That's a good point. Just one thing to clarify. I was in Military Intelligence and the government makes a concerted effort to disclose information without revealing the means by which we got it. Sen. Hatch really screwed the pooch on that one when he specified that we had intercepted communications. If he simply said, we have knowledge of something without revealing its source, he would have been, technically, ok. I agree with you though that we divulge way too much information.
Respectfully, Michael ----- Original Message ----- From: "Garza, Jeff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 11:06 AM Subject: RE: evidence > They already have disclosed this information to NATO allies. One thing to > understand is that disclosure of this information publicly would in all > likelihood compromise our intelligence gathering efforts which will be > increasingly critical to thwarting further attacks. > > http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/10/04/ret.nato.support/ > > Jeff > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Smyth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 8:47 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: evidence > > > My personal opinion is that P Bush should disclose evidence against bin > laden before any military attack on afganistan is made. > > Not that i'm pro bin laden, but the continued persistance to made the > evidence public, increases public perception (especially in foreign > countries) that the US are making him a scapegoat simply because they need > one. > > Acting without full disclosure will also rally countries who already harbour > anti american sentiments > > Mark > > Mark Smyth > Developer > SUeBS > 00 44 1865 880800 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www.systemsunion.net > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
