John Kerry: Darrell Issa's Release Of Raw Libya Cables 'Irresponsible And Inexcusable'

And, all the Repubs care about it making a political gain for power. I hope they are called out big time for this. Issa is nothing but an ignorant shrill for the Republican party. Disgusting.

...just south of where I live and he is KNOWN to have no scruples (unlike Senator Kerry, I might add). He made a run for governor several years ago and was exposed for what he is in California. The fact that he now is wielding any power at all in DC is pathetic.

....with the intention of running for governor to replace him, but he chickened out a couple of days before the filing deadline.

He is an A-one royal scumbag!

...Enron fiasco which Davis was blamed for. BAD memories...

told him he couldn't run. They had already set steroid boy up. They just made issa pay for all the recall. He got screwed by his own party. I remember when he announced he wouldn't run. He was nearly in tears. His voice cracking. What a tool. Still doing the bidding of his overlords.

He sobbed like a child on live television when he got the news. He flushed millions down the toilet towards his own ambition, and Ahhnuld went on Jay Leno, announced, and basically ate his lunch.

It was hilarious--I never tire of watching that turd burst into tears after being "bigfooted" by Mister Bikini Wax:



The sobbing starts at 1:30!

has no business chairing any congressional committee. Slimy punk.

in a matter of weeks, if/when the Democrats win back enough seats to take back the House.

...

Manning is ruined and in prison while Issa blabs for political gain and is free and crowing.

be brought up on charges. He is desperately seeking anything to tear down the President, regardless of who else is affected. He looks like such a fool after Fast & Furious!

maybe he thinks it will help him with the ladies.

And it's just as bad no matter which one of them does it.

Issa obtained the documents as part of hi job. He had an obligation to safeguard them.

He's a despicable individual. That he's even in DC is an example of how low the Tea Baggers have brought Congress.

I wonder if they can see the problem now that the right wing has used the same tactic.

about things that were known about in great detail by the people who were the victims, things like the video from Iraq.

Issa released documents about an event that happened just weeks ago and is still being investigated.

And the Republican story on the events in Benghazi is what is confused, not what Obama and Hillary said. The Republicans are, as usual, confused by foreign policy. Nothing new. Look what messes Bush got us into. He ignored a real terrorist threat that was staring him in the face and then used it as an excuse to start a war in Iraq. That's how Republicans run foreign policy.

Assange talked about events that were common knowledge to a lot of people. The cables he released had been transmitted to many people in our service. They were not about ongoing investigations. In fact, a lot of the stuff Assange published was just silly gossip. Not comparable. Just because some bureaucrat puts a "classified" stamp on something does not mean that it is all that important or even all that confidential.

Here, the confidentiality of the reports of an ongoing investigation is unquestionable.

Besides, Assange was a publisher -- an online publisher, not different from the NY Times or the Guardian -- just online. Not that different from Benjamin Franklin.

But Issa is a member of Congress who is trusted with truly important information. That Issa published these names is equivalent to Manning's alleged handing them over to Assange. Publishing something and taking something that is given to you by someone else and disseminating it are two very different things. One (what Issa did) is a breach of his duty as a member of our government. The other (what Assange did) was his duty as a news reporter and publisher (disseminating the truth). The other is (what Assange did) was an exercise of a right.

to redact the names before he published the documents. And then he reneged on the agreement. Those publishers recognized the danger to innocent people from publishing their names, but Assange didn't care. They behaved with a sense of responsibility, but he didn't.

The names in the documents weren't all "common knowledge" and the events weren't in such a distant past that naming our allies was of no import. Assange and Issa are in the same class. In the name of transparency, and for their own self-serving purposes, they published unredacted documents that could hurt innocent people.

http://www.thisissomerset.co.uk/Assange-blasted-expenses-whistle-blower/story-17111184-detail/story.html

"WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was bitterly criticised by a fellow freedom of information campaigner on Friday night.

"Heather Brooke said of the man who used the website to release thousands of secret documents: "I can not think of a more crazed and irrational person.

"She was referring to the Afghanistan war logs which Mr Assange insisted on releasing on WikiLeaks without withholding the name of people who became Taliban targets as a result of publication.

"'Assange did not respect his sources, which every journalist knows you should,' said Heather Brooke.

"'He was seduced by power and anyone who challenged him in WikiLeaks was summarily dismissed.'

"We need transparency in government, the security services, police and military, but 'transparency also requires responsibility', she told the audience."

Assange made that point. I hope that in order to discourage future Assanges, our government will move toward transparency.

I think that Obama was pretty open about what was going on with Benghazi.

Contrast that with Bush's handling of so many situations like Abu Ghraib and Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch. No transparency at all.

It is the lack of transparency that creates a market for conspiracy theories and Wikileaks.

I know it is extremely difficult to decide what must be kept secret and what can safely be disclosed, but the error is all too often in favor of keeping things secret. And again, all too often, the secrets that are kept are those that would embarrass or even endanger the careers of the people keeping the secrets.

That is why I support what Assange did. He outed a lot of very questionable if not criminal behavior.

Assange is a journalist. Can you distinguish between them?

and other journalists -- the ones at the New York Times and the Guardian -- were urging him to redact the names, as that is what responsible publishers would have done.

...the password to the raw files that were uploaded but encrypted.

Once that happened the raw cables were in the wild.

Redacting the files was what Wikileaks was trying to do.

For what it's worth there are some here who support this release.

in that he has made the capture of those persons involved in the Benghazi attack that much harder.

nothing

He never had anything to leak.

Someone leaked information to Assange. A lot of people from different countries leaked information to Assange. Assange was a publisher. He did not just publish leaked material from the US.

There is no legal basis for expecting Assange to keep American secrets if someone gave them to him. Assange is not, never was, an American citizen. Assange had no duty to protect secrets or confidential information given to him by someone who had legal possession of them. It's the source of the information who violated a duty.

If the New York Times gets classified information like Plame's CIA connection, it is free to publish it. Assange enjoys that same freedom. He is being picked on because he is not well known and because authorities around the world are frightened by the potential of the internet in terms of the dissemination of classified materials.

That is why Issa's breach is so shocking and so different from Wikileaks. Issa played the role of the leaker in this, not the publisher to which confidential information is leaked.

I hope I have made the difference understandable.

You and I have no duty to the Russian government to keep secrets that some person with Russian secrets gives us. We have no such duty. We are Americans. We have no duty whatsoever to any FOREIGN government in terms of national security. Assange is Australian and owed no government other than Australia a duty of keeping secrets for national security purposes. Had Assange been on American soil at least when he published Wikileaks, we might have at least some argument for the idea that he was spying. But it seems most likely that people gave Assange material. There is no evidence that Assange bought it or that he completed any sort of exchange of compensation or spying in the US or on US property. So I don't see how the US could have any claim against Assange.

Issa on the other hand was directly trusted with this information, and he caused it to be published. We do not think that the NY Times or other news media that published the information that Issa wrongly released violated the law. Neither did Assange. Not even if he encouraged someone to provide the information to him.

is Assange's apparent insistence on releasing names of sources and collaborators. That is a clear break with journalistic practices and puts people in danger. Even if you knew the names of Afghan collaborators with the Russians, would you release that without knowing the situation or the reasons? Difficulty: It will lead to people getting shot.

You do not know the terms of the exchange of information, do you? Long way to fall, off a high horse. Yes it is.

Details: http://www.salon.com/2011/09/02/wikileaks_28/ :

{Wikileaks'} hand was forced by the reckless acts of The Guardian‘s Leigh and Domscheit-Berg. One key reason access to these unredacted cables was so widely distributed is that Leigh — in his December, 2010, book about the work he did with WikiLeaks — published the password to these files, which was given to him by Julian Assange to enable his reporting on the cables. Leigh claims — and there’s no reason to doubt him — that he believed the password was only valid for a few days and would have expired by the time his book was published.

That belief turned out to be false because the files had been disseminated on the BitTorrent file sharing network, with that password embedded in them; Leigh’s publication of the WikiLeaks password in his book thus enabled widespread access to the full set of cables. But the key point is this: even if Leigh believed that that particular password would no longer be valid, what possible point is there in publishing to the world the specific password used by WikiLeaks or divulging the types of passwords it uses to safeguard its data? It is reckless for an investigative reporter to gratuitously publish that type of information, and he absolutely deserves a large chunk of the blame for what happened here; read this superb analysis by Nigel Parry to see the full scope of Leigh’s culpability.

Then there is Domscheit-Berg and “Open Leaks.” Last year, Domscheit-Berg left WikiLeaks and started a new group to great media fanfare, even though his group has not produced a single disclosure. Instead, he and his thus-far-inaccurately-named group seem devoted to only two goals: (1) cashing in on a vindictive, petty, personality-based vendetta against Assange and WikiLeaks; and (2) bolstering secrecy and destroying transparency, as Domscheit-Berg did when he permanently deleted thousands of files previously leaked to WikiLeaks, including documents relating to the Bank of America. It was Domscheit-Berg who removed the files from the WikiLeaks server, including (apparently unbeknownst to him) the full set of diplomatic cables.

That act by Domscheit-Berg, combined with the publication of its password by Leigh and the dissemination of the files to “mirror sites” by well-intentioned WikiLeaks supporters after cyber-attacks on the group, all combined to enable widespread, unfettered access to these diplomatic cables. Once WikiLeaks realized what had happened, they notified the State Department, but faced a quandary: virtually every government’s intelligence agencies would have had access to these documents as a result of these events, but the rest of the world — including journalists, whistleblowers and activists identified in the documents — did not. At that point, WikiLeaks decided — quite reasonably — that the best and safest course was to release all the cables in full, so that not only the world’s intelligence agencies but everyone had them, so that steps could be taken to protect the sources and so that the information in them was equally available.

Much more at the link.

evil desperation to make our President and his administration look bad. Why would they worry about some Libyans when the repugs don't care about 99% of americans, unless they make over 250,000 dollars a year and are part of the 1%ers. They are really EVIL people. That repug cabal. May they go down in flaming defeat 11/06/2012!

stands up when I consider all of the election fraud that has and will be perpetrated with respect to this election. That Williard the Rat owns ANY interest in voting machines is only the first of my concerns.

Huge numbers of People should be asking Issa why he released this information. We pay his salary. If he does not answer then fire his irresponsible ass.

Pugs control the House, but isn't there something that can be done about his irresponsibility?

If a citizen did what he did, they'd be picked up by the Feds.

and publicly embarasses him, that might cost Issa a few votes and quiet the reps a bit on the Libya non-issue.

censured.

Why in the hell don't we have hearings when we control the House or Senate?

Like the Second Part of the 9/11 Investigation that never happened?
Iraq War?
Enron & Phil & Wendy Gramm
Diebold
Blackwater
Halliburton

I gave his Presidential campaign $1,000 and was an active volunteer.

I appreciate you standing up for him, but Democrats can hold hearings, too.

In fact, John Kerry's political career really began when he participated in a hearing at the request of Senator Ted Kennedy.

Somehow, Democrats lost that edge. That's my point. It is valid.

We let the GOP use the power of subpoena and hearings for political gamesmanship and we won't use it for justice.

That's sad.

BOTH of these types need to throw this guy out of office.

there at Camp Pendelton. Marines!

Time for people to wake the fuck up!

Gag Order? Has Issa Idiot Finally Over Stepped in it so Big that all his other shit comes off looking as just That?

their roles in Congress.

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

https://isearch.avg.com/search?cid={725D3AF0-7BD1-4F37-917D-B71C369841F0}&mid=3d391eb0612cc704f96c0ef2c096b8f2-41c8206584f19d7c018ecee13000e7ad1d2ae599&ds=AVG&lang=en&v=12.2.5.34&pr=fr&d=2012-05-06%2018:33:54&sap=dsp&q=congressional%20immunity

I'm not sure what this means:

"in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place."

I swear these terrorist goons would do ANYTHING to undermine and thwart President Obama. Even if it means putting lives in danger and tossing monkey wrenches into vitally important investigations. They don't care about anyone but their petulant, narcissistic selves.

http://www.politicususa.com/investigating-security-leaks-darrell-issa-puts-libyans-lives-risk.html

Issa, as author of this article, Sarah Jones says..

So, Darrell Issa has leaked important information while investigating alleged leaks of security — again. He is doing more damage in this investigation than our enemies could have hoped for. This is hardly Issa’s first go at hacking up a partisan witch hunt of this administration. "

"This isn’t just your typical Republican incompetence. The Republicans don’t care that they’ve endangered our work and civilians in Libya over their alleged concern over Americans killed in Libya."

It's like torture during war time... if you do it or support it, how can you condemn your enemy when they do it.

There was no real fallout when Plame was outed by the Bush Admin, there were/are folks that support Assange so why would Issa think anything about this?

If you support Assange, don't complain about Issa.

Plame was at the front of an operation that tracked and monitored all dual-use and nuclear materials in the world. If a terrorist got some weapons grade plutonium Valerie Plame's operation would know about it. I heard 80 people were killed because of Cheney's intentional malice. 80 people who were secretly helping the US.

I don't know how much is easily found using Google but if you just watch the movie you'll get a really good idea of how big a deal it was.

edit: I had already posted this before I saw your comment.

Were Cheney or Bush punished in any way? Nope.

Scooter Libby was convicted of one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury, and one count of making false statements. That's pretty mild "punishment" compared to what was done and he was pretty much the fall guy for Cheney.

there was no damage done.

So I assume you were upset that Seymour Hersh revealed that we were torturing Iraqis? Frankly, I'd rather that crimes get exposed, even if it's our country that's committing them. I'm one that considers Assange to be a 21st century Daniel Ellsberg. I only wish there was better media coverage of what is learned from leaks that expose abuses of power, and like you, I want to see guilty parties prosecuted.

Please don't equate Darrell Issa to Assange. You have it wrong in both intent and content, it's a false equivalency. Issa released information with no intention of exposing wrong doing, there were no crimes being revealed, only a partisan attack against the president. His actions are exactly the same in every way to Cheney's. I don't doubt that there will be lives lost because of Issa's actions. I blame him. If Assange's disclosure or Hersh's disclosure of war crimes and criminal deception by the Bush administration resulted in lost lives, which I'm sure it did, I blame the Bush administration for committing the crimes and for starting tragic unnecessary wars.

It's the person who leaked to Assange who is responsible for the Wikileaks matter.

We can't enforce our national security laws on foreign nationals.

The Russians can't enforce their national security laws against us.

That would be crazy.

The Chinese could make it against the law to publish some facts about their country's or military's conduct and punish American citizens for publishing those kinds of facts.

In addition what Wikileaks did was probably protected by the First Amendment -- no more so than when the New York Times publishes news that is leaked to it.

The leaker, the person who was entrusted with the material -- as Issa was, is responsible for maintaining the secret.

If you tell your lawyer something that is confidential, your lawyer is responsible for keeping your secret. That is an ethics matter. If you sign a confidentiality agreement with your employer, you are responsible for keeping certain things secret. If you tell your boyfriend or your girlfriend your employer's secrets, or if you tell the press, you who signed the confidentiality agreement are responsible, not your boyfriend or your girlfriend.

To enforce a law, you have to have jurisdiction and the person against whom you enforce the law has to have breached some sort of duty. Assange owed no duty to the US government. He had no duty to keep US secrets. That's the way I see it.

I don't defend betraying secrets. I defend freedom of the press. And I defend the right of noncitizens to be free from having to obey the laws of foreign countries.

I think Assange's prosecution, should he ever get extradited to the US, would be based on him having committed a crime against the U.S. which does give them jurisdiction.

Since he would need to be in custody in another country in order for extradition to be an option, I would almost expect the CIA to find a way to get him arrested somewhere. He seems to be safe where he is now but there are some serious forms of pressure the United States can apply, to any country.

"If you support Assange, don't complain about Issa. "

Assange is a publisher of information passed on to him. He is also a foreign national with no responsibility to cover for the US.

Issa is a US congressman who has a duty to safeguard the nation and not jeopardize an ongoing investigation.

What he has done, admittedly, is way worse that what Bradley Manning has been accused of and denied.
Yet somehow Manning is the one locked up and Issa will go on his marry way, continuing to help damage the US for the benefit of the 1%.

Bradley Manning

P.S. If that means Manning gets to leave prison and move into Issa's home, I'm OK with that, too

Cheney's outing of Valerie Plame shut down the CIA's global clandestine operation that was keeping Americans safe from nuclear and dual-use materials getting in the wrong hands. They say 80 people who were helping us were killed because of that. I believe the number to be correct, I've never seen it disputed.

Issa should be kicked of his committee and officially censored at the least.

This is why we have to show up and vote; so fools like this won't have any power to destroy the POTUS, America, and the World.

the guy who helped Wikileaks... hasn't he been in prison for two years now for leaking
sensitive info??

Arrested May 2010, still awaiting trial.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/27/bradley-manning-lawyers-absolute-mockery

If the information was so sensitive then why is it unclassified? Who released it as unclassifed? What is the normal protocol of safeguarding unclassified information releases? Could any news organization get the same information upon request or is this different?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitive_But_Unclassified

The president has issued an executive order that defines different levels of classified material.


From the wiki: "Some categories of SBU information have authority in statute or regulation (e.g. SSI, CII) while others, including FOUO, do not."

If nothing else, the names should have been redacted and it would be Issa who had teh responsibility to do that. That makes him unfit for his job.

and then they might kick us with their jack boots

But Bradley Manning is still locked up?

WTF!?

There is definately a tiered justice system in this country.

Then, absolutely nothing happens to Issa? This country has lost the right to any claims of justice, among other things.

escape prosecution.

It's not hard to see which sides of that equation Manning and Issa fall on respectively.

Do something about it..... Investigate and press charges if necessary.

Who do you think he is? As to investigate, he said his committee will investigate the issue, he cannot investigate Issa and the House committee's actions, if that's what you mean.

find ways to do shit and dems seem helpless or find it impossible to act.

which he isn't

issa is in a safe district so he wins this time.

in the courts is another matter. but what he did wrong will then apply to others who did the same. carelessly or otherwise.

like wikileaks....

The names were run thru a respected batch of people and names redacted. It wasn't until even redacted names ... was meaningless did someone panic and throw out the names.


Issa is first and for most guilty of treason whereas Assange is not. ie if Manning is in jail and tortured for doing the exact same thing as Issa, we have to let Manning go or Issa will be thrown in jail. It can't be both. Of course Libya is working with it. They are an ally now.

Thanks for the thread, trailmonkee.

Do you think school board members would think twice about removing a teacher if she had left confidential information go out? There is a new law against it. Do law makers not have to follow any laws? They can open their mouths and put the entire country at risk. Another example of do what I say not as I myself do. This is unacceptable. Kick him off defense!

those weasels! JUST SAY IT!

TREASON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111

Issa is a power-drunk fascist.

They always get off with a little wrist slap when they engage in TREASON

That's the way to keep the names safer. Who's in charge is classifying this stuff?