View Full Version : while we're on the subject of mainstream media lies being repeated ...
Eric Stoner
03-12-2007, 10:40 AM
dlabtot- WRONG ! Melonie has NOT defended Libby and neither have I. Both of us have adopted Sir Thomas More's argument that it is better to give the Devil himself the benefit of the law for all our sakes. If we ignore the law just because we approve of the result; then none of us is safe. Any one of us could be subject to prosecutorial abuse as Libby arguably was. If Libby can be denied a "fair trial" then so can you; or I ; or Melonie; or anyone else.
Afaik and afaic it would have been more helpful if Libby had truthfully testified about who told him and when about Valerie Plame. He said it was Russert. Russert said it was not. That is essentially the entire case against Libby. That is effectively all he was charged with.
Melonie
03-12-2007, 03:03 PM
Any one of us could be subject to prosecutorial abuse as Libby arguably was. If Libby can be denied a "fair trial" then so can you; or I ; or Melonie; or anyone else.
This is PRECISELY the reason that I am upset by prosecutors being allowed to bring charges based on sketchy interpretations of law, as well as jury members being allowed to hand down verdicts that match their idea of 'justice' even though the proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is sorely lacking. The last time I was subject to such an attempt at 'railroad justice' it cost me 10 grand to 'prove my innocence' in appeals court. Fortunately, I was able to afford to do so. Undoubtedly, Scooter Libby will also be able to afford to do so (however, the disposition of such an appeal is very much in question).
However, there are probably 100,000 dancers out there who CAN'T afford to do so, meaning that they are open to 'credibility' based charges being brought against them. More importantly, they are also open to jury members who have no love for 'strippers' or 'strip clubs' located in their neighborhood/cities handing down stiff sentences intended to send a political message at the 'stripper's expense, and saddling them with a criminal record that will affect the remainder of their lives.
Eric Stoner
03-13-2007, 07:03 AM
From " A Man For All Seasons"- Sir Thomas More is talking to his future son in law Richard Roper and his daughter. Both want him to arrest Richard Rich fearing (correctly as it turns out ) that he will perjure himself to curry favor with Henry VIII and advance himself at More's expense.
ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil the benefit of law ?
MORE: Yes. What would you do ? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil ?
ROPER: I'd cut down every tree in England to do that.
MORE: Oh, and when the last law was down and the Devil turned on you, where would you hide, Roper, all the laws being flat ? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's, and if you cut them down- and you're just the man to do it- do you really think that you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then ? Yes, I'd give the Devil the benefit of the law, for my own safety's sake.
Perfectly illustrative of the danger of letting ends justify means and not caring about Due Process and Equal Protection which is one of several reasons why the Patriot Act and its progeny should trouble all of us. Too many times we forget that what goes around comes around and how transient current conditions can prove to be. Melonie and I have been arguing for OUR rights; all of us. Not just
Mr. Libby.
It's one reason why I thought the Republicans were breathtakingly foolish in proposing the "nuclear option" re: Senate filibusters because the day could easily come when a filibuster might be the only way to keep a Lani Guenier off the Supreme Court.
It's a reason why I support Mr. Padilla ( despicable scum though he might be ) because I find it very troubling that a Constitutional ignoramus like Bush can declare an American Citizen an "enemy combatant" and try to curtail his legal rights. The day may come when President HillBillary could have that power and we've already seen eight years when they didn't care about the rights of others ( only their own ) or who got hurt.
A right is a right, period. It simply will not do to say that we'll look the other way in the case of a Libby or a Padilla and then blithely expect those same rights to be there in full force and effect come the day when you, or I, or Melonie, or anyone should happen to need them.
dlabtot
03-13-2007, 11:51 PM
This is PRECISELY the reason that I am upset
I think it has more to do with the reality that the corruption and criminality of your beloved Republicans has been proven in court.
Go ahead, tell us again about how you are 'not defending Scooter Libby', and/or you are 'not a Republican', lol.
Melonie
03-14-2007, 02:37 AM
^^^ actually it was a bible thumping republican mayor (running for re-election) and police chief who set up the club bust that resulted in my being bogusly charged. It was bible thumping republicans / conservatives who were sitting in that jury box and chomping at the bit to convict me of something that I didn't do, based on the firm knowledge from mainstream media that every 'stripper' is a whore - and that there was 'justice' in sending a clear message to a new clubowner that his club's presence in their neighborhood was not appreciated via convicting me in local court !!!! It was bible thumping republicans / conservatives who cost me nearly $10,000 in legal fees and lost income to eventually 'prove my innocence' on appeal !!!! So please tell me how I'm an uber-Republican again ???
dlabtot
03-14-2007, 10:39 AM
http://www.rubberducky.nu/flutterby/images/article_daisy.jpg
"Quack. I'm not a duck. Quack"
Eric Stoner
03-14-2007, 11:18 AM
dlabtot- This is probably a waste of electrons but it imo it does NOTHING to advance intelligent debate or civil discourse for you to toss around casual, assumption based accusations.
I consider myself to be a "practical realist". Sometimes that has me agreeing with the "Republican" party line; sometimes the "Democrat" position and on some occasions I effectively disagree with both. So does Melonie afaics.
You talk about "Republican corruption and criminality " and claim that Melonie is "defending" same but as usual you cite absolutely NO EVIDENCE for such an assertion. It's your standard M.O. btw. Toss your mud and when challenged to present facts supporting your (imo careless) assertions you choose to remain silent or just offer more unsupported ad hominem attacks.
According to YOU- the only opinions that count are yours and the only posters worthy of respect ( just simple basic human respect ) are those who agree with you. Sadly, you are not alone and civil discourse appears to be dying out. We see it on SOME supposed T.V. news shows ; hear it on talk radio ( and many "conservatives" are guilty of same) and read it on the op-ed pages and internet blogs . Worse yet, the Democrats apparently approve of such an approach; witness their recent cancellation of the Nevada Debate sponsored by
Fox News. Likewise, the Arab-American Civil Rights group throwing out a cameraman from CBN from a "public" news conference. You obviously don't realize it but your approach is not far from removed from the "free speech for me but not for thee " extreme.
Are ALL opinions worthy of "respect". No. Not afaic. Nazi ideas and their proponents are fair game for ridicule. So is NAMBLA and their ideas. I'm not saying they don't have a right to speak. In a free society they do. Just that they are so far out on the fringe that they are fair game for public ridicule and disrespect. So please reserve your venom for them. They deserve it.
Btw, there is plenty of corruption and criminality in BOTH parties.
dlabtot
03-15-2007, 03:22 PM
More on the topic from former CIA officer Larry Johnson:
Valerie Plame was undercover until the day she was identified in Robert Novak's column. I entered on duty with Valerie in September of 1985. Every single member of our class--which was comprised of Case Officers, Analysts, Scientists, and Admin folks--were undercover. I was an analyst and Valerie was a case officer. Case officers work in the Directorate of Operations and work overseas recruiting spies and running clandestine operations. Although Valerie started out working under "official cover"--i.e., she declared she worked for the U.S. Government but in something innocuous, like the State Department--she later became a NOC aka non official cover officer. A NOC has no declared relationship with the United States Government. These simple facts apparently are too complicated for someone of Ms. Toensing's limited intellectual abilities.
She also is ignoring the facts introduced at the Libby trial. We have learned that Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, Ari Fleischer, and Richard Armitage told various members of the press that Valerie worked for the CIA. In fact Scooter Libby was the one who told Bush press flack, Ari Fleischer, about Valerie's covert status. Richard Armitage told Novak (who confirmed the story with Karl Rove) and Novak ultimately exposed not just Valerie but her NOC cover company, Brewster Jennings. That leak by the Bush Administration ruined Valerie's ability to continue working as a case officer and destroyed an international intelligence network.
You do not have to take my word alone that Valerie was under cover. Other members of our training class also came forward in 2003 and vouched for Valerie's covert status--Jim Marcinkowski, Brent Cavan, and Mike Grimaldi. We appeared on Nightline three years ago, accompanied by another classmate who remains anonymous, and testified about our personal knowledge of Valerie's status as a covert CIA officer.
http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/02/delusional_rede.html
The rest of Mr. Johnson's article is definitely worth a read.
Melonie
03-16-2007, 09:40 AM
(snip)" Plame said she had no role in sending her husband on a CIA fact- finding trip to Niger. Wilson said in a newspaper column that his trip debunked the administration's prewar intelligence that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium from Africa.
"I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him. There was no nepotism involved. I did not have the authority," she said.
That conflicts with senior officials at the CIA and State Department, who testified during Libby's trial that Plame recommended Wilson for the trip.
Plame also repeatedly described herself as a covert operative, a term that has multiple meanings. Plame said she worked undercover and traveled abroad on secret missions for the CIA.
But the word "covert" also has a legal definition requiring recent foreign service and active efforts to keep someone's identity secret. Critics of Fitzgerald's investigation said Plame did not meet that definition for several reasons and said that's why nobody was charged with the leak.
Also, none of the witnesses who testified at Libby's trial said it was clear that Plame's job was classified.
"No process can be adopted to protect classified information that no one knows is classified," Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, the ranking Republican on the committee, said. "This looks to me more like a CIA problem than a White House problem."
Plame said she wasn't a lawyer and didn't know what her legal status was but said it shouldn't have mattered to the officials who learned her identity.
"They all knew that I worked with the CIA," Plame said. "They might not have known what my status was but that alone—the fact that I worked for the CIA—should have put up a red flag."
Wilson has written a book, and Plame is working on one, "Fair Game," although it has had a troubled history. In May 2006, the Crown Publishing Group announced it would publish her book, a deal reportedly worth seven figures. But the two sides could not agree on a final contract, and two months later an agreement was announced with Simon & Schuster.
Plame's book is subject to a mandatory review by the CIA. On Thursday, Simon & Schuster spokesman Adam Rothberg would say only that the book was "in progress," and that publication was expected soon.
Scheduled to testify Friday were attorney Mark Zaid, who has represented whistle-blowers; attorney Victoria Toensing, who said early on that no law was broken and has criticized the CIA's handling of the case, and J. William Leonard, security director of the National Archives, who was to discuss general procedures for handling sensitive information. "(snip)
Other news reports will hopefully choose to quote Ms. Plame's response to questioning that nobody at the CIA ever told her that she was covered by the Protection Act, either before or after the publication of Novak's 'outing' column. Other news reports will also undoubtedly include Victoria Toensing's testimony.
Eric Stoner
03-16-2007, 11:04 AM
Check out Plame's testimony today in front of Congress. No one ever told her that A.- she was covered by the Secret Identities Act or B. That her "outing" was a violation of said Act. She also said it was "not WIDELY known on the D.C. cocktail party circuit" that she worked at the CIA ." Baloney ! Andrea Mitchell knew and has said so; so have a number of other Washington reporters. The woman
drove to work at Langley every day for over FIVE YEARS ! She was listed as Wilson's wife in Who's Who.
Likewise, the Senate Intelligence Committee Report left no doubt that it was Plame who recommended that her hubby, Wilson be sent to Niger. Nonetheless, in her testimony today, Plame said it was a "junior staffer whose name I can't recall who suggested to me that I ask my husband to go to Niger. "
Does anyone seriously believe that ?
Melonie
03-16-2007, 03:55 PM
transcript of Valerie Plame's testimony :
DAVIS: The Intelligence Identities Protection Act makes it a crime to knowingly disclose the identity of a covert agent, which has a specific definition under the act. Did anyone ever tell you that you were so designated?
PLAME: I'm not a lawyer.
DAVIS: That's why I asked if they told you. I'm not asking for your interpretation.
PLAME: No. No. But I was covert. I did travel overseas on secret missions within the last five years.
DAVIS: I'm not arguing with that. What I'm asking is, for purposes of the act -- and maybe this just never occurred to you or anybody else at the time, but -- did anybody say that you were so designated under the act or was this just after it came to fact?
PLAME: No. No one told me that, and --
DAVIS: How about after the disclosure?
PLAME: Pardon me?
DAVIS: How about after the disclosure? Did anyone then say, “Gee, you were designated under the act. This should not have happened." Did anybody at the CIA tell you at that point?
PLAME: No.
~
Melonie
03-17-2007, 01:35 AM
transcript of Victoria Toensing's testimony :
WAXMAN: I am stunned, Ms. Toensing, that you would come here with absolute conclusions that she was not a covert agent; the White House did not leak it; no one seemed to know in advance that she was a CIA agent. Do you know those facts for your own firsthand knowledge?
TOENSING: Well, lets just take those one by one. As I said, I was there. I was the chief drafter for chairman --
WAXMAN: I'm not asking for your credentials. I'm asking how you reached those conclusions. Do you --
TOENSING: That's part of my credentials is because I know what the intent of the act was.
WAXMAN: I'm not asking what the intent of the act was.
TOENSING: Well that’s the question.
WAXMAN: Do you know that she was not a covert agent?
TOENSING: She is not a covert agent under the act.
WAXMAN: Okay, so --
TOENSING: You can call anybody anything you want to in the halls of the CIA.
WAXMAN: General Hayden! General Hayden, head of the CIA, told me personally that she was. If I said that she was a covert agent, it wouldn't be an incorrect statement?
TOENSING: Does he want to swear that she was a covert agent under the act?
WAXMAN: I'm trying to say as carefully as I can. He reviewed my statement, and my statement was that she was a covert agent.
TOENSING: Well, he didn't say it was under the act.
WAXMAN: Okay, so you're trying to define it exactly under the act.
TOENSING: That's important.
WAXMAN: No, no, no, no, no, no. I'm not giving you -- I'm not yielding my time to you.
Eric Stoner
03-19-2007, 07:58 AM
MELONIE- Henry Waxman is a horse's ass who never let a few facts get in the way of his politics or ideology.