deep throat; patriot or traitor?

[ThePatriot]

:rofl As to Clinton being a Republican, would that include President Clinton, or her husband? Sorry, just couldn't resist that one...

Now THAT was bad...I'm proud of ya son... :cheeky:

 

[mlakrid]

See, where the public is spied upon in the manner suggested (and I'm well aware of some things such as COINTELPRO, I'm of the opinion that the public should know, and should be informed... Besides, sometimes in a democracy (or actually republic) such as ours, public opinion can apply pressure where otherwise some might not care...

You are forgetting two very important things here:

1) An active security clearance.... Which I have...

2) and..... Need to know ... if you dont need to know something in regards to a national security issue, you WONT, even to include people as myself who have the active clearance required, I have been told on many occasions that just because I work on the very equipment in which the information travels, and even though I have the clearance needed, I didnt need to know the information contained within to complete MY job... and ... in the same context the public has no need, or RIGHT... which is why we have intelligence oversight comittees now.

I might add that very recently in light of many 9/11 issues USSID 18 directives which were previously classfied have been released to the general public so that you the american people would knwo what OUR rights are when speaking of electronic eaves dropping of any sort on US CITIZENS...

USSID 18 can be found here I hope this helps.

Hannibal

 

[Perris Calderon]

LOL "Clinton was a republican, we just don't know it yet " :laugh: now that was funny!

the reason clinton had so much success of accomplishment during his terms was that he took the best republican ideas and made them go forward

the republicans like to say it was because of the republican party

this is correct...it's because of both of them

nice

 

[Son Goku]

You are forgetting two very important things here:

I'm not forgetting anything... Sometimes "national security" is claimed where the security of the nation really isn't at risk. What's at risk in these cases is public exposure for wrong doing, and some politician or the like protecting they're own hide from public accountability. One could make an argument in these cases about the "enemy within..."

2) and..... Need to know ... if you dont need to know something in regards to a national security issue, you WONT,

I would say that in these cases the public has a definite need to know, if they're to assure that our Republic functions as it should. Watergate, Cointelpro where there were gems like this one

"Today, in a sense, the select committee comes home," said Tower in his introductory remarks. "For today, the select committee begins hearings designed to shed light upon the nation's domestic intelligence activities....Our to reassess current activities. To this end, the staff's presentation will touch upon such controversial topics as warrants, disruptive techniques, 'black bag' jobs, COINTELPRO, subversive activities.

..A bleak history of FBI excesses emerged from these first two days of hearings. In one appalling operation after another, the bureau had attempted to destroy various dissenting groups by discrediting their leaders and members. A primary target had been Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. In what was interpreted as an attempt to force King to commit suicide, the FBI had sent him (at his heatquarters in Atlanta) a tape recording and a note from an anonymous source. The tape, obtained from electronic listening devices placed by the bureau in various hotel rooms accross the country where King had stayed, apperently contained sounds of King in moments of amour outside the confines of matrimony. The package was mailed in November 1964, thirty-four days before King was to receive his Nobel Peace Prize. The note inside read: "King, there is only one thing left for you to do. You know what it is. You have just 34 days in which to do it...You are done. There is but one way out for you. You better take it before your filthy, abnormal fraudulent self is bared to the nation." A month later, the bureau sent a copy of the tape to Mrs. King, who joined her husband in rejecting the FBI blackmail attempt.

This incredible scheme was but one of many directed against King by the bureau. As Schwarz documented, the FBI undertook a concerted program designed (in the words of one bureau document) to to knock King "off his pedestal." Bureau officials were forced by J. Edgar Hoover, at the risk of losing their jobs, to rewrite reports on the civil rights leader, falsely charging him as a national security risk. Agents traveled across the country to urgeclergymen and university officials to have nothing to do with him, spreading lies and innuendo to smear his character....

(A Season of Inquiry: pg 126-127, by Loch K. Johnson) That's enough to make my point, and it is by no means the only such incedent I know of.

In any case, "national security" of this type is the kind that smells like it, walks like it, and quacks very much like a duck, and should make people feel inherently insecure. I would say that people do have a need to know of this... Some might agree, some might not (and though Bush might have his thoughts on the matter, along with Rumsfeld or whoever, I don't have to agree), but my position still stands... BTW, I'm not talking her about a foreign terrorist such as those who flew the planes into the WTC, but rather cases such as the above quoted...

Classifying something to help protect the citizens from a foreign enemy is one thing. But when the enemy of our freedoms (including our civil liberties is within), and the only reason to keep something secret is to protect the career of some leader acting unethically, or illegally, then the public should no. No I'm not opposed to Deep Throat having gone to the media. And counter-balancing a claim for classifying something, of course has been (also from the era of the 1970s) the Freedom of Information Act...

 

[mlakrid]

I'm not forgetting anything...

I would say that people do have a need to know of this, and do have a right. Some might agree, some might not ....but my position still stands...

Classifying something to help protect the citizens from a foreign enemy is one thing. But when the enemy of our freedoms (including our civil liberties is within), and the only reason to keep something secret is to protect the career of some leader acting unethically, or illegally, then the public should no. No I'm not opposed to Deep Throat having gone to the media. And counter-balancing a claim for classifying something, of course has been (also from the era of the 1970s) the Freedom of Information Act...

NO... I was saying you are forgetting 2 things because as you stated previously it is only your OPINION... did I say I disagreed with you? NO, I am merely stating the facts as they stand today.

If you don't like them, dont bother me with your opinion.
Tell your senator or congressman... do you see where I am going with this now?

As it stands even as strong as your opinion is... the Laws say otherwise, you dont have the right...

I will add also: Intelligence oversight started because of mislabeling of sensitive information which has no need for classification.

 

[Son Goku]

NO... I was saying you are forgetting 2 things because as you stated previously it is only your OPINION... did I say I disagreed with you? NO, I am merely stating the facts as they stand today.

Well, first, we are talking about a revelation in the 1970s in this thread. Second, just because Bush passed an Executive order doesn't make it right... Yes I would say that public accountibility on the part of leadership has taken a negative decline since 9/11... This could change, though I sort of doubt it as long as the Bush admin is in office.

Finally, this is a message board, for people to discuss their views on things. People of course are free to read them or not to read them, but that's exactly what I was doing. Just because Bush passed an Executive order to establish them as such, doesn't necessarily make it the best thing for the country. I was never one to buy the argument that because a law maker, the president, or whatever says so, it must of necessity be right, or best for us as a people...

Much of what I'm saying is in reference to two things however. Without negative publicity or an impact on one's financial assets, many politicians/corporations simply don't care. Public image, and PR is important to them. The words of James Madison in Federalist 51 that in part, formed some of the foundation in thought, upon which this nation and it's government was found...

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm

Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other -- that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights.

What would be involved here is an external check (as opposed to an internal check within the government itself), which could come from the people themself. In the end (and especially where some seek re-election), that can be effective.

I will add also: Intelligence oversight started because of mislabeling of sensitive information which has no need for classification.

Yes it had, and the Church Committee from which that account came was a predecessor to it. But the FoiA also came out of that era...

I will say this though. I would not lightly go about just breaking the law. But under the right circumstances, and with enough at stake, I wouldn't necessarily rule it out (and willingly accepting the consequences, unless of course the Supreme Court had another idea) either. I for instance wouldn't of necessity sit around and watch a crap load of American's lives get ruined (during some kind of which hunt such as existed in the era of Joe McCarthy and the House Unamerican's committee) without so much as a word.

There's also a matter of being able to live with one's self, and a point where one couldn't face themself anymore... There are just some things I could, as well as could not do, with an easy conscience. Some things (such as the above mentione) and another case where FBI agents (in another COINTELPRO) were discussing means to try to cause a candidate they didn't want to win in Puerto Rico to to win, to have a corronary, or if they could intice him to withdrawl if they murder his son, fall in that category...

But yes, today I would try to go to Congress first, if at all feasible, which in the early 1970s, Congressional Intelligence committees didn't exist, so it then wasn't...

 

[mlakrid]

Well, first, we are talking about a revelation in the 1970s in this thread. Second, just because Bush passed an Executive order doesn't make it right... Yes I would say that public accountibility on the part of leadership has taken a negative decline since 9/11... This could change, though I sort of doubt it as long as the Bush admin is in office.

Finally, this is a message board, for people to discuss their views on things. People of course are free to read them or not to read them, but that's exactly what I was doing. Just because Bush passed an Executive order to establish them as such, doesn't necessarily make it the best thing for the country. I was never one to buy the argument that because a law maker, the president, or whatever says so, it must of necessity be right, or best for us as a people...

Much of what I'm saying is in reference to two things however. Without negative publicity or an impact on one's financial assets, many politicians/corporations simply don't care. Public image, and PR is important to them. The words of James Madison in Federalist 51 that in part, formed some of the foundation in thought, upon which this nation and it's government was found...

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm



What would be involved here is an external check (as opposed to an internal check within the government itself), which could come from the people themself. In the end (and especially where some seek re-election), that can be effective.



Yes it had, and the Church Committee from which that account came was a predecessor to it. But the FoiA also came out of that era...

I will say this though. I would not lightly go about just breaking the law. But under the right circumstances, and with enough at stake, I wouldn't necessarily rule it out (and willingly accepting the consequences, unless of course the Supreme Court had another idea) either. I for instance wouldn't of necessity sit around and watch a crap load of American's lives get ruined (during some kind of which hunt such as existed in the era of Joe McCarthy and the House Unamerican's committee) without so much as a word.

There's also a matter of being able to live with one's self, and a point where one couldn't face themself anymore... There are just some things I could, as well as could not do, with an easy conscience. Some things (such as the above mentione) and another case where FBI agents (in another COINTELPRO) were discussing means to try to cause a candidate they didn't want to win in Puerto Rico to to win, to have a corronary, or if they could intice him to withdrawl if they murder his son, fall in that category...

But yes, today I would try to go to Congress first, if at all feasible, which in the early 1970s, Congressional Intelligence committees didn't exist, so it then wasn't...

Ummm, I had A$$umed you were speaking of todays climate, (and we all know what that does) and you were speaking to the injustices of THEN... I humbly offer my apology and hope you accept.

I truely do agree, but I would like to clarify one thing. Issues of National security are bound by Law not executive orders. The EO's are handed out only to make small changes to fit the nature of the times, and expire after those issues are resolved, or some later date to be determined.

As you said, "What would be involved here is an external check" that is what Intel committees are for (for the most part). Most the people assigned to these committees have had no previous encounter with National security issues prior to being given the clearance needed for the comittee(s) themselves.

Apologetically yours,

Hannibal

 

[Tittles]

Well I Didn't read the posts so sorry if i repeat someone elses view.

We Social Studies yesterday we had a talk about if he was a hero or a snitch. I don't really think I would call him a hero but I do think what he did was fine. I mean nixon pretty much got to everybody about what happend so he really couldnt go anywhere to tell anybody cause perhaps he was afraid he would get murdered or somethin. We talked about it for like 30 min and alot of people said he was prob scared to go public because of the chance of being killed. We watched a movie in class about watergate a few weeks ago called All the President's Men and that really told about watergate. Nixon pretty much got to everybody that knew about it because they called so many people but nobody would tell about it and the ones who did gave tiny hints to get to someone that knew more and what not. I Don't really have much to say because I can't put it all into words right now :\. I can understand how people think he was a traitor because in class someone mentioned that they wouldnt want to get in trouble and have the FBI, the police or whoever go tell a newspaper about them but then I was like well this had to do with the president who tried to cover up a scandal and may even stopped future events. I mean if he tried to cover up this what else could of he covered up later on?

I am surprised that nobody knew it was him besides the news paper dudes and a select few people. We were asked why we think he now finally told and someone said that since all the people that were involved in watergate are either old or dead that he was worried about being shot or something so he finally just came out and said it. From what i heard that he was suppose to die before anybody knew but maybe that was somethin else.

 

[Sazar]

Without writing a book, I think the easiest explanation I could give would be to say my reasoning is exactly 180 degrees from your last paragraph. We think exactly alike, just from opposite ends of the spectrum.

You are saying he should not have outed to the media but gone through the established channels instead. I concur that in a normal environment that would have been the right thing to do.

Seeing what was exposed wrt the corruption and abuse of power to the highest level of government, what possible inclination could he have had of being heard and the matter dealt with appropriately?

I fail to understand in light of all the evidence that condemned Nixon and his staff why you are still advocating the following of proper channels when it is abundantly clear that there was no way we would have seen the expose we did without it?

W/o deepthroat, many of the things uncovered would never have come to light, would have been sealed under some ridiculous bureaucratic seal and been locked away in an x-files-esque facility.

 

[Son Goku]

Ummm, I had A$$umed you were speaking of todays climate, (and we all know what that does) and you were speaking to the injustices of THEN... I humbly offer my apology and hope you accept.

It's OK... But yeah, the thread was about Deep Throat, and his going to the media back during the Watergate era... Actually, at first I was thinking that I might have come off a bit too harsh (and hope you don't think it was in any way directed towards you). I went back and edited my first post to try to tone it down some (so as not to leave you with that impression). There really are some things in this world that don't sit well with me, I've truly become disgusted (and tbh rather fed up) about, and it's in no way personal. To the list (from Antony Sutton's book FDR and Wallstreet, or was it Wallstreet and FDR there were gems such as

- During the 1920s this "defender of the common man", very much a Wallstreet insider, was involved with front companies that exploited the hyper-infalation of 1920s Germany (which is considered to have been a contributive factor to Hitler's rise to power), to turn a profit off of it...

I truely do agree, but I would like to clarify one thing. Issues of National security are bound by Law not executive orders. The EO's are handed out only to make small changes to fit the nature of the times, and expire after those issues are resolved, or some later date to be determined.

Yeah, I was pulling the mention of Executive Orders from what you mentioned...

Actually a little nasty matter comes in the form of the "Legislative Veto". It deals with how Congress under the implied powers clause can grant legislative power to the Executive... (This is in fact what people have been seeing, with the size of government growing ever larger...)

But Congress is supposed to have a check on these grants of power with carefully defined laws that stipulate how it's to be used. In many cases however, Congress gave the grant of power, didn't stipulate it's use, and then reserved for themself a "Legislative Veto" to essentially veto Executive action. This could (depending on the bill containing it) include the entire Congress, just one house, or even a single Committee exercising this veto...

In INS vs. Chadda (or something like that...it was about 10 years ago I took Constitutional law, so not freshest on my mind), the US Supreme Court ruled that the Congressional Veto is unconstitutional, and the Constitution was clear, the President has the veto power...

Ironically, another bill (War Powers Act) also contains a Congressional Veto, along with a way around the Declaration of War clause (that Congress declared war). The High Court was left with siding with undeclared war, or the Congressional veto, both of which have Constitutional problems...

In any case, as to the Congressional veto, the Court ruled it unconstitutional via judicial review. However the Executive liked the broad grants of power, and Congress liked the veto power. Very Stonewall Jackson like "If that's the Court's decision, let them enforce it", they both mutually agreed not to follow the Court's rulling on the matter...

 

[Kr0m]

What really has me wondering, what were his motives behind 'spilling the beans'. Was it due to being frustrated & angry at being passed over for promotion or was he really trying to do the right thing. I also wonder, if he hadn't been passed over for promotion, what would he have done with the situation? I guess only he knows.

 

[Son Goku]

I fail to understand in light of all the evidence that condemned Nixon and his staff why you are still advocating the following of proper channels when it is abundantly clear that there was no way we would have seen the expose we did without it?

W/o deepthroat, many of the things uncovered would never have come to light, would have been sealed under some ridiculous bureaucratic seal and been locked away in an x-files-esque facility.

Keep in mind also, that many of the channels that exist today were formed as a direct result of the revelations that were made at this time. In the early 1970s, Congressional Intelligence Committees and the like didn't exist, and Congress exercised little oversight...

It was the result of such revelations, that changes were made, to put some of these in place. In fact, at first, the Pike and Church Committees investigating much of this, weren't intended to be permanent standing Congressional committees. They tried to investigate, got stone walled rather much, and in the midst of this Congress recieved requests for additional chemical shredders (that could shred documents) as Congress was asking more documents to be turned over...

It was in part because of this, that Congress in it's conclusion ruled a permanent standing committee on the matter was needed...

Anyhow, off to lunch...

 

[Kush]

when i first saw this on the news i thought they were talking about porno lol

 

[Xie]

You are saying he should not have outed to the media but gone through the established channels instead. I concur that in a normal environment that would have been the right thing to do.

Seeing what was exposed wrt the corruption and abuse of power to the highest level of government, what possible inclination could he have had of being heard and the matter dealt with appropriately?

I fail to understand in light of all the evidence that condemned Nixon and his staff why you are still advocating the following of proper channels when it is abundantly clear that there was no way we would have seen the expose we did without it?

W/o deepthroat, many of the things uncovered would never have come to light, would have been sealed under some ridiculous bureaucratic seal and been locked away in an x-files-esque facility.

Great post. When the "Commander and Cheif" is involved what higher power do you go to? I think the only thing left to do is take it to the people, since this is the peoples country, not the man who happens to be staying in the white house.

 

[Sazar]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/02/felt.nixon/index.html

So much for the "he shoulda gone through the proper channels" theory.

President Nixon and his aides suspected early on that FBI official W. Mark Felt was helping The Washington Post with its stories on the Watergate affair, according to transcripts of White House tapes.

...

"If we move on him, he'll go out and unload everything," Haldeman said. "He knows everything that's to be known in the FBI. He has access to absolutely everything."

Nixon asked Haldeman, "What would you do with Felt?"

Haldeman, who served 18 months in prison for his role in Watergate, said White House counsel John Dean determined Felt could not be prosecuted

"There's all kind of devices. You let him know that you know. Then you transfer him to Ottumwa, Iowa," Haldeman said.

"You know what I'd do with him, the bastard?" Nixon replies.

The reply on the tape is inaudible and Nixon follows up by saying, "That's all I want to hear about it."

And more.

Several Nixon administration veterans have criticized Felt for leaking information to the Post.

G. Gordon Liddy, who helped plan the Watergate break-in, said Felt "violated the ethics of the law enforcement profession" by talking to the newspaper rather than turning his information over to a grand jury.

Bradlee said critics like Liddy, who served four and a half years in prison for his roles in the scandal and other activities as a member of the White House Plumbers unit, have little credibility.

"Where would Felt have gone?" Bradlee said. "He saw something wrong in the government, and what should he have done?

"He couldn't really go to his superior, who was L. Patrick Gray, who was busy throwing documents into the Potomac River from the bridge. He couldn't go to the attorney general, who was on his way to jail himself."

Attorney General John Mitchell resigned in 1972 to take over the Committee to Re-elect the President.

A court later revealed that Mitchell, while still in office, approved a secret campaign fund of $250,000 for the Watergate burglary. Mitchell served 19 months in prison for his role in the scandal.

Mitchell's successor as attorney general, Richard Kleindienst, was also found guilty of not testifying accurately in his Senate confirmation hearing.

No offense but all this talk about Felt and the money he took and the ethics are ridiculous given the scope of the situation and the information that keeps coming out, even now, about Watergate.

The seeds that were sown by the retards who abused their power and authority came to fruition and screwed their lives up. It is as it should be.

 

[Son Goku]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/02/felt.nixon/index.html

So much for the "he shoulda gone through the proper channels" theory.

President Nixon and his aides suspected early on that FBI official W. Mark Felt was helping The Washington Post with its stories on the Watergate affair, according to transcripts of White House tapes.

...

"If we move on him, he'll go out and unload everything," Haldeman said. "He knows everything that's to be known in the FBI. He has access to absolutely everything."

Nixon asked Haldeman, "What would you do with Felt?"

Haldeman, who served 18 months in prison for his role in Watergate, said White House counsel John Dean determined Felt could not be prosecuted

Except for the fact that he did come forward, it sounds like a bit of the old Mexican standoff, by this account...

Against the backdrop of all this discussion, I would suggest another picture be considered. What would the world be like today if the Watergate scandal never broke, Congress never investigated the many abuses, in part in responce to public pressure (aka from the voters), and the reforms of this era never took place...

I'm not sure it's a world I would want to live in, tbh...

Funny thing, thinking about it, I was born in the midst of all this. Yeah, my birthday fell on June 2, 1972...right in the midst of Watergate and the rest of it...

 

[ThePatriot]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/02/felt.nixon/index.html

So much for the "he shoulda gone through the proper channels" theory.

Um, no, not really, he STILL should have gone thru the proper channels, of which there were many more to go thru than what was mentioned. The bottom line here really is; what else did he divulge to the press? What information, even inadvertantly, did he supply that leaked sensitive data? And how many people lost their lives because of it? You can say 'zero' all you want, but you or I just don't know...just the fact that a man in his position went to the PRESS with ANY sensitive data casts a shadow over everything. He went to the press to cover his own a$$, and he possibly put someone else's in a sling in the process.

The seeds that were sown by the retards who abused their power and authority came to fruition and screwed their lives up. It is as it should be.

Won't argue too much there, Nixon and Co got their just desserts.

 

[Sazar]

Um, no, not really, he STILL should have gone thru the proper channels, of which there were many more to go thru than what was mentioned. The bottom line here really is; what else did he divulge to the press? What information, even inadvertantly, did he supply that leaked sensitive data? And how many people lost their lives because of it? You can say 'zero' all you want, but you or I just don't know...just the fact that a man in his position went to the PRESS with ANY sensitive data casts a shadow over everything. He went to the press to cover his own a$$, and he possibly put someone else's in a sling in the process.

I await the day someone in the Bush White House has the balls to come forth and lead to impeachment proceedings through the proper channels or otherwise. If done through the proper channels, I will be most interested in your position at the time.

Won't argue too much there, Nixon and Co got their just desserts.

Undoubtedly. The odd thing to me is that so far most people who have been perturbed by Deep Throat have been those who had jail time because of their illegal activities.

 

[Son Goku]

I await the day someone in the Bush White House has the balls to come forth and lead to impeachment proceedings through the proper channels or otherwise. If done through the proper channels, I will be most interested in your position at the time.

There have been some people who have come forth (Richard Clarke in his book for instance); but the political climate is different today... I'm sorry to say, but I just don't see it happening...

 

[Aprox]

I havnt been following this thread, but I was browsing through google news and I saw this:
http://business.bostonherald.com/businessNews/view.bg?articleid=87823

Sorry if it doesnt help or anything, just figured I would throw something in the fire