Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Israeli Invasion
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 486881" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>I think this is the correct thread but sometime back, comments were made about the media exposing so-called classified information concerning wartime actions or something to that effect. Today I was reading an article pertaining to <a href="http://www.antiwar.com/orig/gsmith.php?articleid=14297" target="_blank"><strong><span style="color: red">AIPAC Execs. Indicted for Espionage</span></strong></a> and read the following that pertains to the earlier point.</p><p> </p><p>[quote</p><p>Government prosecutors previously argued that since Leonard – a career government employee with expertise in the classification process – had been briefed about the case in 2006, he could not legally become a witness for the defense. Rosen and Weissman defense team lawyers expect that Leonard's testimony will throw down the gauntlet by saying that the U.S. government "over-classifies" information of the type AIPAC lobbyists sought and circulated. <strong><u>Leonard has examined the national defense information (NDI) Rosen and Weissman obtained and is said even to be prepared to testify that the "back-channel" practice of disclosing national security information to journalists and lobbyists can actually <em>advance</em> U.S. national security interests.</u></strong> Leonard is also expected to certify that the NDI released in the AIPAC case was neither closely held nor particularly damaging to the U.S. More curious still, Judge Ellis believes (according to his ruling) that Leonard may even be qualified to opine on whether the defendants could have been in a "state of mind" in which they believed their conduct was lawful. The 1917 Espionage Act is silent on such issues.</p><p>]</p></blockquote><p></p><p>OOOOpps! I guess some people want their cake and eat it too while denying this to others!</p><p> </p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/happy-very.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":happy-very:" title="Happy Very :happy-very:" data-shortname=":happy-very:" /></p><p>[/QUOTE]</p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 486881, member: 2189"] I think this is the correct thread but sometime back, comments were made about the media exposing so-called classified information concerning wartime actions or something to that effect. Today I was reading an article pertaining to [URL="http://www.antiwar.com/orig/gsmith.php?articleid=14297"][B][COLOR=red]AIPAC Execs. Indicted for Espionage[/COLOR][/B][/URL] and read the following that pertains to the earlier point. [quote Government prosecutors previously argued that since Leonard – a career government employee with expertise in the classification process – had been briefed about the case in 2006, he could not legally become a witness for the defense. Rosen and Weissman defense team lawyers expect that Leonard's testimony will throw down the gauntlet by saying that the U.S. government "over-classifies" information of the type AIPAC lobbyists sought and circulated. [B][U]Leonard has examined the national defense information (NDI) Rosen and Weissman obtained and is said even to be prepared to testify that the "back-channel" practice of disclosing national security information to journalists and lobbyists can actually [I]advance[/I] U.S. national security interests.[/U][/B] Leonard is also expected to certify that the NDI released in the AIPAC case was neither closely held nor particularly damaging to the U.S. More curious still, Judge Ellis believes (according to his ruling) that Leonard may even be qualified to opine on whether the defendants could have been in a "state of mind" in which they believed their conduct was lawful. The 1917 Espionage Act is silent on such issues. ][/quote] OOOOpps! I guess some people want their cake and eat it too while denying this to others! :happy-very: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Israeli Invasion
Top