KurtNYC
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-28-05 08:07 AM
Original message |
Why are WE calling it a "leak"? |
|
As usual the lapdog media downplays yet another major scandal in the most neutral terms they can. The term "leak" implies something done by: - one person acting alone - an anonymous source who leaks information to help their side
Neither of those is true in this case.
This was a group of people who have followed a pattern of punishing people who tell the truth. They are not anonymous. This was calculated action by a group of people who embodied the idea that a liar can be discredited but a truth-teller must be destroyed.
And most importantly, the laws designed to protect covert agents address a well-founded concern that revealing or confirming their identity as agents potentially: - puts their life in jeopardy - puts their contacts lives in danger - destroys them as assets of intelligence gathering - demoralizes others who work in similar circumstances - makes sources less willing to cooperate
"Leak" is far too neutral a term for actions that would more appropriately be called a treasonous outing.
|
Nicholas D Wolfwood
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-28-05 08:13 AM
Response to Original message |
1. Well, to be honest, you answered your own question in the 3rd line |
|
- an anonymous source who leaks information to help their side
That's exactly what happened here. Everything else is conspiracy, which I might add is also being mentioned.
|
Bernardo de La Paz
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-28-05 08:25 AM
Response to Original message |
2. Yeah and it is not a CIA leak, it is a WhiteHouse breach of secrecy. |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sun May 05th 2024, 11:26 AM
Response to Original message |