Very often...[we] cannot disclose.

Very often...[we] cannot disclose. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MrRodgers -> Very often...[we] cannot disclose. (6/24/2017 10:33:14 AM)
The discussion about the cyber intrusions and what U.S. intelligence agencies know about them goes directly to some of the most sensitive questions in the business: the best way to protect sources and methods, and how to use clandestinely acquired information to resolve a politically charged issue or even usable intel, protecting national security. Secrets intelligence agencies want to keep secrets but compete with an understandable desire to reveal them. Facts may help resolve the matter, but in revealing the facts, the government may also reveal how we got them. It is truly not an overstatement to say that technical capabilities we have spent years and millions to develop could be rendered useless in one news cycle if disclosure is not handled correctly. Worse, and I do not exaggerate, if it were human sources that provided the information, the probability goes way up that they are discovered and they could...lose their lives. During Watergate for example, at a time when almost all real dependable sources, were through human contact. Hence the dependency on the most famous modern anonymous source...Deep Throat, the true identity of whom was never disclosed until 30 years later. Not surprisingly, the republican establishment (right) painted him (Mark Felt) as a betrayer of Nixon and the repubs with his own vendetta. Never mind that the deputy dir. of the FBI was investigating real crimes that under our constitution, could not be brought against a sitting president. Disclosure was the only route to justice, which then did later produce what would have been real criminal charges against Nixon for which...Ford pardoned him. Where are the redeeming patriotic instincts and sentiments when the guilty 'party' (political or personal) describes a most valuable investigative source as a turncoat or even dirty cop ? Not very loyal at all. More concerned with power than country. What are we seeing now ? A far greater concern for getting who leaks, than...what is leaked.

vincentML -> RE: Very often...[we] cannot disclose. (6/24/2017 4:19:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers The discussion about the cyber intrusions and what U.S. intelligence agencies know about them goes directly to some of the most sensitive questions in the business: the best way to protect sources and methods, and how to use clandestinely acquired information to resolve a politically charged issue or even usable intel, protecting national security. Secrets intelligence agencies want to keep secrets but compete with an understandable desire to reveal them. Facts may help resolve the matter, but in revealing the facts, the government may also reveal how we got them. It is truly not an overstatement to say that technical capabilities we have spent years and millions to develop could be rendered useless in one news cycle if disclosure is not handled correctly. Worse, and I do not exaggerate, if it were human sources that provided the information, the probability goes way up that they are discovered and they could...lose their lives. During Watergate for example, at a time when almost all real dependable sources, were through human contact. Hence the dependency on the most famous modern anonymous source...Deep Throat, the true identity of whom was never disclosed until 30 years later. Not surprisingly, the republican establishment (right) painted him (Mark Felt) as a betrayer of Nixon and the repubs with his own vendetta. Never mind that the deputy dir. of the FBI was investigating real crimes that under our constitution, could not be brought against a sitting president. Disclosure was the only route to justice, which then did later produce what would have been real criminal charges against Nixon for which...Ford pardoned him. Where are the redeeming patriotic instincts and sentiments when the guilty 'party' (political or personal) describes a most valuable investigative source as a turncoat or even dirty cop ? Not very loyal at all. More concerned with power than country. What are we seeing now ? A far greater concern for getting who leaks, than...what is leaked. We are witnessing the political ploys of a panicky dead president squawking. Good OP, btw.

MrRodgers -> RE: Very often...[we] cannot disclose. (6/24/2017 8:11:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers The discussion about the cyber intrusions and what U.S. intelligence agencies know about them goes directly to some of the most sensitive questions in the business: the best way to protect sources and methods, and how to use clandestinely acquired information to resolve a politically charged issue or even usable intel, protecting national security. Secrets intelligence agencies want to keep secrets but compete with an understandable desire to reveal them. Facts may help resolve the matter, but in revealing the facts, the government may also reveal how we got them. It is truly not an overstatement to say that technical capabilities we have spent years and millions to develop could be rendered useless in one news cycle if disclosure is not handled correctly. Worse, and I do not exaggerate, if it were human sources that provided the information, the probability goes way up that they are discovered and they could...lose their lives. During Watergate for example, at a time when almost all real dependable sources, were through human contact. Hence the dependency on the most famous modern anonymous source...Deep Throat, the true identity of whom was never disclosed until 30 years later. Not surprisingly, the republican establishment (right) painted him (Mark Felt) as a betrayer of Nixon and the repubs with his own vendetta. Never mind that the deputy dir. of the FBI was investigating real crimes that under our constitution, could not be brought against a sitting president. Disclosure was the only route to justice, which then did later produce what would have been real criminal charges against Nixon for which...Ford pardoned him. Where are the redeeming patriotic instincts and sentiments when the guilty 'party' (political or personal) describes a most valuable investigative source as a turncoat or even dirty cop ? Not very loyal at all. More concerned with power than country. What are we seeing now ? A far greater concern for getting who leaks, than...what is leaked. We are witnessing the political ploys of a panicky dead president squawking. Good OP, btw. Thanx, I thought this apropos for our current times, white house crew...and congressional repubs. Plus I just read that since May, the west wing is a small cabal of ass-kissing sycophants, while the rest of it is walking around as if in a funeral march when not in shouting matches or damage control. They have a 'Twitter watch going.'

WickedsDesire -> RE: Very often...[we] cannot disclose. (6/25/2017 9:06:08 AM)
I myself have just obtained footage of Trumps meeting with the Russians in the white house

WhoreMods -> RE: Very often...[we] cannot disclose. (6/25/2017 9:08:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire I myself have just obtained footage of Trumps meeting with the Russians in the white house And that's why the white house visitor's book has been removed from the public record. Nothing to do with the possibility of angry lefties attacking el presidente's contacts because they put their full name and address in there on their way in...

WickedsDesire -> RE: Very often...[we] cannot disclose. (6/25/2017 9:11:40 AM)
I forgot about the shite-log book - maybe he ran out of the Constitution to wipe his arse with. ....and something about tax perhaps it will return to me....Any ideas yourself?

WhoreMods -> RE: Very often...[we] cannot disclose. (6/25/2017 9:17:55 AM)
He doesn't want people to be able to check who he's been receiving as visitors by looking at a visitor's book. Besides the whole Russian thing (which he seems to be leaving more to his son in law at the moment, in any case), there's the matter of recording evidence of conflicts of interest every time he's dealing with somebody about his business stuff in the white house, while he's supposed to be clocked in as the president, rather than working as a real estate developer. It's a bit like your boss catching you sneaking a couple of reams of copier paper and a spindle of blank DVD-Rs out of the office, only on a governmental level...

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875