Re: Miers out!
- From: Zev Sero <zev@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 00:04:19 GMT
Kip Williams wrote:
Zev Sero wrote:Kip Williams wrote:
No, I'm pretty confident that by revealing that she worked for the CIA
nothing was risked at all. The *only* reason to suppose that this was
meant to be a secret is the fact that the CIA asked for a criminal
inquiry into the leak; and there exist other reasonable explanations for that referral.
So people who work for the CIA have no need of secrecy? Foreign governments learn about this and don't feel any need to take steps to neutralize their contacts? My, my.
Most people who work for the CIA have no need of secrecy. On general
principles, the CIA would *like* to minimise all discussion of anything
at all to do with it, but there's no real need for it. Most CIA employees have no foreign contacts of any particular importance, that
foreign governments would care about.
And you've somehow figured out, in the absence of any information, that she falls under this category? Sarcasm fails me.
Your questions above (offset with three arrows) applies to *all* CIA employees, and reason that since she was a CIA employee, it necessarily follows that she had a need for secrecy. My response (with two arrows) is that that does not necessarily follow. Now, did this particular CIA employee in fact need secrecy? As I said in the post above (4 arrows), I see very little reason to suppose so. The only serious reason is the fact of the CIA referral, and there are other reasonable explanations that account for it.
(Note that any followup to this post will have more arrows at each offset; if you're reading a followup, please take that into account.)
-- Zev Sero Security and liberty are like beer and TV. They go zev@xxxxxxxxx well together, but are completely different concepts. - James Lileks .
- Re: Miers out!
- From: Kip Williams
- Re: Miers out!
- Prev by Date: Re: Eleven-eleven
- Next by Date: Re: There is a Santa Claus!
- Previous by thread: Re: Miers out!
- Next by thread: Re: Miers out!