Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 47

Thread: Romney Blasts Security Leaks as an Obama Betrayal

  1. #21
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    7,953
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by parafly View Post
    In a world of perpetual and undeclared war in the name of terror where the executive branch has unprecedented and growing power, I am willing to become a bit more lax in my opposition to national security leaks and making accusations of treason.

    We're getting to a point where non-disclosure is the treasonous act.
    I.e. I'm cool when 'D' does it, my opinion will swiftly change if Romney is elected...

    Hilarious.

  2. #22
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,901
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite View Post
    I.e. I'm cool when 'D' does it, my opinion will swiftly change if Romney is elected...

    Hilarious.
    Not even close, but believe whatever you want.

  3. #23
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,479
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite View Post
    I.e. I'm cool when 'D' does it, my opinion will swiftly change if Romney is elected...

    Hilarious.
    No, as in he's not particularly comfortable with obama or anyone else saying "trust me" on drone strikes.

    I disagree with him on substance, but thats about as far from "if D does it, it's ok" as you can get.

    Personally, the bin laden victory lap only bothered me for the cavalier attitude it showed towards classified data; none of the operational details really compromised national security.

    But blabbing about the documents we discovered there? Burning our inside man? Burning the british double agent in yemen?

    Those were all leaks that obviously and legitimately harmed national security, and for no reason but political gain. There was no public "need to know" about our agents in al qaeda, no public need to know about docs gathered from the pakistan raid.

    Those leaks were patriotic?!

  4. #24
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    19,539
    Post Thanks / Like
    Unfortunately, in this day and age I think leaks will become commonplace no matter who is in office. Advances in technology help the bad guys just as much as they help the good guys.

  5. #25
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,901
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    No, as in he's not particularly comfortable with obama or anyone else saying "trust me" on drone strikes.

    I disagree with him on substance, but thats about as far from "if D does it, it's ok" as you can get.

    Personally, the bin laden victory lap only bothered me for the cavalier attitude it showed towards classified data; none of the operational details really compromised national security.

    But blabbing about the documents we discovered there? Burning our inside man? Burning the british double agent in yemen?

    Those were all leaks that obviously and legitimately harmed national security, and for no reason but political gain. There was no public "need to know" about our agents in al qaeda, no public need to know about docs gathered from the pakistan raid.

    Those leaks were patriotic?!
    I was making a general comment, not really focusing on specific cases. Of course there are examples of unnecessary and possibly even illegal leaks in this administration and I disagree with them fully.

    Just saying we are living in times where not all leaks are bad and some may even be necessary. The power being exhibited by the executive branch is growing and pushing the limits constitutionally and morally. The framework and balance of governmental power was structured intelligently during the early stages of our country, and in my opinion, it's changing in a very dangerous way.

    With the power shifting in relatively radical fashion in recent years, I am more accepting of leaks as a necessary evil to keep an administration in check.

  6. #26
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,521
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by brady's a catcher View Post
    Wow....just wow. I would say "traitor", myself. How is that patriotic, even a little bit?
    Did you read that article?

    President Obama is conducting what are quite literally drone assassinations of suspected terrorists. The way the civilian casualties, or rather "collateral damage" as we see fit to call them, are calculated involves a formula that tallies all "men of military age" as enemy combatants in a strike zone.

    I have trouble with this myself. On the one hand, I've always thought it far better to combat Al Qaeda directly with targeted strikes than to invade, occupy, police and nurse failed states into functioning democracies capable of adequately policing themselves. On the other hand, the notion that President Obama and the 'whatever name I can't recall now' council that looks at dossiers with photos of men and decides in a White House or Pentagon boardroom, who carries enough suspicion of terrorism or ties to terrorism, to warrant sending our drones to kill them and anyone unlucky enough to be in the same place at the same time, is disturbing.

    What I don't have trouble with is its leaking. The leaking is strategically unimportant as it is a drone program, and therefore not an inherent risk to American personell, and furthermore, knowing that the President of the United States is having a council on it does not give those on the receiving end any tactical advantage against a small robot plane showing up one day in the sky that will kill you before you see it.

    It's also interesting how Romney has not mentioned it one bit, as he might be expecting to use the same process one day, if elected. The drone program seems to be eminently successful against Al Qaeda. And perhaps it might survive under some technicality of interpretation of US law, but I'm still torn on the morality of it all.

    Either way, I don't think it's treasonous to leak the President's decision process in carrying out drone assassinations.

    As to Doggin, I only consider those person(s) who leaked this particular story true patriots. Not all leaks are equal. The doctor in Pakistan was regrettable, along with the MI6 agent. Those are not the same, I think, than this -

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/wo...pagewanted=all
    Last edited by SafetyBlitz; 07-26-2012 at 08:10 PM.

  7. #27
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,725
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by parafly View Post
    In a world of perpetual and undeclared war in the name of terror where the executive branch has unprecedented and growing power, I am willing to become a bit more lax in my opposition to national security leaks and making accusations of treason.

    We're getting to a point where non-disclosure is the treasonous act.
    See, you've got it backwards.

    The answer to an over-powered War-Hungry Executive, is the original Constitutional method.

    War is declared by Congress.

    Only.

    No Congress. No Declaration. No War. No Millitary Action.

    A solution, without need of extensive leaks.

  8. #28
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,901
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    See, you've got it backwards.

    The answer to an over-powered War-Hungry Executive, is the original Constitutional method.

    War is declared by Congress.

    Only.

    No Congress. No Declaration. No War. No Millitary Action.

    A solution, without need of extensive leaks.
    I agree with you, but we have to deal with the reality of the situation and the cards that are currently on the table.

    When was the last time Congress declared war? How many military operations have we been involved in since that time?

    There is a discussion to be had about ideals and proper protocols. It's an entirely different conversation dealing with the actual circumstances surrounding us.

  9. #29
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by parafly View Post
    I agree with you, but we have to deal with the reality of the situation and the cards that are currently on the table.

    When was the last time Congress declared war? How many military operations have we been involved in since that time?

    There is a discussion to be had about ideals and proper protocols. It's an entirely different conversation dealing with the actual circumstances surrounding us.

    All that said, NOTHING shoud EVER be said about the internal elements of any military operation. Or strategic plans.
    An idiot can piece togeter elements to undermine your network and forecast future plans.

  10. #30
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,901
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    All that said, NOTHING shoud EVER be said about the internal elements of any military operation. Or strategic plans.
    An idiot can piece togeter elements to undermine your network and forecast future plans.
    This is where I disagree. "Nothing ever" is very concrete language.

    I am grateful for the drone and kill list leaks. I believe that the compromise to national security was held to acceptable levels, and this knowledge has been a factor in my decision to not give Obama my vote in November.

    Keep the ever growing executive branch in check. If Congress won't do it, then I'd rather have leaks and the populace not be completely kept in the dark.

    In my mind, it's give and take and needs to be judged by a case by case basis.

  11. #31
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,725
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by parafly View Post
    I agree with you, but we have to deal with the reality of the situation and the cards that are currently on the table.

    When was the last time Congress declared war? How many military operations have we been involved in since that time?

    There is a discussion to be had about ideals and proper protocols. It's an entirely different conversation dealing with the actual circumstances surrounding us.
    Agreed, reluctantly.

    Trouble is, when we start "dealing with the world as it is", we've already lost ever goign back to the old, better, way of doing something IMO.

  12. #32
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by parafly View Post
    This is where I disagree. "Nothing ever" is very concrete language.

    I am grateful for the drone and kill list leaks. I believe that the compromise to national security was held to acceptable levels, and this knowledge has been a factor in my decision to not give Obama my vote in November.

    Keep the ever growing executive branch in check. If Congress won't do it, then I'd rather have leaks and the populace not be completely kept in the dark.

    In my mind, it's give and take and needs to be judged by a case by case basis.
    Can not agree. Or with Warfish's follow.
    Please not I said INTERNAL elements. That means how we did something. "Here are the types of weapons we used. Here's how we found out. These are the units employed". Never should be said.
    Should be: "We had a mission and killed 25 Taliban". Or "Destroyed a strategic weapons site".
    We analyhze every bit of traffic an opponent has to put together tendencies. An opponent can also. Never shortchange your enemy. "He could be taping your practice?"

  13. #33
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,901
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Trouble is, when we start "dealing with the world as it is", we've already lost ever goign back to the old, better, way of doing something IMO.
    I have to disagree. The only way to enact real change is to intelligently and strategically deal with the world as it is. Study, understand, absorb, and plan the best path forward to realize your desires.

  14. #34
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,901
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    Can not agree. Or with Warfish's follow.
    Please not I said INTERNAL elements. That means how we did something. "Here are the types of weapons we used. Here's how we found out. These are the units employed". Never should be said.
    Should be: "We had a mission and killed 25 Taliban". Or "Destroyed a strategic weapons site".
    We analyhze every bit of traffic an opponent has to put together tendencies. An opponent can also. Never shortchange your enemy. "He could be taping your practice?"
    I agree with you about frivolous and unwarranted leaks which served little to no purpose for the greater good.

    I do not place the drone and kill list leaks in this category.

  15. #35
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,725
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by parafly View Post
    I have to disagree. The only way to enact real change is to intelligently and strategically deal with the world as it is. Study, understand, absorb, and plan the best path forward to realize your desires.
    Well, tell me, how does dealing with the world as it is mean we cannot go back to a "Congrss Only Declares War, Without Which No War" situation?

    Or are you just using "deal with the world as it is" as a shield for not having to put effort into doing the right thing or going back to a better way of business?

    I'm admittedly confused.

  16. #36
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,901
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Well, tell me, how does dealing with the world as it is mean we cannot go back to a "Congrss Only Declares War, Without Which No War" situation?

    Or are you just using "deal with the world as it is" as a shield for not having to put effort into doing the right thing or going back to a better way of business?

    I'm admittedly confused.
    Sorry for not being clearer.

    It is very difficult to successfully move the country toward your ideal (whatever it may be) without having a full grasp of the current functions and operations surrounding you.

    You can't change the status quo if you do not understand how the status quo works.

  17. #37
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,725
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by parafly View Post
    Sorry for not being clearer.

    It is very difficult to successfully move the country toward your ideal (whatever it may be) without having a full grasp of the current functions and operations surrounding you.

    You can't change the status quo if you do not understand how the status quo works.
    Well, obviously.

    My point was that when politicians say "we have to deal with the world as it is", it is more often than not cover-language for "sorry, we're not going back to the old way so gfy".

    We, voters, cannot fall into that same trap. If the old way (Congress and Declared wars) was the better way, and I maintain it was, then no, I don;t need to deal with things are they are today, I need to pressure my Government to go back to the way it was yesterday.

    Obviously one must know what today is and yesterday was and what tomorrow could be based off today to know the best course in ones own view.

  18. #38
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    7,194
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    Did you read that article?

    President Obama is conducting what are quite literally drone assassinations of suspected terrorists. The way the civilian casualties, or rather "collateral damage" as we see fit to call them, are calculated involves a formula that tallies all "men of military age" as enemy combatants in a strike zone.

    I have trouble with this myself. On the one hand, I've always thought it far better to combat Al Qaeda directly with targeted strikes than to invade, occupy, police and nurse failed states into functioning democracies capable of adequately policing themselves. On the other hand, the notion that President Obama and the 'whatever name I can't recall now' council that looks at dossiers with photos of men and decides in a White House or Pentagon boardroom, who carries enough suspicion of terrorism or ties to terrorism, to warrant sending our drones to kill them and anyone unlucky enough to be in the same place at the same time, is disturbing.

    What I don't have trouble with is its leaking. The leaking is strategically unimportant as it is a drone program, and therefore not an inherent risk to American personell, and furthermore, knowing that the President of the United States is having a council on it does not give those on the receiving end any tactical advantage against a small robot plane showing up one day in the sky that will kill you before you see it.

    It's also interesting how Romney has not mentioned it one bit, as he might be expecting to use the same process one day, if elected. The drone program seems to be eminently successful against Al Qaeda. And perhaps it might survive under some technicality of interpretation of US law, but I'm still torn on the morality of it all.

    Either way, I don't think it's treasonous to leak the President's decision process in carrying out drone assassinations.

    As to Doggin, I only consider those person(s) who leaked this particular story true patriots. Not all leaks are equal. The doctor in Pakistan was regrettable, along with the MI6 agent. Those are not the same, I think, than this -

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/wo...pagewanted=all

    I did read the article, and it was very interesting. Other than the fact that it creates more terrorists than it kills, I have no issue with drone strikes. In fact, I think Pakistan and Yemen would make terrific uninhabited parking lots.

    In any case, how is the leaker patriotic exactly?

  19. #39
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,901
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Well, obviously.

    My point was that when politicians say "we have to deal with the world as it is", it is more often than not cover-language for "sorry, we're not going back to the old way so gfy".

    We, voters, cannot fall into that same trap. If the old way (Congress and Declared wars) was the better way, and I maintain it was, then no, I don;t need to deal with things are they are today, I need to pressure my Government to go back to the way it was yesterday.

    Obviously one must know what today is and yesterday was and what tomorrow could be based off today to know the best course in ones own view.
    We are in agreement on both fronts, simply interpreting "dealing with the world as it is" under different circumstances.

  20. #40
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,725
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by parafly View Post
    We are in agreement on both fronts, simply interpreting "dealing with the world as it is" under different circumstances.
    Mokay, thats what I kinda thought.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us