[Schadenfreude]

[align=center][flash width=500 height=361]http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?&videoUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fvp.video.google.com%2Fvideodownload%3Fversion%3D0%26secureurl%3DtwAAAMGUmg76PQk3TClZ6pWs5vhxgn7QXjQ9q3NI0Yxt0BmaxiLg5EiXEKCbKfuFivHk_z1lzzvKHk5_SayXYD8kYv2lXjF0JQnKSKh7JA_Ck0ndnY-cmuV2wD8y7XVAT_PZUcrkIrixDAe8dk0YT0njJBAK_WR3h8dXuKMu1kqM1I9vJV_yRdvXOzUionfGjRXnJtd03_GR9W9B98h5GtrDCBaij17lZSWwfJjoholnIQ6LpbSw-DPYTmSbYBOx3RTLkQ%26sigh%3DcwHJ_XlBaAt3X8incPZRcsWXKPM%26begin%3D0%26len%3D3128266%26docid%3D1991080575212848283&thumbnailUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2FThumbnailServer2%3Fapp%3Dvss%26contentid%3D73e463c102402da8%26offsetms%3D270000%26itag%3Dw320%26lang%3Den%26sigh%3DL2KGvojgxHDie_JOmEIuTUVXAZk[/flash][/align]

Google Video: "Kill The Messenger"


How long can the MSM ignore it?

FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds spills her secrets

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('American Conservative', 'M')ost Americans have never heard of Sibel Edmonds, and if the U.S. government has its way, they never will. The former FBI translator turned whistleblower tells a chilling story of corruption at Washington’s highest levels—sale of nuclear secrets, shielding of terrorist suspects, illegal arms transfers, narcotics trafficking, money laundering, espionage. She may be a first-rate fabulist, but Edmonds’s account is full of dates, places, and names. And if she is to be believed, a treasonous plot to embed moles in American military and nuclear installations and pass sensitive intelligence to Israeli, Pakistani, and Turkish sources was facilitated by figures in the upper echelons of the State and Defense Departments. Her charges could be easily confirmed or dismissed if classified government documents were made available to investigators.

But Congress has refused to act, and the Justice Department has shrouded Edmonds’s case in the state-secrets privilege, a rarely used measure so sweeping that it precludes even a closed hearing attended only by officials with top-secret security clearances. According to the Department of Justice, such an investigation “could reasonably be expected to cause serious damage to the foreign policy and national security of the United States.”

After five years of thwarted legal challenges and fruitless attempts to launch a congressional investigation, Sibel Edmonds is telling her story, though her defiance could land her in jail...

[Schadenfreude]

Democratic Underground

[web]http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2731668&mesg_id=2733545[/web]

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Schadenfreude', '
')Seems odd that Conservatives are not all up in arms over the allegations of trafficking in nuclear secrets and high-level dealings with terrorists.

[Flowerr]

they are the same administration.


get it?

[TWilliam]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Schadenfreude', 'S')eems odd that Conservatives are not all up in arms over the allegations of trafficking in nuclear secrets and high-level dealings with terrorists.

[greenworm]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'g')et it?

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wiki', 'T')he American Conservative (TAC) is a biweekly U.S. paleoconservative magazine founded in 2002 by Scott McConnell, Pat Buchanan, and Taki Theodoracopulos, and edited by McConnell. TAC represents a traditionalist, anti-war and paleoconservative voice against the dominance of what it sees as a neoconservative media establishment. The magazine also has ties with paleolibertarians.

[Flowerr]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('greenworm', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'g')et it?

[greenworm]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') guess not, it isn't on Fox news.

[Flowerr]

Oh, I see. Well, then he knows.

[greenworm]

Only 19 posts and your that quick, welcome aboard, please stick around.

[Schadenfreude]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Schadenfreude', '
')Seems odd that Conservatives are not all up in arms over the allegations of trafficking in nuclear secrets and high-level dealings with terrorists.

[davep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Schadenfreude', 'W')here is FOX NEWS now.

...

I don't know what political slant the London Times has but I'd bet it's what American's describe as Liberal.

[Schadenfreude]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Schadenfreude', 'W')here is FOX NEWS now.

...

I don't know what political slant the London Times has but I'd bet it's what American's describe as Liberal.

[mercurygirl]

Frustrating, yes. Puzzling, no.

I have an idea. Let's all be journalists. You can see it's already happening. If one has some intelligence and any interest in things like justice, truth, and equality, we can and probably should be sending real news out to everyone we know. Even if we're labeled with the predictable epithets.

It can actually turn on some light bulbs, I've seen it happen. A lot of people know something's wrong, they just aren't exposed to the reasons why.

[PeakingAroundtheCorner]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Schadenfreude', '[')url=http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php]Democratic Underground[/url]

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Schadenfreude', '
')
It's shameful.

Where is FOX NEWS now.

[PenultimateManStanding]

Before we go into any more diatribes about why the US MSM isn't covering this, remember that this article written by Philip Giraldi is in the current issue. Give it some time, say a week or so, then we can be more genuinely perplexed.

[threadbear]

A close relative of mine works for one of the largest mainstream media corporations, in the world. He said he absolutely cannot touch a story that criticizes Israel, or he'll lose his job.

He couldn't write anything negative about Israel going into Lebanon. It pained me to see his name come up in an online blog as a journalist who is very fair minded but still didn't get that Israel could be a real bully.

Oh....he gets it....he just can't write about it. You lose a journalism gig now, and you're unlikely to get another one, with print media paring down through consolidation.

That's the long and short of it. Ask any journalist, off the record.

[Kingcoal]

I have a theory about the justifications officials in the executive branch use for this kind of behavior. Domestic laws concerning weapons, narcotics, etc, are regulatory in nature. For example, a narcotic is a "controlled substance." The key word is 'controlled.' That means that unless you are authorized, you can't handle these substances. The same goes for weapons. Since it is the executive branch that enforces the laws of the US, most officials feel that they have executive license to act above the law, so to speak. I'm not making moral judgments here, I'm just pointing out their logic. They feel that in the interest of prosecuting what they believe to be their duty, they have license to participate in trafficking weapons, drugs and even national secrets. They can claim that they are acting in an official manor executing a program which is beneficial to US interests, therefore they have justification. It may be illegal for a private entity to traffic weapons internationally, but the CIA is acting in an official capacity, not for profit, therefore they believe that they are within their authority.

The executive branch can:

1. Selectively prosecute and make deals with criminals (terrorists) in exchange for information and other services (i.e., be an informant, mole, etc.)

2. Engage in covert international commerce of controlled substances, weapons and government secrets as long as such activity is wholly within the scope of US interests, national defense and security.

3. Keep secrets and even lie publicly about what they are doing.

That is what I came up with from studying the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings. Unless Congress wants to specifically tell them that they can't do these things, they can and will. Most of the laws that Congress writes apply to private citizens engaged in commerce. Officers of the executive branch can engage in activities which are illegal for private citizens as long as those activities are official and in no way private. In other words, a government officer, in the performance of his duty, can do things that are illegal for private citizens to do. However if a government officer does such things for personal gain, they are acting as a private citizen and are thus breaking the law.

The branches of government have found that they have to give the executive branch "breathing room" to execute on their prime mission of national security. As long as those activities don't infringe on the rights of private citizens, they look the other way. The executive branch does have the right to raise funds through business activities. They don’t have to get all their money through congressional appropriation as long as that money stays out of the US.

Of course, Congress has the right to be informed of such goings on and they have the authority, through legislative action, to make such activities illegal. The judicial branch also has the right, through subpoena, to be informed of such activities and has the authority to interpret the law in such a way as to declare the activity illegal. The judicial branch has the final word on everything that goes on in the US government. That's an enormous amount of power and thus judges exercise it with extreme caution.

I don’t agree with it, but what can I do? Well, I can lobby my representatives to enact laws prohibiting government officials in engaging in such activities. It’s been done before; in the seventies, congress made laws prohibiting assassinations. That is why GWB used to constantly tell us that he wasn’t targeting Sadam Hussein during the early days of the Iraq war. We live in a prohibitive society, which means that laws state what is not allowed, which means that if something isn’t illegal, it’s legal. Currently, officials are allowed to handle weapons, secrets and narcotics and even sell them (outside of the US), in the performance of their official duties. Congress can change that.