dem party works is or was naive.

              You don't seem to understand the consequences of a first-past-the-post electoral system. It's a zero sum game. Unless you are in a safe seat, not voting Dem is effectively voting Rep. Not participating in the election is not an available choice. Not voting is letting the Reps win. Not voting is supporting Republicans "government"/misrule far more than voting Dem is supporting the Dem party or its actions. Turnout is how they win.

              Short of revolution (which would end with something even more right-wing and undemocratic, I would suggest), this can only be changed by taking power. And power is only available via the Democratic party. If we have failed to take control of it, that is our failure and not that of the Dem machine, which would appear to be working as designed.

              If you do understand those things, I have to wonder about your motives.

          •  and it's up to you to get out the vote! (5+ / 0-)

            because if the Democrats lose it'll be because you didn't do enough.

            Dear NSA: I am only joking.

            by Shahryar on Fri May 09, 2014 at 10:26:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Because eviler evil is sp-p-p-pooky! BOO! (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        greenbell, kharma, Mr Robert, Johnny Q

        When are people going to realize that neither Party is going to preserve democracy. NEITHER.

        Sure, vote Democrat to plug a hole or two in the dyke of evil, but don't pretend for one fucking second that you are making a material move in saving democracy.

        Democracy can't survive with corruption, and the Democrats are sufficiently to corrupt to obstruct democracy as well. They will do, pig.

        This is why the oligarchy will accept HRC.

        Perhaps the only good thing about the idiocy of the D's potentially participating in and legitimizing the Benghazi Committee is that it may ultimately render HRC unelectable and deliver the D's from its default position of embracing Third Way corruption for 8 more years...

        I've never left a blank space on a ballot... but I will not vote for someone [who vows] to spy on me. I will not do it. - dclawyer06

        Trust, but verify. - Reagan
        Vote, but Occupy. - commonmass

        by Words In Action on Fri May 09, 2014 at 09:15:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Vote against Republicans (4+ / 0-)

        Elect DINOs.

        They're less evil than more evil Repukes.

        See?  You do have choices.

        [I voted against Repukes in 2000, '04, '08, '12.  I'm a good little Democrat.]

        I voted

        Sometimes I question my sanity

        Gullible Sheep

        I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

        by NonnyO on Fri May 09, 2014 at 11:06:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Hope & Change... (20+ / 0-)
      AFR: What were the key differences for you as director of NSA serving under presidents Bush and Obama? Did you have a preferred commander in chief?

      Gen. Alexander: Obviously they come from different parties, they view things differently, but when it comes to the security of the nation and making those decisions about how to protect our nation, what we need to do to defend it, they are, ironically, very close to the same point. You would get almost the same decision from both of them on key questions about how to defend our nation from terrorists and other threats.

      If you stand for nothing you will fall for anything.

      by LieparDestin on Fri May 09, 2014 at 07:51:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  here's a link to that story (9+ / 0-)

        https://firstlook.org/...
        This follows the quote you posted...

        The almost-complete continuity between George W. Bush and Barack Obama on such matters has been explained by far too many senior officials in both parties, and has been amply documented in far too many venues, to make it newsworthy when it happens again. Still, the fact that one of the nation’s most powerful generals in history, who has no incentive to say it unless it were true, just comes right out and states that Bush and The Candidate of Change are “very close to the same point” and “you would get almost the same decision from both of them on key questions” is a fine commentary on a number of things, including how adept the 2008 Obama team was at the art of branding.
        The fact that Obama, in 2008, specifically vowed to his followers angered over his campaign-season NSA reversal that he possessed “the firm intention — once I’m sworn in as president — to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future” only makes that point a bit more vivid.
        (emphasis mine)

        without the ants the rainforest dies

        by aliasalias on Fri May 09, 2014 at 10:19:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Hopeless Shame! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LieparDestin

        "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

        by elwior on Fri May 09, 2014 at 10:55:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Excellent time for a math term. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LieparDestin

        The truth and Alexander's verbiage are orthogonal.

        "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

        by nosleep4u on Fri May 09, 2014 at 12:44:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  This kind of BS certainly doesn't gin up the base. (0+ / 0-)

      "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

      by elwior on Fri May 09, 2014 at 10:52:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You are supposed to excited... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Johnny Q

      to get a Democratic congress so that President Obama can pass all this great, progressive legislation...sorry, couldn't keep a straight face saying that load of bullshit.

      "[I]n the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone...They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand."

      by cardboardurinal on Fri May 09, 2014 at 12:59:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  politics and truth. hah. (15+ / 0-)

    this is why politicians and lying go together so well.

    OF COURSE telling the actual truth would be criminalized.

    this in a country where guns are safe and marijuana is a threat.

    Legal means "good".
    [41984 | Feb 4, 2005]

    by xxdr zombiexx on Fri May 09, 2014 at 07:28:54 AM PDT

  •  Oh, I don't know. (12+ / 0-)

    I think it's pretty transparent.

    If there is any good in life, in history, in my own past, I invoke it now. I invoke it with all the passion with which I have lived. --Elizabeth Kostova,

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Fri May 09, 2014 at 07:32:57 AM PDT

  •  ♥ library has me on 'IT'S MINE' list for when (5+ / 0-)

    TRAILHEAD of accountability for Bush-2 Crimes? -- Addington's Perpwalk.

    by greenbird on Fri May 09, 2014 at 07:45:00 AM PDT

  •  According to some here (25+ / 0-)

    talking about any skullduggery, policy that the government especially the WH is implementing that casts a bad light on this Democratic administration is tantamount to being a traitor. This applies to being both a citizen and a Democrat. The only sources that are considered legitimate are Dem. talking points/propaganda and whatever double speak the administration comes out and regales us with. So instead of real information about what's going on we get endless lists of dubious accomplishments that require one to think double.  

    National Security means any damn thing they want to keep from the light of day. The TPP is verboten as it is a matter of national security. National security seems to have become protecting multinational business interests globally and domestically. Not to mention bullying, killing and threatening any resistance to Axelrod's inevitable 'world as we find it'. No wonder the US has slid down that slippery slope to becoming one of the places globally where the 4th estate is toothless and practically nonexistent.

    No negatives Democrat's as lose lips sink ships and keep keep lauding the dark as light. God knows we need to keep American's safe. From who and what? Who's going to protect our civil and human rights and our sacred rule of law from the likes of the spook enforcers like Clapper? The alternatives are always worse so just embrace the 'reality' as portrayed by the spokespeople who are experts as it's all your going to get. It's progress so STFU and don't aid our enemies.

    This is not what democracy looks like. It also makes it hard to believe any of the free flowing bs. that they call reality and tout as accomplishments, reform or the worst security you can believe in. It's a dangerous world says Obama. The danger seems to be emanating not from leakers or rogue news sources but from those who are supposedly keeping us safe. The truth is apparently the enemy we need to fear.                      

  •  Sounds like a reasonable policy to me. (16+ / 0-)

    Right now the way to be able to talk about classified stuff, as a present or former intelligence official, is to leak it first so it's out there in the public domain.  Perverse incentives should always be eliminated when possible.

    Government can't win, of course: it's to blame for leaks, and it's to blame for trying to stop them.  

    It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

    by Rich in PA on Fri May 09, 2014 at 07:52:13 AM PDT

  •  "only news about intelligence is to be authorized" (10+ / 0-)

    from the linked NYT article

    if that doesn't chill you...

    Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

    by greenbastard on Fri May 09, 2014 at 08:03:39 AM PDT

  •  Orwellian to the nth. n/t (6+ / 0-)

    "When wealth rules, democracy dies." Me

    by leema on Fri May 09, 2014 at 08:08:56 AM PDT

  •  As has been stated before (7+ / 0-)

    classified material doesn't become unclassified because it has been leaked.  And those who handle classified material are required, by law, to keep it classified, forever (or until its classification expires).

    There's one group that has the authority to change the classification of material: The executive branch.

    "Moon landing was real. Evolution exists. Tax cuts lose revenue. The research has shown this a thousand times. Enough already." - Austan Goolsbee

    by anonevent on Fri May 09, 2014 at 08:12:49 AM PDT

    •  A "branch" that ignores, flouts and dispenses with (4+ / 0-)

      "the law" that people of an apparent authoritarian bent think everyone else is supposed to follow. When are we all going to get it straight that there is no such thing as "rule of law," as most people understand the term and beleeeeve on it, here in our fading Empire? But those wedded to the hierarchical state want the rest of us to just buy into their framing and go along with the serial, costly, destructive idiocy.

      Ask yourselves what is important in life: "winning," being on top, taking comfort that you are arguing for the "Democratic" side or at least not annoying the algorithms that pick out troublemakers for eventual attention? (No, that would NEVER happen, would it?) Or pulling together to keep the Imperial machinery from bleeding and crushing us ordinary people, slicing away what little wealth we have left, and really actually taking away the "rights" we pretend we have? Sucking up to the Rulers will hardly guarantee that you won't be eaten, too. Guess what happens to remoras, those sucker fish that attach to the bellies of sharks and eat the scraps from their predatory strikes, when the sharks run out of other stuff to eat?

      fucking stupid humans...

      "Is that all there is?" Peggy Lee.

      by jm214 on Fri May 09, 2014 at 09:06:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  NOT from mentioning "the news" (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hawkjt, sviscusi, freakofsociety, doroma

    Your headline is grossly misleading and biased.  You could apply for a job at Fox.

  •  This is a ridiculous argument. (10+ / 0-)

    If you think preventing government officials from talking about press leaks is a violation of the 1st amendment, why don't you also think that the very act of classifying information is too?

    What do you think transparency means? Allowing every government official to talk about anything because ... 1st amendment?

    Why do you think it's a bad thing to prevent government officials from laundering information leaks through the press?

    •  Lindsey Grahams (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fou, freakofsociety

      oke doke with Laura L. at 60 minutes is disgusting....feed some bad info to 60 Minutes , then cite 60 Minutes as evidence for his claim on Benghazi.

      This kind of crap is simply wrong.

      Now this author wants the US Govt to be free to use such techniques?

      Just another chance for this person to rip on the President
      What nu?  Just go to FoxNews and make it official.

    •  What do you think transparency means? (10+ / 0-)

      That is a question that President Obama needs to answer.

      _______________The DOD/ War Department, which consumes 22% of the national budget, is the world's largest employer with 3.2 million employees.

      by allenjo on Fri May 09, 2014 at 08:27:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why don't you answer it? (4+ / 0-)

        If you agree with the statement that this is the least transparent administration in history, perhaps you should do more than base that claim on the fact that government officials are not allowed to talk about certain things. That's true of every administration.

        •  unprecedented level of openness in Government (10+ / 0-)

          The one who made the pledge of an........"unprecedented level of openness in Government" needs to answer that question.

          http://www.whitehouse.gov/...

          My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government.  We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration.

          Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

          Government should be transparent.  Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing.  Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public.

          Government should be participatory. Public engagement enhances the Government's effectiveness and improves the quality of its decisions. Knowledge is widely dispersed in society, and public officials benefit from having access to that dispersed knowledge. Executive departments and agencies should offer Americans increased opportunities to participate in policymaking and to provide their Government with the benefits of their collective expertise and information. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public input on how we can increase and improve opportunities for public participation in Government.

          Government should be collaborative.  Collaboration actively engages Americans in the work of their Government. Executive departments and agencies should use innovative tools, methods, and systems to cooperate among themselves, across all levels of Government, and with nonprofit organizations, businesses, and individuals in the private sector.  Executive departments and agencies should solicit public feedback to assess and improve their level of collaboration and to identify new opportunities for cooperation.

          I direct the Chief Technology Officer, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Administrator of General Services, to coordinate the development by appropriate executive departments and agencies, within 120 days, of recommendations for an Open Government Directive, to be issued by the Director of OMB, that instructs executive departments and agencies to take specific actions implementing the principles set forth in this memorandum. The independent agencies should comply with the Open Government Directive.

          This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
          This memorandum shall be published in the Federal Register.
          BARACK OBAMA

          _______________The DOD/ War Department, which consumes 22% of the national budget, is the world's largest employer with 3.2 million employees.

          by allenjo on Fri May 09, 2014 at 08:42:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  According to them transparency means (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fou, Drocedus

          The government has to tell the people everything they are doing, regardless of what it is, even if doing so would lead to more harm than good.

          I love president Obama!!!

          by freakofsociety on Fri May 09, 2014 at 10:02:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think we call that democracy (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Johnny Q

            No one ever said democracy can't sometimes lead to bad decisions.   It's in there with the WE THE PEOPLE stuff and all that government of the PEOPLE, for the PEOPLE and by the PEOPLE.

            If you want to be taken care of like a 2 year old, a dictator is what you need.  Then every decision made will be correct because he says so and you can cheer every decision right on cue.

    •  There is nothing to stop someone from doing what (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      maryabein, Johnny Q

      the Cheney/Bush administration did with their laundry list in that bill. It just controls who puts out the wash.

      •  But you've have Cheney control it NOW. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        freakofsociety, Mets102, doroma

        You realize that the restriction is on publication by former officials.  Your choice is, let Cheney decide what classified info goes in his book or the current administration.  You pick Cheney.  Why?

        Schedule permitting, PROOF WILL BE PROVIDED ON HOW I AM BEING "CONSTANTLY CALLED OUT" AND "UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED" FOR BEING BAD. Moreover, the dossier on my activities during the Bush administration will have an appendix concluding that I am Wrong.

        by Inland on Fri May 09, 2014 at 09:01:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The reason Bush/Cheney were wrong wasn't (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        freakofsociety, Mets102, doroma, Loge

        merely because they controlled information. It was because they did it for illegal purposes. And they leaked information when it suited them when they outed Valerie Plame. By the "logic" of this diarist's argument, we should all celebrate the outing of Valerie Plame because information that had been classified is now public and "transparent".

        That's fucking bullshit.

        •  How would you know it was for illegal purposes (4+ / 0-)

          if there were not other leaks telling us that?

          •  Well, in Plame's case, an investigation (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            freakofsociety, Mets102

            which looked into who the source was for newspaper accounts.

            So what's your point again?  That we should never have had that investigation because the leak was printed, or that we should never have had that investigation because there should be no secrets ever?

            Maybe you should ask Valerie Plame about it.  It was her life on the line.

            Schedule permitting, PROOF WILL BE PROVIDED ON HOW I AM BEING "CONSTANTLY CALLED OUT" AND "UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED" FOR BEING BAD. Moreover, the dossier on my activities during the Bush administration will have an appendix concluding that I am Wrong.

            by Inland on Fri May 09, 2014 at 09:15:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The Plame "investigation" was focused entirely on (4+ / 0-)

              the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Neither Wilson nor Plame were called to testify as this would have further revealed the actual content of the leak.

              The real purpose of the outing was to discourage any other would-be leakers.

              •  That's false, shows how you get everything wrong (0+ / 0-)
                The real purpose of the outing was to discourage any other would-be leakers.
                Obviously, you've taken the position that leaks are the cure for everything and every bad thing is to plug leaks, and it's keeping you from simple reality.

                In the Plame case, the leak was to PUNISH Plame for her husband telling the truth about Iraq NOT purchasing uranium.

                A perfect example of leaks being used to punish someone using openly available information.....and you got it exactly backwards, saying it was used to punish leakers.

                If we listened to you, we would have LESS information.  People like Wilson would be deterred because of what some leaker might do to him or his wife.  All because you can't think of how a leak is anything but good.

                Schedule permitting, PROOF WILL BE PROVIDED ON HOW I AM BEING "CONSTANTLY CALLED OUT" AND "UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED" FOR BEING BAD. Moreover, the dossier on my activities during the Bush administration will have an appendix concluding that I am Wrong.

                by Inland on Fri May 09, 2014 at 10:18:36 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Oops, left out that it was Wilson's NYT article, (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Loge

                which was not a leak , that Libby wanted to punish.  So it was a leak of classified info to punish a non classified opinon.

                Schedule permitting, PROOF WILL BE PROVIDED ON HOW I AM BEING "CONSTANTLY CALLED OUT" AND "UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED" FOR BEING BAD. Moreover, the dossier on my activities during the Bush administration will have an appendix concluding that I am Wrong.

                by Inland on Fri May 09, 2014 at 10:25:56 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The only reason Wilson wrote the op-ed in the NYT (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  aliasalias, kharma, Johnny Q

                  is when he heard Bush's State of the Union address where Bush says: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Wilson's op-ed put the lie to that statement.  Up until the point, no one knew Wilson was the one who went to Niger to check the validity of the report.

                  Wilson said he was sent to Niger by the CIA at the request of the office of the vice-president. He stated his trip was "confidential" but not "secret" and he made a report to the CIA when he returned. He did not go public with this information until Bush lied. Then he blew the whistle on Bush with his op-ed. You are trying to tell us that Wilson's original report was readily available public knowledge before Wilson wrote his op-ed?

                  •  That's WHY you're wrong. (0+ / 0-)

                    The leak of Plame's identity was not to punish  leaker or would be leakers.  It was to punish someone who wasn't a leaker.

                    You're completely backwards about the role of leaking in this instance.  It was the leaking that aimed to deceive and silence people on an issue.

                    Schedule permitting, PROOF WILL BE PROVIDED ON HOW I AM BEING "CONSTANTLY CALLED OUT" AND "UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED" FOR BEING BAD. Moreover, the dossier on my activities during the Bush administration will have an appendix concluding that I am Wrong.

                    by Inland on Fri May 09, 2014 at 02:22:54 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Silence people from doing what? (0+ / 0-)

                      A leak is the unsanctioned release of confidential information. That is EXACTLY what Wilson did. His information was known only by officials in the embassy in Niger, the CIA (including Tenet) and (supposedly) Cheney's office.

                      Here's what this diary defines a leak as:

                      The Obama administration is clamping down on a technique that government officials have long used to join in public discussions of well-known but technically still-secret information: citing news reports based on unauthorized disclosures.
                      Leaking information to counter previous leaks is common practice. It muddies the water and deflects inquiries.

                      In any event, Wilson's op-ed was part of the dozens of leaks that eventually put the lie to the casus belli for the Iraq War.

          •  The very act of outing an undercover agent (0+ / 0-)

            is illegal. The leak itself was illegal. I didn't need for her to be outed in order to know that outing her was illegal.  But according to you, I did. I was right then. You do celebrate the outing of Valerie Plame.

            Ugh.

            And I'm sorry, but this is really dumb:

            How would you know it was for illegal purposes (2+ / 0-)
            if there were not other leaks telling us that?
            Do you think governments are hermetically sealed institutions such that there are no outside witnesses to illegal acts perpetrated by their agents?

            For fuck's sake, even Ed Snowden believes governments are entitled to secrecy. I guess he's an authoritarian sellout too.

    •  Applies to all employees, all situations (7+ / 0-)

      This is not just about senior people speaking in official capacities.  This also applies to rank and file employees, decades after leaving government, for any sort of information and any sort of 'public' release.

      As one example, if a junior analyst leaves the CIA, gets a doctorate, and 20 years later writes a book about US relations with Russia, that person could not cite a NYT article that included information from Wikileaks -- not just could not cite/quote the actual classified cable, but would have to pretend that NYT article did not even exist.

      The language is so broad that it would appear even to require that former employees get pre-approval for things like term papers or exam essays in a college course -- it's a much broader definition of 'publication' than used to be be the case for former employees.

      •  The language should be broad. (0+ / 0-)

        Otherwise, someone can leak this way. The language should apply to anyone with access to classified info. Wouldn't make sense or be effective otherwise.

      •  why would someone 20 years later writing a book (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        freakofsociety

        be bound by a former administration's personnel directive?  The administration would (a) not be able to fire that person, and (b) by definition, such a person would not be acting in his official capacity.  

        The latter point does happen sometimes -- lawyers from the WH vetted the Gates book, Clinton's forthcoming memoir, and maybe even Geithner's.  There was no problem with Gates being allowed to say Joe Biden's wrong all the time.

        Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

        by Loge on Fri May 09, 2014 at 12:53:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Former employees are still bound (0+ / 0-)

          Someone who worked for the CIA long ago and retired in the 1990s is absolutely bound by this Obama directive.  It quite explicitly includes former employees as well as current employees, and legally, they have the authority to do that -- you agree to be subject to Agency authority for life when you take a job there.  Ignore the rules and you can go to jail, despite having long ago left such employment.

          What's new here is that this directive dramatically tightens the rules on former employees in terms of the scope of their activities that require review and the limits on what they can say.  

          It also covers all 'release of information', even that done in an informal personal capacity, such as social media posts.

          •  the sanction would be (0+ / 0-)

            loss of security clearance / demotion - by that point, would they still have one?  
            Also, on the face of the article, this applies to "ODNI personnel," which seems narrow.  See section 4.  https://www.documentcloud.org/...  Ex-CIA would be bound by what ever terms exist already, but this doesn't change that, and there's already a process in place for review.  

            This Mark Ewing directive seems written for the purpose of ensuring that the ODNI does not inadvertently approve unclassified disclosures because in the course of review, they don't sign off on sourced or unauthorized materials.  It's less than meets the eye.

            Nevertheless, even someone with a clearance probably should be bound by at least some limits on further dissemination - thru social media or otherwise (not sure why that's supposed to matter -- i can't put attorney client info on facebook any more than i can tell it to a reporter) - as it can't be established where they learned the information.  The point in section 6(B) isn't that the information is out there, it's that further citation might tend to confirm that the news reports are true, which is always a question with anonymous sources.  It calls for further guidance for people outside ODNI, but it's a reasonable judgment.  Sanctions other than loss of clearance would be much more problematic.  

            Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

            by Loge on Fri May 09, 2014 at 02:35:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Former employees subject to penalties (0+ / 0-)

              The non-disclosure agreement that you sign as part of a security clearance does include the possibility of criminal fines or jail time if you violate it, during or after employment, not just loss of clearance or demotion.  True, the bar is much much higher to prosecute a former employee than to take an administrative HR action against a current employee, but it is an option available if the government cares enough.

              ODNI personnel includes the whole intel community -- CIA, NSA, etc., and not just the very small staff at the DNI's office.  Officially all those other agencies now report through the DNI and thus are part of 'ODNI', even if the DNI's leverage is pretty limited.  On this issue though, the new policy wouldn't be released and official if CIA/NSA leadership were not on board with it.

              •  Well, I'm sure they welcome (0+ / 0-)

                suggestions as to how better avoid the risks of inadvertent or unintentional disclosure of classified info thru the pre-clear process.

                Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                by Loge on Fri May 09, 2014 at 05:51:30 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  I don't think this is new (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sviscusi, freakofsociety, doroma

    I recall being warned about this much earlier (in this administration).  I don't recall ever having been told this during any prior administration (going back to Reagan).

  •  from the Turley's article about Risen (19+ / 0-)

    that allenjo linked in the other diary:

    http://jonathanturley.org/...

    Despite efforts from many of us to warn of the lasting damage being done to such freedoms by this President, the White House has been successful in blocking any real reforms or criticism in the Democratic ranks. It has an army of enablers and apologists who quickly redirect discussions to how much worse the Republicans would be. While some Democrats and liberals are beginning to say that they do not support such policies, they still rally to the President as soon as the subject changes from civil liberties. Most Democrats and liberals refuse to join civil libertarians in opposing this President. It is bread-and-circus politics at its worst. We are trading away civil liberties for a cult of personality, but that personality will eventually be gone . . . with many of these protections that died without a whimper of regret

    Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

    by greenbastard on Fri May 09, 2014 at 08:16:40 AM PDT

  •  I am amazed at all the (7+ / 0-)

    OMGing about this. Government officials shouldn't be using leaks as talking points. Whether you think that material should have be leaked or not, it is classified still and not to be press fodder coming from the admin.

    This isn't about Obama as Snidely Whiplash, this is a common sense directive.

    What is wrong with you people? Don't remember Cheney/Rice and "mushroom clouds" courtesy of Judy Miller? How about Lindsey Graham and Lara Logan?

    Ring bells? It's the old "leaker to press to statement about what was leaked to press" circle jerk.

    Some humans ain't human some people ain't kind. They lie through their teeth with their head up their behind. You open up their hearts and here's what you'll find - Some humans ain't human some people ain't kind. John Prine

    by high uintas on Fri May 09, 2014 at 08:20:01 AM PDT

    •  This goes much farther (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tool, Medium Head Boy, Johnny Q, tardis10

      While it does cover the Cheney/Miller situation, it also says that anyone who ever worked in the intelligence community can not, decades later, cite an article about the Pentagon Papers in an academic term paper.  

      •  It's been shown how (0+ / 0-)

        damaging this kind of thing can be. Maybe they used too big of a tool to address it, maybe not. But, this whole thing about the Obama admin and their horrible tyrannical deceptive ways has gotten out of hand. Some here sound like they are taking notes from News Max.

        Some humans ain't human some people ain't kind. They lie through their teeth with their head up their behind. You open up their hearts and here's what you'll find - Some humans ain't human some people ain't kind. John Prine

        by high uintas on Fri May 09, 2014 at 12:59:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Really? (5+ / 0-)

      So, you are suggesting that if this policy had been in place during the Bush administration one of two things would have happened . . .

      1) Cheney and Rice would never have mentioned the Judy Miller reporting?

      2) Cheney and Rice would have been prosecuted for mentioning the Judy Miller reporting?

      Which one?

      Because I think it would not have mattered.

      This will have no affect on people within the administration doing the administrations bidding. It is just one more tool to use in going after people discussing things the administration would not like to hear discussed. Just another weapon in the war on whistle blowers.

      The nine most terrifying words in the english language . . . "I'm George Bush, we're here to liberate your country"

      by TiredOfGOPLies on Fri May 09, 2014 at 09:53:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm suggesting (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        freakofsociety

        that this would be the tool needed to bring charges if the Cheney/Rice/Miller thing happened today.

        Some humans ain't human some people ain't kind. They lie through their teeth with their head up their behind. You open up their hearts and here's what you'll find - Some humans ain't human some people ain't kind. John Prine

        by high uintas on Fri May 09, 2014 at 01:01:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  So if we're all vewy vewy quiet (7+ / 0-)

    and pretend something that's there is not there, maybe it'll just go away? That's been this administration's approach on torture, financial crimes, and the surveillance state. Thanks, Obama!

    Marx was an optimist.

    by psnyder on Fri May 09, 2014 at 08:25:16 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for posting this thread (0+ / 0-)
  •  Choco ration up! Doubleplusgood, comrade! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    protectspice, tardis10

    You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

    by Cartoon Peril on Fri May 09, 2014 at 08:40:35 AM PDT

  •  Orwell would understand (5+ / 0-)

    No point in acknowledging reality if you don't have to

    "The oppressors most powerful weapon is the mind of the oppressed." - Stephen Biko

    by gjohnsit on Fri May 09, 2014 at 08:48:01 AM PDT

  •  The Obama Administration stands in the corner... (5+ / 0-)

    ... and holds it's breath.

    Hell of a way to run a country.

  •  This is a great bill for rewriting history (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenbastard, jayden, riprof, Jim P, Johnny Q

    It would mean one could not quote the Pentagon Papers which will allow America to gloriously win the Vietnam War by 2030.

  •  Perhaps because 60% of the leaks (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    doroma

    From unnamed sources turn out to be completely false?

    I love president Obama!!!

    by freakofsociety on Fri May 09, 2014 at 09:48:20 AM PDT

  •  OK, so when Cheney leaked (7+ / 0-)

    to Judy Miller about WMDs, and then cited "The New York Times" on Meet the Press for the proposition that Saddam had them . . . that was transparency.  

    I take "cite" to mean "use to support" rather than "mention.  

    Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

    by Loge on Fri May 09, 2014 at 09:53:44 AM PDT

    •  Or when Libby broke Plame's cover (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Loge, freakofsociety

      in order to punish her husband for providing unclassified report results re: Iraq not buying yellowcake, in a NYT op ed piece, that was just democracy in action, supplying us with the important info that Americans had a right to know.  

      Schedule permitting, PROOF WILL BE PROVIDED ON HOW I AM BEING "CONSTANTLY CALLED OUT" AND "UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED" FOR BEING BAD. Moreover, the dossier on my activities during the Bush administration will have an appendix concluding that I am Wrong.

      by Inland on Fri May 09, 2014 at 11:51:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  there's a serious point, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        freakofsociety

        where i'm sure it's tempting to officials to leak further info to contextualize how something like the NSA metadata program works, since right now the conversation is driven by rather selective leaks that don't really get to the processes for querying the database, legal opinions, or data on when the program is actually used, to name one example.

        Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

        by Loge on Fri May 09, 2014 at 12:40:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  That's because, unlike this diary, you're (0+ / 0-)

      intellectually honest.

  •  I like how you all keep insisting that (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    freakofsociety

    Teabaggers are on the same mental level as everyone else, or that we can all be rocket scientists or amazing artists.  Life is so simple!  Tell us everything on National Security, Obama!  We're all geniuses, you see.

    'Slower Traffic - Keep Right!'

    by luvbrothel on Fri May 09, 2014 at 09:55:16 AM PDT

  •  this goes hand in glove with the Insider Threat (4+ / 0-)

    program.
    http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/...

    These new policies complement other harsh measures, which include an Insider Threat Program that McClatchy Newspapers reported equates “leaks” with “espionage” and encourages snitching and instructs employees to be on the lookout for individuals suffering from “narcissism” or “antisocial personality disorder.” It includes increased reliance on lie detector exams, which now include questions about leaks to the press.

    It builds off restrictions already imposed in the aftermath of information published by WikiLeaks in 2010, such as the development of removable media policies to reduce risks of leaks and additional training to ensure employees recognize how to appropriately handle classified information.

    Also, as Clapper told a Senate committee in February, it includes a system to “monitor user activity on all [intelligence community] classified computer systems to detect unusual behavior” and a “fully staffed analytic capability” to put a “human eye on the suspect activity.”

    About the only policy the intelligence community lacks at the moment is a system for total surveillance of employees when they are in their own homes and not at work. Clapper intends to have this operational by September 2016.

    What is needed, Clapper told the Senate, is “a system of continuous evaluation where, when someone is in the system and they’re cleared initially, we have a way of monitoring their behavior, both their electronic behavior on the job and as well as off the job, to see if there is a potential clearance issue.”
    (emphasis mine)

    without the ants the rainforest dies

    by aliasalias on Fri May 09, 2014 at 10:46:47 AM PDT

  •  it is NOT illegal to read classified info (4+ / 0-)

    that is published in the media even tho the Pentagon blocked employees from reading the Guardian newspaper, and accessing news channels, MSNBC, Fox, CNN etc. .
    http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/...

    This massive gag order policy caught the attention of Peter Van Buren, a former State Department employee, who the Department tried to have fired for blowing the whistle on fraud and waste in Iraq. They used pre-publication rules to limit when he could talk about his book, We Meant Well, even though the department had cleared the book for publication.

    “After my first book, We Meant Well, the State Department stripped me of my security clearance, moved to fire me and referred my case for prosecution to the Department of Justice simply for linking on my blog to a Wikileaks cable. That was all way back in 2011,” Van Buren said. “Since then we’ve had Barrett Brown prosecuted for a web link to sensitive information, and now the ODNI directive. I didn’t know it then, but I was a warning shot,” he recalled.

    The ODNI directive turns the use of even publicly available documents into virtual crimes,” Van Buren reacted. “Employees– present and past– who cite ‘allegedly’ classified documents from Manning and Snowden now on the web—and visible from every internet cafe in the Middle East—face sanction.”

    The ACLU defended Van Buren when he was being punished for his speech arguing, “The Supreme Court has long made clear that public employees are protected by the First Amendment when they engage in speech about matters of public concern.” This gag policy clearly runs counter to freedom of expression, which the US State Department is so quick to preach about when China or Russia undermines this value in their countries.
    I think this sums it up well.
    This waspish and autocratic response to Snowden will not bring more security to government. It will breed further distrust among employees. It will promote a culture of suspicion, of people looking over their shoulder routinely and wondering if seemingly innocuous behavior is conduct of people who are “insider threats.” It will discourage good government officials from sharing their experiences with citizens because of the strict burdens imposed, and it will encourage the spread of government propaganda because contesting talking points intended to conceal the truth would mean risking one’s job or livelihood.
    (emphasis mine)

    without the ants the rainforest dies

    by aliasalias on Fri May 09, 2014 at 11:05:21 AM PDT

  •  Ministry of Truth (0+ / 0-)

    "Ignorance is strength" and 2 + 2 = 5

  •  We need officials to be out of touch with reality (4+ / 0-)

    and to demonstrate it as often as possible. At 20% or so still having trust in authorities -- that's way too many. Glad to see we're looking forward and nobody, nobody, will be allowed to look backward in public.


    A government is a body of people usually notably ungoverned. -- Firefly

    by Jim P on Fri May 09, 2014 at 11:20:35 AM PDT

  •  DK hangs our with criminal worker Jesselyn Radack (5+ / 0-)
    Jesselyn Radack ‏@JesselynRadack  15h

    Clapper just criminalized what I do for a living.
    http://nyti.ms/...

    now we know for sure that Jesselyn should be banned here at dailykos like Ray Pensador and others who were run out of here

    Ray was just trying to organize a non violent revolt against the 1%. Trying to educate the DK community to go beyond the he said/she said sham that passes for political debate

    Jesselyn's work has been criminalized

    and we wouldn't want dailykos to be connected to a criminal, would we

    so to make Obama's clamp down successful, we must start driving Jesselyn away

    (by the way she is an attorney for Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald's new book will be released on May 13 so the powers that be need to get all their ducks lined up to be deployed to shut down the debate.)

    this is a snark that anyone who follows me knows full well

    •  I wasn't aware that... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DeadHead, Johnny Q

      Ray was driven out (or banned?).  That sucks.  I loved his passion for issues that he found important (most which I agreed with him on).

      "[I]n the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone...They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand."

      by cardboardurinal on Fri May 09, 2014 at 01:27:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The most dishonest diary I've seen on DK (0+ / 0-)

    for a while. A ban on citing an article as a way to sneak in a reference to classified info is not a ban on acknowledging the existence of such an article.

  •  Secrecy (0+ / 0-)

    You cannot have a democracy and also the kind of secrecy that Obama demands.

  •  Durn it (0+ / 0-)

    This story is a counterpoint to the story about Clive Bumbly's terrorists claiming they didn't point guns at Federal agents.  All it will do is to rightly or wrongly demonstrate Obama is a bumbling idiot. In actuality Obama will regret it. Because , ahem, "news agencies" will dig that much farther to get information. And the Rethuglicans will use this as their warcry. Obama's next bowel movement will be a conspiracy.

  •  "surveillance, drone strikes, torture" (0+ / 0-)

    Because they're all the same thing....right?

  •  Sensoring and Isolating the Censors (0+ / 0-)

    Chomsky states that the managers of society need the greatest levels of Propaganda training because they are the ones that run the machines that keep the machines running "properly".  

    Intelligence officers are already aware of risks to their security clearance just by associating with the wrong people.  Those wrong people expressly include those that possess forbidden knowledge.  Of course, intelligence officers are not allowed to discuss intelligence among themselves either.  They are not even suppose to hang out together.    This is part of what is referred to as Discipline Management.  It is all about departmentalization, manipulating belief systems and strict secrecy guidelines.    

    Here is an example of how they work on the other side.   Retired BMO (Ballistic Missile Organization) official with engineering / design background actually believed that the government had properly disposed on Nuclear waste associated with nuclear weapons development.  

    His nuclear physics background should have raised red flags but never did.  He never asked the tough questions because he was a believer, he assumed the government would never do something so insane as build 70,000 plutonium pits without proper disposal in place and National Security guidelines (He followed willingly)  dictated that he would never ask those questions.    Secrecy requires believers.  

    It is our job, as criminal activists, to know what these cogs are never suppose to find out and act like a computer virus. Contaminate the host with forbidden knowledge and send him back to the hive to self destruct.  Nuclear weapons are complicated machines that require decades of propaganda training, education and technical expertise.  There are literally 10s of thousands of access points for infection.  Pick your strategic targets, poison the machine, sit back, smoke a joint and watch the machine spin out of control.    

  •  President Bans Officials (0+ / 0-)

    Or for Pete's sake.  This is a stupid story

  •  David...great piece (0+ / 0-)

    There needs to be reasonableness in national security, as well as what information should be in the public domain. I understand that balance..too bad our elected officials often do not.
    Scott Noren DDS
    Former US Senate candidate

    www.norenforsenate.com Scott Noren DDS

    by DoctorNoren on Sun May 11, 2014 at 06:30:24 AM PDT

  •  Here we go again, playing right into the hands of (0+ / 0-)

    the opposition.
    I for one have always hated the quote from an unidentified source,"Close to the issue".
    If the subject is secret, being told 'off the record' makes it no less a violation.
    So why don't all progressives stay away from the polls because Obama thinks a secret is supposed to be secret.

    "If you tell the truth, you won't have to remember anything", Mark Twain

    by Cruzankenny on Sun May 11, 2014 at 09:49:13 AM PDT

  •  Leaks and political slander (0+ / 0-)

    If the news reports a leak, then a federal employee repeating that leak creates the legitimacy of that leak. The failure of democracy is political slander.

  •  traitorous communications (0+ / 0-)

    should not be confirmed or denied in public by those people sworn to secrecy. Lying or breaking an oath will be handled by God when She gets around to it.

    support better pre-natal health care coverage for women and support education for boys which teaches them to respect women

    by tubaguy on Mon May 12, 2014 at 10:15:40 AM PDT

  •  Ah, but the Republicans are so much worse, (0+ / 0-)

    doncha know?

    Vote Democrat! It's all we got.

paradox, glitterscale, greenbird, Shockwave, gjohnsit, hubcap, TracieLynn, whenwego, Agathena, farmerhunt, kharma, psnyder, zerelda, Deward Hastings, xxdr zombiexx, Armand451, humphrey, jrooth, sc kitty, run around, YucatanMan, reflectionsv37, Sun Tzu, Tool, WisePiper, peacestpete, Blue Bronc, CJnyc, Jim P, esquimaux, Medium Head Boy, cardboardurinal, HoundDog, Prognosticator, koNko, AoT, blueoasis, triv33, philipmerrill, gpoutney, JVolvo, BlueMississippi, shaharazade, bstotts, markthshark, daeros, NonnyO, cpresley, One Pissed Off Liberal, Jarrayy, camlbacker, Dartagnan, FishOutofWater, david mizner, dclawyer06, aliasalias, jayden, Aunt Martha, bobswern, CT Hank, leonard145b, JML9999, CroneWit, ChocolateChris, poligirl, Involuntary Exile, elwior, tofumagoo, protectspice, Bule Betawi, J M F, ceebee7, nchristine, The Dead Man, maryabein, Methinks They Lie, his panic, Keith Pickering, angel d, Words In Action, The Jester, mookins, Lost and Found, Lady Libertine, ffour, Johnny Q, DrTerwilliker, Oh Mary Oh, nosleep4u, dwayne, Barbara Marquardt, Colorado is the Shiznit, slowbutsure, jm214, thomask, Claudius Bombarnac, chickeeee, tardis10, stargaze, bluedust, PhilJD, DoctorNoren, SouthernLiberalinMD, allergywoman, No one gets out alive, BocaBlue, quill, Whimsical Rapscallion, DeadHead, greenbastard, IndieGuy, orestes1963, 420 forever, Mr Robert, George3, wasatch, poopdogcomedy, goodpractice, sfbaytransplant, JerryNA, greenbell, Ysmene, River Rover, hwy70scientist, CenPhx, Rich Lyles, panzergeek, Liberty Equality Fraternity and Trees, Yang Guang, Choco8, nerafinator, KOKO1956, BMScott, GirlSwimmingInASeaOfRed, Older and Wiser Now

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site