Letters to the Editor
-
Why the AIPAC prosecutions are different.
Glenn has mentioned that the AIPAC prosecutions are different because there is there is a first Amendment issue. I don't think at this point I have seen any evidence that AIPAC recruited or paid for information from Larry Franklin. Unless, I am mistaken, he just walked out of his office and started giving some AIPAC people information on Al -Qaeda and Iran. I don't know how how the Israeli's were supposed to know what was classified and what was not. There is so much unofficial business going on in washington. For example, Scooter Libby and Carl Rove were handing out classified information on AMERICAN agents, not Iranian agents. Is'nt there a difference here. There is even the possibility that this is a "planned leak" operation much like the CIA/Valerie Plame case designed for no other reason than to embarass AIPAC.
A couple of caveats are in order here. The mere fact that someone is accused of wrongdoing by the government does not mean they are guilty. Plenty of people so accused are innocent. And while I personally have become completely convinced of both Lewis Libby's and Larry Franklin's guilt, I have no real opinion about the substance of the Wolfowitz accusations, nor the strength of the Conrad Black prosecution. And I think there are genuine reasons to find the prosecution against these AIPAC officials disturbing on First Amendment grounds, as I've written before.
-
@wingspan_too
Okay, assume for a moment that you're right, and it is an attempt to embarrass AIPAC. Who benefits?
-
The wikipedia mentions that
He was also trying to " pass information to the United States National Security Council that he could not do by other means". I think at this point we know that the Pentagon is a sham organization, as was the build up to the war. They are trying to contain their real motives in turning a situation that is embarasing to the pentagon into one that is embarassing to AIPAC.
-
They all suck
and I hope they all go to jail, and take the republican party down with them...
-
Actually I never said that,
And anyone who claims I did is a liar. Just about the only thing most of you are any good at is name calling and lying about it. So be it, chalk it up to the inexperience of youth.
In related news on NPR this evening it was announced that Salon's hero and uber strongman Hugo Chavez is shutting down RCTV one of the 4 Venezuelan TV channels for saying things about him he didn't like. Actually it's for broadcasting scenes from the anti Chavez coup a few years ago and then refusing to broadcast scenes from the counter coup a few days later.
I really want to hear you folks lining up to support that. I want to hear the liberals and well wishers tell about how wonderful the end of the 1st ammendment is. I won't hold it against you or yell at you or call you names like you do to me. I just to hear a quick cheer from all the folks here who support that. Especially the people who breathlessly tell me how living in the US is akin to living in a Soviet Gulag.
Seriously, have it, give me your best shot. And if you think this is trolling you're being childish.
-
Of course it isn't trolling
Clearly Glenn's post and this thread are about how we all love Chavez.
Lollers.
-
So your opinion is.....?
.....what again? That rule of law thing just won't go away, will it?
-
RealName
Get a RealHobby. We're all quite impressed by how self-impressed you are, making non-points with such great fanfare and putting on your best "answer the question!" impression of Sean Hannity.
-
Look, there's a pony . . .
absolutely right . . . It wasn't said by not your real name, but instead by a poster with wit and intellect.
Okay . . . I'm on board with everyone else now. Is this thread about Chavez? If so, why? Are we still in Chavez Ravine?
And, Paul . . . I know that I know I'm not up to your chops on the blog, etc., but I'd still love a response on the Political Compass thing.
-
Seriously
Seriously, have it, give me your best shot. And if you think this is trolling you're being childish.
-- RealName
If you're going to spend all day shooting down a strawman, it's going to be considered trolling.
Maybe you should ask yourself: why do you have to make an unsubstantiated assumption in order to make your argument? Why have you spent all day arguing a point that no one ever made?
Childish, indeed.
-
Tuesday at the trial in Chicago
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/09/wblack09.xml
Aide links Lord Black to secret slush fund
By David Litterick in ChicagoWednesday 09 May 2007
Conrad Black was behind the decision to funnel millions of dollars away from shareholders of Hollinger International to himself and other executives, his associate David Radler told his fraud trial yesterday.
In the first testimony to link Lord Black directly to the payments, Mr Radler told the jury that Lord Black had "suggested we insert ourselves" into non-compete payments that the prosecution claims were used to steal millions of dollars from the company.
Mr Radler also said that he did not tell Hollinger's directors. "I don't think they would have approved," he said . . .
- - The Telegraph
But at that moment, the judge interrupted the trial and said that, because of the creeping evil menace of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, he was dismissing the case.
And that was that. Exeunt Omnes.
-
White House rule of self-preservation
It appears the rejection of the rule of law also is embraced inside the White House, even at risk to the ultimate symbol of the American democracy.
As evidence, check out this story in the online investigative publication Narco New:
White House Employee Fired for Trying to Protect President’s Life: Alarming Trend in the Executive Branch: Avoid Political Embarrassment, Even at the Cost of National Security
The direct link to the story is at this link: http://narcosphere.narconews.com/story/2007/5/6/164859/5949
From an email alert sent out by Narco News about the story:
Laura C. Jones was lead mail assistance in the West Wing of the White House with a top security clearance that allowed her access to the President of the United States and his staff.
But on March 24, 2004, she tells Narco News, that Shane Chambers, special assistant to then White House Chief of Staff Andy Card, brought a package to the West Wing mailroom.
From the Narco News story:
"...the package had not gone through the rigorous off-site security clearance required for all mail delivered to the White House.
"'I told him (Chambers) that the package had to be sent to another location to be X-rayed, opened and checked for powder before it comes to us,' Jones says. '... I told him that I could give the package to a driver who could take it to the location where it would be checked.'
"But that's not what happened. Instead, Jones says, her supervisor in the mailroom that day overruled her and allowed the package through, 'and [despite a recent ricin powder threat at the US Capitol building] they opened it up right there in the mailroom of the West Wing...'"
"Inside the package, Jones says, were a series of smaller packages, each with a label bearing a name. The names on those labels included President George W. Bush, First Lady Laura Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Chief of Staff Andy Card, according to Jones.
"'I do not know what was inside the little packages,' Jones says. But she adds that the packages were sent forward to the president and his staff, despite the reckless disregard for their security in this case."
After then reporting the security breach to White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card through his deputy Harriet Miers (later, chief counsel to the president), Jones was demoted and harassed [and eventually fired] by the Bush White House, after 16 years of recognized outstanding performance as a federal employee.
What was in those "little packages" that caused such an overreaction by White House officials?
And the story is backed up by government documents posted with the report.
If the rule of law doesn't apply inside the White House, then where does it apply?