Waterboarding Whistleblower Indicted Under Espionage Act 338
wiredmikey writes "A former CIA officer was indicted on Thursday for allegedly disclosing classified information to journalists. The restricted disclosure included the name of a covert officer and information related to the role a CIA employee played in classified operations. The indictment charges John Kiriakou with one count of violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act for allegedly illegally disclosing the identity of a covert officer and with three counts of violating the Espionage Act for allegedly illegally disclosing national defense information to individuals not authorized to receive it. The count charging violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, as well as each count of violating the Espionage Act, carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison, and making false statements carries a maximum prison term of five years. Each count carries a maximum fine of $250,000."
Let this be a message to the unpatriotic (Score:5, Insightful)
Until you men realize that the U.S. does not, and cannot, commit any war crimes--then you will be suitably punished. For those of you patriots who accept that all U.S. action is lawful, by virtue of it being U.S. action, then prosperity and salvation await. For all others, who would engage with the socialist press and outside agitators in conspiring to disparage this flawless nation, only purgatory and a jail cell await you.
Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic (Score:5, Funny)
I didn't know Romney had a /. account
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's clearly not Mitt Romney: If it were, you'd see a post a bit further down with an impassioned defense of human rights and the value of questioning government in a democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you listened to Howard Dean even a little lately? I mean, he's kind of the new official Democrat bulldog out there....
Dignity on that side? Really....?
Re: (Score:3)
Democrats have dignity over Republicans? For what -- you mean Obama prosecuting people under the espionage act 6 times in 3 years, while that act had been applied only 3 times in history prior?
The Republicans have nothing on George W. Obama when it comes to advancing the concept of an Imperial President -- I mean, when George W. Bush was doing all this radical stuff, Democrats pretended to care and complained. Now that it is GW Obama doing even worse -- silence, nothing but pure silence. Meaning that the
Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic (Score:4, Insightful)
>>>I didn't know Romney had a /. account
Which one is Romney? The current sitting president or the candidate for president? They all look alike to me.
Re: (Score:2)
The one that has an ungodly mountain of money. It's the only way to tell them apart by measuring money pile size.
Re: (Score:2)
I though we could not measure infinity ?
Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The obviousness of it should smack you in the face.
Well, normally it would--but the last time it happened he got a restraining order. Now obviousness can't come within 50 yards of him.
THE TRUTH IS ILLEGAL (Score:2)
SPEAKING THE TRUTH? Doubly so.
SEEKING THE TRUTH? Actionable by death.
Re: (Score:3)
Nah; I think what you mean is that we should hope that the original post was a joke, but it's not logically possible to determine that from the words alone. So you may decide that the writer was serious or joking, but you stand a good chance of being wrong whichever you pick. That's what Poe's Law is all about. Written English leaves out a lot of tonal information that's in spoken English, and there's not much we can do about it.
Except use smileys. ;-)
Re: (Score:3)
Written English leaves out a lot of tonal information that's in spoken English
Then you're doing it wrong. Does that jingle from Priscilla's say "where fun and fantasy meet," or is it "we're fun and fantasy meat?" Written language is far better at communicating, but not quite so easy to make jokes with*. Like this biology joke that just doesn't work in written form: "Q: How do you tell the sex of a chromosome? A: Pull down its genes." The pun is lost because jeans and genes are spelled differently.
Poe's Law
Re: (Score:3)
Nah; I think what you mean is that we should hope that the original post was a joke, but it's not logically possible to determine that from the words alone. So you may decide that the writer was serious or joking, but you stand a good chance of being wrong whichever you pick. That's what Poe's Law is all about. Written English leaves out a lot of tonal information that's in spoken English, and there's not much we can do about it.
Oh FFS, are you a flesh-and-blood human or an algorithm? If the latter then you can be forgiven for not comprehending an almost painfully obvious undertone. If the former, well, you're SUPPOSED to be a hell of a lot better at figuring this stuff out than a computer.
Unless you're a lawyer more concerned with winning a case at any cost than finding the truth of the matter, such pedantry is unbecoming a sentient being.
You knew damned well what the OP meant.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if it's riding a bicycle.
Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic (Score:5, Informative)
I see your Poe and Godwin and raise you Alinsky's 5th rule -- attack through humorous ridicule. As Saul said, it is almost impossible to counter with facts because the truth usually isn't as simple as a lie.
Take the ridicule against Palin. In an interview she said "There are places in Alaska from which one can see Russia." A TRUE statement. The Left "quoted" her as saying "I can see Russia from my house."., Being good researchers, some on the Left consulted maps and noticed that one can not see Russia from Palin's house. So the mockery began and was repeated endlessly and recycled in the forums and blogs on the Left. Repeat a lie often enough, Right or Left, and the faithful believe it as fact, even to the point of self-righteousness, quoting the lie as proof of their intelligence. It really gets interesting when psychological terms are thrown at "unbelievers". Terms like "denier", etc...
Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic (Score:4, Interesting)
There was one like that for the first Bush. The story was that he was in a supermarket and was amazed at the bar code scanners (which had been around for a while) and so he was out of touch. Turns out he was at a demo of a new scanner at a convention that could read really mangled bar codes. If anyone cares, snopes has the details.
My only question is WTF happened to that scanner? My state of the art supermarket's scanners still crap out with even slight crumples in the code.
I think they are out there. (Score:2)
Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic (Score:5, Insightful)
Still worthy of ridicule, due to the context of the statement. That you can, in just the right places, see Russia from Alaska does not equate to Foreign Policy experience.
Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually if you care to be factually correct you could mention that Palin was being ridiculed because her answer to the question of her being qualified to be the Vice President and possibly President was...as you say "There are places in Alaska from which one can see Russia."
That was, as you know, a ridiculous answer to simple yet serious question. It's an insinuation that if one is within proximity to a foreign country whether its Mexico, Russia, or Canada then they must be qualified for those offices. You give a ridiculous answer to a serious question then the answer is ridiculous and therefor you are ridiculed and made a mockery of.
As far as the "I can see Russia from my house." quote goes that came from a comedy show. (Saturday Night Live)
I do agree that if you repeat a lie long enough and spread from cable news to talk radio then the faithful will believe it as fact as demonstrated by the fact that half of Republican voters believe that the current President is a Muslim. The Right seems to very skilled in this area.
Re: (Score:3)
I see your Poe and Godwin and raise you Alinsky's 5th rule -- attack through humorous ridicule. As Saul said, it is almost impossible to counter with facts because the truth usually isn't as simple as a lie.
Take the ridicule against Palin. In an interview she said "There are places in Alaska from which one can see Russia." A TRUE statement. The Left "quoted" her as saying "I can see Russia from my house."., Being good researchers, some on the Left consulted maps and noticed that one can not see Russia from Palin's house. So the mockery began and was repeated endlessly and recycled in the forums and blogs on the Left. Repeat a lie often enough, Right or Left, and the faithful believe it as fact, even to the point of self-righteousness, quoting the lie as proof of their intelligence. It really gets interesting when psychological terms are thrown at "unbelievers". Terms like "denier", etc...
Talk about lifting things out of context. Palin was responding to a question about her foreign policy credentials when she made that famous assertion. She was in dead earnest about it, and the press on both sides saw it for what it was -- evidence that Palin was ill-equipped to make foreign policy as a president, let alone execute it. The Left amplified it, and the Right tried to downplay it. There is no two ways about that quote, yet you've managed to find a third by lifting it out of context and trying
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The real tragedy is the amount of people who would vote for such politicians after they had said it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yah - right! Being an US citizen is not just a plain citizenship as in most other countries, one needs to have a religious believe system fully embodied to become really part of it and get the full benefit of feeling outrageously great - most of the time...
Re: (Score:2)
Extending your comment to include Israel, as they also appear to be above and beyond international law.
Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic (Score:5, Interesting)
I realise that's sarcasm, but there are a whole lot of people who actually do think like that. Did the guy commit a crime? Yes, but committing that crime was a patriotic thing to do, and damned brave if you aske me. The guy should get a CMH for his bravery, or at least a silver star (I know a guy who got two silver stars and doesn't believe that he should have; "I didn't do anything anybody else woudn't have," he said.)
The guy in TFS is a patriot and hero. The people pressing charges should be in front of a firing squad for treason -- because waterboarding IS unamerican, as is lying about it.
We're supposed to be the good guys. Can't we even try to be?
Re: (Score:3)
Glenn Greenwald's take is much better thought out, and there are many quotable bits in his article: http://www.salon.com/2012/01/24/rules_of_american_justice_a_tale_of_three_cases/singleton/ [salon.com]
but how about this one, slightly offtopic, but a good summary of how the law works right now, where members of congress can get paid by and lobby for a terrorist group (*), and the rest of America can get bent. It's our tiered justice system at work:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It keeps them from being whistleblowers about things that aren't important.
What if we want whistleblowers for the things that *are* important? Like this one.
Or maybe you think torture works and is a perfectly acceptable way to get information?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you ar
Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic (Score:5, Insightful)
One problem occurs when you grabbed an innocent bystander. You can torture him until the sun explodes in a giant supernova explosion (yes, I know...our sun isn't supposed to go supernova, but you understand what I'm saying anyway, don't you?), but you aren't going to get the information you want because he doesn't have it. And he can tell you that. Every. Single. Time. but you will have no way of knowing it's the truth, based on torture alone.
To illustrate a second problem, let's expand upon your password example. In my organization, when an employee leaves the company, their account password -- and any shared account passwords -- are changed, so that they no longer have access to the systems. In a military or paramilitary organization, I would expect that similar policies would be in place, expanded to include those who are MIA. So you capture an enemy combatant and start torturing him to provide The Password. He gives it to you. You test it. It fails, and so you continue to torture him because you asked a good question, tested the result, and it failed, so obviously, he's lying. In fact, however, he isn't lying. He gave you the right information, but the information has changed since his capture.
Your entire conclusion is wrong. Torture might work, in some cases, some of the time, if you are lucky. But you don't know -- and in fact, you CAN'T know -- when the intel you have received through torture is correct but has changed, when the intel you have received through torture is false and simply turning up the pressure will give you the answers you want or when the guy is just an innocent bystander who doesn't know squat. To you, they all look the same. So, yeah, you can prove a positive, but you can't prove a negative no matter how brutal you become. Consequently, torture is BOTH a question of ethics and effectiveness. IMHO, it is unethical and ineffective.
Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic (Score:5, Insightful)
Intentionally inflicting physical harm on someone else in anything other than self-defense is oppression, and is evil. Period. You might try to argue that torturing an enemy combatant in a time of war is "self-defense" but I'd argue that you are stretching that definition to -- if not beyond -- the breaking point.
If you can rationalize brutality to someone because they aren't "one of you" perhaps you are not human.
If your goal is so precious that you are willing to discard ethical considerations to obtain it, perhaps your goal isn't nearly as noble as you believe.
Killing or injuring someone who is doing their level best to do the same to you is distasteful, but sometimes necessary. Doing so to someone who is bound, restrained and no longer in a position to pose a threat to you is, indeed, far worse. You can attempt to rationalize, but I, for one, have no desire to accept the ethical quagmire to which you apparently subscribe
Re: (Score:3)
Each time you lie, the torturer can try the password, and if it fails, continue to torture you. This would produce effective and reliable results.
This runs into problems if the person actually doesn't know the information you want. They'll reliably give you bad information to stop the torture.
Torture only works if a lie produces different results than the truth AND you can somehow confirm that the tortured party has access to the information you seek. Moreover, the information you get has to be rapidly verifiable; if a lead takes a long time to confirm, like a week, torture will not only be far less effective, but also useless to discern between some
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It would almost make you think that the politicians that were essentially calling GWB a war criminal might have been a bit less than wholly honest.
Well, sure. Congress gave him the power to do what he did: they could have reined him in, but they chose to go along for the ride.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hope and change (Score:5, Insightful)
I didn't see that speech, but I always kindof assumed this was the case.
We saw harsh 180's on a lot of things Obama promised repeatedly, in very clear language. Domestic spying was going to stop. Guantanamo was going to stop operating the way it does. The list goes on.
Then he got in office, pulled an about-face on all of it, and signed an EO allowing snatch & grab detention of US citizens without a warrant or trial, if someone, somewhere, thinks that citizen might be somehow connected with terrorism-like activities.
He learned something when he took office. Something scary. Because otherwise he just burned a ton of political capital (with every intention of running for a second turn) for no reason. That doesn't make sense for a capable, career politician.
Re: (Score:3)
He learned something when he took office. Something scary. Because otherwise he just burned a ton of political capital (with every intention of running for a second turn) for no reason. That doesn't make sense for a capable, career politician.
No doubt, but that doesn't mean that these policies are necessarily in the interests of American citizens in general. It merely means that Obama had some kind of incentive to pass them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not talking about the normal broken promises. It's clear something happens. It's like Men In Black, where suddenly they're show the aliens and can't tell anyone. Instantly those three letter agencies are doing a great job and don't need changing.
I've seen it with Senators a couple of times. Once from someone so maverick it shocked me into recogniti
Re: (Score:3)
It is one of two things.
1 - Obama lied through his teeth about all of it.
2 - a shadow government in control that when he got there they held guns to his family's head and laid it all out on how things will work, and if he plays along he get's to have two terms as president.
Add to that the fact that every president after they leave office has a team of security with them 24 7 for the rest of their life, and of their family's life..... Things start looking plausable on the kooky conspiracy side.
Re: (Score:3)
> He learned something when he took office.
> Something scary
What scary thing could he possibly have learned?
That there were dangerous terrorists loose? That they've obtained the Red Substance or the All-Spark or the Ark of the Covenant?
Re: (Score:2)
That our intelligence agencies have caught, red-handed, people with working nuclear weapons on U.S. soil just before they were about to set them off.
That would be a big one for me.
Oil (Score:2)
> He learned something when he took office.
> Something scary
What scary thing could he possibly have learned?
That there were dangerous terrorists loose? That they've obtained the Red Substance or the All-Spark or the Ark of the Covenant?
That the world is running out of oil, and that a big fight is coming up over what's left. So the U.S.'s actions in the Middle East have an overtone of positioning for the coming war.
I find this conspiracy theory unlikely, but sadly, plausible.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
He learned something when he took office. Something scary.
Likely that the office of the President is nothing but a glorified marionette. My question is, did they at least give him the courtesy of knowing who's pulling the strings?
Re: (Score:3)
He learned something when he took office. Something scary. Because otherwise he just burned a ton of political capital (with every intention of running for a second turn) for no reason. That doesn't make sense for a capable, career politician.
This reminds me of the folks who supported going into Iraq to begin with: "The President has secret knowledge that you don't have! THAT'S why he's so gung ho over going to war! We have to support him!!"
The fact is, absolute power corrupts absolutely. We see it with every president, but it manifests in different ways.
Re: (Score:3)
You can't rely upon a president to curtail presidential powers. Even if such a thing did happen, it couldn't possibly be permanent. We need a Congress that' s willing to do it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hope and change (Score:5, Informative)
There are lots of differences between the parties—just no significant ones. All of the differences are with respect to issues that neither party can significantly affect without getting smacked down by the courts—abortion, for example—or differences that in theory make a difference but in practice do not—techniques for redistribution of wealth, for example. (Tax and spend versus borrow and spend both have the same net effect, but one causes inflation that reduces your paycheck's buying power, while the other causes your paycheck to look smaller numerically, thus reducing buying power without inflation.)
Re: (Score:3)
All their points are useless drivel that only server to rile up their supporters.
This is the key. Once most people figure out that they really have a lot more in common with each other, and not with any politician, the politicians are screwed!
I have a dream that one day in the voting booths of America the sons of Occupy Wall Street and the sons of the Tea Party will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. And kick all the jack asses out...
Re: (Score:3)
Not if your only choices are Kodos and Kang.
The media is owned by the same corporate gangs that are shoveling money into the pockets of our congress critters and they're not going to let anyone who might shut down their gravy train to even make it to the primaries.
Viable candidates don't get elected by pissing off the corporate sponsors that feed them the precious air time they need to campaign.
Re:Hope and change (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone is a war criminal.
Bush? maybe. Cheney? definitely.
But yes, Obama isn't much better.
I don't have anyone I can vote for any more.
Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, Reform. All are putrid vulgar fools. There isn't a single party that offers rational solutions to any of the problems we face and respects the principals that were supposed to make America a shining beacon of liberty. No matter what happens, this country is doomed.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love to argue with you, but as you're right, that's hard to do.
Hey, hopefully an asteroid strike will make this all seem silly.
Re: (Score:2)
Bush, definitely. It's a war crime to invade another country. He also violated Congress's authorization of force since it required him to find Iraq an imminent threat or had ties to Sept 11 '01 attacks, neither of which Bush had evidence for, though he falsely submitted a statement that he did.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Bush, definitely. It's a war crime to invade another country.
Only in your imagination. That's first of all. Second of all, the US has LEGAL authority to enter Iraq from the first Gulf War. But I guess something like facts simply are not important to you at all. I guess you're too busy eat the garbage fed to you, by whatever garbage media outlet you use, to realize Iraq was in violation of the cease fire from the first Gulf War. The US had legal right to re-enter Iraq at will. And all that's ignoring that the UN sided with the US, making it legal even if the US didn't
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't much better? How about is worse [truth-out.org]?
Does that sound like an improvement?
Re: (Score:3)
Ron Paul is a theocrat and Ayn Rand zealot. Completely unacceptable.
Not even Gary Johnson meets my stardards because he endorses slavery through for profit private prisons exploiting forcing convicts to perform factory work that at the expense of paying wages to free citizens.
Re: (Score:3)
Ron Paul is completely unacceptable. He is a theocrat and Ayn Rand zealot who actively wants to gut the federal government and remove the supreme courts ability to defend citizens rights against trespass by the state.
He voted for DOMA, he wrote the "We the People Act". He is an anti-libertarian in sheeps cloths seeking to legitimize tyranny at the state level instead of the federal level.
Re: (Score:3)
A lot has changed other than just rhetoric. A lot has gotten a lot better. For one, few if any whole new categories of abuse are being opened, even if not enough old ones are being closed.
But as we see here, in the military/intel realm, practically nothing has changed. And with the passage of time it's gotten worse: institutionalized, unchallenged, accepted, upgraded.
In general executive privilege, whether the US Chief Executive (president or their whole branch), or a military commander, or even a troop com
Re: (Score:2)
Not only did he destroy hope (and change), but he expanded on many of the policies started after 9/11 by the Bush Administration. Drone attacks have skyrocketed (and Obama has the dubious honor of blowing up an American citizen with a drone attack... good resume fodder I guess), the PATRIOT Act was renewed (and Obama even called for its renewal, even though he campaigned against it and executive branch power grabs...)
So, what we've learned, (or if you watch FOX or MSNBC, haven't learned) is that it doesn't
Re:Hope and change (Score:4, Insightful)
Come on, most people agree that Obama is a much better Republican President than GWB.
Actually the best since Clinton.
Re: (Score:2)
You obviously don't talk to people near where I live. To most of them, GWB should have had a third term, and Obama is dragging this country to hell.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, I have to leave my house occasionally so I can have money for internet access, so I run across them.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>We're still assassinating people
Bush assasinated americans? I know he's an ass, but I don't recall that one.
Re: (Score:3)
There's all kinds of crimes that your gang wreaked on the US and the world that were never charged. "Not charged" isn't a severity standard for you Republicans, except maybe in inverse proportion.
To be a Republican ever since Nixon your only ideology must be "it's not a crime if you don't get caught".
Hmmm... (Score:2)
Interesting....
Where's the whistleblower immunity? (Score:5, Interesting)
Exposing crimes against humanity and they charge him with treason?
I for one applaud his decision, it was and will forever be, the correct choice.
I also hope that we as Americans will stand up for him and against his persecutors.
Re: (Score:2)
And who will we side with?
Is there any valid alternative?
Gary Johnson of the libertarian party supports slavery VIA private for profit prison labor plus retarded economic beliefs.
Republicans have a far worse track record on civil liberties than the democrats, plus retarded economic beliefs.
Seriously, give me one person who respects civil liberties, has integrity, and is neither a theocrat or Ayn Rand free market worshiping retard.
And before you accuse me of being a communist, they suck too.
Re: (Score:3)
Bernie Sanders
Re: (Score:2)
He did what he should do and now he's going to pay the price, which I'm sure that he guessed might be the end result.
More respect to him then, for doing it anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Unlike killing another human being, U.S. law seems not to provide for an affirmative defense in crimes against the state. I could be wrong, but I can't think of any at the moment, anyway.
Jury Nullification is still legal, although you can be thrown in jail for saying so. http://reason.com/blog/2011/02/25/is-advocacy-of-jury-nullificat [reason.com]
Re:Where's the whistleblower immunity? (Score:5, Informative)
Unlike killing another human being, U.S. law seems not to provide for an affirmative defense in crimes against the state. I could be wrong, but I can't think of any at the moment, anyway.
Jury Nullification is still legal, although you can be thrown in jail for saying so. http://reason.com/blog/2011/02/25/is-advocacy-of-jury-nullificat [reason.com]
Jury Nullification is not an affirmative defense. To raise a affirmative defense means to say something like, "Even if I did perform the acts of which I am accused and understood what I was doing, I am not guilty because of X". For example, self defense is an affirmative defense against a charge of murder because the accused says: "I may have killed him, but he was trying to kill or gravely injure me."
Such defenses are called affirmative because the accused affirms (asserts) that his actions where justified. They are called affirmative in order to distinguish them from the other broad category of defenses: negating defenses. A negating defense is an assertion that one or more of the essential elements of the crime is absent. For example a negating defense to charge of treason might be: "I did not know that the envelope which I was asked to deliver contained state secrets and that the recipient was an enemy agent."
Jury Nullification may be 'the citizens last defense against the oppressor', but it is not a defense in the sense which the AC meant.
this is how fascism works (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If it was legal why would they need to punish someone who exposed it? Since it was not legal, why is there anything to be exposed?
Don't worry, this is made up slander and is nothing a good waterboarding won't fix.
Did I say waterboarding? I mean, um... shit
Re: (Score:2)
Did I say waterboarding? I mean, um... shit
I think the phrase you're looking for is "political re-education."
What can I do? (Score:5, Interesting)
This, to me, might well be the final straw. What can I do to reverse this? I'm not apathetic, I'm willing to work to change this, but thanks to the majority of the voting public, I feel the simplest solutions will not work. What can I do to stop this?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What can I do? (Score:5, Informative)
Become an active member of Amnesty International. They do some awesome work and have saved hundreds of people from torture or "disappearing." Their reports are impartial and so well-researched that they serve as a standard that even governments cannot ignore them.
Re: (Score:2)
I will look into this. Thanks for the suggestion.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Refresh my memory: how many years did Dick Cheney do?
Well, it appears we have no choice (Score:2)
State Facist Behavior (Score:2, Insightful)
Kiriakou would have been wise to report the torture to his superiors and document it. Then, perhaps, he would have been protected by the Whistleblower laws of the U.S. Perhaps he did. I don't know. IANAL
This idictment appears to be "persecution", rather "prosecution" by a State entity that is turning facist. This is what would be expected by various oligarchys across the world. President Obama should use his power of pardon to clear Kiriakou and reward his actions as a true patriot. Maybe we should s
That's why we need Wikileaks (Score:2)
n/t
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Still no charges for the agents who actually committed acts of torture. Waterboarding is just as wrong whether it's committed by us, or whether it's done to us [politifact.com]. In either case, the torturer deserves the same fate.
Re: (Score:2)
None.*
According to the Nixon Principle [wikiquote.org]
And since the VP and the White House CoS are operating entirely on delegated Presidential authority, it applies to them too.
*It is left as an exercise for the Reader to discern if I am being serious or merely trolling.
Comment removed (Score:3)
I wish he did 1 thing differently (Score:5, Interesting)
If he had not disclosed names which does put people at risk, I would have no problem with what he did. That one thing makes a huge difference, and for that reason it's difficult to defend him.
Exposing the activity alone should have been enough to open an investigation. Let the courts find the names relevant. He could have waited until a Grand Jury was opened, and exposed all the names he thought important to the courts.
I'm not trying to imply that the right people would have been prosecuted under those circumstances. Just that since he put people at risk by giving names to media the whole things gets a big question mark.
Presidential Medal of Freedom (Score:5, Informative)
That's what this guy should get.
Exposing crimes against humanity is every human's duty. Systematic torture is a war crime and covering it up makes you equally culpable. That's what the whole deal was with the Nuremburg Trials, remember?
The Nazis claimed they were just following orders, but that didn't spare them from the gallows. Every member of the American government who helped perpetrate this atrocity or who looked away should be locked up or face capital punishment according to their proximity and complicity.
It does look like at this point that the greater part of the American government was complicit, including almost all of Congress, the entirety of the Executive Branch, and the Judiciary, so we'd have to expunge nearly all of Washington DC with extreme prejudice.
And you know what? I'm really OK with that.
How many dead whistle blowers does it take to.... (Score:2)
... finally shut down all the corruption of the so called intelligence industry?
Hey guys... (Score:2, Funny)
...remember when you guys wanted Dick Cheney prosecuted for violating this same law for having Valerie Plame outed? Yeah, so do I.
Re:when dick cheney did it he wasn't charged (Score:5, Funny)
Oh c'mon silly! Everyone knows he just did that because he didn't have a heart. Now they got him one! Everything is going to be fine now -- or at least for the next five years til they have to murder another young athlete to get him a new heart.
Re: (Score:2)
They are called phila-- eh, phil-- um, yes, uh-- good-deed-doers.
And their hearts are no bigger than Cheney's.
But -- they don't have one thing Cheney's got: billionare patrons and political clout.
Re: (Score:2)
They still feed him the hearts of Cuban children? I though that stopped when he left office.
Re: (Score:2)
It wouldn't matter - Bush II would have just pardoned him like he did Scooter Libby.
Re:when dick cheney did it he wasn't charged (Score:4, Informative)
IF you think that Scooter Libbiy did ANYTHING without the direction of Dicky then you are a complete moron
And, as you obviously know but are pretending not to so that you can hope to keep your narrative alive for uninformed people, Scooter Libby wasn't found to have disclosed the identity of Plame. That wasn't even on the docket in his trial, despite the special prosecuter's enormous expenditure of time and cash looking around for who turned out to be ... Richard Armitage, at the State Department (you know the guy who eventually 'fessed up). You know this, and everyone else knows this. The fact that you're mentioning Libby as the source shows how disingenuous and deliberately misleading you're trying to be. Not sure why, though. You must have vested interest in that particular fiction.