rolling7

RR, in her two post, DID answer your question......honestly and clearly...but if you don't like the answers WALK AWAY.

Deafness

__________________
This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members.
Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

Steinhauer

You have your facts mixed up (as usual)..

'No Easy Day': Pentagon Threatens Legal Action Over Bin Laden Book

Foxrac

No, you should.

__________________


In Moto We Trust

Jiro

just because she "replied back" to my question doesn't mean it's actually an answer.

it's quite very simple - if you don't want to answer my question, walk away. better to walk away than to waste my time with non-answer answer. you are clearly bullying me - telling me to accept whatever you say and walk away. oh my!

__________________
- Don't forget to buy Jiro's Special Edition Sunglasses for $19.95

Jiro

*staring*

................. so............ where exactly did it say Mark Owen is being charged of a crime? I think it's best if you give me an official source rather than some newspaper, don't ya think?

__________________
- Don't forget to buy Jiro's Special Edition Sunglasses for $19.95

Foxrac

We have evidence that is confidential.

__________________


In Moto We Trust

rockin'robin

Oh my!...you sound like a "drill sargent" and demanding an answer to whatever question(s) (and it really was a stupid question)....And no, I don't have to walk away.....and the same to you...if you cannot accept whatever I said...then you walk away.

Steinhauer

No, that is not what rolling7 said at all. You are clearly confused. He said that RR answered your question (and she did). But that you keep "badgering" her by claiming she did not answer your question (which she did), and that if you did not like her answer (and she did answer your question), that instead of badgering her, YOU should walk away. If you are not satisified that someone did not take your bait, you should troll elsewhere.

He is not claiming that you should accept whatever Rolling7 is saying and walk away,. He is saying that you should walk away if you do not like the answer to your questions instead of badgering people. I wouldn't go so far as to say you are a bully, but you are sometimes very rude.

Bullying is the word rolling7 used, and yes, you are a borderline bully if you continue to harass people the way you do.

rolling7

Thank you

rolling7

You go, Girl! Stand strong.

Reba

DoD may take legal action against SEAL author - Navy News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Navy Times

CrazyPaul

Uh-oh, TSK TSK, Matt, you are not supposed to tell the top secret that you promised to keep.

Does that mean he's unpatriotic?

Frisky Feline

sorry it seems not to be too soon.

Reba

Patriotism is not a legal term, so it's a matter of opinion.

Treason is a legal term. UCMJ offenses and contractual agreements are legal classifications. It depends on what kind of information was included, to whom it was given, and for what reason. That's something the legal system will have to sort out.

rockin'robin

Guessing whenever you are telling the truth, the whole truth....so help you God....is unpatriotic?....Then again, some things are better left not said....He was under oath, still he chose to publish this book....

Foxrac

It looks like civil lawsuit rather than criminal.

__________________


In Moto We Trust

Reba

That's a legal condition. It has nothing to do with patriotism. It's not required to be patriotic in order to tell the truth.

Reba

It would be criminal:

"...By signing the agreements, Bissonnette acknowledged his awareness, Johnson wrote, that 'disclosure of classified information constitutes a violation of federal criminal law.'”

CrazyPaul

That's serious. If, in his book, there are some details that are supposed to be classified, then he's in trouble.

Reba

He's in trouble for not submitting his manuscript for clearance prior to sending it to a publisher. He knew better than that.

Even after TCS retired from the Navy, he had to contact the Navy before and after making a personal trip to Ukraine. TCS wasn't even involved in anything like SEAL missions when he was on active duty but that was the procedure. It was Cold War era, way before 9/11, and it was SOP to do that then, just as it is now. A service member who was involved in classified missions like the SEAL was is under even more restriction. It has nothing to do with who is President.

rockin'robin

Perhaps not...telling the truth could be more of a moral obligation?...In a lot of cases, the Truth really hurts, but it's better than being called "a lier."....

Reba

Under oath, telling the truth is not just a moral obligation but a legal one. There are penalties for perjury.

No one is on trial yet so I'm confused about your references.

I'm getting lost as to whom you are referring as a "lier" (liar), and to what "Truth" you are referring.

rockin'robin

The "Truth" about bin Laden's death is what I'm implying....

Reba

Oh, OK. Please don't imply things--just say it right out. Less confusing.

Foxrac

Oh wow, usually when I see legal action, I think it is civil case.

__________________


In Moto We Trust

naisho

I will let this thread 'sit' for now because it is related to news about the SEAL author, and some believe the Obama administration is guilty for leaking information related to it. Therefore it is somewhat related for news discussion.

However, if we see anything related to presidential politics unrelated to this current news (ie: "Obama sucks", "Obama is bad, I don't like him, he is a terrible president" ANYTHING off the point), "Obama" "Obama" blah blah unrelated to this topic, it will be tossed out immediately. Consider this a warning and this topic will be purged quickly if it is not respected.

Reba

Who?

Reba

No, it's not a coverup. It's called editorial policy. Each news organization has its own standards and guidelines to follow. When there's a question, the news director or editor makes the decision.

Since the name is out there, it can hardly be covered up now.


By harping on locking threads, that's a sure way to make it happen.

rockin'robin

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A day after threatening to take legal action against a former U.S. Navy SEAL for an unauthorized book about the commando raid which killed Osama bin Laden, U.S. officials are still debating whether there are sufficient grounds for doing so.

But a lawyer for Matt Bissonnette said on Friday that the former SEAL took his obligations to keep government secrets "seriously" and had made sure the book did not contain secrets.

On Thursday, Jeh Johnson, the Defense Department's top lawyer, sent "Mark Owen" -- a pen-name used by Bissonnette -- and his publisher, Penguin Putnam, a letter advising them that the book, "No Easy Day" had been published in violation of non-disclosure agreements Bissonnette signed while a SEAL.

The letter advised the author that he was in "material breach" of such agreements and that the Pentagon was "considering" legal action against the former SEAL and "all those acting in concert with you."

However, Bissonette's lawyer, Robert Luskin, who represented former President George W. Bush's adviser Karl Rove in the Valerie Plame leak case, claimed that a non-disclosure agreement signed by the former SEAL "invites, but by no means requires Mr. Owen to submit materials for pre-publication review."

Bissonnette "remains confident that he fulfilled his duty," Luskin said in a letter in response to Johnson.

While his client did sign an additional agreement in 2007 requiring pre-publication review "under certain circumstances," it was "difficult to understand how the matter that is the subject of Mr. Owen's book could conceivably be encompassed by the nondisclosure agreement that you have identified," Luskin said.

Luskin also claimed that Owen had "earned the right to tell his story."

U.S. defense and intelligence officials familiar with internal government deliberations about the book acknowledged that legal and factual issues surrounding the book's content were complex.

As a consequence, they said, it is still unclear if the U.S. government would proceed with legal action against the author or publisher, which is owned by Britain's Pearson Plc. Even if such action were launched, the officials said, it might well fail.

LETTER DOES NOT DIRECTLY ACCUSE

One U.S. official familiar with an array of recent leak-related investigations noted that Johnson's letter did not directly accuse the author of disclosing classified information, an allegation which would signal a possible criminal investigation.

"Also interesting is that according to the letter, to sue for (civil) damages, they would have to show that he not only violated his agreement, but that he did reveal classified information. I think that will be difficult for a lot of reasons," the official said, adding: "Maybe they are just trying to scare him."

At a news briefing on Friday, George Little, a Pentagon spokesman, said that an official, post-publication review of the book was continuing.

"I'm not aware that we have reached any final conclusions about, or conducted or finalized a security review of the book... We're reviewing all the options ... I'm not ruling in or out any future action. That's not for me to determine today," Little said.

Acknowledging the possibility of political fallout from any legal action against someone who could be portrayed as a hero for his role in the bin Laden raid, Little said: "I would note that we of course applaud anyone who participated in one of the most successful military and intelligence operations in U.S. history."

But he added: "Even those who participated in such a mission have a very serious and enduring obligation to follow the process and to help protect classified information."

Little also insisted that Johnson's letter was "not meant to be any kind of measure of intimidation ... It is meant to very strongly signal the requirement to uphold agreements that a former service member has made."

Mark Zaid, a lawyer who has represented a variety of former military and intelligence officials in disclosure and leak cases, said the Johnson letter looked like a signal that the Pentagon was "contemplating a test case against the publisher or media for disclosing classified information."

Zaid said it might be easier to file such a criminal case against the publisher than the author of the book, though a civil case against the author for violating secrecy agreements would be, in Zaid's opinion, a "slam dunk."

Given U.S. media laws, including the First Amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of expression, Zaid said the result of any criminal prosecution against a publisher would be uncertain. "I'm not saying they're going to win ... I don't know if they'll do it. (But) They've been waiting for a good factual case to bring it."

Representatives of both the book's publisher, as well as the author's lawyer, have asserted that the book was carefully reviewed before publication to ensure it did not contain any secrets. But U.S. officials said the book was not submitted for official pre-publication review, and that the author therefore had exposed himself to potential legal risks.

While the Defense Department is taking the lead in investigating the book's contents, the Central Intelligence Agency, which played a major role in laying the groundwork for and in carrying out the bin Laden raid, is conducting its own review. Some officials said Bissonnette may technically have been operating under the authority of the agency during the operation, further complicating the legal picture.

Little said the Defense Department had "consulted" with the Justice Department about the Bissonnette book, though he would not comment on whether an "official referral has taken place."

The Justice Department declined to say if it had received a referral.

SEAL who wrote bin Laden book denies spilling secrets - Yahoo! News

Reba

Not really. It's up to each organization. You've probably noticed that it differs internationally also.

For example, editorial policy about releasing the names of victims of sexual assaults, or blurring faces of minors on video. They are not consistent from agency to agency.

The organizations are pretty much self-regulated. Other than their own professional ethics, the only other things that keep them in check is civil suits for libel or losing readership or advertisers. (They worry more about advertisers than paid subscribers because there is more profit in advertising than subscribing.)