HomeFeaturesDailyBriefingsRapidReconSpecial ReportsAbout Us

Dissent Is Highest Form Of Dissent

Dissent, we have been duly educated since 9/11 and President Bush's 2004 re-election, is the highest form of patriotism. At what point, then, does dissent cross the line into criminality? Never, it seems, if one asks the writers and editors of the New York Times. I strongly disagree, as the apparent motivation for the latest leaking of classified information to the media made its way onto the cattle-fecal-matter radar screen this morning.

If dissent is truly the highest form of patriotism, where does breeching the protocols of security and betraying the trust of granted clearances fit into the equation? Can we give these patriots their medals and just make it official?

No. We should instead track them down and prosecute them, and prepare their Patriots Day parade welcoming them to the friendly confines of Fort Leavenworth Prison.- a "Castle" fit for 'patriotic' Kings of Dissent who do so by disclosing classified documents.

No sympathy, no praise. Only ire.

Today's Daily Double: When is the last time the leaking of classified information or documents was pursued to an end resulting in prosecution?

Is the answer Scooter Libby, who was prosecuted and jailed for a leak we now know to have been of Richard Armitage's origin? How's Rich (and his former boss) doing these days?

Yet the trampling and blatant disregard for public trust via the trashing of security clearance oaths continues unabated. And the writers and editors of the New York Times are all too happy to provide the venue for such courageously anonymous malcontents.

Perhaps the oath sworn by those awarded security clearances just doesn't apply so long as the aim is to take political swipes at unpopular men.

Perhaps the legal system should take a swipe back. Not in the defense of Bush or Rumsfeld. But in the defense of the integrity and discipline of security, and the acknowledgment of who is not worthy of such trust.

It should sicken you. That it doesn't to enough Americans perpetuates the un-policed conduct of those who divulge (and publish) with reckless abandon and selfish political ire.

2 Comments

Steve, thanks for posting on this. But you do not ask the question that I wanted to ask had I written a post myself. Who within the current Administration leaked this information to the NYT? And for what purpose and to what end was it leaked?

With due respect, Jay, I implied rather firmly or stated both either here or at the original piece linked.

Who = Malcontents / Dissenters in Mil/Intel/WH (and the key word in the Times' piece is "former" Bush Admin policy makers.)

Purpose = "to demonstrate a recklessness by the Bush administration, setting up Obama and Mil-Intel dissenters as responsible actors."

To find out specific names and (likely varying specific) motives is why I said "We should instead track them down and prosecute them, and prepare their Patriots Day parade welcoming them to the friendly confines of Fort Leavenworth Prison — a "castle" fit for "patriotic" Kings of Dissent who disclose classified documents."

Perhaps I should have been more direct, as you suggest.

Leave a comment