Interesting Senate discussion on now, CSPAN 2, re: "disclosing names"

[pinto]

an amendment being considered.

[Pirate Smile]

1. I flipped by when Norm Coleman was talking about being worried

that the Senate atmosphere was going to get poisoned by these partisan attacks.

Sure, Norm. There isn't any real issues here that the Senate should be concerned about :sarcasm:

Pathetic.

[Tommymac]

2. But this is a WIN/WIN for Dems

even if defeated - great election year fodder - they voted against an amendment to protect US security.

[Q]

3. Just what WERE the EIGHT YEARS of attacks...

...against Clinton and Gore if they weren't 'partisan'?

THEY would tell you they were only pursuing justice to make sure that 'NO PRESIDENT WAS ABOVE THE LAW'.

But with their words and deeds they are saying that THIS 'president' IS above the law.

[pinto]

4. Levin proposing that any disclosure, intentional or not, be a security nix

"No hairsplitting, no loopholes, no 'I didn't name a name'"

[damntexdem]

7. Revealing an identity is already illegal.

Do we want to make unintentional disclosures illegal?

[kevinmc]

5. Democrats introduce 'security clearance' amendment RAW STORY

Democratic senators Reid, Levin, Rockefeller, Biden and Durbin offered the following amendment to the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, RAW STORY has learned.

"No federal employee who discloses or has disclosed classified information, including the identity of a covert agent of the Central Intelligence Agency, to a person not authorized to receive such information shall be entitled to hold a security clearance for access to such information."



http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Democrats_introduce_security_clearance__0714.html

[pinto]

6. see also this current GD thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4102369&mesg_id=4102369

[pinto]

8. link to other GD thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4102369&mesg_id=4102369