[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.