The intelligence and information gathered by different countries is not intended to bring about justice. It's supposed to be a proactive activity rather than reactive. You don't bring people to justice who haven't done anything wrong yet. The purpose for intelligence agencies is, primarily, to gather information that will help them to protect the interests and security of that nation. Now, if they have information relating to the guilt or innocence of an individual suspected of a crime, then they should be required to divulge that. The problem from an intelligence stand point is how to protect your sources. It's a similar dilemma with news agencies. A reporter might have information about the details of a crime which may incarcerate or acquit someone of a crime, but how do they get that information out there without compromising their sources? It's an interesting dilemma.
Respectfully, Michael ----- Original Message ----- From: "Benjamin Falloon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 11:27 AM Subject: Re: evidence > it would be interesting if governments and intellegence agencies were > required to demonstrate the same degree of evidence and disclosure. Maybe > there would be more 'justice' in the world. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 2:19 AM > Subject: Re: evidence > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
