TheNoLieGuy4U wrote on Mar 7
th, 2008 at 9:39pm:
Hi George, & others,
I have not been back to the sight for a while as some of have jobs and not as much free time on our hands as many of you there. OR, I don't have a job wherein I suck off the breast of a non-profit organization or gov. agency now where actual production is not as much of an issue--- but I digress.
Please forgive me for having supposed that your lack of response was attributable to something other than your busy work schedule.
Quote: To answer your question George ! You put up a straw man argument when you limit yourself to one particular form that you signed, given that you also took an oath. I believe you are entitled to a jury of your peers, shall we say a peer review of twelve jurors who could determine if what you have done is or is not consistent with the oath and document(s) signed by someone who has served in the capacity of an Intelligence Officer, and especially a commissioned Officer. I personally would like that to be a jury of current or former Intelligence Officers, but since that is not possibe in the real world--- I would settle for twelve good men and women from the public.
Before you use the term "straw man argument," you would do well to
learn its meaning. It is you who suggested that I had violated a classified information non-disclosure agreement. I merely asked you to point out what portion of that agreement you believe I have violated, and how. It would appear that you are unable to do so.
And now you accuse me of having somehow violated the
oath of office that I swore upon becoming a U.S. Army Reserve officer. Please state specifically what act of mine violated this oath, and how.
Quote: So, I guess you really need to ask yourself two questions now. In regard to the original posting related to Al Queda ----- Did THEY benefit from your site meaning you had aided and abedded the enemies of the United States ! Which perhaps a U.S. Attorney may be asking themselves right now !!! AND Theoretically, could there be a defector among your litttle Arab or Persian buddies there in Holland who might say same ? Think hard George !!! You have no less than declared War on a fine profession. It / They; can not offer perfection 24/7 and neither can Aviation or Medicine; but that doesn't mean you scrap it until something BETTER is created. You have the right to be a critic, but you crossed that line a while ago in the minds of many who have offered much more to this country than you have, and you will be dealt with one way or the other. Personally, I don't care which method it is, only that you be made an example of. Your targeting this sector of the Intelligence community has not gone unnoticed and you are no longer perceived as a neutral scholarly type. I must say have no idea about your claims other than what you have written as one side of the story, but I do know as a reasonable man that your behavior in the thereafter there in Holland in the company of Iranian and other Arab nationals is no less than suggestive ---- How did they say it on that game show----- "George, You ARE the weakest link" the intelligence community has seen in a long time. Punishment can in deed be a Bitch !!
That Al-Qaeda members or associates
have exploited information available on AntiPolygraph.org is in no way tantamount to my having "
aided and abetted the enemies of the United States."
You state that I "will be dealt with one way or the other." Please elaborate.
As for "weakest links," I'd say that clearly one of the weakest (yet easily corrected) links in America's national security posture is our foolhardy embrace of the pseudoscience of polygraphy. We need not await the invention of a real lie detector before terminating our misplaced reliance on one that is a complete and utter fraud. In the words of Prof.
Stephen E. Fienberg, who chaired the National Academy of Sciences' Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph,
"National security is too important to be left to such a blunt instrument."