"So you are saying that a reporter has no moral obligation to not print information that may cause the death of another human being?"
It is my opinion that a reporter should report, truthfully and honestly, everything they feel is newsworthy. They should use their best judgement on what to report, vis a vis repercussions of the reporting, and they should err on the side of getting the information out there.
"Just because a reporter learns in confidence a person is say..."
If a government official with security clearance does not want classified information to be printed in the press, perhaps they shouldn't tell reporters the classified information. Perhaps they shouldn't tell multiple reporters on multiple occasions.
"So where do you draw the line.."
I would use my best judgement based on the circumstances. Give me some circumstances, and I'll tell you where I draw the line.
Ooof
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
-
Lothar
- DBB Ghost Admin
- Posts: 12133
- Joined: Thu Nov 05, 1998 12:01 pm
- Location: I'm so glad to be home
- Contact:
I can't help but notice people completely ignoring the one post here by someone who actually knows the way classified information is handled.
Classified data is not commonly known among reporters. People don't give out classified data by accident. If a reporter calls the CIA and tells them he's going to publish classified data, they'll make sure the men in black suits tell him in no uncertain terms how bad it will be for him if he tries to publish. If Plame really was classified, dozens of layers of security protocols had to be f***ed up by dozens of people (including Joe Wilson) for that info to become as common as it was, and furthermore, the f*** ups had to go unnoticed for years.
I simply don't believe that can happen, given my (extremly) limited knowledge of the way classified info is handled. If Plame's employment info or status was classified, whether or not she was "covert", there simply isn't any possibility Novak could call the CIA and say what he said and still come away with the impression that publishing was OK.
Classified data is not commonly known among reporters. People don't give out classified data by accident. If a reporter calls the CIA and tells them he's going to publish classified data, they'll make sure the men in black suits tell him in no uncertain terms how bad it will be for him if he tries to publish. If Plame really was classified, dozens of layers of security protocols had to be f***ed up by dozens of people (including Joe Wilson) for that info to become as common as it was, and furthermore, the f*** ups had to go unnoticed for years.
I simply don't believe that can happen, given my (extremly) limited knowledge of the way classified info is handled. If Plame's employment info or status was classified, whether or not she was "covert", there simply isn't any possibility Novak could call the CIA and say what he said and still come away with the impression that publishing was OK.
welcome to politics. welcome to government. truth is it probably happens all the time. only this time it mattered. first, it was done maliciously. second, it wasn't overlooked (as is the norm) because it was done maliciously. hypocritical on both sides.Lothar wrote:I can't help but notice people completely ignoring the one post here by someone who actually knows the way classified information is handled.
Classified data is not commonly known among reporters. People don't give out classified data by accident. If a reporter calls the CIA and tells them he's going to publish classified data, they'll make sure the men in black suits tell him in no uncertain terms how bad it will be for him if he tries to publish. If Plame really was classified, dozens of layers of security protocols had to be f***ed up by dozens of people (including Joe Wilson) for that info to become as common as it was, and furthermore, the f*** ups had to go unnoticed for years.
I simply don't believe that can happen, given my (extremly) limited knowledge of the way classified info is handled. If Plame's employment info or status was classified, whether or not she was "covert", there simply isn't any possibility Novak could call the CIA and say what he said and still come away with the impression that publishing was OK.
you go on preferring the puppet on the right.
So you are saying those who divulge classified information should be punished. Do you suppose whoever leaked the classified info that the CIA had secret interrogation centers in certain foreign countries will be sought with the same verve as the Plame leak witch hunt? I'm not holding my breath.Vander wrote:As the Libby indictment points out, Plame's occupation was classified at the time the White House told reporters. Her status may not have met the requirements for prosecution under Intelligence Identities Protection Act, but her occupation was classified.
Sure, whoever divulged that classified info should be treated like any other person divulging classified information: they should face the legal ramifications for doing such a thing. But I don't think there is strict moral equivelency in the leaking of any classified information. Some leaks have greater moral justification than others. One would hope the legal system would take this into consideration at some point in the procedings. Whether or not it does, I don't know.
Lets say someone leaked that the CIA was spiking the nations water supply with a mind control drug. Do you punish the leaker? Or do you consider him a hero?
Lets say someone leaked that the CIA was spiking the nations water supply with a mind control drug. Do you punish the leaker? Or do you consider him a hero?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051110/ap_ ... estigation
Wow, the GOP leadership is quick when trying to change the subject of leaks.
Wow, the GOP leadership is quick when trying to change the subject of leaks.
Lets say someone leaked that a interrogator was horribly abusing a prisoner, naming who the prisoner was and where it happened. Turns out though the prisoner had info on where and how a dirty bomb was going to be planted. Because of the leak, the bomb cell is now warned. Do you consider the leaker a hero for report abuse? Or do you punish him.Vander wrote:Lets say someone leaked that the CIA was spiking the nations water supply with a mind control drug. Do you punish the leaker? Or do you consider him a hero?
I suppose we can do a enless what if game. The problem here are leaks trying to give one party or the other a black eye but putting the country at risk by doing so.
In your instance Vander, the guy should be treated as someone worthy of respect.
Hmm, provocative scenario. I would have to say punish him. Not because he reported the abuse, but because he named the abusee. He could have done only the former. I think the latter could even be considered espionage.
One would hope that the legal punishment a leaker opens himself up to would foster deep consideration on just what it is he's about to do. (limit unintended consequences) If they accept that danger, perhaps feeling morally justified doing what they're doing, then let the chips fall where they may.
One would hope that the legal punishment a leaker opens himself up to would foster deep consideration on just what it is he's about to do. (limit unintended consequences) If they accept that danger, perhaps feeling morally justified doing what they're doing, then let the chips fall where they may.