Len Colby Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 But Avery's faith in the theory, like the intensity of Bush hatred in the population generally, has faded with time… […] What does Avery think of 9/11 conspiracy theories now? He thinks that while orchestrating the attacks was beyond the scope of the Bush administration, there was "considerable foreknowledge" within the government so that it should have been able to prevent them. Why it did not is his new focus. "Where I am now is, I've whittled it down to a very basic statement that I think a lot of people can agree on: There was a cover-up of some kind," Avery says. "The only question is what they were covering up, how far [up] it goes, how deep it runs, and how many asses would be on the line if the truth actually came out." He says he still "support the movement," but he also acknowledges getting "sucked in" deeper than he should have been, into a "hardcore mentality that it was almost too easy to get into back then, because the war had just started and everybody was just so pissed off." "It was easy to distrust everything," he says, "because there was nothing you could trust." http://www.slate.com/id/2302834/ Hat tip: Screw Loose Change (blog) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 It's interesting to see his views are softening, and he talks about being "sucked in". I wonder what exactly are his views, and what caused him to change to them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 It's interesting to see his views are softening, and he talks about being "sucked in". I wonder what exactly are his views, and what caused him to change to them? A couple of other excerpts from those Slate articles: "Nobody really seems to care anymore," he (Avery) says. "I don't know what it was, but I guess that climate of fear during the Bush administration, while it certainly was oppressive and made us feel like Big Brother was literally lurking around the corner, it got people off their ass. It made people active, it made people want to join the anti-war movement." Since 2006 Avery has re-cut the film twice more, removing some of the more outrageous accusations, like the claim that Flight 93 had been diverted to Cleveland Hopkins Airport rather than crashing in Pennsylvania and that calls made from the plane had been faked using "voice-morphing" technology. After interviewing some of the Pentagon witnesses in person, Avery has even backed away from the stance that it was a missile and not a plane that hit the Pentagon. "It's easy to come to conclusions when a: you don't have a lot of information at your disposal and B: you haven't had a chance to actually talk to people who were there," Avery says. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ It's this mentality that has pushed Avery away from the movement over the last four years. "Maybe he just changed his mind," Avery said, referring to the Veitch hysteria. "I mean, people change their minds." Avery has had his own issues with Jones and his audience over the years, and speculated that some of the death threats that Veitch received came from Jones' listeners. "That kind of mob mentality [is] the very thing that we were claiming to fight, the 'You're with us or with the terrorists' mentality," he said. "That's one of the reasons I had to back away from the movement in general," he said. "I was afraid I was becoming one of them—someone who sees conspiracy around every corner." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 "911 In Plane Site What “In Plane Site” accomplishes that no other video expose’ on September 11th has to date, is it exposes the viewer to a barrage of news clips from a majority of the mainstream news outlets. The official story of that day was told on live TV by reporters, policemen, firefighters, and other on-the-scene eyewitnesses, however, that footage was shown only once on live television broadcasts in the first hours of the attacks and then… it was never repeated. The stories changed, information was enigmatically omitted, and what can only be described as officially prescribed propaganda took the place of indisputable reality. If you still believe that terrorists with box cutters carried out 9/11, then you may have nothing to worry about, but the next time you hear on your local news station that the terrorist threat level has just been elevated, remember the words of Dave von Kleist as he closes this video presentation. “Where is your line in the sand?” http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/the-911-files/911-in-plane-site.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 It's good to see that Avery has been talking to witness, seeing evidence, etc, and come to the right conclusions... but people have been pointing to the facts for years, and I thought he interviewed witnesses?. I think the line of "...it's easy to come to that conclusion..." is a bit of a copout. I do agree that the real cover-up needs to be investigated: who was responsible for the intelligence failures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Knight Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 It's good to see that Avery has been talking to witness, seeing evidence, etc, and come to the right conclusions... but people have been pointing to the facts for years, and I thought he interviewed witnesses?. I think the line of "...it's easy to come to that conclusion..." is a bit of a copout. I do agree that the real cover-up needs to be investigated: who was responsible for the intelligence failures? The US has a LONG history of intelligence failures. I believe it's endemic to their arrogance that "no one is stupid enough to attack us, because we're the biggest, badd-assest, powerfullest country on the planet". Look at Pearl Harbor. They'd been getting warnings from their own people since 1925! (Billy Mitchell), that Japan would attack the Pacific Fleet, in harbour, on a Sunday and by surprise. Let alone starting in January, 1941 by the Peruvian Ambassador to Japan and throughout the whole year. 1925. 1941. SIXTEEN years, they'd been told that something would happen. How much MORE warning do they need to take steps against something?? I don't see that changing any time soon, TBH. They'd either have to completely replace the whole intelligence sector, or the system itself.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted September 11, 2011 Share Posted September 11, 2011 But Avery's faith in the theory, like the intensity of Bush hatred in the population generally, has faded with time… […] What does Avery think of 9/11 conspiracy theories now? He thinks that while orchestrating the attacks was beyond the scope of the Bush administration, there was "considerable foreknowledge" within the government so that it should have been able to prevent them. Why it did not is his new focus. "Where I am now is, I've whittled it down to a very basic statement that I think a lot of people can agree on: There was a cover-up of some kind," Avery says. "The only question is what they were covering up, how far [up] it goes, how deep it runs, and how many asses would be on the line if the truth actually came out." He says he still "support the movement," but he also acknowledges getting "sucked in" deeper than he should have been, into a "hardcore mentality that it was almost too easy to get into back then, because the war had just started and everybody was just so pissed off." "It was easy to distrust everything," he says, "because there was nothing you could trust." http://www.slate.com/id/2302834/ Hat tip: Screw Loose Change (blog) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXoooooXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX#### ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^#^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^+ Not only are there false left people but there are also false 'truth' people. link http://www.oilempire.us/loose-change.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 12, 2011 Author Share Posted September 12, 2011 Not only are there false left people but there are also false 'truth' people. link http://www.oilempire.us/loose-change.html I love truther in fighting especially the paranoid claims that leaders of opposing factions are disinfo agents. They are very good at pointing out the logical and factual errors and distortions of their opponents, unfortunately they are totally blind to the fallacies they champion. To certain degree I think Rabinowitz was jealous of the makers of LC, they got far more attention and did more for "the movement" than he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 COLBY QUOTE I love truther in fighting especially the paranoid claims that leaders of opposing factions are disinfo agents. They are very good at pointing out the logical and factual errors and distortions of their opponents, unfortunately they are totally blind to the fallacies they champion. END COLBY QUOTE ^^^^^^^^^^^^#####################OOOOOOOOoooooooo*** So much worry over fallacies. Boiling Frog site On Thursday, the CIA threatened the journalists behind Who Is Rich Blee (podcast)? with possible federal prosecution if the investigative podcast is released in its current form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 13, 2011 Author Share Posted September 13, 2011 It's good to see that Avery has been talking to witness, seeing evidence, etc, and come to the right conclusions... but people have been pointing to the facts for years, and I thought he interviewed witnesses?. I think the line of "...it's easy to come to that conclusion..." is a bit of a copout. I do agree that the real cover-up needs to be investigated: who was responsible for the intelligence failures? The US has a LONG history of intelligence failures. I believe it's endemic to their arrogance that "no one is stupid enough to attack us, because we're the biggest, badd-assest, powerfullest country on the planet". Look at Pearl Harbor. They'd been getting warnings from their own people since 1925! (Billy Mitchell), that Japan would attack the Pacific Fleet, in harbour, on a Sunday and by surprise. Let alone starting in January, 1941 by the Peruvian Ambassador to Japan and throughout the whole year. 1925. 1941. SIXTEEN years, they'd been told that something would happen. How much MORE warning do they need to take steps against something?? I don't see that changing any time soon, TBH. They'd either have to completely replace the whole intelligence sector, or the system itself.... The US is hardly unique in that regard: If the British and French had better intel. they probably would not have gotten trapped in Dunkirk. Soviets agents in Germany tried to warn them about Operation Barbarosa but this was ignored. Similarly the German's had intel. the Allies would land at Normandy but chose to believe they would attack further north. The Israeli government ignored signs of an impending attack in 1973. The British missed the signs that Argentina was going to invade the Falklands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 13, 2011 Author Share Posted September 13, 2011 COLBY QUOTE I love truther in fighting especially the paranoid claims that leaders of opposing factions are disinfo agents. They are very good at pointing out the logical and factual errors and distortions of their opponents, unfortunately they are totally blind to the fallacies they champion. END COLBY QUOTE ^^^^^^^^^^^^#####################OOOOOOOOoooooooo*** So much worry over fallacies. Boiling Frog site On Thursday, the CIA threatened the journalists behind Who Is Rich Blee (podcast)? with possible federal prosecution if the investigative podcast is released in its current form. WTF does this have to do with Avery or LC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Knight Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 It's good to see that Avery has been talking to witness, seeing evidence, etc, and come to the right conclusions... but people have been pointing to the facts for years, and I thought he interviewed witnesses?. I think the line of "...it's easy to come to that conclusion..." is a bit of a copout. I do agree that the real cover-up needs to be investigated: who was responsible for the intelligence failures? The US has a LONG history of intelligence failures. I believe it's endemic to their arrogance that "no one is stupid enough to attack us, because we're the biggest, badd-assest, powerfullest country on the planet". Look at Pearl Harbor. They'd been getting warnings from their own people since 1925! (Billy Mitchell), that Japan would attack the Pacific Fleet, in harbour, on a Sunday and by surprise. Let alone starting in January, 1941 by the Peruvian Ambassador to Japan and throughout the whole year. 1925. 1941. SIXTEEN years, they'd been told that something would happen. How much MORE warning do they need to take steps against something?? I don't see that changing any time soon, TBH. They'd either have to completely replace the whole intelligence sector, or the system itself.... The US is hardly unique in that regard: If the British and French had better intel. they probably would not have gotten trapped in Dunkirk. Soviets agents in Germany tried to warn them about Operation Barbarosa but this was ignored. Similarly the German's had intel. the Allies would land at Normandy but chose to believe they would attack further north. The Israeli government ignored signs of an impending attack in 1973. The British missed the signs that Argentina was going to invade the Falklands. Indeed...National/Military "Intelligence" is definitely an oxymoron Although - getting "trapped" at Dunkirk wasn't really a failure of intelligence. It was a failure of tactics (at least for the Allies). Germans went around the Maginot Line, and flanked the Belgians and French. Everyone had to pull back, or get cut-off, and ground into mincemeat by the German Blitzkrieg. Turning Dunkirk from certain defeat into a somewhat tactical victory was, dare I say, genius! They had to leave their weapons behind, but saving the men counted for a LOT, later. Soviets were unreliable at that time - it wasn't until much later that *anyone* listened to them. That's what they got for playing both sides of the fence. Israeli/Arab wars - can't remember enough to comment. Didn't they end up winning those, though? Quite easily? German Intelligence apparatus had been infiltrated and subsumed on a LARGE order, throughout the war. Double Agents, misinformation, massive erroneous assumptions, and of course, for the Normandy invasion, leaked plans showing the invasion would be at the MUCH narrower Pas de Calais, rather than the larger width it actually was (See "The Man Who Never Was" for more info. It was really only Rommel who considered the real route, but the "Tactical Genius" that was Hitler, over-ruled him, and withheld the tanks, and more... They never really had any effect on their own operations, and what they did "win" was mostly unimportant, to the Allies. Argentina/Falklands - less a failure of Intelligence, than an opportunistic attack due to withdrawal of most Military Forces by Britain. Selling of the LAST Aircraft Carrier, and the Argentine belief the UK would be unable, or unwilling to respond to an invasion. Using a little-known clause in the contract of the sale, UK recalled the carrier, and used it in defence. Real-time satellite imagery and Intelligence provided secretly by the Americans, helped the UK forces, too. Even though they said the UK could never retake the islands The warnings of a possible invasion weren't provided by any Intelligence asset, that I can recall, but by members of the Royal Navy - Captains and the like. More a tactical assessment, that was ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 (edited) COLBY QUOTE I love truther in fighting especially the paranoid claims that leaders of opposing factions are disinfo agents. They are very good at pointing out the logical and factual errors and distortions of their opponents, unfortunately they are totally blind to the fallacies they champion. END COLBY QUOTE ^^^^^^^^^^^^#####################OOOOOOOOoooooooo*** So much worry over fallacies. Boiling Frog site On Thursday, the CIA threatened the journalists behind Who Is Rich Blee (podcast)? with possible federal prosecution if the investigative podcast is released in its current form. WTF does this have to do with Avery or LC? XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXooooooooXXXXXXXX++ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooXXXXXXXX++ You are stating that truthers champion fallicies. I counter with the fact that the CIA is trying to supress a investigation/news story into Blee who seems to be have helped make 911 happen. If the truthing idea of government complicity is a fallacy ,why would the CIA be so upset ??? Your not understanding this very simple point seem disingenous. (or your not very bright,sorry that is an alternative explanation,sorry). Independendently I found BLEE to be helping the 911 plot early and late when looking into CIA/911 memos. Later I found that other 'fallacy truthers' had done the work before I had done so regarding Blee. You do recall I have a post on BLEE ??? THANKS sg Edited September 13, 2011 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 13, 2011 Author Share Posted September 13, 2011 COLBY QUOTE I love truther in fighting especially the paranoid claims that leaders of opposing factions are disinfo agents. They are very good at pointing out the logical and factual errors and distortions of their opponents, unfortunately they are totally blind to the fallacies they champion. END COLBY QUOTE ^^^^^^^^^^^^#####################OOOOOOOOoooooooo*** So much worry over fallacies. Boiling Frog site On Thursday, the CIA threatened the journalists behind Who Is Rich Blee (podcast)? with possible federal prosecution if the investigative podcast is released in its current form. WTF does this have to do with Avery or LC? XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXooooooooXXXXXXXX++ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooXXXXXXXX++ You are stating that truthers champion fallicies. I counter with the fact that the CIA is trying to supress a investigation/news story into Blee who seems to be have helped make 911 happen. If the truthing idea of government complicity is a fallacy ,why would the CIA be so upset ??? Your not understanding this very simple point seem disingenous. (or your not very bright,sorry that is an alternative explanation,sorry). Independendently I found BLEE to be helping the 911 plot early and late when looking into CIA/911 memos. Later I found that other 'fallacy truthers' had done the work before I had done so regarding Blee. You do recall I have a post on BLEE ??? THANKS sg That's a real stretch, even by your standards, especially since you'd already started a thread about this. I've yet to see evidence the CIA tried to block coverage of the Blee story, apparently the "Press for Truth" folks were threatened with prosecution because their podcast would make the names of CIA covert agents public. http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2011/09/press-for-truth-boys-threatened-with.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 (edited) COLBY QUOTE I love truther in fighting especially the paranoid claims that leaders of opposing factions are disinfo agents. They are very good at pointing out the logical and factual errors and distortions of their opponents, unfortunately they are totally blind to the fallacies they champion. END COLBY QUOTE ^^^^^^^^^^^^#####################OOOOOOOOoooooooo*** So much worry over fallacies. Boiling Frog site On Thursday, the CIA threatened the journalists behind Who Is Rich Blee (podcast)? with possible federal prosecution if the investigative podcast is released in its current form. WTF does this have to do with Avery or LC? XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXooooooooXXXXXXXX++ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooXXXXXXXX++ You are stating that truthers champion fallicies. I counter with the fact that the CIA is trying to supress a investigation/news story into Blee who seems to be have helped make 911 happen. If the truthing idea of government complicity is a fallacy ,why would the CIA be so upset ??? Your not understanding this very simple point seem disingenous. (or your not very bright,sorry that is an alternative explanation,sorry). Independendently I found BLEE to be helping the 911 plot early and late when looking into CIA/911 memos. Later I found that other 'fallacy truthers' had done the work before I had done so regarding Blee. You do recall I have a post on BLEE ??? THANKS sg That's a real stretch, even by your standards, especially since you'd already started a thread about this. I've yet to see evidence the CIA tried to block coverage of the Blee story, apparently the "Press for Truth" folks were threatened with prosecution because their podcast would make the names of CIA covert agents public. http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2011/09/press-for-truth-boys-threatened-with.html XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXooooooooOOOO =====================o============== UPDATE=UPDATE The Still Developing Story of the Recently Issued CIA Threats to 9/11 Press For Truth Producers Nowosielski & Duffy ---------------o------ Boiling Frogs Post By Sibel Edmonds September 15, 2011 CIAs Maneuver: A Case of Bluffing? Buying Time? Or Something More? Last week we broke the story of the CIA issued legal threats against producers Ray Nowosielski and John Duffy on their discovery of the identities of the two key CIA analysts who executed the Tenet-Black-Blee cover-up in the case of two key 9/11 hijackers. The analysts were referred to only by first names initially, but were going to be fully named in a follow up segment. It appears the story is still developing, but we now have further details on the case, an analysis by an expert producer, and a few comments on assessing the nature and possible implication of this move by the CIA. I asked Mr. Nowosielski how the CIA was informed about the schedule and the content of their upcoming segment, and he provided us with the following details: We emailed CIA Public Affairs on Thursday morning telling them of our intention to name two current agents in our journalism piece and explained the context of their use the things they were accused of. We also explained that their names had been deduced through open-source materials and that our sources had told us they were working from headquarters. As for the CIAs reaction and response Mr. Nowosielski recounted the following: Their media spokesperson called back almost immediately. After a brief discussion, we emailed him the script for official reply. We also requested an interview with the two to ensure that we were telling the full story accurately. The reply email began This is off the record: and then informed us that we may be violating federal law by including those two names. When we asked him to cite the law, we were told it was the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. This and follow up calls occurred on Thurs, Fri, and Sat, until we explained that we were not recognizing off the record in our official interactions with the Agency. We have heard nothing further since. My own immediate response to the way in which CIA responded to the producers can be summed up in three questions: 1- Is this one of those fairly common cases where the government agency tries its bluffing tactic to see whether that suffices to intimidate and stop the whistleblower or reporter in question? Because the threat is issued by e-mail, and ludicrously, it starts off by stating off the record. When confident and on solid ground the agencies come after the targets armed with official- legal letters or even court orders. In my days, in my own case as a government whistleblower, and later as the director of NSWBC dealing with many intelligence agencies whistleblowers and also reporters, I have experienced the government agency Bluffing Tactic more than a few times. For example, the FBI tried to stop my interview with CBS-60 Minutes and later attempted to stop the airing of the segment, but when challenged and invited to go ahead and take legal action, they changed their mind; they went away. 2- Is this an attempt by the CIA to buy needed time to take further action against the producers through the Department of Justice? One thing I know is that government bureaucracy takes time. It takes time to get things done when it comes to the government. In this case, the CIA would have to bring and make the case to the Justice Department. The DOJ then would have to go through its own bureaucracy and reviews to decide whether it could turn this into a legal action via the courts. Thus, this could possibly be a case of the CIA trying to buy more time to translate its ludicrous off the record threat issued by a casual e-mail into a real threat with some teeth. If so, wouldnt that mean a window of opportunity for the producers to release the information? Or not? 3- What are the real legal liabilities facing the Producers, since the names of the two culprit CIA analysts are already out in public records? Further, with other sources in addition to the public records outing the names of the analysts who happen to be involved in possible criminal actions, what level of threat are the producers faced with? Again, based on my own experience and the experiences of many government intelligence agencies whistleblowers, the CIA would have to first classify the already public information-documents out there revealing the identities of the two CIA analysts; classification after the fact. Next, they would have to legally pursue the other involved sources who have either confirmed or released those names. The CIA hasnt done that. At least not yet. And what does this mean? Does it mean the producers still have the burden of abiding by the casually issued off the record e-mail by the CIA? Or not? We are still waiting for further analysis by our legal experts and other intelligence sources. Meanwhile I asked our media advisor Kristina Borjesson to give us her take and expert analysis on this case. Internationally acclaimed for her work, Ms. Borjesson has produced for major American and European television networks and published two groundbreaking books on problems of the U.S. press: Into the Buzzsaw: Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press and Feet to the Fire: the Media After 9/11, Top Journalists Speak out. Her awards include an Emmy and Murrow Award in TV, the National Press Clubs Arthur Rowse award for Media Criticism, and two Independent Publishers Awards for her books. Here is the analysis of this case by Ms. Borjesson for Boiling Frogs Post: The Pitfalls of Due Diligence for Deep Journalism When independent filmmakers Ray Nowosielski and John Duffy interviewed Richard Clarke in 2009, the former counterterrorism czar dropped a bomb on camera. Clarke accused former CIA head George Tenet and two other CIA officials, Cofer Black and Richard Blee of withholding critical intelligence from the FBI, DOD, White House and Immigration on the presence in the US of two alleged 9/11 hijackers well before 9/11. In their film, Who is Richard Blee? Nowosielski and Duffy also identify two CIA analysts who participated in the cover-up. After interviewing Clarke, the filmmakers tried for more than a year to interest media outlets in their bombshell information. We pitched everywhere and were told no, says Nowosielski, We always held out hope to get funding for it to be a real documentary, which we thought [the subject] deserved. Finally, the filmmakers settled on putting the film out as a podcast. The CIA is now holding up the release of the recording as a result of the filmmakers doing due diligence as reporters. It is a standard practice of good journalism to get in touch with subjects that other subjects in a print or TV news piece are talking about if the talked-about subjects are being accused of malfeasance or illegal or unethical behavior. It is only fair to allow accused subjects to answer and/or defend themselves. It is also then incumbent upon the reporter to get to the bottom of who exactly is telling the truththe accuser or the accused. In this case, the filmmakers contacted CIA public affairs to give the two CIA analysts a chance to defend themselves. They followed proper procedure in contacting the CIA public affairs people, because public affairs (not the analysts) are authorized to decide whether to speak on behalf of the analysts or to allow the analysts to speak for themselves. Nowosielski and Duffy went one step further in their due diligence. They sent their entire script to CIA public affairs. We sent the full piece because we wanted them to know these people were going to be outed. So if theyd been sent in some deep cover thing, we wanted to give them time to pull those people out of those positions. We thought maybe they would be compelled to defend themselves, because people from the 9/11 commission, the FBI…even Tony Shaffer from Able danger [were] piling on, so we thought maybe were misinterpreting this story or they need to defend themselves. No doubt the producers did all their digging and proof-gathering into what the CIA analysts allegedly did before calling CIA public affairs. You call public affairs AFTER you have the goods on their employees, not before getting the goods or to get the goods. Its an ethical protocol, but usually one that is done after its too late for public affairs to shut down sources or otherwise interfere in the reporting process. In this case, contacting CIA public affairs kept the producers on the straight and narrow journalistically, which is a good place to be at all times when reporting on highly sensitive issues. CIA public affairs responded with an emailed threat. Off the record, the CIAs spokesperson wrote, Nowosielski and Duffy might be violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act by outing their analysts. The penalty for outing CIA agents without using classified sources includes fines and/or prison time. The spokespersons use of the off the record line is a ploy. When journalists go off the record, it is usually a mutually agreed upon pre-arrangement. The CIAs public affairs persons attempt to silence Nowosielski and Duffy didnt work but it has given them pause. The filmmakers are withholding the release of Who is Richard Blee? so the threat, even though it has no legal force, has for now had the desired effect. But the story probably wont end there. Nowosielski and Duffy are currently in assessment mode. The question they are asking themselves, says Nowosielski, is Are we in a position that we want to face the heat involved in that? Were in no rush; we want to make a good decision. Meanwhile, theyre getting advice from a number of friendly legal quarters Edited September 15, 2011 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now