What is Digg?98 Comments
- kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -8/+41Sued? I think arrested and imprisoned would be the likely outcome. (As insanely ***** up as that may be.)
I believe the first amendment is the freedom the Bush administration hates the most. - sharpfork, on 10/12/2007, -4/+36@sonofdy-
Can you base your argument on more than the "truthiness" you hold in your heart? - 4NDr01D, on 10/12/2007, -2/+29at least he didnt end up dead in the woods like
Iraq WMD critic Dr David Kelly from the UK - sharpfork, on 10/12/2007, -2/+27He gives specific examples of the bush administration censoring his NYT op-ed by saying information is classified when it is clearly in the public domain at this point. He asserts that one of the bits of information bush is using to censor his op-ed it that "we had a dialog with Iran over Afghanistan." He explains that this bit of information has been talked about by Rice and has been cleared on two other occasions by the white house. Now that they don't like this guys opinion its classified...
- whereisian, on 10/12/2007, -8/+31Is anyone critical of the Bush Administration a liberal in your mind? Is half the Republican party liberal?
- spengy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Too bad he won't publish it anyway and let the courts decide.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16Gross. Unethical. Unconstitutional.
- JeffH, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13If it really isn't classified information, then why does he hesitate to publish it? If they tried to prosecute him, he could win the lawsuit if he is so sure it's not classified information.
- kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13You can be right, be sure you're right, and still spend the next five years in prison proving that you're not. Sure, he may not be court martialed and executed as a traitor, but he could spend years in jail just for publishing an article. Not everyone is willing to gamble a few years of complete loss of freedom, not to mention their livelihood, etc. to make a point. Fact is, they shouldn't have to. America didn't used to be a country that imprisoned people for writing opinion columns, until these dark days.
Would I like him to toe the line, risk his freedom and career, and see what he has to say? Sure. But I sure as hell don't blame him for not single-handedly marching into certain arrest and imprisonment.
When was the last time you spent a year in prison to stand up for your beliefs? - whereisian, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16Because he would have been sued. That was the whole point! He said what he could.
- kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16Why does the Bush administration hate freedom so much?
- jedikd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12gotta love the irony of banning articles/speech that one finds distasteful on a user-driven site
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9@4NDr01D
Don't even get me started on Kelly...
(oops, too late)
the number of holes in this case (and the subsequent Hutton enquiry) beggars belief.
His body was found, wrist slit, at around 9am, 18 hours after his disappearance, by 2 search volunteer, propped up against a tree.
They called in to the local Police headquarters, and almost immediately were met by 3 officers, who took over the scene. When the Police arrived from the station, 20-odd minuted later, they found the 3 officers there, and the body was flat on its back, although they state they never moved anything. Also, those 3 officers were not part of the search team, and have never offered a reason for being at the scene, except with reference to 'TVP Tactical Support Major Incident Policy Book·Between 1430 17.07.03 and 930 18.07.03. DCI Alan Young. It is labelled not for release - Police operational information.' (The time of 14:30 on the 17th is almost an hour BEFORE Dr Kelly went missing)
The paramedics on the scene both stated that the small amount of blood at the scene was not consistent with a severed artery. To die from blood loss in this manner, there should have been around 5 pints of blood at the scene.
- "There was a small patch [of blood] on his right, knee, but no arterial bleeding. There was no spraying of the blood or huge blood loss or any obvious loss on his clothing."
Strangely, the forensic pathologist who performed the autopsy described 'copious amounts of blood' at the scene, as did the forensic biologist. Both these forensic experts worked for a private company.
The Hutton inquiry was informed that an empty bottle of water and three empty packets of Co-Proxamol was found at the scene, yet the 2 searchers who first arrived at the scene state they were not there when they found him. The autopsy revealed only 1 tablet in Kelly's blood.
As for the slit wrist, is was cut from the inside out, which is not the way a person would cut their own wrist, that would be from the outside moving in (try it!), and the main radial artery was not cut, only the ulnar artery, which is almost impossible to bleed to death from (it closes quickly as blood pressure drops, due to its small size and thin walls).
Never mind that two of the main witnesses for the Government in the Hutton enquiry both received OBE's that year, and the man who wrote the original dossier the whole affair started with was subsequently made head of MI6, even though he admitted making last-minute changes to the dossier at the suggestion of Number 10's Chief of Staff, because it played into the hands of anti-war groups.
Nice world we live in, isn't it...? - wslack, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11I care what he thinks because he's a former CIA analyst, not because of his political positions. Don't judge the value of someone's opinions down because you disagree with them.
- NixonLives, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Honestly, if you don't like reading political news on DIGG, take the time that it took to write a comment on it and put that towards your Fox News-watchin. There you will find news as you like it: less truth and more explosions.
- Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10He should get an impartial panel of Republican judicial appointees to review his case in secret and issue a secret ruling. He can wait in Gitmo while they review his claims. It's win-win!
- kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11The man hates freedom almost as much as the president himself. Wants everyone else to do things his way.
Nothing worse than a petty tyrant. - JeffH, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Well he seems damn confident that the info is NOT classified. So instead of confirming that for himself by publishing it, he's pussing out and blaming Bush.
So he'll be thrown in jail and win an appeal and get out. If what he is saying isn't complete *****, there's no reason to NOT publish it. Because no matter what happened he could get out of it. So that means he's not sure if he's right or wrong, so he's not going to publish the information. - JohnnyZito, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This isn't gonna get any press because he can't even talk about what he can't talk about.
- wslack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I'm not sure you understand the agreements that the CIA makes with former employees about publishing. They're VERY strict. The Bush administration isn't threatening to prosecute/sue for releasing sensitive data. They're going into a logical CIA process with some VERY serious potential consequences and using it to silence dissent.
Just think about what kind of punishments there would be for former CIA people publishing stuff marked as classified without permission.
And to the above: I think the question is who is holding him to those standards, and what interests they might have. - zediker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@JeffH:
Hes afraid of something called the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Something the 109th congress let pass for some insane reason.
Essentially, if Bush thinks there is classified info in this article, and Flynt Leverett releases it to the public, Bush may label Flynt as an 'Enemy Combatant' (the MC2006 definition is vague enough that it can apply to Flynt) and then 'legaly' dissapear him.
No, this isnt paranoia. This is the new law... - kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12Because the president of the US threatened to arrest and imprison him if he did?
Not everyone has a journalists courage to stare down the most powerful regime in the world, you know. - williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@loveWide
I voted for Bush, twice, too.
I wan to see him dragged out of office in handcuffs for ***** up the Republican Party if nothing else.
Worst. *****. Ever. - EntropyFan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Courts? WTF are you talking about?
Those that determine what is classified and what is not have decided.
It doesn't matter if they decided with a god damn dart board, you talk about it, they can hang you(literally) - tyho, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Exactly right. He does go into great detail of what the administration has supposedly threatened him not to print. So is he being sued by the government now? Nope.
The guy is an obvious *****. His body language screams liar with all his, fidgeting, swaying, and wringing his hands. There is nothing in the video that backs-up the claim the administration has done something illegal.
I wish all the people that hate and prejudge the administration would just stop and use their brains once in a while. There is no shortage of stupidity in either party. - badken, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Apparently the Politburo does not agree with the writings of Comrade Leverett. He will be vacationing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge soon.
- theoverlord, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is the piece that he wrote for the Century Foundation (as he mentions in the video).
http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=PB&pubid=595
And a direct link to the PDF:
http://tcf.org/publications/internationalaffairs/leverett_diplomatic.pdf - kitchenni, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2well i mean dont you want to hope it isnt the entire administration like the higher up people more likely but not the whole thing. plus Bush is just fun to single out. You gotta admit he is a very comical character.
- Nonleg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Actually, one of an analyst's primary jobs is to write, and write effectively. As an analyst, your basic job is to digest information, separate the wheat from the chaff, and then deliver the important bits upward. You couldn't get an internship at the CIA writing like that.
You merely stamp his comments as "valid" because they affirm your pre-conceived notions. - spengy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@EntropyFan
I may be wrong, but I think it's customary to have a trial... - catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is kind of cool. Can I be a victim too? I have a lot of things to say and if we make it like someone is trying to silence me, people will think its more important.
- atb12688, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You guys criticize Bush and everything but you don't take into account that Putin is basically a total dictator and none of you care? Bush isn't doing what Putin has been doing and i think i can say that is fact...He may not be great but he is no dictator and he certainly isn't as bad as the RIAA and the MPAA...
- EntropyFan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@physphd
Yes, if you are on the side of the current administration, it is not often prosecuted.
Actually, in high profile cases, rarely do you see the gov. seek anything like hanging. Ending your career? Making sure you never work in the field you’re a professional? That happens.
@Mr.Ortiz
The CIA does not decide what is classified. They can recommend. They can advise. Not their call, however. - Nonleg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sirloin, for a "CIA analyst" you sure do have a piss poor grammar. And, you're violating the "rules;" the CIA prefers that even when you apply for a job, you think long and hard before even revealing that to extended family, let alone a bunch of random mo-fos on a bulletin board. You're one of those people that rides the Metro, always talking a little too loud about where you supposedly work.
- EntropyFan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@spengy
Yes, it is. At said trial, the judge asks if you released classified information. Did you?
Hang this fella and next ***** case.
It doesn't matter if it is Bush's favorite movie; if the information is classified, you can be prosecuted for treason for releasing it. - physphd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5"if the information is classified, you can be prosecuted for treason for releasing it."
You mean like releasing the name of an under-cover CIA officer? We saw how that went.
Face it, it's all subjective and often not prosecuted because to do so would be an admission that the information was accurate in the first place. - drakethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2He hesitates because the US courts have been overly sympathetic to the classified info routine. While this may be obvious in his mind why risk it over making a point as someone mentioned earlier. After all when the prosecution is the leader of the country you live in, it takes some guts to stand up agianst him.
- marcushe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3yea, take one for the team buddy
- monkeyness, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2He was clearly very nervous giving that speech, and I don't blame him.
- twinklyJesus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Do you actually think that if Bush wanted this guy hushed up, he'd be on ***** youtube? He be missing. His face would be on a milk carton right now instead of the internet. I'm sure there are lots of things people could legitimately say, but Bush shut him up, but its ON THE INTERNET, really is *****.
- Eicos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+31. The courts do not determine what is classified. Generally, that is done by the executive branch. The bench can order the executive to declassify material, but the Bush administration has routinely defied such checks.
2. While it is a criminal offense to improperly reveal classified material, it is /not/ treason, and the punishment is /not/ death. - Cutter, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1This video has been removed due to terms of use violation. ----what a shock.
- coyotemarten, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@drmangrum...
Bush is your APPOINTED leader! Sorry to burst your bubble!
/deep sarchasm - justinmt7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Who is this guy to decide what's classified and what's not? He's just trying to stir up publicity so people will buy his book.
- Skeptic8536, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The guy in the video is painful to listen to. Why does he make strange pauses after every phrase? Once you get past his horrendously inarticulate speech, what he is saying is really scary though. I wonder how many others Bust has tried to silence.
- giantkicks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1from theoverlord's links:
"Flynt Leverett is a senior fellow and director of the Geopolitics of Energy Initiative in the American
Strategy Program at the New America Foundation. He is also a visiting professor of political science at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Between 1992 and 2003, he had a distinguished career in
government, serving as senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council, Middle
East expert on the secretary of state’s Policy Planning Staff, and senior analyst at the Central
Intelligence Agency. He is the author of Inheriting Syria: Bashar’s Trial by Fire (Brookings Institution
Press, 2005), a study of politics and policymaking in Syria that also offers recommendations for U.S.
policy toward this critical country. He has published numerous articles on Middle Eastern regional
security, intelligence reform, and other issues and is a popular guest on broadcast news and talk
programs. " - LoveWidescreen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3And that's different from Digg users burying comments of dissenting views HOW????
- twinklyJesus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah, the "small difference" is that youtube has more viewers than NYT has subscribers...dumbass.
- Mr.Ortiz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Or he could be declared an enemy combatant, shipped to a secret prison in Estonia, beaten to death and buried in an unmarked grave without ever being charged with a crime. It's happened before... (God bless America).
- pyry, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This isn't Fark. ;)
-
Show 51 - 96 of 96 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is