Critical CIA Operative outted by White House Social Media Feed (1 Viewer)

[[icon]]

http://mashable.com/2011/07/12/cia-john-flickr/#13467Obama-and-Staff-in-the-Situation-Room

Oops.

 

[Sabertooth]

 

[Limp Ditka]

Isn't this the second time something like this happened under this administration?

 

[Hawks64]

Yeah big

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

wtf... BS on the 'sleuthy' media guy. That is one area where he might have committed a crime/national security etc.I almost support no restriction on the media, but that guy might deserve time.

 

[bueno]

Now imagine it was only Valerie Plame....

 

[biggamer3]

Yeah how did the media guy score interviews, he should be held for questioning for 3 weeks

 

[IvanKaramazov]

wtf... BS on the 'sleuthy' media guy. That is one area where he might have committed a crime/national security etc.I almost support no restriction on the media, but that guy might deserve time.

Why? The White House and/or CIA apparently made this guy available for a story by the AP. So a journalist gets curious and tries to figure out if he can spot this guy anywhere in materials the administration itself put out. You really want to send a journalist to prison for doing some detective work that you and I could have done without ever leaving our basement?

 

[jon_mx]

Journalist deserve jail time for making Obama look bad. Did he not read the MSM oath before doing this?

 

[NCCommish]

Now imagine it was only Valerie Plame....

Now imagine they outted him to silence a critic.

 

[NCCommish]

Certainly someone needs to lose their job. The original photo and the "removal" of the analyst was worse than amateurish. I see no reason to attack the journalist for something any of us could have done, as Ivan pointed out.

 

[wadegarrett]

I see no reason to attack the journalist for something any of us could have done, as Ivan pointed out.

 

[matuski]

ima go with "intentional."

 

[jon_mx]

Now imagine it was only Valerie Plame....

Now imagine they outted him to silence a critic.

Now imagine if the investigation proved otherwise.

 

[NCCommish]

ima go with "intentional."

I think that has to be a strong contender.

 

[NCCommish]

Now imagine it was only Valerie Plame....

Now imagine they outted him to silence a critic.

Now imagine if the investigation proved otherwise.

Now imagine all the people sharing all the world

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

wtf... BS on the 'sleuthy' media guy. That is one area where he might have committed a crime/national security etc.I almost support no restriction on the media, but that guy might deserve time.

Why? The White House and/or CIA apparently made this guy available for a story by the AP. So a journalist gets curious and tries to figure out if he can spot this guy anywhere in materials the administration itself put out. You really want to send a journalist to prison for doing some detective work that you and I could have done without ever leaving our basement?

Why? Because there is a compelling state interest in keeping active duty CIA operatives identities secret. Especially the 'brains' behind the tracking and killing of OBL. I'm pretty sure there are laws on disclosing this (IIRC that was what they were saying that Cheney violated in the plame case). The interest of Freedom of the Press here in outing a random operative, because he was able to piece together bits and pieces of BS is minimal at best. Great we get it, you're a real awesome 'detective'. When he noticed that glitch he should have notified the gov't so they could take down/scrub the pics, rather than out this guy who will likely soon have a jihad on his ### for almost no quantifiable benefit, save to embarrass whoever screwed up and posted these pics on twitter or whatever.Now like I said, I know the 1st amm has great power, and need. But this is one example where the balancing isn't even close when weighed against real national security interest.

 

[NCCommish]

wtf... BS on the 'sleuthy' media guy. That is one area where he might have committed a crime/national security etc.I almost support no restriction on the media, but that guy might deserve time.

Why? The White House and/or CIA apparently made this guy available for a story by the AP. So a journalist gets curious and tries to figure out if he can spot this guy anywhere in materials the administration itself put out. You really want to send a journalist to prison for doing some detective work that you and I could have done without ever leaving our basement?

Why? Because there is a compelling state interest in keeping active duty CIA operatives identities secret. Especially the 'brains' behind the tracking and killing of OBL. I'm pretty sure there are laws on disclosing this (IIRC that was what they were saying that Cheney violated in the plame case). The interest of Freedom of the Press here in outing a random operative, because he was able to piece together bits and pieces of BS is minimal at best. Great we get it, you're a real awesome 'detective'. When he noticed that glitch he should have notified the gov't so they could take down/scrub the pics, rather than out this guy who will likely soon have a jihad on his ### for almost no quantifiable benefit, save to embarrass whoever screwed up and posted these pics on twitter or whatever.Now like I said, I know the 1st amm has great power, and need. But this is one example where the balancing isn't even close when weighed against real national security interest.

Sorry buddy but this is ridiculous. You really think these photos weren't already analyzed by organizations both friendly and unfriendly to us? The pictures were out there, they weren't classified and this is what reporters do.

 

[[icon]]

Journalist deserve jail time for making Obama look bad. Did he not read the MSM oath before doing this?

Get your political juvenile slapfight BS out of my thread.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Certainly someone needs to lose their job. The original photo and the "removal" of the analyst was worse than amateurish. I see no reason to attack the journalist for something any of us could have done, as Ivan pointed out.

This could have been done in many other ways without isolating and pointing out the glitch, then naming the guy, offering even more clues to his identity and posting his picture on the article. IMHO that's irresponsible journalism. Since I don't practice federally, I don't know the ins and out of the CIA disclosure law, maybe someone else will. But I am more speaking from a position of what I feel he deserves, not necessarily what the law will punish. The ONLY possible benefit will be in 'whistleblowing' tightening up future jobs/edits etc, and that could have been accomplished easily without actually plastering a printable wanted poster that some dude in a cave in Afghanistan is now cross image searching google/facebook/classmates/college basketball sites to try and find his address to send him a few toner boxes for his computer.

 

[Jutz]

Is that the dude's grandma in the background? Oh SNAP! That's Hillary!

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

wtf... BS on the 'sleuthy' media guy. That is one area where he might have committed a crime/national security etc.I almost support no restriction on the media, but that guy might deserve time.

Why? The White House and/or CIA apparently made this guy available for a story by the AP. So a journalist gets curious and tries to figure out if he can spot this guy anywhere in materials the administration itself put out. You really want to send a journalist to prison for doing some detective work that you and I could have done without ever leaving our basement?

Why? Because there is a compelling state interest in keeping active duty CIA operatives identities secret. Especially the 'brains' behind the tracking and killing of OBL. I'm pretty sure there are laws on disclosing this (IIRC that was what they were saying that Cheney violated in the plame case). The interest of Freedom of the Press here in outing a random operative, because he was able to piece together bits and pieces of BS is minimal at best. Great we get it, you're a real awesome 'detective'. When he noticed that glitch he should have notified the gov't so they could take down/scrub the pics, rather than out this guy who will likely soon have a jihad on his ### for almost no quantifiable benefit, save to embarrass whoever screwed up and posted these pics on twitter or whatever.Now like I said, I know the 1st amm has great power, and need. But this is one example where the balancing isn't even close when weighed against real national security interest.

Sorry buddy but this is ridiculous. You really think these photos weren't already analyzed by organizations both friendly and unfriendly to us? The pictures were out there, they weren't classified and this is what reporters do.

they can 'scrub a pic'. The story still has legs if you 1st alert the govt. have them scrub the pics. Maybe post another 20-30 picks with guys with tall skinny build all wearing yellow ties etc. Then you run your story. Hypothetical: Media reporter is seaching the web and notices that some ####### at the U.S. Marshals. Witness protection service downloaded a torrent app and didn't close his peerblock etc. He has left open in his 'shared documents' a list of all the mafia and gang related witnesses from the East coast in 1000's of past and current trials.



Should he post the names and address of all of these witnesses (as well as current photos, contact info etc) or should he maybe contact the gov't so they can fix the glitch and THEN report on it without links to all of the confidential/relocated witnesses whose lives would surely be in danger if posted?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

[Why? Because there is a compelling state interest in keeping active duty CIA operatives identities secret.

The guy in question is not undercover. As the Observer article points out, he's an "overt" analyst at the CIA. I'll grant that in a case like this, the government may want to protect his identity anyway, but then they shouldn't be allowing the AP write up a national story about him.

I'm pretty sure there are laws on disclosing this (IIRC that was what they were saying that Cheney violated in the plame case).

Plame was allegedly undercover. (She wasn't really, but no need to rehash this). "John" isn't. That's a big distinction. As far as I can tell, nobody is even alleging that the blogger who spoted the photo or the Observer reporter who figured out his identity have done anything illegal.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

[Why? Because there is a compelling state interest in keeping active duty CIA operatives identities secret.

The guy in question is not undercover. As the Observer article points out, he's an "overt" analyst at the CIA. I'll grant that in a case like this, the government may want to protect his identity anyway, but then they shouldn't be allowing the AP write up a national story about him.

I'm pretty sure there are laws on disclosing this (IIRC that was what they were saying that Cheney violated in the plame case).

Plame was allegedly undercover. (She wasn't really, but no need to rehash this). "John" isn't. That's a big distinction. As far as I can tell, nobody is even alleging that the blogger who spoted the photo or the Observer reporter who figured out his identity have done anything illegal.

Ok, ig he is an Overt analyst I really have no gripe. But the impression I got was that his identity was previously classified.<div><br></div><div>Oh well one less thing to rant about.... </div>

 

[TPW]

Now imagine it was only Valerie Plame....

Indeed.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-26/obama-administration-exposes-kabul-cia-chief-accidentally-media-shrugs

The Obama Administration’s press service unwittingly put the real name of the CIA’s top spy in Afghanistan on the ‘pool report’ distributed among journalists accompanying the American president on a surprise trip to Kabul’s Bagram Airfield base.

Of course this type of thing will now be met with indifference and silence from the press and progressive chattering class instead of feigned outrage since Chimpy McBush-Hitler is no longer in office.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=963o0wHwhEU

 

[Abraham]

The military sent the list to the reporter. If the reporter had removed the name, the right would be flipping out about the media censoring the military.

 

[GroveDiesel]

The military sent the list to the reporter. If the reporter had removed the name, the right would be flipping out about the media censoring the military.

No, the military sent it to the White House's PR department who then distributed it to the media without making the edit.

And the media censors all sorts of critical security stuff all the time without a complaint from the Right. Remember when Geraldo Rivera gave away he positioning of troops during the war and the Right freaked out on him for not censoring that information?

It clearly was a mistake and not intentional, but that is a pretty high level of incompetence.

 

[Abraham]

The military sent the list to the reporter. If the reporter had removed the name, the right would be flipping out about the media censoring the military.

No, the military sent it to the White House's PR department who then distributed it to the media without making the edit.

And the media censors all sorts of critical security stuff all the time without a complaint from the Right. Remember when Geraldo Rivera gave away he positioning of troops during the war and the Right freaked out on him for not censoring that information?

It clearly was a mistake and not intentional, but that is a pretty high level of incompetence.

Agree with the bolded. Just pointing out that the discussion by Rush and his minions will be that the White House outted a CIA operative and "we need to find out why..." and "what is the AGENDA!!!@?!?@?!?" will be the refrain.

 

[Apple Jack]

Good ol' TPW.

 

[GroveDiesel]

The military sent the list to the reporter. If the reporter had removed the name, the right would be flipping out about the media censoring the military.

No, the military sent it to the White House's PR department who then distributed it to the media without making the edit.And the media censors all sorts of critical security stuff all the time without a complaint from the Right. Remember when Geraldo Rivera gave away he positioning of troops during the war and the Right freaked out on him for not censoring that information?

It clearly was a mistake and not intentional, but that is a pretty high level of incompetence.

Agree with the bolded. Just pointing out that the discussion by Rush and his minions will be that the White House outted a CIA operative and "we need to find out why..." and "what is the AGENDA!!!@?!?@?!?" will be the refrain.

Why don't we wait until they make a stupid comment before making our own?

 

[Fat Nick]

Reason #132 why I'm glad I didn't continue down that career path...