[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by abe

Thanks for the details!

How the hell are we going to try to convince the Iraqi factions to abandon their internecine warring when we have people here doing the same stupid thing?

Don't know. I have noticed a problem where some folks here have a very contentious, balkanized world view. They claim that the other political party is the cause of all the problems in the world and are constantly insulting them and calling them "fuzzy." Any ideas on what we can do to get these people to engage in meaningful discussion?

[mr. natural]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey
She chose to do so because it was politically expedient to do so, and because she put politics above her duty and didn't have the courage to take her concerns up on the record through the proper channels. The only person betraying the public trust is this government employee, who took the law into her own hands. Fry her.

You also are ignoring the article I posted above, where the EU says they can't find any evidence there even were "secret prisons."

"Fry her," for allegedly leaking classified information about something that isn't even true?

Talk about "moonbats"!

This sort of comment coming from a law school student who likes to tout, "This is a nation of laws -- thankfully," makes one wonder what sort of education in law he's getting. Or has the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, like the baby with the bath water this administration spews when it comes to "politicized" revelations about what is true/classified information or not, been tossed out the window?

But I guess the law doesn't apply to Democrats? That seems to be your argument. If a Democrat thinks the law doesn't apply to her or if the law conflicts with her politics, then she gets to break the law? How convenient!

And your argument here is exactly what then? That when it comes to our resident Chump-in-Cheif, who construes to break laws (purely by right of an executive privilege claim clearly not delineated anywhere within our Constitution) such as FISA, the USA Patriot Act, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, or The Geneva Convention, that it's not "How convenient!"?



How about I just fix™ your quote for you:

He chose to do so because it was politically expedient to do so, and because he put politics above his duty and doesn't have the courage to deal within the laws or sacred trust of his oath of office. The only person betraying the public trust is this government employee, who takes the law into his own hands. Fry him!

[mr. natural]

Originally posted by abe

I take this to mean you are referring to this man:










Edited to fix™ the slogan.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Don't know. I have noticed a problem where some folks here have a very contentious, balkanized world view. They claim that the other political party is the cause of all the problems in the world and are constantly insulting them and calling them "fuzzy." Any ideas on what we can do to get these people to engage in meaningful discussion?

I suppose you think this is serious, huh?

This is just brotherly jousting and letting you know your place.

Nothing personal.

[christ]

Is it ever moral for someone to leak information?

If no, then I don't want to live in your world, if yes, then how are y'all so sure that this person wasn't right?

According to Simey's logic, anyone from Al-Qaeda could put "Top Secret" on his world domination plans, and it would be illegal and immoral to leak them if you found them. It must be fun in your world, but count me out.

[abe]

Originally Posted by christ

Is it ever moral for someone to leak information?

If no, then I don't want to live in your world, if yes, then how are y'all so sure that this person wasn't right?

According to Simey's logic, anyone from Al-Qaeda could put "Top Secret" on his world domination plans, and it would be illegal and immoral to leak them if you found them. It must be fun in your world, but count me out.

Bottom line is this:

The USA is the only power that can stand in the way of global radical Islamist domination. Anything that weakens our ability to help prosecute the WoT (and that includes the war in Iraq) helps the goal of OBL.

We are in a zero sum game here.

zero-sum game
n.
A situation in which a gain by one person or side must be matched by a loss by another person or side: “It's not a zero-sum game in which either youth or pensioners must lose” (Earl W. Foell).

And it's a zero sum game because the Islamists' say they get their direction to dominate the world from the Koran and/or Hadiths.

So, bottom line, if we lose they will win. It's not a situation where Muslims can be satisfied forever with things as they are. They must obey their religious instructions to spread Islam to every corner of the earth. To have a worldwide Caliphate. Worldwide domination.

I don't care how badly you dislike Bush or the reasons you believe (or disbelieve) we went to war.

Whatever we lose goes to the Islamists. Whatever we gain is kept from the Islamists.

Either you are helping the forces which fight for freedom of religion and civil liberties or you are wekening the USA and standing there waiting for the USA to weaken are the forces of religious intolerance and oppression.

I will be criticized for speaking in generalities and making some huge leaps in logic but often this is the big picture some need first before they can make sense of the details.



Sometimes I think people here argue the aspects of an elephant's tail and lose sight of the fact that the tail is attached to the elephant.

If you hate Bush, if you hate the war, if you hate America just understand that Bush, the war and America are all that stands between your current life and beliefs and lifestyle and one which would look more like contemporary life in Tehran or Riyadh.

Dislike the tail if that's how you feel, but if you love the elephant you must accept him as he is, tail and all.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by abe

If you hate Bush, if you hate the war, if you hate America just understand that Bush, the war and America are all that stands between your current life and beliefs and lifestyle and one which would look more like contemporary life in Tehran or Riyadh.

Wrong. Without those things, the world would not suddenly become Muslim.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Wrong. Without those things, the world would not suddenly become Muslim.

What would prevent global domination?

All the terrorist attacks since the first WTC attack in 1993 have been in the fight to achieve global domination. The desire to create a worldwide Caliphate is hardly a secret.

Islam has bloody borders and is the world's fastest growing religion.

What could prevent total conquest?

In your humble opinion?


EDIT: Maybe not suddenly. Mecca wasn't built in a day. But what about eventually?

[christ]

Originally Posted by abe

The USA is the only power that can stand in the way of global radical Islamist domination. Anything that weakens our ability to help prosecute the WoT (and that includes the war in Iraq) helps the goal of OBL.

This is not true. Nothing has changed for the better vis-a-vis "global radical Islamist domination" since GWB started invading countries, in fact the reverse is more likely true.

Originally Posted by abe

If you hate Bush, if you hate the war, if you hate America just understand that Bush, the war and America are all that stands between your current life and beliefs and lifestyle and one which would look more like contemporary life in Tehran or Riyadh.

This also is not true. My life (and yours, for that matter) were nothing like contemporary life in Tehran or Riyadh before the USA started its idiot quest for global domination, but yours at least is getting more like it every day under your current administration (illegal phone tapping, illegal prisons, illegal torture). I am sure that Saddam only allowed/ encouraged torture of those people that he thought opposed him - how is that different from these 'rendition flights'?

In chasing your ideals at all costs you have lost your morality, and you are becoming what you fear.

Awaken before it is too late.

[abe]

Originally Posted by christ

This is not true. Nothing has changed for the better vis-a-vis "global radical Islamist domination" since GWB started invading countries, in fact the reverse is more likely true.

What We've Gained In 3 Years in Iraq
By Donald H. Rumsfeld
Sunday, March 19, 2006; B07

Some have described the situation in Iraq as a tightening noose, noting that "time is not on our side"and that "morale is down." Others have described a "very dangerous" turn of events and are "extremely concerned."

Who are they that have expressed these concerns? In fact, these are the exact words of terrorists discussing Iraq -- Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his associates -- who are describing their own situation and must be watching with fear the progress that Iraq has made over the past three years.

The terrorists seem to recognize that they are losing in Iraq. I believe that history will show that to be the case.

Fortunately, history is not made up of daily headlines, blogs on Web sites or the latest sensational attack. History is a bigger picture, and it takes some time and perspective to measure accurately.

Consider that in three years Iraq has gone from enduring a brutal dictatorship to electing a provisional government to ratifying a new constitution written by Iraqis to electing a permanent government last December. In each of these elections, the number of voters participating has increased significantly -- from 8.5 million in the January 2005 election to nearly 12 million in the December election -- in defiance of terrorists' threats and attacks.

One of the most important developments over the past year has been the increasing participation of Iraq's Sunni community in the political process. In the volatile Anbar province, where Sunnis are an overwhelming majority, voter turnout grew from 2 percent in January to 86 percent in December. Sunni sheiks and religious leaders who previously had been sympathetic to the insurgency are today meeting with coalition representatives, encouraging Iraqis to join the security forces and waging what violent extremists such as Abu al-Zarqawi and his al-Qaeda followers recognize as a "large-scale war" against them.

The terrorists are determined to stoke sectarian tension and are attempting to spark a civil war. But despite the many acts of violence and provocation, the vast majority of Iraqis have shown that they want their country to remain whole and free of ethnic conflict. We saw this last month after the attack on the Shiite shrine in Samarra, when leaders of Iraq's various political parties and religious groups condemned the violence and called for calm.

Another significant transformation has been in the size, capability and responsibility of Iraqi security forces. And this is vitally important, because it is Iraqis, after all, who must build and secure their own nation.

Today, some 100 Iraqi army battalions of several hundred troops each are in the fight, and 49 control their own battle space. About 75 percent of all military operations in the country include Iraqi security forces, and nearly half of those are independently Iraqi-planned, Iraqi-conducted and Iraqi-led. Iraqi security forces have a greater ability than coalition troops to detect a foreign terrorist's accent, identify local suspects and use force without increasing a feeling of occupation. It was these Iraqi forces -- not U.S. or coalition troops -- that enforced curfews and contained the violence after the attack on the Golden Dome Shrine in Samarra. To be sure, violence of various stripes continues to slow Iraq's progress. But the coalition is doing everything possible to see this effort succeed and is making adjustments as appropriate.

The rationale for a free and democratic Iraq is as compelling today as it was three years ago. A free and stable Iraq will not attack its neighbors, will not conspire with terrorists, will not pay rewards to the families of suicide bombers and will not seek to kill Americans.

Though there are those who will never be convinced that the cause in Iraq is worth the costs, anyone looking realistically at the world today -- at the terrorist threat we face -- can come to only one conclusion: Now is the time for resolve, not retreat.

Consider that if we retreat now, there is every reason to believe Saddamists and terrorists will fill the vacuum -- and the free world might not have the will to face them again. Turning our backs on postwar Iraq today would be the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis. It would be as great a disgrace as if we had asked the liberated nations of Eastern Europe to return to Soviet domination because it was too hard or too tough or we didn't have the patience to work with them as they built free countries.

What we need to understand is that the vast majority of the Iraqi people want the coalition to succeed. They want better futures for themselves and their families. They do not want the extremists to win. And they are risking their lives every day to secure their country.

That is well worth remembering on this anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The writer is secretary of defense.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...031701797.html

Originally Posted by christ

This also is not true. My life (and yours, for that matter) were nothing like contemporary life in Tehran or Riyadh before the USA started its idiot quest for global domination, but yours at least is getting more like it every day under your current administration (illegal phone tapping, illegal prisons, illegal torture). I am sure that Saddam only allowed/ encouraged torture of those people that he thought opposed him - how is that different from these 'rendition flights'?

In chasing your ideals at all costs you have lost your morality, and you are becoming what you fear.

Awaken before it is too late.

I wasn't talking about what life WAS like. I'm talking about what life WOULD be like under Sharia rule.

By the way, are you a Muslim or just a tool of the Islamists?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_...n_Saudi_Arabia

Status of religious freedom

Saudi Arabia is an Islamic monarchy and the Government has declared the Qur'an and the Sunnah (tradition) of Muhammad to be the country’s Constitution. Freedom of religion is severely limited. Islam is the official religion, and all citizens must be Muslims[2]. The Government prohibits the public practice of other religions. The Government bases its legitimacy on governance according to the precepts of the rigorously conservative and strict interpretation of the Salafi or Wahhabi school of the Sunni branch of Islam and discriminates against other branches of Islam. Neither the Government nor society in general accepts the concepts of separation of religion and state, and such separation does not exist.
The legal system is based on Sharia (Islamic law), with Shari'a courts basing their judgments largely on a code derived from the Qur'an and the Sunnah. The Government permits Shi'a Muslims to use their own legal tradition to adjudicate noncriminal cases within their community.
The only national holidays observed in Saudi Arabia are the two Eids, Eid Al-Fitr at the end of Ramadan and Eid Al-Adha at the conclusion of the Hajj. Observance of the Shi'a holiday of Ashura is allowed in the eastern city of Qatif and in the southern province of Najran, though not officially stated.
The source of this text appears to be from the United States State Department "International Religious Freedom Report 2005" on Saudi Arabia. The official report on Saudi Arabia can be accessed and read by visiting http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2005/51609.htm .

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

This is a nation of laws -- thankfully.

Law and morality don't always coincide.

This is an interesting notion. Germany 1933-1945.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

This is an interesting notion. Germany 1933-1945.

Hit and run Nazi comparisons? Is that the extent of your argument?

Mastrap: you are more intelligent than that.

[analogika]

He quite probably is.

However, the statement he was responding to is probably the stupidest thing I've ever seen you post.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by analogika

He quite probably is.

However, the statement he was responding to is probably the stupidest thing I've ever seen you post.

What? That morality and legality don't always coincide? How is that "stupid?" Of course there are unjust laws, even in mature democracies. You don't need to run to a mindless Nazi analogy to see that. When Rosa Parks broke the law by sitting in the front of the bus, that was an immoral law she broke. Few would disagree with that.

But law and morality usually coincide and if you take the opposite position, you are arguing for a lawless society. To take some obvious examples, murder is illegal, and immoral. Murderers don't get to argue morality to escape punishment for their murders. Or on a lesser level, paying your taxes is both legally and morally required and correct. And the same goes for other necessary laws, like the ones that say that intelligence officers must keep the secrets to which they are entrusted, and that civil servants should not abuse their positions of trust to play party politics.

Society breaks down if you take the position that if you don't like a law, you don't have to follow it. But that is the basic problem with this issue. These Democrat petty insurrectionists don't like the fact that the law does not place them in charge, because the elected government is of the other party. So they break the law, and claim to be justified.

She wasn't justified, she broke the law, and her oath, and she should pay the price.

Oh, and notice that Rosa Parks did not break the law anonymously. She bravely sat down expecting to be arrested. Mary McCarthy did not do that. She broke the law in secret, tried to evade discovery, and continued to collect her government salary. That's not honorable.

[abe]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

What? That morality and legality don't always coincide? How is that "stupid?" Of course there are unjust laws, even in mature democracies. You don't need to run to a mindless Nazi analogy to see that. When Rosa Parks broke the law by sitting in the front of the bus, that was an immoral law she broke. Few would disagree with that.

But law and morality usually coincide and if you take the opposite position, you are arguing for a lawless society. To take some obvious examples, murder is illegal, and immoral. Murderers don't get to argue morality to escape punishment for their murders. Or on a lesser level, paying your taxes is both legally and morally required and correct. And the same goes for other necessary laws, like the ones that say that intelligence officers must keep the secrets to which they are entrusted, and that civil servants should not abuse their positions of trust to play party politics.

Society breaks down if you take the position that if you don't like a law, you don't have to follow it. But that is the basic problem with this issue. These Democrat petty insurrectionists don't like the fact that the law does not place them in charge, because the elected government is of the other party. So they break the law, and claim to be justified.

She wasn't justified, she broke the law, and her oath, and she should pay the price.

Oh, and notice that Rosa Parks did not break the law anonymously. She bravely sat down expecting to be arrested. Mary McCarthy did not do that. She broke the law in secret, tried to evade discovery, and continued to collect her government salary. That's not honorable.

[SimeyTheLimey]

By the way, it is probably reasonable for me to mention at this point that I knew Mary McCarthy personally. She is a law school classmate of mine. She is very personable, very smart, and absolutely wrong to have done what she did.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

I'm sure that there are procedures. But they don't apply to the president himself. Executive orders are just what the name implies -- orders by the president to his branch of government -- i.e. to his subordinates and employees. The president is not one of those employees or subordinates. He is the executive branch, and any time he wants to create a new executive order, or repeal, except, or modify a previous one, he can. Provided, of course, that the matter is properly decided within his constitutional powers, which this is.

So if a president decides that a particular piece of classified information needs to be declassified, he is free to declassify it. It is all classified under his authority, so he has the authority to declassify it, whenever in his judgment he needs to.

But the same power is not vested in low level government employees. They are simply violating their oath and breaking the law.

I believe there are rules about classification specifically saying that it shouldn't be used for political purposes. Do those rules really not apply to the president? I suppose that the only remedy we have for a president breaking the rules is impeachment, so in that sense the president, by definition, cannot ever break the law in his official actions.

Prosecutors like Fitzgerald can judge the legality of the Bush administration's actions, and McCarthy's. But in the meantime, I can judge their morality. Bush and his political operatives leak in order to deceive the country into war and attack political opponents for revealing the truth about their dishonesty. I think that's Wrong™. Enough people disagreed with me to re-elect them, but it most certainly doesn't change my judgment.

I'm not sure about the morality of revealing secret torture prisons. I don't see how it harms national security, and I also believe that having secret torture prisons is Wrong™, so I view their revelation in that context.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I'm not sure about the morality of revealing secret torture prisons. I don't see how it harms national security, and I also believe that having secret torture prisons is Wrong™, so I view their revelation in that context.

What you aren't recognizing is that the civil service has a duty to serve the president of the day regardless of their personal views. Yes, you don't like this administration, but the bigger picture is that one day it will be a democrat in the White House, and that democrat president should also have the benefit of an impartial civil service.

The alternative is that when each president comes into office, he will simply fire all senior civil servants from the previous administration -- because he won't be able to trust them to put aside their politics and behave professionally. That's the model the US had prior to the assassination of Harrison. But it is not a good model for a modern democracy. We need professionals in government. But a professional has to behave with professional restraint and understand that they are not elected to a policy position.

I realize that it is very hard for you to look at this objectively so long as a Republican is in the White House. Basically, you seem to regard government workers as a mechanism for opposition, and since you see yourself in opposition, that strikes you as reasonable. My point is you have to look beyond that to the reason we have civilian democratically elected government in this country, and not a government of unelected unaccountable beaurocrats a la Communist China.

Suppose President Feingold is approaching his second term. Say that as part of his foreign policy, President Feingold conducts secret negotiations with Iran to end Iran's nuclear program in exchange for some technology transfer or something. A Republican die-hard in the CIA decides that he doesn't like Russ Feingold, and that he doesn't think giving technology to the Mullahs is a good idea. So to try and influence things (including an upcoming election), the CIA person secretly reveals the classified program to Fox News, which duly splashes it all over the headlines. As a result, the US foreign policy of the democratically elected president of the day is seriously disrupted (just as this story disrupted intelligence cooperation with eastern Europe).

Now, is that objectively how government should work? Fifth columns among unelected beaurocrats trying to undermine the policies of the elected government of the day? Do we want an unelected government of beaurocrats, or do we want a government where elected leaders make the decisions?

The answer does not depend on whether you like the position of the beaurocrats or whether you prefer the decisions of the policians. The answer depends on whether you want constututional government by the properly elected leaders, or not. Policy is decided by elections, not the whims of unelected political opportunists with a lot of power, but no public accountability.

This is the real issue. Democrats like you seem to have lost sight of the bigger picture. It's very sad.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by abe

What would prevent global domination?

All the terrorist attacks since the first WTC attack in 1993 have been in the fight to achieve global domination. The desire to create a worldwide Caliphate is hardly a secret.

Islam has bloody borders and is the world's fastest growing religion.

What could prevent total conquest?

In your humble opinion?

The general impotence of the world's Islamic nations compared to every nation that actually matters? America didn't start fighting this "war on terror" until just a couple years back, yet somehow the world managed not to be globally dominated all that time.

You give these people too much credit. America may be the world's greatest superpower, but we aren't the only one. And our enemies aren't even close. They're good at blowing up closely packed groups of people, but as far as actually dominating anything better than them? They don't got it.

[tie]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

I realize that it is very hard for you to look at this objectively so long as a Republican is in the White House. Basically, you seem to regard government workers as a mechanism for opposition, and since you see yourself in opposition, that strikes you as reasonable. My point is you have to look beyond that to the reason we have civilian democratically elected government in this country, and not a government of unelected unaccountable beaurocrats a la Communist China.

You almost had me going there for a second. But can you explain again why the US running secret torture prisons abroad is the best way to keep us from turning into communist China? It's almost like you've proved 1+1=3.

Whatever you say about the legalities, the issue is not black and white as you portray it. The US running secret torture camps is Evil, and poses a far greater, immediate and direct threat to our country than some argument based on the creeping power of bureaucracy, a slippery slope, a dire possibility that fifty years from now the bureaucracy will have gotten so much power that our democracy will be completely subverted and we'll be running secret torture camps -- like the Chinese, or, um, like we already are.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by tie

You almost had me going there for a second. But can you explain again why the US running secret torture prisons abroad is the best way to keep us from turning into communist China? It's almost like you've proved 1+1=3.

Whatever you say about the legalities, the issue is not black and white as you portray it. The US running secret torture camps is Evil, and poses a far greater, immediate and direct threat to our country than some argument based on the creeping power of bureaucracy, a slippery slope, a dire possibility that fifty years from now the bureaucracy will have gotten so much power that our democracy will be completely subverted and we'll be running secret torture camps -- like the Chinese, or, um, like we already are.

If that even happened (the New York Times reports the EU can't find evidence that it ever happened), it isn't the place of an unelected CIA official to decide unilaterally to blow the program. That is taking the law -- and US foreign policy -- into her own hands. She was not elected by anyone to have that kind of power.

There are proper procedures that a true whistleblower can take. We have discussed this before in this thread. She could have gone to Congress to the committees who have the job of providing oversight over the CIA. Those committees have both Republicans and Democrat on them, and they are fully cleared to handle classified information. Those committees then could have examined the whole picture and make the decision.

Mary short circuited this whole process and decided that her opinion of what should be done was the right one. It's just not her place as a beurocrat to make that decision.

Basically, you are arguing that what makes the process right or wrong is whether you agree with the result. It's a helluva way to run a democracy.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

What you aren't recognizing is that the civil service has a duty to serve the president of the day regardless of their personal views. Yes, you don't like this administration, but the bigger picture is that one day it will be a democrat in the White House, and that democrat president should also have the benefit of an impartial civil service.

I've given you the rationale for my judgment of the two situations: Both should be prosecuted, but the administration's Wilson/nuke-related leaks are immoral in a way that the leak of these secret torture prisons is not. I don't defend either one as to its legality, but I condemn the immorality of the Bush/Libby leaks. You may dismiss my argument as a rationalization for simple partisanship, but that's questioning my motivation rather than my argument.

In the meantime, in the Wilson/nuke case, you defended the administration as behaving both legally and morally, and in this McCarthy case, you condemn the action both legally and morally. You haven't tried to offer even a pretense of non-partisanship.

BTW, if Feingold lies to start a war and then selectively leaks classified information to attack someone who reveals the truth, and if a civil servant reveals that Feingold is engaging in immoral and un-American actions like secret torture prisons, I promise I'll react the same way I have in these Bush cases.

[SimeyTheLimey]

I'll keep this thought separate.

One of the things that strike me about the liberals here who are endorsing what Mary did because they like the results is that they are overlooking just how open to political abuse this is. Mary was a political protoge of the last administration and a keen democrat. I don't think that it is coincidence that she enrolled in law school as soon as her mentor left office. (We started together in September 2001). Then four years later, she decides rather than go though the proper channels with any qualms she may have had, she'd rather leak to the press.

People have personal axes to grind. But that is not the kind of behavior we want to encourage among people entrusted with highly classified information.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by BRussell

In the meantime, in the Wilson/nuke case, you defended the administration as behaving both legally and morally, and in this McCarthy case, you condemn the action both legally and morally. You haven't tried to offer even a pretense of non-partisanship.

Two different cases. As I recall, I said I didn't think that there had been a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act because among other things, everyone knew that Plame worked for CIA (just like I knew that Mary worked for CIA). There still hasn't been an indictment under that act even though there is a prosecutor whose only job was to investigate for crimes under that act. If no crime is committed, then no crime is committed. Second, I remember also saying that it was important for the public to know that Wilson was a liar and that he got the job because of nepotism. That is undoubtedly correct on both counts.

In contrast, Mary apparently has admitted to revealing classified information. She only admitted it last week and it remains to be seen whether she will be charged, but on the face of it, it appears that she has admitted to a crime. So if a crime is committed, a crime was committed.

So you seem to be comparing apples and oranges. On one hand, there is apparently no evidence of a crime (or at least, after over 2 years, there has been no charge by the independent prosecutor that there was), while on the other hand, Mary apparently has admitted to an actual crime. Those are two very different cases.

Why are you lumping them together? Are you trying to change the subject?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Two different cases. As I recall, I said I didn't think that there had been a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act because among other things, everyone knew that Plame worked for CIA (just like I knew that Mary worked for CIA). There still hasn't been an indictment under that act even though there is a prosecutor whose only job was to investigate for crimes under that act. If no crime is committed, then no crime is committed. Second, I remember also saying that it was important for the public to know that Wilson was a liar and that he got the job because of nepotism. That is undoubtedly correct on both counts.

In contrast, Mary apparently has admitted to revealing classified information. She only admitted it last week and it remains to be seen whether she will be charged, but on the face of it, it appears that she has admitted to a crime. So if a crime is committed, a crime was committed.

So you seem to be comparing apples and oranges. On one hand, there is apparently no evidence of a crime (or at least, after over 2 years, there has been no charge by the independent prosecutor that there was), while on the other hand, Mary apparently has admitted to an actual crime. Those are two very different cases.

Why are you lumping them together? Are you trying to change the subject?

You confirm my contention that you defend both the substance and the legality of the Wilson leaks, and condemn both the substance and legality of the McCarthy leaks. I don't defend the legality of either, but condemn the substance of the Wilson leaks because it involved deceiving the public about a war.

You're also completely reversing the legal situations of the two cases. Libby has been indicted by Fitzgerald, and McCarthy isn't currently being prosecuted. She may be in the future, but we don't know that yet, and we do know for sure that Libby has been indicted by a grand jury. Your Republican-colored glasses are distorting your view of objective reality, my friend.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by BRussell

You're also completely reversing the legal situations of the two cases. Libby has been indicted by Fitzgerald, and McCarthy isn't currently being prosecuted. She may be in the future, but we don't know that yet, and we do know for sure that Libby has been indicted by a grand jury. Your Republican-colored glasses are distorting your view of objective reality, my friend.

Libby was indicted for perjury, not leaking classified information. I know that facts don't matter to you, but that is a pretty basic fact that does matter.

Whether Mary is indicted or not we will see. I would be surprised if she is not given that she has apparently admitted to something that is a felony.

[mr. natural]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey
Two different cases. As I recall, I said I didn't think that there had been a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. There still hasn't been an indictment under that act even though there is a prosecutor whose only job was to investigate for crimes under that act. If no crime is committed, then no crime is committed.

Your opinion here on whether or not there has been a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act doesn't count. The CIA believes one did occur, hence their request for the Justice Dept.'s investigation into Who did the deed. Just because Fitzpatrick hasn't yet nailed the person doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed.

By this obvious fantasy of legal logic, one could argue a bank theft never happened if the bank robber hasn't yet been caught and prosecuted, never mind what the bank says about its loss of money!


As to some of your other hollow rhetoric, your complete lack of irony is utterly astounding.

Society breaks down if you take the position that if you don't like a law, you don't have to follow it.

Except when Bush does it.

How convenient!

People have personal axes to grind. But that is not the kind of behavior we want to encourage among people entrusted with highly classified information.

Except when Bush/Cheney et al. does it.

How convenient!

Basically, you are arguing that what makes the process {of law breaking} right or wrong is whether you agree with the result. It's a helluva way to run a democracy.

Except when Bush does it.

How convenient!

The answer does not depend on whether you like the position of the beaurocrats or whether you prefer the decisions of the policians. The answer depends on whether you want constututional government by the properly elected leaders, or not. Policy is decided by elections, not the whims of unelected political opportunists with a lot of power, but no public accountability.

This is the real issue. Democrats like you seem to have lost sight of the bigger picture. It's very sad.

No, the real big picture issue here is how readily you (and many others) acquiesce to everything Bush does, even when it subverts the Constitutional framework of rules and laws, checks and balances, he has sworn to uphold. That's what is so truly sad.

But hey, it's mighty convenient!

[Y3a]

Kerry is GLAD she broke te law????

I guess ANYTHING to hammer the president?

What would have happened if Kerry was Head chimp instead of Bush?

What kind of character does Kerry have?
He seems like a typical stupid politician, and NOTHING SPECIAL.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Libby was indicted for perjury, not leaking classified information. I know that facts don't matter to you, but that is a pretty basic fact that does matter.

It wasn't just perjury that Libby was indicted for. And you tried to leave the false impression that Libby had been exonerated: "If no crime is committed, then no crime is committed." He has been indicted on 5 counts, and Fitzgerald has a pretty good record of getting convictions (he just got the former governor of Illinois). You also said that Fitz only had the authority to investigate and prosecute under one specific statute. That is also false. He had authority to investigate this incident, and he wasn't limited to specific statutes. If someone robs my home, I want the police to investigate, and I don't care if they get the robbers on B & E or theft or something else, as long as they get them. They got Al Capone on tax evasion. Whatever works to get the bad guys.

[christ]

Originally Posted by abe

By the way, are you a Muslim or just a tool of the Islamists?

Neither.

... and why does it matter to you? Because that is easier for you to address than the issue at hand?

[christ]

If we are to live in the Judge Dredd world that you rightists desire, then the Nuremburg excuse becomes valid.

"I was only following orders" is not a legal defence in the UK (is it in the USA?), and the result of that is that it is illegal not to do your bit to ensure that an illegal or immoral order is not carried out. Thus leaking is a duty, not a crime, if you perceive the 'secret' to be immoral or illegal.

[Y3a]

Originally Posted by christ

If we are to live in the Judge Dredd world that you rightists desire, then the Nuremburg excuse becomes valid.

Why do all fuzzy thinking liberals think that? Are you just in lockstep with the rest who offer "Urban Legend Stereotypes" instead of taking each person or situation as it is, and offering useful comments, or at least something funny or ironic.

it seems like a liberal is a 'touchy-feely' type doing an impression of an intellectual.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Y3a

it seems like a liberal is a 'touchy-feely' type doing an impression of an intellectual.

F*CK. F*CKING SAFARI... it just decided to refresh the page while I was in the middle of replying to your post. Gah. Here goes again:

A true liberal is anything but 'touchy-feely'. In fact, I was thinking about this the other day, and realized that that term is the perfect one to describe conservatives:

"I'll be damned if my son's a FAG!! You're NOT my son anymore!!" "OH TEH NOES!! THAT'S NOT MARIJUANA YOU'RE SMOKING IS IT????" "GAH!! A NAKED WOMAN IS ON MY TELEVISION SET!! NOOOO!!!" "He said the F-word!!!" etc.. etc..

It's such a perfect term to describe conservatives you'd think it'd be in the actual definition of "conservative"... oh...

con·ser·va·tive Pronunciation Key (kn-sûrv-tv)
adj.

1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style
3. Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.

Heh, it might as well be.

[abe]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

By the way, it is probably reasonable for me to mention at this point that I knew Mary McCarthy personally. She is a law school classmate of mine. She is very personable, very smart, and absolutely wrong to have done what she did.

[OFF TOPIC]

OH MAN!

You must be swirling with thoughts and emotions regarding this!

That you have kept this from the discussion til now, that you have revealed it, and that you have this personal connection at all, each says something interesting.

FWIW, if you ever get around to writing your memoirs or a book of world history as witnessed through your eyes, I'd buy a copy.

[/OFF TOPIC]

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Y3a

Why do all fuzzy thinking liberals think that? Are you just in lockstep with the rest who offer "Urban Legend Stereotypes" instead of taking each person or situation as it is

Wait, wasn't it the liberals here who were advocating exactly that, while the conservatives were going, "No, she broke the law! Breaking the law is wrong!"?

[abe]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

The general impotence of the world's Islamic nations compared to every nation that actually matters? America didn't start fighting this "war on terror" until just a couple years back, yet somehow the world managed not to be globally dominated all that time.

You give these people too much credit. America may be the world's greatest superpower, but we aren't the only one. And our enemies aren't even close. They're good at blowing up closely packed groups of people, but as far as actually dominating anything better than them? They don't got it.

Chart the progress of Islam in the years before wot. Look at the contested areas. Compare how many former Christian churches are now mosques. How many non-Islamic nations are now Islamic or on the way to becoming so? Read about the violence. Find out for yourself why it's borders are deemed, "bloody."

Readers, ask yourselves why anyone would argue in favor of relaxing before a revolutionary and often violent force heading your way??

Chuckit may love Allah and may want to see Islamists assaulting America's defenses, content in the false belief that no matter what the islamists do we needn't worry.

That is foolish thinking. Or, the actions of someone doing their small part in helping bring a worldwide Caliphate one step closer to reality.

No matter how strong America is, it is not invulnerable

No matter how well we might resist an assault, the best course is not to be assaulted.

Any way you look at it, Chuckit, you are wrong.

[abe]

Originally Posted by christ

If we are to live in the Judge Dredd world that you rightists desire, then the Nuremburg excuse becomes valid.

"I was only following orders" is not a legal defence in the UK (is it in the USA?), and the result of that is that it is illegal not to do your bit to ensure that an illegal or immoral order is not carried out. Thus leaking is a duty, not a crime, if you perceive the 'secret' to be immoral or illegal.

Why do you keep bringing up a hypothetical danger in the face of a real one? Do you really think our readers are all comic book fans who have read about these themes repeatedly for years and now they can step, Tron-like, into the world of fantasy you've had pounded into your heads so persistently that you are functionally impotent to see or react to REAL demonstrable threats?

Quick! Somebody write a comic book about the dangers of radical Islam!

[abe]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

I'll keep this thought separate.

One of the things that strike me about the liberals here who are endorsing what Mary did because they like the results is that they are overlooking just how open to political abuse this is. Mary was a political protoge of the last administration and a keen democrat. I don't think that it is coincidence that she enrolled in law school as soon as her mentor left office. (We started together in September 2001). Then four years later, she decides rather than go though the proper channels with any qualms she may have had, she'd rather leak to the press.

People have personal axes to grind. But that is not the kind of behavior we want to encourage among people entrusted with highly classified information.

Maybe instead of fuzzies or liberals I'll start calling them Sunni or Shiite.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by abe

Why do you keep bringing up a hypothetical danger in the face of a real one?

Possibly because hypothetical dangers are all the rage lately. Heck, one can even justify the invasion of an entire nation based only on hypothetical dangers. Someone did already write a comic book about the dangers of Islam. It's sitting on the big desk in the White House.

You'll note; I actually agree that what she did was wrong. If she felt there was a problem, she should have taken it through the proper channels rather than going to the media.

My problem is that if what she did was wrong, what Bush did should also be wrong.

[itistoday]

Hit and run, Simey? Still waiting for your replies, you've ignored them and continued with your nonsensical ranting.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by abe

Chart the progress of Islam in the years before wot. Look at the contested areas. Compare how many former Christian churches are now mosques. How many non-Islamic nations are now Islamic or on the way to becoming so? Read about the violence. Find out for yourself why it's borders are deemed, "bloody."

Like I don't know there's a lot of violence in Muslim territory? But let's look at how many major nations have fallen to Islam:
USA? No.
England? No.
Australia? No.
Spain? No.
Italy? No.
Canada? No.
Mexico? No.
China? No.
Russia? No.
Japan? No.
Germany? No.
The Netherlands? No.
Poland? No.
Sweden? No.
Denmark? No.
Either of the Koreas? No.
The Philippines? No.
Surely France, right? No.
Well, at least Israel, jammed right up in the middle of their territory, must have fallen, yeah? No.

People from those countries are often brutal, but few are competent at warfare. That's why they so often resort to blowing themselves up.

Originally Posted by abe

Chuckit may love Allah and may want to see Islamists assaulting America's defenses, content in the false belief that no matter what the islamists do we needn't worry.

You may be insane if you think I'm a Muslim.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Possibly because hypothetical dangers are all the rage lately. Heck, one can even justify the invasion of an entire nation based only on hypothetical dangers. Someone did already write a comic book about the dangers of Islam. It's sitting on the big desk in the White House.

You'll note; I actually agree that what she did was wrong. If she felt there was a problem, she should have taken it through the proper channels rather than going to the media.

My problem is that if what she did was wrong, what Bush did should also be wrong.

Ouch!

Once again you have a point. I don't agree with it, but I can't easily ignore it.

It seems every time I say a thing or prepare a campaign I always have to deal with the "Wiskedjak factor."

No matter how inspired or insipid my posts if I don't ACTUALLY ANTICIPATE what Wiskedjak might do it usually bites me in the ass.

I've tried being nice, I've tried being stern but always Wiskedjak is there to negate my every move, be it true or false.

Wiskedjak, it's a good thing you don't hate me nor have a history of WMD production or else I'd have to consider invading your territory and de-pos(t)ing you.

[Y3a]

Originally Posted by itistoday

F*CK. F*CKING SAFARI... it just decided to refresh the page while I was in the middle of replying to your post. Gah. Here goes again:

A true liberal is anything but 'touchy-feely'. In fact, I was thinking about this the other day, and realized that that term is the perfect one to describe conservatives:

"I'll be damned if my son's a FAG!! You're NOT my son anymore!!" "OH TEH NOES!! THAT'S NOT MARIJUANA YOU'RE SMOKING IS IT????" "GAH!! A NAKED WOMAN IS ON MY TELEVISION SET!! NOOOO!!!" "He said the F-word!!!" etc.. etc..

It's such a perfect term to describe conservatives you'd think it'd be in the actual definition of "conservative"... oh...


Heh, it might as well be.

What does ANY OF THIS BLATHER MEAN???

Your response is typical-fuzzy...

[abe]

Originally Posted by Y3a

What does ANY OF THIS BLATHER MEAN???

Your response is typical-fuzzy...

Maybe he was smoking the pot when he wrote that.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Y3a

What does ANY OF THIS BLATHER MEAN???

Your response is typical-fuzzy...

It's really not difficult to understand. You called liberals 'touchy-feely', I showed you that that term is best applied to conservatives, not liberals.

[Y3a]

Then I suggest you go read it again. It was a rant and stupid at that. You didn't "Show" me anything. You are making MY POINT..

[Chuckit]

Your continual use of ALL CAPS seems to indicate you aren't emotionally detached here either…

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Y3a

Then I suggest you go read it again. It was a rant and stupid at that. You didn't "Show" me anything. You are making MY POINT..

Your point being...? Suggestion: lick your battle wounds, regroup, and try to express your complete thought in a comprehensive manner.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Your continual use of ALL CAPS seems to indicate you aren't emotionally detached here either…

After all the time and effort I put into helping identify what IS and what AIN'T fuzzy STILL you get it wrong.

But what are we to expect?

After all...well, you know.

[abe]

Originally Posted by itistoday

It's really not difficult to understand. You called liberals 'touchy-feely', I showed you that that term is best applied to conservatives, not liberals.

HUH? Only someone VERY skilled could get that meaning out of your post. But, whatever.

And as Y3a says, the term is NOT best applied to conservatives.

You can't even DEFINE or list all (ANY?) of the qualities of fuzziness!