From: "Mark" 

No problem Rich. Get em all! I do agree that different instances will have
different repurcussions based on the underlying fact set, but it is not up
to those that have the information to take it upon themselves to decide
what is damaging and what isn't.

"Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
news:43c70071{at}w3.nls.net...
>
> "Mark"  wrote in message
news:43c6fe48$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>
>> "Robert G Lewis"  wrote in message
>> news:43c6f754$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>
>>> "George Sherwood" 
wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2006.01.13.00.33.12.734094{at}beernabeer.com...
>>>> On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 18:02:02 -0600, Robert G Lewis wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What damage has he really caused ? I haven't seen where he has
>>>>> released any
>>>>> specific information about how we are doing any of this. The
>>>>> information
>>>>> that we are monitoring groups or have the ability to intercept
>>>>> communications is certainly no secret.  Anyone who
thinks they aren't
>>>>> /
>>>>> can't be monitored hasn't been paying attention for
about the last 20
>>>>> or so
>>>>> years.
>>>>>
>>>>> If he has actually published operational details then
it may be a
>>>>> different
>>>>> story.
>>>>
>>>> I meant to add that one of the basic rules when you are
given access to
>>>> classified material at any level that if there is speculation out
>>>> there (such as you typed above) you are not allowed to confirm or
>>>> comment.
>>>> It is something drilled into you.  It is clear he broke
the law. If you
>>>> are being asked to do something you think is illegal there
are always
>>>> channels within the classified system to air these grievances. Just
>>>> because the lawyers tell you that you are wrong doesn't give you the
>>>> right
>>>> to go public with the classified information.  He should be in jail.
>>>>
>>>> George
>>>
>>> Pity they don't seem to want to apply those rules to the politicians
>>> with access to the information who have leaked it.
>>
>> This hasn't finished playing out yet, don't be surprised if some are.
>> Last time, when one of them got caught leaking, he was removed from the
>> intelligence committee and we weren't at war, the consequences this time
>> will (or should be) higher.
>>
>>
>
> Then let's also punish those idiots who leak intelligence info that shows
> what a good job an administration is doing.
> Where's the hunt for the 'nuclear tubes' leak?  < it was a 'secret'
> meeting>
>
>
> "'In the summer of 2002, [Deputy Defense Secretary Paul] Wolfowitz
> convened a secret meeting [concerning the tubes] in his office with
> Francis Brooke, the I.N.C. adviser, and Khidir Hamza, a former chief of
> Saddam's nuclear program, who had defected to America in 1994 . . .
> Wolfowitz circulated his conclusions to his administration allies. A few
> days later, the story of the "nuclear" tubes was leaked to
The New York
> Times, where it landed on the front page.'
>
>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5