National Security Leaks

AL baby -

This is an open forum. If you don’t like how it is played down here, I suggest you find another place to post.

I will exercise my first amendment right to call bullshit on anything you - or anyone else - writes down here. Making unsubstantiated remarks such as you did begs to be called out.

If you can’t stand the heat - get out of the kitchen. People on both sides do the same thing I did all the time.

If we have to wait until we are asked to speak - you would never tyoe a single word down here.

Now go fix your obviously bunched panties, and try to keep your precious feelings off your sleeve.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
AL baby -

This is an open forum. If you don’t like how it is played down here, I suggest you find another place to post.

I will exercise my first amendment right to call bullshit on anything you - or anyone else - writes down here. Making unsubstantiated remarks such as you did begs to be called out.

If you can’t stand the heat - get out of the kitchen. People on both sides do the same thing I did all the time.

If we have to wait until we are asked to speak - you would never tyoe a single word down here.

Now go fix your obviously bunched panties, and try to keep your precious feelings off your sleeve.

[/quote]

My panties? Please, you are the ones that got your maidenforms in a bunch in the first place. You didn’t like me agreeing with vroom (your favorite target of abuse), so you decided to attack rather than talk. Pot and Kettle, rainjack remember that.

I know it is an open forum better than you realize, however, you use an open forum to spout your obvious anger management issues rather than discuss topics at hand. But, at least we have forums like this to keep you and your rifle off of bell towers.

So sugarbritches, I will post here as long as I like. But I will also attack you so long as YOU like. Opinions are just that, opinions. But when you make it personal, I will respond in kind. Meanwhile, if you have something valuable to say, I am willing to listen.

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
My panties? Please, you are the ones that got your maidenforms in a bunch in the first place. You didn’t like me agreeing with vroom (your favorite target of abuse), so you decided to attack rather than talk. Pot and Kettle, rainjack remember that.[/quote]

Of all the things in this world that warrant me caring about them - who you agree with doesn’t even make the list. Really.

I questioned your ability to speak for the majority of America. You are doing what most Dems do - tell us what most americans want - yet habitually lose at the ballot box. Pardon me if I disagree with your assessment of what America thinks.

So speaking for the majority of Americans is not enough for you now? You are now an expert on the inner-workings of rainjack? You are as wrong about me as you are about the majority of Americans. I don’t even own a firearm. But don;t let that stop you from forming completely baseless opinions of me.

No one has told you to stop. You just seem to think that I am supposed to shut up whenever you snap your fingers. I have yet to get personal with you. You just seem to have a problem with mouthy conservatives that won’t your liberal BS like the $10 whores you must be used to.

I’ve said it time and again: When the left comes up with a new message that extends beyond hating Bush and looking to the past - then maybe there eill be something I would actually listen to from the left side of the street. Until then, I am happy to call bullshit for the 198th time on the same tired backward thinking logic of the defeated left.

Yo may not consider yourself as suych - but you are known by the company you keep - I have very rarely seen you espouse anything to the right of Kerry.

I don’t see many of these guys in the forum. Do you?

Maybe if you responded to what actual people in these threads were talking about, instead of imagining that they represent the talking head brand name viewpoints you mention, it would be easier to have a conversation on these topics without you getting all pissy because you missed nap time?

[quote]vroom wrote:
Maybe if you responded to what actual people in these threads were talking about, instead of imagining that they represent the talking head brand name viewpoints you mention, it would be easier to have a conversation on these topics without you getting all pissy because you missed nap time?[/quote]

Maybe if an original idea would surface that would be possible. The left on here may think they are being original - but they sound eerily similar to the names I mentioned in my previous posting. They champion the same causes - take the same positions, and talk the same talking points.

If it walks like a duck and quacxks like a duck…

[quote]rainjack wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
My panties? Please, you are the ones that got your maidenforms in a bunch in the first place. You didn’t like me agreeing with vroom (your favorite target of abuse), so you decided to attack rather than talk. Pot and Kettle, rainjack remember that.

Of all the things in this world that warrant me caring about them - who you agree with doesn’t even make the list. Really.

I questioned your ability to speak for the majority of America. You are doing what most Dems do - tell us what most americans want - yet habitually lose at the ballot box. Pardon me if I disagree with your assessment of what America thinks.
[/quote}

rainman, I went with the data on approval ratings on this one. You remember what those are? You are so quick to spout statistics when they benefit your arguements.

[quote}
I know it is an open forum better than you realize, however, you use an open forum to spout your obvious anger management issues rather than discuss topics at hand. But, at least we have forums like this to keep you and your rifle off of bell towers.

So speaking for the majority of Americans is not enough for you now? You are now an expert on the inner-workings of rainjack? You are as wrong about me as you are about the majority of Americans. I don’t even own a firearm. But don;t let that stop you from forming completely baseless opinions of me.
[/quote]

I went by the venom that you constanly spout at anyone that you don’t agree with as my assesment of you. Anybody who reads what you write can do that. And again, I never said I was an expert on you, you did. I don’t know or even care if you do own a firearm. The bell tower crack, was just a snipe at you. You should recognize it, you throw them all the time.

I don’t have a problem with mouthy conservatives that actually have a point. I have a problem with mouthy conservatives that spend their time with petty, personal attacks rather than constructive discussion. Something that you never seem to do with people who disagree with you. As far as $10 whores, you seem to know a great deal more about that than I do.

You would actually see me espose many things right of Kerry if you would bother to actually read anything past where you want to start arguments. I have a hard time supporting administrations that take advantage of the people they are supposed to serve. Scroll up this thread and you will see what I said earlier about not everything was the domain of the Bush Administration when it comes to ruining this country. I do not like the namby pamby way the Dems roll over anymore than I like the callousness of the ruling GOP. Each party has been hijacked by extremists, it just so happens that the GOP extremists are in control right now.

If you want an actual, constructive conversation, say something constructive. If you have an original thought or idea, I’d like to hear it from you. All you have demonstrated so far is your penchant for arguing. You are an embarassment.

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
If you want an actual, constructive conversation, say something constructive. If you have an original thought or idea, I’d like to hear it from you. All you have demonstrated so far is your penchant for arguing. You are an embarassment.[/quote]

I more than capable of carrying on a constructive conversation. See the tax code thread if you need a recent example.

When partisanship rears its ugly head from the left, I am always more than willing to go toe to toe with the best of you. Just as when partisansip creeps up from the right - you and many others are just as quick to chime in. Partisanship is the name of the game down here. You can call it what you want if you have a problem with the ‘P’ word - but you are as guilty of it as the next guy. Being intellectually dishonest about it doesn;t change the fact.

I am hardly the embarassment. I just get under your skin and irritate you like a case of poison oak. The more you scratch at me the worse it itches.

But that is far from being an embarassment. And you know that.

Zap,
As far as the distinction between POWs and enemy combatants, how is this determined? Given that the imprisoned are not given representation or trials, how is it decided who is an enemy combatant? Obviously someone conspiring with terrorists, but how do we know that all of the “enemy combatants” are aspiring terrorists? Shouldn’t there be a less arbitrary method of idenitification?

Boston,
Since you seem to favor the detention centers - are they constitutional? You are a strict constructionist, with assumably more constitutional awareness than any other member of the board - what aspect of the constitution allows for the indefinite detention of those designated “enemy combatants”? Where is the check on this presidential power? Is it constitutional that they operate without the knowledge of congress?

And you think the conservatives on the board don’t sound like their own brand of talking head regurgitators?

Maybe if you look a bit deeper you’ll see the rhetoric used by most is somewhat different, though the viewpoints are similar?

Wow. This story is going to be a lot bigger than the karl rove thing. I just read on yahoo news that the European Union is going to look into this matter to see if this is going on and the red cross is demanding access to the " ghost prisoners "

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051103/ap_on_re_eu/cia_secret_prisons;_ylt=Ao.5fTK6fu1cvP9kHioUKhis0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b3JuZGZhBHNlYwM3MjE-

I am kind of pissed at whoever leaked this story. How can we cut the terrorists wills if we cant do something punitive against them? Thats the only reason they are held up in these jails is to punish. If they are locked up for five years or so they might have a less hostile outlook on things and less likely to terrorize.

Why aren’t they w/ the taliban at guantanimo bay? If we have the rightousness to stick the taliban there i think that al queda are good enough too, i dont understand why gwb made the politically risky move to set these prisons up overseas but support it nontheless. This has to be the first good thing i have said about his administration on t-mag this year. I should celebrate or something.

secret prisons?

not cool. very not cool.

i cant help but think how like the enemy ‘secret prisons’ is.

“Why aren’t they w/ the taliban at guantanimo bay? If we have the rightousness to stick the taliban there i think that al queda are good enough too, i dont understand why gwb made the politically risky move to set these prisons up overseas but support it nontheless”

I am sure that there are legal protection issues with detaining all of these people. How do we prove that all of them are members of al-Queda or the Taliban?

[quote]dermo wrote:
“Why aren’t they w/ the taliban at guantanimo bay? If we have the rightousness to stick the taliban there i think that al queda are good enough too, i dont understand why gwb made the politically risky move to set these prisons up overseas but support it nontheless”

I am sure that there are legal protection issues with detaining all of these people. How do we prove that all of them are members of al-Queda or the Taliban?[/quote]

Im not going to research this but hopefully dubya’s staff put some thought into the selection of which country to stick these prisons into. Hopefully one w/ laws repressive enough that it would be " legal " to do this type of thing w/in the countries.

Im sure that since we are propping the Iraqi government up, that all the al queda’s we take from there are sanctioned by the government somehow , even if just to cover our asses.

As far as proving that they are anything or nothing is besides the point its going to be delayed if at all possible just like the guantanamo bay stuff- like i said this is their punishment and for good or evil we are the judge, jury and will carry out the sentence w/ or w/out a court.

As i have said before i realize that politically this is a bad move even though i have no qualms against its practice myslelf. I personally have a big problem with people that blow others up in order to achieve political aims.

As far as the al queda’s go its on now, we are taking acts of terrorism as an act of war even though we are at war against more of an organization than any country. Still, IMO this is the biggest political news that i have heard all year.

Do you think there should be an investigation to see who leaked the sensitive, national-security information in an attempt to politically damage the Administration or to accomplish some other political goal?

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:

Hey BB-

Your assertions have been defanged by a Canadian…[/quote]

That would be difficult to fathom, given they weren’t addressed.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
I’m disappointed that a Barrister seems unable to grasp the differince between this leak and the Valerie Plame leak. Both “leaks” have nothing in common, in fact, they are quite opposite.[/quote]

Really? Is that because in your mind different laws or standards should apply depending on whether you agree or disagree with the politics involved?

[quote]Wreckless wrote:

The Valerie Plame leak (has Novak the rat been arrested yet?) was organised by high ranking officials to punish a whistleblower. The man hadn’t done anything illegal, but just because they didn’t like that he spoke his mind, they decided to out his wife as a CIA agent. This is illegal.[/quote]

Assuming for the sake of argument that they in fact outed an undercover CIA agent, then that’s correct. However, given what you wrote below, you don’t do a good job of distinguishing anything other than the fact you hope the reporter managed to climb on a plane to and saw the secret prison on a flyover, or some other such implausible explanation.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:

The publication about secret CIA prisons is entirely different. For one, the existence of these prisons could have been discovered by investigative journalism. Laugh all you want, but some people DO take their job seriously. So it IS possible.[/quote]

Possible? Perhaps. Plausible? No. Of course, that’s why the criminal law standard of proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

[quote]Wreckless wrote:

These prisons have been linked with torture. I know Dubious thinks very lightly off torture. We’ll have to keep that in mind when he faces his judges in The Hague. Do you think he’ll hold up under pressure? My guess is he sings like a canary at the slightest provocation. The man has a history of finding his cohones only when his own precious person is very safe.

Anyway, enough daydreaming. Back on topic.[/quote]

To veer off topic for a moment, you’re absolutely 100% incorrect. There has never been a credible accusation of sanctioned torture. That’s why the accusations that come from lefty organizations of actual international standing use such phraseology as “tantamount to torture,” which, for anyone who knows how to read, means it’s not torture. If they could allege torture, they would do so.

So unless the judges wanted - and were somehow empowered - to change the definition of torture and make it retroactively applicable, the esteemed judges at the Hague in your fantasy would have to grant the defense’s preliminary motion to dismiss, given that nothing alleged even meets the definition of the crime charged.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:

The Bush’s seem to think, keeping prisoners out of the country gives them the right to torture them. They are wrong. Torture is illegal. The whole conceps of keeping people in secret prisons is illegal. The logic that was developed to keep them abroad and deny them basic rights is devious. People who think that up should be kept under close observation. Under no circumstances should they be allowed to attain any leadership position.
My personal advise, I’d watch out to give them a drivers license. Voting rights are definately a no-no.[/quote]

I suppose you either didn’t read, don’t care about, or can otherwise rationalize how the legal departments of all of the DOJ, DOD and CIA analyzed the applicable law and made certain that the program authorized by the President fit under applicable law. But I suppose your 2 second gut-level analysis should definitely hold sway. Too bad you’re not king of the world – imagine all you could accomplish, and how you would treat those on you enemies list. They should shudder at the thought of your crushing their heads… crush… crush… [Reference to “Kids in the Hall,” for those who thought I missed a med].

[quote]Wreckless wrote:

For a few centuries, waging armies had the notion that POW should be treated with some respect at least. The fact that Dubious, the self proclaimed leader of the free world, casts this aside so easily, is highly disturbing.[/quote]

Not to be an argumentative dick, but you know, I am a lawyer… Which “centuries” are you referencing?

How long was the statutory minimum for holding prisoners during the Franco-Prussian War? I don’t recall that Napolean was known for granting fair and speedy trials…

I think we can fairly track back some treaties to the 1800s, but to make that some sort of world-wide standard vastly overstates the position. The Geneva Conventions, if I’m not mistaken, go back to WWI, and are the embodiment of modern standards relating to the treatment of enemy soldiers.

Too bad for your position that nothing W authorized violates the Geneva Convention, or any other law applicable to the U.S.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:

What’s also disturbing is the eagerness with which this BostonBarrister defends the rights of traitors and his enthousiasm to prosecute independant journalists who acutally do their job.[/quote]

And now the trap, as it were, is sprung. I don’t recall advocating the prosecution of anyone.

I merely asked the question as to whether the foaming mouthed caterwaulers who were calling for the investigation of what is apparently a non-leak by people connected to the administration would keep their vigilant positions w/r/t national security leaks. And the answer is fairly obvious – and embodied in your response.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:

Mr. BostonBarrister, you would have made a great prosecutor in Saddam’s Baath party.[/quote]

You’re such an amusing guy Wreckless. You could have been a comedian. Or perhaps a mime – I’d bet you’d be a good mime. It would minimize your weaknesses. Though I’d similarly bet you’d manage to overcome that safeguard via a keyboard.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:

Let’s hope your official career in the US justice system will be short and unsuccesfull. It will certainly make this world a better place.[/quote]

Well, I guess your wish is granted. That career lasted 0.0 seconds. I’m not a member of the U.S. justice system as such. I’m a corporate/securities lawyer. So I suppose you’ll need to find someone else to defend your posts against the charge of stupidity above and beyond the call of duty, though you’d better find someone good. I’ve heard O.J.'s team isn’t too busy these days.

[quote]vroom wrote:
And you think the conservatives on the board don’t sound like their own brand of talking head regurgitators?[/quote]

That wasn’t the issue that was brought up. I was telling you why those that post all sound the same, and therefore like treated like the partisans that they are parroting.

Look deeper? That’s not my responsibility. If there is anything deeper to the left’s thoughts - I would think that it is there job to communicate them more effectively. But since you bring it up - that is the same problem that the DeanNc is having. That is of course assuming that the Dems actually have a message to convey - hidden or not.

[quote]dermo wrote:

Boston,
Since you seem to favor the detention centers - are they constitutional? You are a strict constructionist, with assumably more constitutional awareness than any other member of the board - what aspect of the constitution allows for the indefinite detention of those designated “enemy combatants”? Where is the check on this presidential power? Is it constitutional that they operate without the knowledge of congress?[/quote]

dermo,

I’m not certain whether I favor them or not. Sorry if my initial post was a bit deliberately unclear on the matter, but I was hoping to get a post like Wreckless’ in response – I’m more interested in pointing out that things have consequences. The rabid idiots who were in favor of turning the Espionage Act of 1917 into some version of the British State Secrets act (can’t remember the precise name right now) and overrunning both the 1st Amendment and the idea that you actually have to break the law to be guilty of doing something illegal need to have it pointed out to them what a consistent application of that standard would entail.

But to end my rant and address your actual question, there are two considerations involved. The first would be whether a non-citizen who is actively engaged in activities designed to kill U.S. citizens and harm U.S. interests is entitled to any of the protections the U.S. Consitution affords citizens. I think that’s an open question, and I don’t know of any particular precedent that would hold such persons are entitled to any Constitutional rights.

Normally, non-citizens attacking U.S. citizens in a war would be enemy soldiers, and thus would be protected not by the Constitution but by the Geneva Conventions. However, these persons aren’t fighting by Geneva Convention rules, and similarly are not entitled to rights under the Geneva Conventions.

BTW, the article states that Congress – or at least high-ranking committee members in Congress – did know about the detention centers.

The Constitutional question of the balance of power between the President as Commander in Chief and Congress’ War Power is definitely a live one, but in this case apparently whichever Congressmen knew of the establishment of the detention centers agreed they were necessary for national security (and I’m assuming that high-ranking committee members of both parties were informed, but the article was unclear on that point).

Boston,
You said, " there are two considerations involved. The first would be whether a non-citizen who is actively engaged in activities designed to kill U.S. citizens and harm U.S. interests is entitled to any of the protections the U.S. Consitution affords citizens." If a non-citizen is caught conspiring against national interests on US soil - i.e. Zacarias Moussauoi (sp?) -he is still entitled to a trial and a defense. And to extrapolate further, if an illegal alien were to be accused of murder on our soil, he would still be tried in accordance with our constitution, right?
I agree that non-citizens attacking US soldiers, in a war taking place on foreign soil, would obviously not be protected by our constitution. However, even if we agree that the insurgent’s methods exclude them from the protections of the Geneva Conventions, shouldn’t there be some framework in place to deal with them? Can we credibly claim to be spreading democracy while simultaneousy declaring that certain groups of people have no rights or protections?

It seems undemocratic. For those who would say that people who practice terror forfeit their rights, consider that there are many stories of people claiming to have been falsely detained. While the President asserts that these people have been “trained to dissassemble - that means to lie”, this answer is problematic in a couple of ways. First of all, “dissemble”, not"disassemble", means to lie…whatever one thinks about his governance, the man is great comedy. Secondly, this does not address the initial assumption of guilt that led to their detention. Shouldn’t there be a course or actions - i.e. some kind of a relatively expedient trial, and then a triage system, to ascertain the level of guilt/threat and determine an appropriate destination?

[quote]dermo wrote:
Boston,
You said, " there are two considerations involved. The first would be whether a non-citizen who is actively engaged in activities designed to kill U.S. citizens and harm U.S. interests is entitled to any of the protections the U.S. Consitution affords citizens." If a non-citizen is caught conspiring against national interests on US soil - i.e. Zacarias Moussauoi (sp?) -he is still entitled to a trial and a defense. And to extrapolate further, if an illegal alien were to be accused of murder on our soil, he would still be tried in accordance with our constitution, right?
I agree that non-citizens attacking US soldiers, in a war taking place on foreign soil, would obviously not be protected by our constitution. However, even if we agree that the insurgent’s methods exclude them from the protections of the Geneva Conventions, shouldn’t there be some framework in place to deal with them? Can we credibly claim to be spreading democracy while simultaneousy declaring that certain groups of people have no rights or protections?

It seems undemocratic. For those who would say that people who practice terror forfeit their rights, consider that there are many stories of people claiming to have been falsely detained. While the President asserts that these people have been “trained to dissassemble - that means to lie”, this answer is problematic in a couple of ways. First of all, “dissemble”, not"disassemble", means to lie…whatever one thinks about his governance, the man is great comedy. Secondly, this does not address the initial assumption of guilt that led to their detention. Shouldn’t there be a course or actions - i.e. some kind of a relatively expedient trial, and then a triage system, to ascertain the level of guilt/threat and determine an appropriate destination?[/quote]

dermo,

You asked what the law is, not what it would be in a perfect world.

Essentially, right now there is not a system in place that protects the individual rights of those who fall outside the protections of the Constitution and the Geneva Convention - at least not beyond the broadest laws relating to human rights, such as those preventing actual torture. There’s no right to a fair and speedy trial, or right to counsel, etc. – those rights are Constitutional, not embodied in the ether and universally applicable.

And I wouldn’t call that undemocratic either. Don’t forget, that democracy entails the responsibilities of citizenship, along with the rights of citizenship.

And, to answer a question you don’t ask, I would not favor expanding the protections of the Geneva Conventions to those who don’t follow its rules – that actually flies in the face of the initial reason for its passage, which was to encourage people to fight by “civilized” rules in order that they might enjoy reciprocal “civilized” treatment.