Originally posted by WulebgrThat would be good, Wulebgr, but I think the ego-driven, publicity-fed, petty hate between the parties is too deep seated for that to happen. We need a pragmatic third party.
I'm still a bit uneasy about the nuclear plants, and one of those who curses the 10% I must use all winter that lowers my gas milage and clogs my fuel filter. Aside from that, I'm in hearty agreement with the advice sasquatch offers to our President.
The Republican leadership now running this country abandoned its party, and the American people, just as ...[text shortened]... ipled opponents, and a basic agreement to pursue good ideas no matter which party suggests them.
Originally posted by Delmerhmm, any ideas as to what that third party should be? 😉 ...
That would be good, Wulebgr, but I think the ego-driven, publicity-fed, petty hate between the parties is too deep seated for that to happen. We need a pragmatic third party.
have you read J. Neil Schulman's Alongside Night (?) ... i think i'll go to the used bookstore today and look for it ... read it awhile back ... gets 5 stars on amazon ... i gotta do something to get me off of this forum habit ...
Originally posted by zeeblebotI haven't heard of "Alongside Night" but I'll check it out. Libertarian Party works for me.
hmm, any ideas as to what that third party should be? 😉 ...
have you read J. Neil Schulman's Alongside Night (?) ... i think i'll go to the used bookstore today and look for it ... read it awhile back ... gets 5 stars on amazon ... i gotta do something to get me off of this forum habit ...
here's a review from Amazon:
"I first read this novel in 1983, and I now re-read it periodically because (1) it gives me hope for a better, freer society, and (2) it's so damn much fun. Without being preachy, Schulman's great libertarian sci-fi novel is like one of the terrific, old Heinlein juveniles -- simple, to the point, and fast-moving. Read it yourself, hand it off to friends (I keep a stock of tattered paperback copies just for that purpose), then re-read it yourself when you get in the dumps from too much statist TV exposure."
Originally posted by zeeblebotIf I can find a copy at Amazon I will order it tonight, Z. Just mentioning it in the same breath with Heinlein is enough to sell me. I've always considered Heinlein the best ever.
here's a review from Amazon:
"I first read this novel in 1983, and I now re-read it periodically because (1) it gives me hope for a better, freer society, and (2) it's so damn much fun. Without being preachy, Schulman's great libertarian sci-fi novel is like one of the terrific, old Heinlein juveniles -- simple, to the point, and fast-moving. Read i ...[text shortened]... pose), then re-read it yourself when you get in the dumps from too much statist TV exposure."
Apparently, the lawyers who wrote the law say that the Plame leak was not illegal
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/2/22/120736.shtml
Tuesday, Feb. 22, 2005 12:06 a.m. EST
Ex-Prosecutor: Plame Leak Not Illegal
The former prosecutor who helped draft the law that Democrats say was violated when someone in the Bush administration leaked a CIA worker's name to columnist Robert Novak now says that no laws were broken in the case.
Writing with First Amendment lawyer Bruce Sanford in the Washington Post recently, former Assistant Deputy Attorney General Victoria Toensing explained that she helped draft the law in question, the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
Says Toensing, "The Novak column and the surrounding facts do not support evidence of criminal conduct."
For Plame's outing to have been illegal, the one-time deputy AG says, "her status as undercover must be classified." Also, Plame "must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years."
Since in neither case does Plame qualify, Toensing says: "There is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as 'covert.'"
The law also requires that the celebrated non-spy's outing take place by someone who knew the government had taken "affirmative measures to conceal [the agent's] relationship" to the U.S., a prospect Toensing says is unlikely.
Other signs that no laws were broken include the fact that after Plame was outted, the CIA's general counsel took no steps to prosecute Novak, as has been done to other reporters under similar circumstances.
Neither did then-CIA Director George Tenet or his deputy pick up the phone to tell Novak that the publication of her name would threaten national security and her safety, as is also routinely done when the CIA is serious about prohibiting publication.
In fact, the myth that laws were violated in the Plame case began to unravel in October 2003, in a column by New York Times scribe Nicholas Kristof, who explained that Valerie Plame had abandoned her covert role a full nine years before.
"The C.I.A. suspected that Aldrich Ames had given [Plame's] name [along with those of other spies] to the Russians before his espionage arrest in 1994. So her undercover security was undermined at that time, and she was brought back to Washington for safety reasons."
Kristof also noted that Plame had begun making the transition to CIA "management" even before she was outted, explaining that "she was moving away from 'noc' – which means non-official cover ... to a new cover as a State Department official, affording her diplomatic protection without having 'C.I.A.' stamped on her forehead."
Noted the Timesman: "All in all, I think the Democrats are engaging in hyperbole when they describe the White House as having put [Plame's] life in danger and destroyed her career; her days skulking along the back alleys of cities like Beirut and Algiers were already mostly over."
So why – with a special prosecutor now threatening to toss Time magazine's Matthew Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller in jail if they don't give up their sources in the Plame case – aren't their lawyers invoking the "no laws were broken" defense?
Explains the National Review's Rich Lowry: The Miller-Cooper defense hasn't made this argument because it would be too embarrassing to admit that the Bush administration's "crime of the century" wasn't really a crime at all, especially after a year and a half of media chest-beating to the contrary.
"It was just a Washington flap played for all it was worth by the same news organizations now about to watch their employees go to prison over it," says Lowry.
"That's the truth that the media will go to any length to avoid."
I gotta say though, it's kind of funny seeing the Democrats (including several Clinton Administration Officials, of all people) being so concerned with National Security all of a sudden...since when does THAT happen?
Originally posted by TheBloopI hope Karl Rove hires you to be his lawyer.😛
Apparently, the lawyers who wrote the law say that the Plame leak was not illegal
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/2/22/120736.shtml
Tuesday, Feb. 22, 2005 12:06 a.m. EST
Ex-Prosecutor: Plame Leak Not Illegal
The former prosecutor who helped draft the law that Democrats say was violated when someone in the Bush administration leaked ...[text shortened]... people) being so concerned with National Security all of a sudden...since when does THAT happen?
Originally posted by TheBloopHere's 50 US Code section 421 (a):
Apparently, the lawyers who wrote the law say that the Plame leak was not illegal
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/2/22/120736.shtml
Tuesday, Feb. 22, 2005 12:06 a.m. EST
Ex-Prosecutor: Plame Leak Not Illegal
The fo ...[text shortened]... h National Security all of a sudden...since when does THAT happen?
Section 421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources
(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had
access to classified information that identifies covert agent
Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified
information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses
any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not
authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the
information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert
agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be
fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or
both.
EDIT: I made an error when I first posted; the definition of a "covert agent" is at 50 USC 426(4) and is essentially what is spelled out above. How right-wing reporters can be sure that Ms. Plame hasn't been stationed outside the US for 5 years is beyond me, as well as whether this information is classified or not. I suppose the Justice Department set up that Grand Jury for Democratic political purposes.