Waterboarding Whistleblower Indicted Under Espionage Act

wiredmikey writes "A former CIA officer was indicted on Thursday for allegedly disclosing classified information to journalists. The restricted disclosure included the name of a covert officer and information related to the role a CIA employee played in classified operations. The indictment charges John Kiriakou with one count of violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act for allegedly illegally disclosing the identity of a covert officer and with three counts of violating the Espionage Act for allegedly illegally disclosing national defense information to individuals not authorized to receive it. The count charging violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, as well as each count of violating the Espionage Act, carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison, and making false statements carries a maximum prison term of five years. Each count carries a maximum fine of $250,000."

Comments

Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[crazyjj]

Until you men realize that the U.S. does not, and cannot, commit any war crimes--then you will be suitably punished. For those of you patriots who accept that all U.S. action is lawful, by virtue of it being U.S. action, then prosperity and salvation await. For all others, who would engage with the socialist press and outside agitators in conspiring to disparage this flawless nation, only purgatory and a jail cell await you.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[toetagger]

I didn't know Romney had a /. account

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[Iceykitsune]

WOOOOOOSH http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe's_Law

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[jhoegl]

You are kind of covering all bases there arent yeah crazyjj.... oooohhhh *wink wink*

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[ScrewMaster]

Double-whoosh. The second poster caught the original poster's drift, and merely expanded upon it. Apparently you missed that.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[godless dave]

Sadly, there are many politicians and regular people in this country who would say that with a straight face, and mean it.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[Kneo24]

While this is true, if you couldn't tell that what toetagger said was a joke, there's little hope for you. The obviousness of it should smack you in the face.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[dkleinsc]

No, it's clearly not Mitt Romney: If it were, you'd see a post a bit further down with an impassioned defense of human rights and the value of questioning government in a democracy.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[cpu6502]

>>>I didn't know Romney had a /. account

Which one is Romney? The current sitting president or the candidate for president? They all look alike to me.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[darkpixel2k]

The obviousness of it should smack you in the face.

Well, normally it would--but the last time it happened he got a restraining order. Now obviousness can't come within 50 yards of him.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[Lumpy]

The one that has an ungodly mountain of money. It's the only way to tell them apart by measuring money pile size.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[Jerry]

I see your Poe and Godwin and raise you Alinsky's 5th rule -- attack through humorous ridicule. As Saul said, it is almost impossible to counter with facts because the truth usually isn't as simple as a lie.

Take the ridicule against Palin. In an interview she said "There are places in Alaska from which one can see Russia." A TRUE statement. The Left "quoted" her as saying "I can see Russia from my house."., Being good researchers, some on the Left consulted maps and noticed that one can not see Russia from Palin's house. So the mockery began and was repeated endlessly and recycled in the forums and blogs on the Left. Repeat a lie often enough, Right or Left, and the faithful believe it as fact, even to the point of self-righteousness, quoting the lie as proof of their intelligence. It really gets interesting when psychological terms are thrown at "unbelievers". Terms like "denier", etc...

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[Joce640k]

It keeps them from being whistleblowers about things that aren't important.

What if we want whistleblowers for the things that *are* important? Like this one.

Or maybe you think torture works and is a perfectly acceptable way to get information?

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[no-body]

Yah - right! Being an US citizen is not just a plain citizenship as in most other countries, one needs to have a religious believe system fully embodied to become really part of it and get the full benefit of feeling outrageously great - most of the time...

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[jc42]

Nah; I think what you mean is that we should hope that the original post was a joke, but it's not logically possible to determine that from the words alone. So you may decide that the writer was serious or joking, but you stand a good chance of being wrong whichever you pick. That's what Poe's Law is all about. Written English leaves out a lot of tonal information that's in spoken English, and there's not much we can do about it.

Except use smileys. ;-)

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[PIBM]

I though we could not measure infinity ?

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[Quiet_Desperation]

There was one like that for the first Bush. The story was that he was in a supermarket and was amazed at the bar code scanners (which had been around for a while) and so he was out of touch. Turns out he was at a demo of a new scanner at a convention that could read really mangled bar codes. If anyone cares, snopes has the details.

My only question is WTF happened to that scanner? My state of the art supermarket's scanners still crap out with even slight crumples in the code.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Sadly, there are many politicians and regular people in this country who would say that with a straight face, and mean it.

The real tragedy is the amount of people who would vote for such politicians after they had said it.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[sociocapitalist]

Extending your comment to include Israel, as they also appear to be above and beyond international law.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[cayenne8]

Or are we just admitting that Democrats actually have the slightest scrap of dignity over Republicans?

Have you listened to Howard Dean even a little lately? I mean, he's kind of the new official Democrat bulldog out there....

Dignity on that side? Really....?

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bet you $10,000 he doesn't

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[Belial6]

This whole "Torture doesn't work" bit is silly. Of course torture works, IF you are asking the right questions. I have personally seen it work hundreds of times. Every time a kid holds down his little brother and gives him a pink belly until he is told where his GI Joe is hidden, torture has worked. People have this fantasy that information cannot be verified, and that all questions have are a four item multiple choice question where the person being tortured will eventually give all answers.

If you are tortured for the password to a file on your computer, the only way to stop the torture is to give the correct password. Each time you lie, the torturer can try the password, and if it fails, continue to torture you. This would produce effective and reliable results. Conversely, if you were tortured into naming people you know who support your rival faction, your torture will fail. Successfully getting good information out of torture is in asking questions where lying doesn't produce the same results as telling the truth.

Banning torture is a question of ethics. Not effectiveness. "It doesn't work is verifiable false"

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[Gilmoure]

Only if it's riding a bicycle.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[walkerp1]

What if we want whistleblowers for the things that *are* important?

I was thinking much the same thing. There should be some procedure for reporting in situations like this that doesn't make one a criminal...an oversight board with the ability to receive any information without regard for sensitivity perhaps. Of course, the board should be insulated from any influence by the affected agency, and I'm not so naive as to believe that possible without significant changes.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[willaien]

Still worthy of ridicule, due to the context of the statement. That you can, in just the right places, see Russia from Alaska does not equate to Foreign Policy experience.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[mcgrew]

I realise that's sarcasm, but there are a whole lot of people who actually do think like that. Did the guy commit a crime? Yes, but committing that crime was a patriotic thing to do, and damned brave if you aske me. The guy should get a CMH for his bravery, or at least a silver star (I know a guy who got two silver stars and doesn't believe that he should have; "I didn't do anything anybody else woudn't have," he said.)

The guy in TFS is a patriot and hero. The people pressing charges should be in front of a firing squad for treason -- because waterboarding IS unamerican, as is lying about it.

We're supposed to be the good guys. Can't we even try to be?

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[TheRaven64]

The mockery was not directed at Palin for being able to see Russia or not being able to see Russia, it was directed at Palin for claiming that being able to see the tip of Russia, about as far away from Moscow as New York is from Paris, had anything to do with her competence with regard to foreign policy.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[moderatorrater]

I absolutely think this whistleblower did the right thing. But if it's important enough to break the law over, then it's important enough that they should be willing to do it in spite of the punishment.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[cpu6502]

>>>an impassioned defense of human rights

Really? "Yes I would have signed the NDAA." - Romney in debate

>>>the value of questioning government

I've never heard him say anything against doing this. On the other hand I've never heard him saying anything for it either. Romney's stance on things is often an enigma (like Obama 2008).

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[QuantumRiff]

Probably wanted way too much money.. I'm guessing the 17 year patent has probably expired now though.. :)

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[hairyfeet]

Yeah I remember that speech, it was more condensed by Nixon in his "if the President does it it isn't illegal" and was just as scummy. Isn't it sad we went from actually impeaching a president (or getting close enough he bailed at least) to two parties filled with cowards and shills that won't do anything but line their own pockets? anybody who has read some of the Wikileaks on the wars in the ME knows that in many ways we are making Nazis and the Red Army look like Care Bears, we just pass the REALLY nasty jobs to the mercs.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[CrimsonAvenger]

or at least a silver star (I know a guy who got two silver stars and doesn't believe that he should have; "I didn't do anything anybody else woudn't have," he said.)

I've never heard of someone who won a medal (CMH, DSC, Silver Star) who didn't say much the same thing.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[Anomalyst]

Only if it's riding a bicycle.

Leave her fish out of this.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[andydread]

Actually if you care to be factually correct you could mention that Palin was being ridiculed because her answer to the question of her being qualified to be the Vice President and possibly President was...as you say "There are places in Alaska from which one can see Russia."

That was, as you know, a ridiculous answer to simple yet serious question. It's an insinuation that if one is within proximity to a foreign country whether its Mexico, Russia, or Canada then they must be qualified for those offices. You give a ridiculous answer to a serious question then the answer is ridiculous and therefor you are ridiculed and made a mockery of.

As far as the "I can see Russia from my house." quote goes that came from a comedy show. (Saturday Night Live)

I do agree that if you repeat a lie long enough and spread from cable news to talk radio then the faithful will believe it as fact as demonstrated by the fact that half of Republican voters believe that the current President is a Muslim. The Right seems to very skilled in this area.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[element-o.p.]

That's great, in the case where you know that the guy you are torturing knows the information. Unfortunately, that's never -- or at least close enough to "never" to be essentially the same thing.

One problem occurs when you grabbed an innocent bystander. You can torture him until the sun explodes in a giant supernova explosion (yes, I know...our sun isn't supposed to go supernova, but you understand what I'm saying anyway, don't you?), but you aren't going to get the information you want because he doesn't have it. And he can tell you that. Every. Single. Time. but you will have no way of knowing it's the truth, based on torture alone.

To illustrate a second problem, let's expand upon your password example. In my organization, when an employee leaves the company, their account password -- and any shared account passwords -- are changed, so that they no longer have access to the systems. In a military or paramilitary organization, I would expect that similar policies would be in place, expanded to include those who are MIA. So you capture an enemy combatant and start torturing him to provide The Password. He gives it to you. You test it. It fails, and so you continue to torture him because you asked a good question, tested the result, and it failed, so obviously, he's lying. In fact, however, he isn't lying. He gave you the right information, but the information has changed since his capture.

Your entire conclusion is wrong. Torture might work, in some cases, some of the time, if you are lucky. But you don't know -- and in fact, you CAN'T know -- when the intel you have received through torture is correct but has changed, when the intel you have received through torture is false and simply turning up the pressure will give you the answers you want or when the guy is just an innocent bystander who doesn't know squat. To you, they all look the same. So, yeah, you can prove a positive, but you can't prove a negative no matter how brutal you become. Consequently, torture is BOTH a question of ethics and effectiveness. IMHO, it is unethical and ineffective.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[Fned]

Each time you lie, the torturer can try the password, and if it fails, continue to torture you. This would produce effective and reliable results.

This runs into problems if the person actually doesn't know the information you want. They'll reliably give you bad information to stop the torture.

Torture only works if a lie produces different results than the truth AND you can somehow confirm that the tortured party has access to the information you seek. Moreover, the information you get has to be rapidly verifiable; if a lead takes a long time to confirm, like a week, torture will not only be far less effective, but also useless to discern between someone who doesn't want to give up a secret and someone who just doesn't want to be tortured for another week or so.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[PrescriptionWarning]

Yes, you're right, if someone waterboarded me to tell me where their GI Joe toy was hidden then I would certainly tell them. But the analogy doesn't work on adults when concerning matter they consider so important they it would take more than a pink belly, and I'm guessing rarely can the information revealed from torture be instantly verified. Oh, also they have training to desensitize them from torture, so if they think they can tell a lie just to get them off the hook for a while, then they might just do that too. So yeah good luck on getting a real person to tell you where his real life GI Joe buddies are hidden.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[rocket rancher]

I see your Poe and Godwin and raise you Alinsky's 5th rule -- attack through humorous ridicule. As Saul said, it is almost impossible to counter with facts because the truth usually isn't as simple as a lie.

Take the ridicule against Palin. In an interview she said "There are places in Alaska from which one can see Russia." A TRUE statement. The Left "quoted" her as saying "I can see Russia from my house."., Being good researchers, some on the Left consulted maps and noticed that one can not see Russia from Palin's house. So the mockery began and was repeated endlessly and recycled in the forums and blogs on the Left. Repeat a lie often enough, Right or Left, and the faithful believe it as fact, even to the point of self-righteousness, quoting the lie as proof of their intelligence. It really gets interesting when psychological terms are thrown at "unbelievers". Terms like "denier", etc...

Talk about lifting things out of context. Palin was responding to a question about her foreign policy credentials when she made that famous assertion. She was in dead earnest about it, and the press on both sides saw it for what it was -- evidence that Palin was ill-equipped to make foreign policy as a president, let alone execute it. The Left amplified it, and the Right tried to downplay it. There is no two ways about that quote, yet you've managed to find a third by lifting it out of context and trying to spin the coverage as some kind of leftist version of the well-known right-wing echo chamber. Nice try, pal.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[mcgrew]

Written English leaves out a lot of tonal information that's in spoken English

Then you're doing it wrong. Does that jingle from Priscilla's say "where fun and fantasy meet," or is it "we're fun and fantasy meat?" Written language is far better at communicating, but not quite so easy to make jokes with*. Like this biology joke that just doesn't work in written form: "Q: How do you tell the sex of a chromosome? A: Pull down its genes." The pun is lost because jeans and genes are spelled differently.

Poe's Law only takes effect when someone makes a crazy, absurd stance -- like Crazy John from a bar I frequent, who is convinced that space aliens walk among us. If you know him you know he's nuts, but if he was a stranger on a messageboard you would have no clue unless you saw a whole lot of posts. It isn't a matter of written vs verbal, it's a matter of whether or not you're familiar with the person making the absurd statement.

If you're going to use sarcasm or parody, you should choose words that make it clear that it's sarcasm or parody, if you're parodying some nutter like the GGP was.

* Meaning Douglas Adams was and Terry Pratchett is a genious.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[istartedi]

The person who you're torturing knows that it "works" if the information can be verified quickly.

That's why any regular (or even ad hoc, diress-inspired) strategy against torture is to give the torturer an answer that's difficult and time consuming to verify.

"Of course I don't have the plans; but I know where they are. They're near the Kerengal Valley, up a steep ravine guarded by about 100 of the Taliban's best fighters".

Yeah, maybe you'll verify that. Maybe you won't. A month later you can torture him again even harder. He won't lie this time. /sarc.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[dkleinsc]

Whooosh!

This was intended as a joke about the massive flip-flopping that Mitt Romney has done (including holding 2 diametrically opposed positions within a 24 hour period). For instance, Romney 2012 is strongly opposed to Barack Obama's health care bill, which is basically exactly what Romney pushed through in Massachusetts as governor.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[barc0001]

Torture only works if you can IMMEDIATELY verify the information given. Otherwise, it's bullshit. Want proof? Give me 5 minutes in a room with you strapped to a table, and using only a simple blowtorch and pliers I'm certain I can have you confess the secret location of a dirty bomb somewhere in the continental US. Now whether or not the bomb is actually there when someone goes to look for it is another matter.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[werewolf1031]

Nah; I think what you mean is that we should hope that the original post was a joke, but it's not logically possible to determine that from the words alone. So you may decide that the writer was serious or joking, but you stand a good chance of being wrong whichever you pick. That's what Poe's Law is all about. Written English leaves out a lot of tonal information that's in spoken English, and there's not much we can do about it.

Oh FFS, are you a flesh-and-blood human or an algorithm? If the latter then you can be forgiven for not comprehending an almost painfully obvious undertone. If the former, well, you're SUPPOSED to be a hell of a lot better at figuring this stuff out than a computer.

Unless you're a lawyer more concerned with winning a case at any cost than finding the truth of the matter, such pedantry is unbecoming a sentient being.

You knew damned well what the OP meant.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[LordLimecat]

Can someone explain this for me? The current administration-- the one presumably doing the prosecution-- is NOT run by Romney OR a republican, but by the Dem. Obama.

Do you mean to imply that all republicans are pro-waterboarding? Because I can refute that right now-- its just not true.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[werewolf1031]

Did the guy commit a crime? Yes, but committing that crime was a patriotic thing to do, and damned brave if you aske me. The guy should get a CMH for his bravery, or at least a silver star

Seriously? For trying to get classified information to further his writing career?

The indictment also charges him with one count of making false statements for allegedly lying to the Publications Review Board of the CIA in an unsuccessful attempt to trick the CIA into allowing him to include classified information in a book he was seeking to publish.

Yeah. Real patriot, that one.

And apparently he was also a liar. You sure you wanna back this guy for a medal? I sure as hell wouldn't.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[anagama]

Democrats have dignity over Republicans? For what -- you mean Obama prosecuting people under the espionage act 6 times in 3 years, while that act had been applied only 3 times in history prior?

The Republicans have nothing on George W. Obama when it comes to advancing the concept of an Imperial President -- I mean, when George W. Bush was doing all this radical stuff, Democrats pretended to care and complained. Now that it is GW Obama doing even worse -- silence, nothing but pure silence. Meaning that the abuses of GWB have become the new normal under the neo-con civil-liberties-destroying due-process-free-executioner (i.e., "murderer") that Democrats fawn over, i.e., Obama.

America is not just ready for dictatorship, it wants it.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[couchslug]

"IMHO, it is unethical and ineffective."

The people who consider it ineffective tend to consider it unethical and react emotionally. They IMO tend not to be interested in effective use of torture.

There are obviously cases where torture HAS been effective, for example when the Soviets captured "tongues" (Germans) to interrogate for battlefield intelligence. There of course was zero ethical or moral obligation whatsoever to Nazis who were literally trying to exterminate them, and the intelligence was often worthwhile.

If you simply consider torture "applied stress" and remove any emotional involvement, it is but a tool in the tool kit.

If you enemy is too valuable to torture, perhaps he is not your enemy.
If your goal is so worthless that you cannot hurt your enemies to attain it, the calls the goal itself into question. Burning an enemy in combat with an incendiary or sending bullets and shrapnel through his body is somehow better than torture? Let's not kid ourselves...

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[anagama]

Glenn Greenwald's take is much better thought out, and there are many quotable bits in his article: http://www.salon.com/2012/01/24/rules_of_american_justice_a_tale_of_three_cases/singleton/

but how about this one, slightly offtopic, but a good summary of how the law works right now, where members of congress can get paid by and lobby for a terrorist group (*), and the rest of America can get bent. It's our tiered justice system at work:

The Rules of American Justice are quite clear:

(1) If you are a high-ranking government official who commits war crimes, you will receive full-scale immunity, both civil and criminal, and will have the American President demand that all citizens Look Forward, Not Backward.

(2) If you are a low-ranking member of the military, you will receive relatively trivial punishments in order to protect higher-ranking officials and cast the appearance of accountability.

(3) If you are a victim of American war crimes, you are a non-person with no legal rights or even any entitlement to see the inside of a courtroom.

(4) If you talk publicly about any of these war crimes, you have committed the Gravest Crime -- you are guilty of espionage -- and will have the full weight of the American criminal justice system come crashing down upon you.

(*) http://www.salon.com/2012/03/12/washingtons_high_powered_terrorist_supporters/singleton/

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[gambino21]

{quote}I've never heard him say anything against doing this. On the other hand I've never heard him saying anything for it either. Romney's stance on things is often an enigma (like Obama 2008).{quote}
I thought Obama make his positions quite clear during his 2008 campaign. The problem was that he reversed these clear positions soon after becoming president. Closing Guantanamo being one of the most well known examples.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[element-o.p.]

"None of us can be free while others are oppressed."

Intentionally inflicting physical harm on someone else in anything other than self-defense is oppression, and is evil. Period. You might try to argue that torturing an enemy combatant in a time of war is "self-defense" but I'd argue that you are stretching that definition to -- if not beyond -- the breaking point.

If you can rationalize brutality to someone because they aren't "one of you" perhaps you are not human.

If your goal is so precious that you are willing to discard ethical considerations to obtain it, perhaps your goal isn't nearly as noble as you believe.

Killing or injuring someone who is doing their level best to do the same to you is distasteful, but sometimes necessary. Doing so to someone who is bound, restrained and no longer in a position to pose a threat to you is, indeed, far worse. You can attempt to rationalize, but I, for one, have no desire to accept the ethical quagmire to which you apparently subscribe

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[gambino21]

Romney 2012 is strongly opposed to Barack Obama's health care bill, which is basically exactly what Romney pushed through in Massachusetts as governor.

I agree in general that Romney will take (or not take) whatever position he feels will give him the most political advantage at the moment. However, the health care example might not be a good example of this because there are legitimate reasons to think that a given policy could be good at the state level, but not good at the national level.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[mcgrew]

Sure you can, you just need an infinitely long yardstick with infinitesimal measuring marks.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[cpu6502]

Problem with that argument is Romney flew down to Washington and helped write the national healthcare bill. Afterwards he bragged he was proud to have helped make it happen (there's video on youtube). So apparently he was FOR national health care in 2009. Except now he's not. Flip flop mitt.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[GSloop]

! THIS !

@Jerry - while you have a point; the quote was out of context, you actually commit the offense you rail against in your defense.

Seriously!

Yes, the wording was changed - that is wrong. But the context as @willaien points out was Foreign policy experience, and proximity to Russia was a total misdirection. Proximity to Russia gave Palin absolutely no real experience in foreign policy.

Frankly the quote, while factually wrong, did maintain the logical fallacy and stupidity of the original Palin response.

So, hats off to hypocrisy. Raise a massive misdirection, to defend against a technically incorrect quote, which still maintains the vapid and empty-headed statement from Palin herself.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[mcgrew]

If torture works, then why did so many Chicagoans admit to crimes they didn't commit when tortured? If you're being tortured you're going to say what you think the torturer wants to hear, not necessarily the truth.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[GSloop]

As alleged by our government, who we all *know,* could never, ever tell a lie. (cough) (cough) (cough)

But given due processes these days, and the nature of our tiered justice system, why don't we just skip with the trial and lynch him already.

Really, when the executive branch (and all serious important people too) can blatantly commit serious felonies and we're to "look forward, not backward" - well, it's not surprising that we'd be attempting to break down the few brave people who actually leak the details about the felonious [not to mention morally repugnant] behavior of our government.

(sarcasm)
I mean, he was defending *brown* people from torture and we all know those *brown* people. [wink wink]
They hate us for our freedoms!
They're evildooers and teerrissts!
Think of the children!
(/sarcasm)

-Greg

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[vell0cet]

The ridicule was not because Palin said that she could see Russia from certain parts of Alaska, it was that she was offering that up as a rationale of why she had foreign policy experience.

It's not even that the Left or the Right believe lies that are repeated enough... anyone will believe whatever supports their own view of the world.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[DamnStupidElf]

So Joe McCarthy was really just an epic troll, and most people failed to pick up on that?

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[DamnStupidElf]

Oh, oh! Poe's law!

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[DamnStupidElf]

Flip flops are a good indication that once in office a politician will be "for" whatever his handlers/lobbyists/campaign contributors are "for," without regard to any popular opinion or rationality.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[Belial6]

I have yet to meet a person that would not condone physical harm to someone outside of self defense. Most of us in the first world just rationalize why outsourcing our violence doesn't count. I don't believe that you wouldn't call the cops if a random stranger entered your home and started taking all of your stuff. The cops are by their very nature our outsourcing of violence.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[Belial6]

That was my point. Torture doesn't work if the person doesn't know the information, or if you can't verify the information. BUT when you can, it certainly can be effective. Asking the right questions is the key to effective torture. Getting 1 confirmable answer and 9 unconfirmable answers is more effective than not getting any answers at all. None of this makes torture ethical, but plugging one's ears and repeating 'not effective...not effective...not effective...' doesn't change the effective/ineffectiveness. There is no question that torture, when properly applied is effective. People who use the claim that it is ineffective as their rational for it being unethical have not made their case.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[Belial6]

I would feel bad for you that you live in a country where every person goes through torture resistant training, but since there is no country on earth where this happens, I am going to assume that you are just rationalizing.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[Belial6]

You've watched too many James Bond movies. The victim doesn't know what information the torturer already has. You don't just get one answer from the victim and then wait a month. You ask them a series of questions. Some that you already have the answer to. You may ask them 20 questions where 19 of them, you already know the answer to. Since they don't know which questions you know the answers to, if any, the odds of them being able to lie about the one thing you don't know about while telling the truth about the things you do are neigh impossible.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[Cyberax]

I've actually seen Obama before he become a president. In Ukraine (in 2006, AFAIR). As a member of nuclear non-proliferation commission.

What was Palin doing at that time?

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[Belial6]

You linked to an article that show a situation where torture worked, and imply that it shows it it doesn't work. Based on the article, Jon Burge tortured victims to get them to confess to crimes. They confessed. your misunderstanding of the goals has clearly confused you.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[tomhath]

Similar is the famous "Is our children learning?" question. What he actually said was: "The question is 'Are our children learning'?".

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[Belial6]

Logical fallacy: Strawman.

Give me 5 minutes in a room with you strapped to a table, using only a simple blowtorch and pliers, and the ability to come back into the room the next day, I am certain I can have you tell me the pin to your ATM card.

You've watched too many James Bond movies. It isn't the location of a dirty bomb that is being asked. It isn't even one question. It is a ton of them, and most of them the torturer already knows the answer to.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[element-o.p.]

Arresting a thief <<< waterboarding a prisoner. Not. At. All. The. Same.

First, a thief is someone who is free and still capable of doing harm. A prisoner has already been subdued and confined. Consequently, the prisoner is no longer capable of harming you. Inflicting additional injury upon a prisoner is therefore cowardly in the extreme. Second, I -- and I would assume the cops as well, although that might not always be true -- would use the minimum amount of force required to subdue a thief. A prisoner has already been subdued. Third, try to use violence to stop the random stranger in your example above when he is leaving your property and see what happens. The laws on the use of force by civilians varies with jurisdiction, but in my state, if I shoot a thief in the back, I'm going to jail. Why? Because if his back is turned, he is no longer a threat to me. Yes, he may have an armload full of my stuff, but I can't legally shoot him. Torturing a prisoner is even worse than shooting a thief in the back, because a thief at least might come back. As I've already stated, the prisoner is no longer a threat to you.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[DMUTPeregrine]

"Intentionally inflicting physical harm on someone else in anything other than self-defense is oppression, and is evil. Period."

The BDSM community would like to have a word with you. There are some other exceptions; burglary being the obvious one, since you/others may not be in physical danger but you are in danger of having valuables stolen. Etc, etc.
Otherwise, I wholeheartedly agree.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[DMUTPeregrine]

It's only neigh impossible if you are torturing a horse, you sick bastard. Otherwise it will be nigh impossible.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[element-o.p.]

'Kay. I'll concede that.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[Weatherlawyer]

Seeing the Bush regime stated water torture is not torture, unless Obama has rescinded this description and implicated the chimpanzee in crimes against humanity, then the whistle blower is innocent of any crime. Or am I missing most of the story?

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[7-Vodka]

Since we're talking about infinity and money, there's a FED joke in here somewhere...

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[dwpro]

I don't feel like the Palin comment was much of a stretch. The interview, if I recall correctly, was asking about her experience dealing with foreign nations, and she cites proximity to Russia as though that's some sort of qualifier. The point was never that she could or could not see Russia nor the specifics of how she stated it, the point (and the joke) is more that it's a ridiculous way to claim you have foreign policy experience.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[GmExtremacy]

Stop rationalizing, man. You keep doing that thing!

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[element-o.p.]

Covered that already.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[mcgrew]

What good does it do society to execute an innocent man while a murderer goes free? I guess torture does work, as long as the truth isn't what you're after. But it doesn't work if you're looking for meaningful information.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[Thuktun]

Take the ridicule against Palin. In an interview she said "There are places in Alaska from which one can see Russia." A TRUE statement. The Left "quoted" her as saying "I can see Russia from my house."., Being good researchers, some on the Left consulted maps and noticed that one can not see Russia from Palin's house.

That quote was from the Saturday Night Live skit parodying that exchange.

So the mockery began...

You misunderstand. When questioned about what gave her foreign policy credentials, she cited that Russia was right over the border from Alaska. THAT was what drew the mockery, among other things.

Re:Let this be a message to the unpatriotic

[Thuktun]

Given that the comparison was to Senator Obama, Palin sure as shit had more foreign policy experience.

President Obama was on the Foreign Relations committee in the Senate. Specifically what foreign relations experience did Mrs. Palin have as Governor? I'm curious.

Hope and change

[HBI]

Well, not for John Kiriakou, at least. It is interesting how the policies of the USG - let's confine this to defense and intelligence, shall we? - have essentially changed only in rhetorical ways since the 2008 election. Gitmo remains open. People are still being prosecuted over talking to journalists about waterboarding and rendition.
We're still assassinating people. It would almost make you think that the politicians that were essentially calling GWB a war criminal might have been a bit less than wholly honest.

Re:Hope and change

[ScrewMaster]

It would almost make you think that the politicians that were essentially calling GWB a war criminal might have been a bit less than wholly honest.

Well, sure. Congress gave him the power to do what he did: they could have reined him in, but they chose to go along for the ride.

Re:Hope and change

[Anonymous Coward]

It's okay if you're the president, though. Remember when Bush outed Valery Plame? I guess it's okay for a president to put an agent in danger. Just not anyone else doing it for any real meaningful purpose.

Re:Hope and change

[ElmoGonzo]

Sounds like you don't know how Washington works. As Steve Earle remarked on stage a few weeks ago, when you become President, it's like being Harry Potter. They tell you all sorts of secret stuff that you didn't know before and then they put all sorts of obstacles in your path just to make things interesting.

Re:Hope and change

[houstonbofh]

I am still amazed that people think they see a difference between the parties...

Re:Hope and change

[Nadaka]

Someone is a war criminal.

Bush? maybe. Cheney? definitely.

But yes, Obama isn't much better.

I don't have anyone I can vote for any more.

Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, Reform. All are putrid vulgar fools. There isn't a single party that offers rational solutions to any of the problems we face and respects the principals that were supposed to make America a shining beacon of liberty. No matter what happens, this country is doomed.

Re:Hope and change

[Doc Ruby]

A lot has changed other than just rhetoric. A lot has gotten a lot better. For one, few if any whole new categories of abuse are being opened, even if not enough old ones are being closed.

But as we see here, in the military/intel realm, practically nothing has changed. And with the passage of time it's gotten worse: institutionalized, unchallenged, accepted, upgraded.

In general executive privilege, whether the US Chief Executive (president or their whole branch), or a military commander, or even a troop commander (or a lone soldier making "executive decisions"), or corporate executives - all executives have privileges that exempt them from paying the costs of their decisions.

Yes, Obama has destroyed hope for changing that from what Bush established as our offensive national priority. Though it's not quite that bad outside that essential scope, it's bad enough to hate it.

Re:Hope and change

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't see that speech, but I always kindof assumed this was the case.

We saw harsh 180's on a lot of things Obama promised repeatedly, in very clear language. Domestic spying was going to stop. Guantanamo was going to stop operating the way it does. The list goes on.

Then he got in office, pulled an about-face on all of it, and signed an EO allowing snatch & grab detention of US citizens without a warrant or trial, if someone, somewhere, thinks that citizen might be somehow connected with terrorism-like activities.

He learned something when he took office. Something scary. Because otherwise he just burned a ton of political capital (with every intention of running for a second turn) for no reason. That doesn't make sense for a capable, career politician.

Re:Hope and change

[rrohbeck]

Come on, most people agree that Obama is a much better Republican President than GWB.
Actually the best since Clinton.

Re:Hope and change

[Daniel_Staal]

You obviously don't talk to people near where I live. To most of them, GWB should have had a third term, and Obama is dragging this country to hell.

Re:Hope and change

[dgatwood]

There are lots of differences between the parties—just no significant ones. All of the differences are with respect to issues that neither party can significantly affect without getting smacked down by the courts—abortion, for example—or differences that in theory make a difference but in practice do not—techniques for redistribution of wealth, for example. (Tax and spend versus borrow and spend both have the same net effect, but one causes inflation that reduces your paycheck's buying power, while the other causes your paycheck to look smaller numerically, thus reducing buying power without inflation.)

Re:Hope and change

[Rich0]

He learned something when he took office. Something scary. Because otherwise he just burned a ton of political capital (with every intention of running for a second turn) for no reason. That doesn't make sense for a capable, career politician.

No doubt, but that doesn't mean that these policies are necessarily in the interests of American citizens in general. It merely means that Obama had some kind of incentive to pass them.

Re:Hope and change

[cpu6502]

>>>We're still assassinating people

Bush assasinated americans? I know he's an ass, but I don't recall that one.

Re:Hope and change

[Doctor_Jest]

Not only did he destroy hope (and change), but he expanded on many of the policies started after 9/11 by the Bush Administration. Drone attacks have skyrocketed (and Obama has the dubious honor of blowing up an American citizen with a drone attack... good resume fodder I guess), the PATRIOT Act was renewed (and Obama even called for its renewal, even though he campaigned against it and executive branch power grabs...)

So, what we've learned, (or if you watch FOX or MSNBC, haven't learned) is that it doesn't matter what party you elect... they both want to take your liberty away bit by bit. Donkey or elephant, it doesn't matter. What matters is we're still stupid enough (in the aggregate) to believe that there are differences between the parties.... I don't know how bad it has to get before people realize it.. but I hope it's not too far gone when we finally do wake up.

Re:Hope and change

[Grog6]

I'd love to argue with you, but as you're right, that's hard to do.

Hey, hopefully an asteroid strike will make this all seem silly.

Re:Hope and change

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. Sadly, I've noticed this too. People I've followed prior to election who had clear consistent policies suddenly change the day they take office.

I'm not talking about the normal broken promises. It's clear something happens. It's like Men In Black, where suddenly they're show the aliens and can't tell anyone. Instantly those three letter agencies are doing a great job and don't need changing.

I've seen it with Senators a couple of times. Once from someone so maverick it shocked me into recognition. Clearly someone is telling these people a story when they get elected. A story which changes everything.

Personally, I think it's wrong and evil this story is being kept from the American people. It's not very democratic if I can't understand what's happening and vote accordingly. I also suspect the story contains lies designed to protect the power of these spooks, but I doubt I'll ever learn the truth.

This is a really big deal and I'm glad to hear a few other people have noticed, outside conspiracy nuts.

Re:Hope and change

[Lumpy]

It is one of two things.

1 - Obama lied through his teeth about all of it.
2 - a shadow government in control that when he got there they held guns to his family's head and laid it all out on how things will work, and if he plays along he get's to have two terms as president.

Add to that the fact that every president after they leave office has a team of security with them 24 7 for the rest of their life, and of their family's life..... Things start looking plausable on the kooky conspiracy side.

Re:Hope and change

[Boronx]

You can't rely upon a president to curtail presidential powers. Even if such a thing did happen, it couldn't possibly be permanent. We need a Congress that' s willing to do it.

Re:Hope and change

[Boronx]

Bush, definitely. It's a war crime to invade another country. He also violated Congress's authorization of force since it required him to find Iraq an imminent threat or had ties to Sept 11 '01 attacks, neither of which Bush had evidence for, though he falsely submitted a statement that he did.

Re:Hope and change

[flaming error]

> He learned something when he took office.
> Something scary

What scary thing could he possibly have learned?

That there were dangerous terrorists loose? That they've obtained the Red Substance or the All-Spark or the Ark of the Covenant?

Re:Hope and change

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush, definitely. It's a war crime to invade another country.

Only in your imagination. That's first of all. Second of all, the US has LEGAL authority to enter Iraq from the first Gulf War. But I guess something like facts simply are not important to you at all. I guess you're too busy eat the garbage fed to you, by whatever garbage media outlet you use, to realize Iraq was in violation of the cease fire from the first Gulf War. The US had legal right to re-enter Iraq at will. And all that's ignoring that the UN sided with the US, making it legal even if the US didn't already have legal right to do so from the first Gulf War (which it did). The pandering to the UN was political, pure and simple, which had absolutely nothing to do with legality.

Entering Afghanistan was under UN purview and is considered a completely legal act. Period.

So much for the stupidity of you and your crowd.

I really get annoyed when so many ignorant people insist of pandering their ignorance so as to recruit other, like minded, simpletons.

Re:Hope and change

[Daniel_Staal]

Unfortunately, I have to leave my house occasionally so I can have money for internet access, so I run across them.

Re:Hope and change

[jythie]

Yeah, he learned how horse trading worked and that if he tried to actually do any of those things it would be a political disaster. He made promises that he didn't realize he couldn't keep.. or at minimal people who believed him didn't realize he couldn't keep. He was either dishonest in his promises, or idealistic in what being POTUS would be like.... either is plausible.

Re:Hope and change

[chill]

That our intelligence agencies have caught, red-handed, people with working nuclear weapons on U.S. soil just before they were about to set them off.

That would be a big one for me.

Yes, Mr President, if we didn't have this program we wouldn't have Tampa right now. We actually stopped a terrorist who had smuggled a 10 megaton fission weapon in on a cargo freighter to the Port of Tampa. Did you know there are 8 million people living in a 100 mile radius of Tampa? We jammed the cell phone he was using to try and remotely detonate it, then picked him up.

No, this did NOT make the newspapers. We still have the bomb, though. Would you like to see it? It's a favorite down at the Agency. We've even got a cowboy hat you can wear and get your picture taken riding it like Slim Pickens!

That would do it for me.

Re:Hope and change

[houstonbofh]

All their points are useless drivel that only server to rile up their supporters.

This is the key. Once most people figure out that they really have a lot more in common with each other, and not with any politician, the politicians are screwed!

I have a dream that one day in the voting booths of America the sons of Occupy Wall Street and the sons of the Tea Party will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. And kick all the jack asses out...

Re:Hope and change

[Alex Zepeda]

Isn't much better? How about is worse?

The Espionage Act was used only three times before President Barack Obama took office.

Obama, who serves the interests of the surveillance and security state with even more fervor than did George W. Bush, has used the Espionage Act to charge suspected leakers six times since he took office.

Does that sound like an improvement?

Re:Hope and change

[Anonymous Coward]

especially since this is taking forever to get going.

Re:Hope and change

[wonkavader]

Good analysis.

Take a look at Rocky Anderson as, if not our next president, a wedge to force the parties to actually represent people.

Re:Hope and change

[TheRaven64]

I think you're underestimating the subtlety of the intelligence agencies. Blackmail works better than threats.

Re:Hope and change

[wonkavader]

Look at Rocky Anderson's positions.

Re:Hope and change

[znerk]

We were in a conflict with Iraq from the day they invaded Kuwait.

Funny you should bring that up, since they asked us for permission first. (see this wiki article)

Re:Hope and change

[Bartles]

No actually Richard Armitage at the State Department outed Valerie Plame. Scooter Libby confirmed it in passing to a journalist. Bush/Cheney had nothing to do with it. The crime was so severe the original leaker was never charged.

Re:Hope and change

[guises]

It's a little more complicated than you're indicating here. Addressing just Gitmo - Obama did his damnedest to close it, all blame for that lies with congress. However, with that plan failed, Obama, or someone, has managed to get detainees real trials for their accused crimes in proper civilian courts. There was an interview with Jack Goldsmith (an Attorney General for Bush) just a couple days ago on the Daily Show where he discussed this:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-april-4-2012-jack-l--goldsmith

Of course, the detainees are still stuck in Gitmo instead of a regular prison. This is a waste of money among other things, but if they've been tried and convicted then that's the primary ethical violation resolved.

It's hard to defend the persecution of whistle blowers, but I don't know anything about this case other than what's in the summary. ... I expect that's true for most people on Slashdot.

Re:Hope and change

[CanHasDIY]

He learned something when he took office. Something scary.

Likely that the office of the President is nothing but a glorified marionette. My question is, did they at least give him the courtesy of knowing who's pulling the strings?

Re:Hope and change

[QuantumRiff]

http://www.modernwhig.org/

I'm starting to like these guys.. thinking about joining and becoming a 'proper' member..

Re:Hope and change

[dgatwood]

Well, on further thought, there are a few actual differences that are meaningful:

• What they do to funding for public education while in power (as a rule, the Democrats increase it, while the Republicans tend to decrease it),
• Their position on programs that provide assistance to the poor and elderly (the Democrats tend to increase them, while the Republicans tend to decrease them).
• Their position on taxes for people making over about 200 grand per year (the Democrats tend to increase them, while the Republicans tend to decrease them).

So there's a difference in the degree of redistribution of wealth that they support. That's really just about the only meaningful difference I can see, though.

And really, even that comes down to a difference in perspective. The Republicans think the poor are freeloaders who are too lazy to work. The Democrats think the poor are people who got screwed by big corporations. The reality is that both parties are correct for a certain subset of the population and wrong for another subset. Thus, the Democrats, in order to not devolve into dysfunctional overspending, need the Republicans to rein them in, and the Republicans, in order to not devolve into plutocracy, need the Democrats to rein them in. As long as they alternate power every few years, that aspect of society tends to take care of itself.

Re:Hope and change

[Nadaka]

The office of the VP Dick Cheney was responsible for the false evidence used to justify the war. Bush may or may not have been aware of that.

Re:Hope and change

[shentino]

Not if your only choices are Kodos and Kang.

The media is owned by the same corporate gangs that are shoveling money into the pockets of our congress critters and they're not going to let anyone who might shut down their gravy train to even make it to the primaries.

Viable candidates don't get elected by pissing off the corporate sponsors that feed them the precious air time they need to campaign.

Re:Hope and change

[Nadaka]

Not for that specific violation of peoples rights. There are however other areas where there has been some modest improvement, and other areas where the landslide of liberties removed has slowed to a trickle and occasionally stopped.

Re:Hope and change

[shentino]

The reason there isn't such a party is because that party would never be given the time of day when it came to getting air time on the media which happens to be owned by the same corporate elite that are buying off politicians that are already elected.

Re:Hope and change

[Bob9113]

techniques for redistribution of wealth, for example. (Tax and spend versus borrow and spend both have the same net effect, but one causes inflation that reduces your paycheck's buying power, while the other causes your paycheck to look smaller numerically, thus reducing buying power without inflation.)

Well played. An important point, concisely presented. Thanks!

Re:Hope and change

[andydread]

This BS about the gulf war never ended and we were just continuing it is a bunch of crap that only morons believe. Even Curveball has come clean about how the Bush/Cheney Iraq war was sold to the American public. We had control of the Northern and Southern no fly zones there and they moved military equipment into those zones and that was bombed regurlarly. We had control over two thirds of the countries airspace. All this before the republicans decided to lie to use about aluminium tubes and yellow cake and mobile chemical weapons trucks, and stockpiles and stockpiles "There are stockpiles and we know where they are" All of them blatant lies.

Re:Hope and change

[andydread]

You do realise that he did issue an order to close gitmo and that effort was blocked and demagogued to death by the Republicans don't you?

Re:Hope and change

[Alex Belits]

He learned something when he took office. Something scary.

And false.

Re:Hope and change

[Talderas]

Would you have voted for Mitch Daniels?

Re:Hope and change

[Alex Belits]

There are people that are not Americans. Me, for example.

Re:Hope and change

[Doc Ruby]

The details like they had no WMD, and you Republicans lied us into war over them?

Details like they went to war in Iraq because they wanted to, instead of in Afghanistan where they had to?

Details like you never stop lying about the terrible crimes you Republicans are responsible for, while you try to talk like you have some standing to whine about details? Details that are true?

Shut up already. A decent country would never let you say another word again without getting slapped in the face.

Re:Hope and change

[Doc Ruby]

There's all kinds of crimes that your gang wreaked on the US and the world that were never charged. "Not charged" isn't a severity standard for you Republicans, except maybe in inverse proportion.

To be a Republican ever since Nixon your only ideology must be "it's not a crime if you don't get caught".

Re:Hope and change

[HBI]

He is senile. If they'd offered a candidate that didn't seem like he'd need depends in the near future, i'd have voted for him.

Re:Hope and change

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Hicks had a joke about what he thought every president went through on inauguration day.

They would be walked into a smokey room, with a shadowy figure in the back smoking a cigar. In the room would be a grainy film of the Kennedy assassination, which appears to have been filmed from a grassy knoll...

The shadowy figure simply asks, "any questions?"

Re:Hope and change

[Nadaka]

I don't know enough about him, he doesn't have a lot of exposure in my part of the country.

From what I know he is a fiscally "moderate" (as far as republicans go) but socially conservative.

Not a fan of socially conservative, so probably no.

Re:Hope and change

[uniquename72]

He learned something when he took office. Something scary. Because otherwise he just burned a ton of political capital (with every intention of running for a second turn) for no reason. That doesn't make sense for a capable, career politician.

This reminds me of the folks who supported going into Iraq to begin with: "The President has secret knowledge that you don't have! THAT'S why he's so gung ho over going to war! We have to support him!!"

The fact is, absolute power corrupts absolutely. We see it with every president, but it manifests in different ways.

Re:Hope and change

[a-zA-Z0-9$_. !*'(),x]

Politicians lying? Whenever does that happen?

Re:Hope and change

[Daniel_Staal]

If they'd actually caught them, and captured the bomb, I see no reason why they wouldn't make it the front-page story on every piece of news media from here to the Moon. It proves they are doing their job, proves the threat is real, and proves that the money we spend on them is worth it. (And the rights, and...) It also scares anyone else who was thinking of trying it into believing that they will likely get caught.

Conversely, hiding it at that point has no value: The (current) threat has passed, and the people have been caught, so any current investigation will be done, and there is no cover on that issue to blow. (And specific details can be obscured in the name of national security if the same agents are in other operations.)

Sure there would be some massive uproar, but it would be contained by it's nature, and easily focusable to any direction the current powers that be wanted it. It would also be fairly short-lived, as the threat would be known to be passed (for the moment).

So this one doesn't hold water. There could be other threats or ongoing operations that might, but a large-scale terrorist attack that we could prove was a real threat and that has been stopped would be announced to the public.

Re:Hope and change

[reversible physicist]

There are some real differences. For one, the Republican view that government should redistribute money to the wealthy, and not the other way around, is winning. This continues despite a financial crisis caused largely by people with too much money and influence. Ironically, the rich have historically done much better on average when there has been less inequality.

And you're repeating very old stereotypes here. Democrats had a large budget surplus under Clinton, and there was a real danger that the US would pay off it's national debt. We were saved from that by Bush.

And finally, as a scientist, I am deeply disturbed by the conservative rejection of science. This has been extensively documented, and is driving the Republican party crazy. Evidence must matter, or we'll experience the dark side of the evolution they don't believe in.

Re:Hope and change

[Thing 1]

Likely that the office of the President is nothing but a glorified marionette. My question is, did they at least give him the courtesy of knowing who's pulling the strings?

No need, and nothing to gain, with lots to lose; so, likely not.

Re:Hope and change

[rastoboy29]

If it makes you feel any better, the US has always been this way :-)  A somewhat careful reading of US history will show you this.

Re:Hope and change

[Boronx]

They didn't actually cook up any evidence, they just cherry picked a few facts that even all added together, and excluding any exculpatory evidence, didn't amount to a case. See Powell's presentation to the UN which as far as I know is the most complete presentation of the evidence against Iraq ever laid out by the Bush administration. There was no there there. At this point it is incumbent on Bush to show how he could possibly believe what he said he believed. The weight of the evidence is such that no reasonable person could have honestly reported such a finding to Congress. Therefore the burden of proof is on Bush to explain why he did so.

Re:Hope and change

[Boronx]

They tried and convicted people for invasion so my imagination must have the force of law. You failed to address my second point. The rest of your post is pure blather since the UN didn't approve the use of force. Because Bush went back on his promise to seek a resolution, the UN didn't even get a chance to vote it down.

Re:Hope and change

[martin-boundary]

Would you be happier if the US became a hereditary monarchy? You could have the same guy in power for about 50 years, then he gets replaced by his favourite snot-nosed kid.

Pick your doom.

Re:Hope and change

[phorm]

"He learned something when he took office. Something scary."

That when you have money and power (or friends with money and power), you can get away with almost anything and those that got your to your position aren't that important anymore?

Re:Hope and change

[repapetilto]

Look closer at how the government does its accounting and the flow of money. As a scientist you will be disturbed by the way the numbers are played with.

Re:Hope and change

[Demonoid-Penguin]

Bill Hicks had a joke

He had lots of jokes, and points. That wasn't one of the jokes.

Re:Hope and change

[ScentCone]

The details like they had no WMD, and you Republicans lied us into war over them?

Those would be the WMDs that legions of Democrats who saw the same intel and the governments of many other countries were also convinced were an issue? You know, the piles of things like VX gas weapons that UN inspectors saw, had some opportunities to count, but could not get any info on their disposition? Saddam himself thought he had more WMDs than he actually did (he was being lied to by subordinates who didn't want to admit that some had been shipped to Syria, that much had been rendered useless from neglect, or that the additional weapons systems needed to use them were in various stages of either being bought from North Korea and Pakistan, or still being cobbled together ... I'd go on, but you know all of this).

Yes, the people in "your gang" (to use your phrase) talked over and over again about those WMDs (which they knew existed ... because they did exist), and about their policy of regime change - militarily if necessary - with respect to Saddam. You know, the guy who lobbed SCUDs across his borders? The guy who used the WMDs that you say he didn't have to kill thousands of people in his country? The guy who was handing payments to the families of dead terrorists on television, and encouraging more? That guy, right? The people in your gang included the CIA boss - hired by Clinton - who made a very strong case for the fact that Saddam's UN-observed WMDs not only hadn't magically disappeared, but were being added to, not least through the use of UN-administered oil for food money being directed to Iraq's military. Again, you already know all of that. Saying they had no WMD is a simple lie, meant to distract. Ask Hans Blix if Iraq had stockpiles of VX. His own crew pointed it out, remember? Yeah, you know that too.

Details like they went to war in Iraq because they wanted to, instead of in Afghanistan where they had to?

You mean the Afghanistan being run by the Taliban, the organization that we went after, militarily, before ramping things back up in Iraq? You know, the exact opposite of the non-real situation you just described?

the terrible crimes you Republicans are responsible for

I notice you say stuff like that a lot, but manage to never get specific about actual crimes. Let me guess ... you don't like things like "rendition," such as Bill Clinton authorized? That sort of thing?

A decent country would never let you say another word again without getting slapped in the face.

Ah, the classic lefty response to words you don't like. Shout people down, threaten violence. Anythign to avoid specific engagement on actual substance. Stay classy!

Re:Hope and change

[Doc Ruby]

Yes, the Afghanistan we're still at war with because, as everyone knows, we spent at least the first 4 years just pretending to fight there while we did what you Republicans really wanted: invade Iraq no matter what.

There were no WMD, you idiot, no matter what kind of lies you twist yourself around. You're a cheerleader for the war crimes in Iraq, just for starters. Actual violence that you're actually guilty of helping deliver.

I threaten violence? You're completely insane. Just like a good Republican.

Re:Hope and change

[ScentCone]

Yes, the Afghanistan we're still at war with

We've never been at war with Afghanistan. We are fighting the Taliban. It's the Taliban that went to war in Afghanistan, and was ruling its people by the sword. Which you know, and prefer not to address.

There were no WMD

Really. So Hans Blix lied. The photos and huge lists of stockpiles of VX, etc., tallied and reported by the UN and other entities - that was all just fiction, right? Do you suppose that the thousands of people dead in the north of Iraq, killed en masse using the WMDs you say didn't exist, would agree with you? What exactly is your point? How does asserting an alternate reality actually make you feel better?

I threaten violence?

You're right. You should have no trouble, then, if someone who thinks you'd benefit from a slap in the face actually gave you one, as you suggest?

Re:Hope and change

[partofthepuzzle]

Every time I start assessing the differences between the Democrats and the Republicans outlooks, policies and actions as insignificant, I remind myself that, in the area of environmental policy and legislation, the differences have been fairly substantial. Granted, those party differences stand out strictly in relation to each other and the current Democratic policies and overall outlook aren't likely to be sufficient to divert the oncoming environmental disasters. However, on many occasions over the last 50 years, in the face of massive opposition from Republicans and big business, the Democrats have at least shown a willingness to take stands and take action on environmental issues, just because they know it's the right thing to do to protect our planet (or some corner or it).

Despite the obvious shortcomings of the Democrats environmental efforts, there is an underlying outlook and set of values at play that is clearly not the same as the Republican's entrenched, cynical, psychotic contempt for anything that would reduce their short term profits, no matter what the consequences.

Hmmm...

[jhoegl]

Whatever happened to this?
Interesting....

Where's the whistleblower immunity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exposing crimes against humanity and they charge him with treason?
I for one applaud his decision, it was and will forever be, the correct choice.
I also hope that we as Americans will stand up for him and against his persecutors.

Re:Where's the whistleblower immunity?

[Nadaka]

And who will we side with?

Is there any valid alternative?

Gary Johnson of the libertarian party supports slavery VIA private for profit prison labor plus retarded economic beliefs.

Republicans have a far worse track record on civil liberties than the democrats, plus retarded economic beliefs.

Seriously, give me one person who respects civil liberties, has integrity, and is neither a theocrat or Ayn Rand free market worshiping retard.

And before you accuse me of being a communist, they suck too.

Re:Where's the whistleblower immunity?

[Maximum Prophet]

Unlike killing another human being, U.S. law seems not to provide for an affirmative defense in crimes against the state. I could be wrong, but I can't think of any at the moment, anyway.

Jury Nullification is still legal, although you can be thrown in jail for saying so. http://reason.com/blog/2011/02/25/is-advocacy-of-jury-nullificat

Re:Where's the whistleblower immunity?

[Boronx]

Bernie Sanders

Re:Where's the whistleblower immunity?

[sociocapitalist]

He did what he should do and now he's going to pay the price, which I'm sure that he guessed might be the end result.

More respect to him then, for doing it anyway.

Re:Where's the whistleblower immunity?

[David Chappell]

Unlike killing another human being, U.S. law seems not to provide for an affirmative defense in crimes against the state. I could be wrong, but I can't think of any at the moment, anyway.

Jury Nullification is still legal, although you can be thrown in jail for saying so. http://reason.com/blog/2011/02/25/is-advocacy-of-jury-nullificat

Jury Nullification is not an affirmative defense. To raise a affirmative defense means to say something like, "Even if I did perform the acts of which I am accused and understood what I was doing, I am not guilty because of X". For example, self defense is an affirmative defense against a charge of murder because the accused says: "I may have killed him, but he was trying to kill or gravely injure me."

Such defenses are called affirmative because the accused affirms (asserts) that his actions where justified. They are called affirmative in order to distinguish them from the other broad category of defenses: negating defenses. A negating defense is an assertion that one or more of the essential elements of the crime is absent. For example a negating defense to charge of treason might be: "I did not know that the envelope which I was asked to deliver contained state secrets and that the recipient was an enemy agent."

Jury Nullification may be 'the citizens last defense against the oppressor', but it is not a defense in the sense which the AC meant.

Re:Where's the whistleblower immunity?

[wonkavader]

Rocky Anderson. If you're wondering why you haven't heard about him, watch the interview with him, Amy Goodman and Eleanor Clift on Al Jazeera English.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMl5H7VBjdE

Re:Where's the whistleblower immunity?

[CanHasDIY]

Gary Johnson of the libertarian party supports slavery VIA private for profit prison labor plus retarded economic beliefs.

For the record, corporate mouthpiece Gary Johnson is a disgrace to true Libertarians everywhere. Real Libertarians understand there are certain social aspects, such as imprisonment and healthcare, that should not follow the for-profit business model as there is too much incentive to abuse the rights of individuals in the name of profits.

Source: My lifetime devotion to upholding and protecting the Constitution as an actual Libertarian.

Seriously, give me one person who respects civil liberties, has integrity, and is neither a theocrat or Ayn Rand free market worshiping retard.

Well, I think I could name one, but I hesitate for the inevitable barrage of comments from simpletons who think every rumor and spun story they've heard about the man is gospel truth...

Re:Where's the whistleblower immunity?

[Nadaka]

I would love to know.

But if you are about to suggest Ron Paul, I will disagree with you. After writing the "We the People Act" and voting for the "Defense of Marriage Act" he is not what he claims. His connections to the klan and neo-nazi groups are just icing on the cake.

Re:Where's the whistleblower immunity?

[Maximum Prophet]

You're right. A defendant might say "I'm innocent", and the jury says "We think he's guilty, but we don't like the law, so we'll find him innocent"

In the most famous case, in 1734, Peter Zenger said the he had said the liable, but it was true. The judge said that truth wasn't a defense, so Peter's lawyer Andrew Hamilton asked the judge for a jury trial. The jury decided not guilty. That case helped start the revolution.

Today, of course, if you lawyer appeals directly to the jury to nullify the law, he can be sanctioned, so it's more difficult to say "I'm guilty, but the law is wrong".
I've been called for jury duty twice (selected once) and both times the judge's instructions to the jury included "Things that were not so", that were instructions that essentially precluded nullification. .

Re:Where's the whistleblower immunity?

[CanHasDIY]

I am.

In order to understand Paul's positions, you first must understand what it means to be Libertarian; essentially, that the Constitution limits the powers of the federal government to those specifically enumerated by the Constitution, and that any power not specifically assigned to the federal government is not legally a power of the federal government, but rather the states and the People.

After writing the "We the People Act..."

... which specifically addresses the issue of federal courts overturning the will of the individual states, in blatant violation of the Constitution.

voting for the "Defense of Marriage Act"

He didn't; from Wikipedia:

He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states and local communities, and not subjected to "judicial activism..." He has said that for these reasons he would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, had he been in Congress in 1996. He has opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would amend the US Constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, because he worries that with its passage “liberal social engineers who wish to use federal government power to redefine marriage will be able to point to the constitutional marriage amendment as proof that the definition of marriage is indeed a federal matter! I am unwilling either to cede to federal courts the authority to redefine marriage, or to deny a state’s ability to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.”

So again, he took the position he did because the Constitution, as understood by Libertarians, specifically prohibits the federal government from taking the right to decide what is and isn't legal marriage away from the states, as the Constitution does not specifically enumerate it as a federal power.

His connections to the klan and neo-nazi groups are just icing on the cake.

That is precisely the sort of "rumor and spun story" that I was talking about. Anyone who has actually done their homework on Paul can tell you the "connections" you speak of are pure bunk, propaganda devised by those who fear the return to Constitutional values Paul promises.

Re:Where's the whistleblower immunity?

[element-o.p.]

Oh, please.

If you think only the right-wing is in favor of torture, then you, my friend, are sadly delusional. From my vantage point, it looks an awful lot like both parties are doing their best to wipe away the last vestiges of the Constitution and shred the few remaining civil liberties we have. Likewise, the news outlets are backing their guy, going through all kinds of conniptions when the other side does something ugly, but looks the other way when their guy(s) do(es) the same things. You can mention Fox News by name, but they are all playing the same game; they are just backing different teams. I don't trust ANY of them. "When two elephants fight, it's the grass underneath that gets trampled."

Re:Where's the whistleblower immunity?

[Nadaka]

I understand what it means to be a libertarian. And he is not one. He is a liar, completely dishonest when he claims to be one.

A libertarian respects the liberties of the people, the "We The People Act" strips the ability of the supreme court to protect the peoples liberties and endorses states to infringe on those liberties. A libertarian respects the constitution to the extent that it respects the liberties of the people. Using the constitution as if it was an enumeration of rights and an excuse to deny the liberties of the people is anti-libertarian. There is no room for debate on this.

His voting against the civil rights act and connections to the Klan and neo-nazi are long standing based on his own publications, pictures, the testimony of members of those organizations in a court of law and records of campaign finance. It is the Paul supporters who attempting to spread propaganda and misinformation to deny his roots.

Re:Where's the whistleblower immunity?

[CanHasDIY]

Using the constitution as if it was an enumeration of rights and an excuse to deny the liberties of the people is anti-libertarian. There is no room for debate on this.

You've got me there; the language of the 9th and 10th Amendments make that fact abundantly clear. However, considering the many, many, many recent SCOTUS decisions which do the exact opposite of protecting liberties (Citizens United, warrantless wiretaps, strip searches for jaywalking, et. al.), I'm inclined to agree with Paul on that one.

His voting against the civil rights act and connections to the Klan and neo-nazi are long standing based on his own publications, pictures, the testimony of members of those organizations in a court of law and records of campaign finance. It is the Paul supporters who attempting to spread propaganda and misinformation to deny his roots.

You should look into why he voted against the Civil Rights Act (BTW, the vote we're referring to was a completely symbolic vote taken in 2004 on the anniversary of the passage of the Act); Paul's stated rationale goes along with Libertarian principles, and actually makes a lot of sense:

"If you try to improve relationships by forcing and telling people what they can't do, and you ignore and undermine the principles of liberty, then the government can come into our bedrooms," Paul told Candy Crowley on CNN's "State of the Union." "And that's exactly what has happened. Look at what's happened with the PATRIOT Act. They can come into our houses, our bedrooms our businesses ... And it was started back then."

Can you honestly say, without a doubt, that he was wrong?

As for "associations" with racist groups, the only one I've heard of was the single memo from almost 20 years ago, released by an office under his administration and written by someone other than Ron Paul, which was quickly debunked by the man himself as not representing his beliefs on the topic. The people responsible were swiftly sacked, and those responsible for the sacking were themselves sacked (OK, not certain about the last part, but I can never resist an opportunity to reference Monty Python).

If you have empirical evidence that Paul has current and long standing positive relationships with racially motivated hate groups, you should post it. Otherwise, it's here-say.

Re:Where's the whistleblower immunity?

[mk1004]

So again, he took the position he did because the Constitution, as understood by Libertarians, specifically prohibits the federal government from taking the right to decide what is and isn't legal marriage away from the states, as the Constitution does not specifically enumerate it as a federal power.

Couldn't you use the same argument that when women couldn't vote, there shouldn't have been an amendment, but that it should have gone through the courts? How many amendments would fail RP's test? Is this saying that the Federal Government, or the people via an amendment, cannot proactively say something is a Constitutionally protected right that cannot be taken away by any state?

Re:Where's the whistleblower immunity?

[Magius_AR]

But if you are about to suggest Ron Paul, I will disagree with you. After writing the "We the People Act" and voting for the "Defense of Marriage Act" he is not what he claims. His connections to the klan and neo-nazi groups are just icing on the cake.

And there, right there, is the exact problem with US politics. You've ignored over 30 years of consistent constitutional voting to focus on 1 bill he voted for and 1 he said he would have voted for and some neo-nazi talking point bullshit. You honestly think any politician is perfect? That you'll never find a demon in the closet, a ghost in the hall, or say...a Jeremiah Wright? Do you believe the existence of Jeremiah Wright and his ties to Obama should be enough to discredit everything Obama has done or ever will do? It's asinine behavior like this that keeps good people out of office. When it comes down to it, there's no one who better represents our freedom than Ron Paul. Yes, he does has religious leanings, but at least those leanings still let states decide (meaning that if he abuses his power as a congressman, at least it is happening at a FAR less abusive level of government).

this is how fascism works

[Dan667]

make what is illegal legal and legally prosecute anyone that exposes it.

Re:this is how fascism works

[donscarletti]

If it was legal why would they need to punish someone who exposed it? Since it was not legal, why is there anything to be exposed?

Don't worry, this is made up slander and is nothing a good waterboarding won't fix.

Did I say waterboarding? I mean, um... shit

Re:this is how fascism works

[The Moof]

Did I say waterboarding? I mean, um... shit

I think the phrase you're looking for is "political re-education."

Re:when dick cheney did it he wasn't charged

[sneakyimp]

Oh c'mon silly! Everyone knows he just did that because he didn't have a heart. Now they got him one! Everything is going to be fine now -- or at least for the next five years til they have to murder another young athlete to get him a new heart.

What can I do?

[i kan reed]

This, to me, might well be the final straw. What can I do to reverse this? I'm not apathetic, I'm willing to work to change this, but thanks to the majority of the voting public, I feel the simplest solutions will not work. What can I do to stop this?

Re:What can I do?

[parlancex]

That's starting to sound an awful lot like terrorist talk. Please remember do your civic duty and vote for one of our 2 Political Parties at the next scheduled Democratic Election.

Re:What can I do?

[aaaaaaargh!]

Become an active member of Amnesty International. They do some awesome work and have saved hundreds of people from torture or "disappearing." Their reports are impartial and so well-researched that they serve as a standard that even governments cannot ignore them.

Re:What can I do?

[i kan reed]

I will look into this. Thanks for the suggestion.

Re:What can I do?

[fredrated]

Refresh my memory: how many years did Dick Cheney do?

Re:What can I do?

[Black Parrot]

This, to me, might well be the final straw. What can I do to reverse this? I'm not apathetic, I'm willing to work to change this, but thanks to the majority of the voting public, I feel the simplest solutions will not work. What can I do to stop this?

Speaking out on Slashdot may not change the world, but at least you're doing *something*.

Re:What can I do?

[element-o.p.]

Good call. I think I'll look into that,too.

However, how long do you think it will be until the government decides to label Amnesty International a terrorist organization so that supporting them becomes supporting a terrorist organization, which I believe is already a crime here in the U.S.? (Sorry...I'm feeling a bit pessimistic today)

Re:What can I do?

[bcrowell]

Give some money to his defense fund: defendjohnk.com.

Re:What can I do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Help him fund a defence for starters:
http://www.defendjohnk.com/howtohelp.html

Re:Thats' what THEY said

[houstonbofh]

Pogwin? http://www.tavareslabs.com/wp-content/uploads/Win-Blender-2007-Pog.jpg

Re:when dick cheney did it he wasn't charged

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

Back where I come from, there are men who do nothing all day but good deeds.
They are called phila-- eh, phil-- um, yes, uh-- good-deed-doers.
And their hearts are no bigger than Cheney's.
But -- they don't have one thing Cheney's got: billionare patrons and political clout.

Well, it appears we have no choice

[Lucas123]

John Kiriakou refused to be trained in torture tactics and he was the first CIA officer to call waterboarding "torture" Waterboard him.

That's why we need Wikileaks

[rrohbeck]

n/t

You know they talk about risking lives by leaking?

[MikeRT]

This, not Wikileaks, is a great example of that. In fact, if Wikileaks supporters are smart they will support throwing this man under the bus because he specifically named people who terrorist groups would have motive to find and murder.

I'm not a big fan of Manning and believe he deserves time in Leavenworth. However, Manning doesn't have a thing on this guy in terms of putting people at risk. I'd rather see Manning walk with an honorable discharge and VA benefits than see this man not do at least 10 years.

Re:when dick cheney did it he wasn't charged

[the eric conspiracy]

It wouldn't matter - Bush II would have just pardoned him like he did Scooter Libby.

so we're faced with two choices.

[nimbius]

an administration that recognizes waterboarding is not in fact torture or one that secretly admits it is a form of turture.

if in fact waterboarding is not torture, then no espionage has been commited as waterboarding by its definition under the bush administration is a widely accepted enhanced interrogation technique that can be reasonably expected in any interrogation scenario in the world, as outlined by the geneva convention.

if however waterboarding is torture, then we have ourselves a case of espionage in that a secret employment of torture was authorized under the bush administration despite our acceptance of the geneva convention and adherence to a protocol that would in turn ensure our soldiers and foreign citizens will not be subjected to such harsh treatment.

Re:so we're faced with two choices.

[Black Parrot]

There's no question of whether it is torture. We've been prosecuting people for it since the Spanish-American war. We've prosecuted enemies who did it to us, we've prosecuted our own troops who did it to the enemy, and we've prosecuted local law enforcement officers for doing it to accused criminals.

Obama's not getting my vote, no matter who he's up against, because so far as I'm concerned he's giving shelter to war criminals.

I wish he did 1 thing differently

[s.petry]

If he had not disclosed names which does put people at risk, I would have no problem with what he did. That one thing makes a huge difference, and for that reason it's difficult to defend him.

Exposing the activity alone should have been enough to open an investigation. Let the courts find the names relevant. He could have waited until a Grand Jury was opened, and exposed all the names he thought important to the courts.

I'm not trying to imply that the right people would have been prosecuted under those circumstances. Just that since he put people at risk by giving names to media the whole things gets a big question mark.

Re:I wish he did 1 thing differently

[s.petry]

Really, this is a troll? Wholly fuck mods.

Re:I wish he did 1 thing differently

[hey!]

At least one of the guys he is accused of outing was *not* a covert operative, and at the time he was "exposed" he was working for a consulting company that is publicly known to have developed the "enhanced interrogation" methods.

So what was revealed? That the guy he "outed", while a known CIA official, used the techniques his current known employer developed on someone.

Presidential Medal of Freedom

[Phoenix666]

That's what this guy should get.

Exposing crimes against humanity is every human's duty. Systematic torture is a war crime and covering it up makes you equally culpable. That's what the whole deal was with the Nuremburg Trials, remember?

The Nazis claimed they were just following orders, but that didn't spare them from the gallows. Every member of the American government who helped perpetrate this atrocity or who looked away should be locked up or face capital punishment according to their proximity and complicity.

It does look like at this point that the greater part of the American government was complicit, including almost all of Congress, the entirety of the Executive Branch, and the Judiciary, so we'd have to expunge nearly all of Washington DC with extreme prejudice.

And you know what? I'm really OK with that.

Re:when dick cheney did it he wasn't charged

[Lumpy]

They still feed him the hearts of Cuban children? I though that stopped when he left office.

Re:when dick cheney did it he wasn't charged

[scot4875]

IOW: I reject your reality and substitute my own spin.

--Jeremy

Re:You know they talk about risking lives by leaki

[Hatta]

Still no charges for the agents who actually committed acts of torture. Waterboarding is just as wrong whether it's committed by us, or whether it's done to us. In either case, the torturer deserves the same fate.

How many dead whistle blowers does it take to....

[3seas]

... finally shut down all the corruption of the so called intelligence industry?

I don't know about you all, but those no-nonsense

[spads]

covert operators give me wood.

Re:when dick cheney did it he wasn't charged

[ScentCone]

IF you think that Scooter Libbiy did ANYTHING without the direction of Dicky then you are a complete moron

And, as you obviously know but are pretending not to so that you can hope to keep your narrative alive for uninformed people, Scooter Libby wasn't found to have disclosed the identity of Plame. That wasn't even on the docket in his trial, despite the special prosecuter's enormous expenditure of time and cash looking around for who turned out to be ... Richard Armitage, at the State Department (you know the guy who eventually 'fessed up). You know this, and everyone else knows this. The fact that you're mentioning Libby as the source shows how disingenuous and deliberately misleading you're trying to be. Not sure why, though. You must have vested interest in that particular fiction.

I think they are out there.

[publiclurker]

My wife and I were at a self-checkout a few weeks ago, and when she passed items to me, they were being registered before I managed to get the barcode within a foot of the scanner plates, quite often before I even managed to figure out where the bar code was to orient it correctly. If only they'd upgrade the local stores to these machines.

THE TRUTH IS ILLEGAL

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

SPEAKING THE TRUTH? Doubly so.

SEEKING THE TRUTH? Actionable by death.

Oil

[Myria]

> He learned something when he took office.
> Something scary

What scary thing could he possibly have learned?

That there were dangerous terrorists loose? That they've obtained the Red Substance or the All-Spark or the Ark of the Covenant?

That the world is running out of oil, and that a big fight is coming up over what's left. So the U.S.'s actions in the Middle East have an overtone of positioning for the coming war.

I find this conspiracy theory unlikely, but sadly, plausible.

State Facist Behavior

[Anonymous Coward]

Kiriakou would have been wise to report the torture to his superiors and document it. Then, perhaps, he would have been protected by the Whistleblower laws of the U.S. Perhaps he did. I don't know. IANAL

This idictment appears to be "persecution", rather "prosecution" by a State entity that is turning facist. This is what would be expected by various oligarchys across the world. President Obama should use his power of pardon to clear Kiriakou and reward his actions as a true patriot. Maybe we should start a petition at https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions as a first step.

Re:State Facist Behavior

[element-o.p.]

I'd sign that petition. Out of curiosity, however, can you (or should you) start such a petition before he is found guilty?

Hey guys...

[Anonymous Coward]

...remember when you guys wanted Dick Cheney prosecuted for violating this same law for having Valerie Plame outed? Yeah, so do I.

Re:Hey guys...

[Myopic]

It's not like there is no difference. The difference is intent, which is germane in criminal prosecution: Cheney's intent was to out a spy for the purposes of domestic politics; this guy's intent was to expose crimes being waged by the government. Surely you can see that difference.

Whether or not that difference makes this guy innocent, the courts will have to decide.

Re:Hey guys...

[LifesABeach]

Dick Cheney is apply named, an angry thoughtless pin head for our times. But I'm still wondering why Bush-Jr let Bin Laden's family go home? Talk about giving "Aid and Comfort" to the Enemy! Sheesh!

Re:Hey guys...

[will_die]

No wonder they say Americans are ignorant of history, it is been just a few year and people don't know it was not Cheney or Scooter Liby that released the names but Richard Armitage.

Re:Hey guys...

[RazorSharp]

I forgot that it was illegal to be related to a criminal.

Re:Hey guys...

[LifesABeach]

The public record stands, both Bush Boys are worthless. One master minded a presidental election screw-up, and the other let faceless corporations lie cheat and steal to detriment of america. The damage those two village idiots did will take decades to clean up.

Re:Hey guys...

[Myopic]

Bush-Jr let the Bin Laden family go home because the Bin Laden family didn't have anything to do with Osama's terrorism, and his kin in the States would immediately be in personal, present, bodily danger -- because people like you wouldn't understand that the family long ago disowned Osama and is an ally of the United States. I'm saying Bush-Jr sent the Bin Ladens home in order to save them from you.

Re:Hey guys...

[Myopic]

Hmmm. No, I still think it was Cheney who personally outed the name. Cheney pushed the blame downwards, but I have never heard any serious informed person say it was anyone other than Cheney who first purposely outed Plame.

Re:You know they talk about risking lives by leaki

[idontgno]

None.*

According to the Nixon Principle

Well, when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.

And since the VP and the White House CoS are operating entirely on delegated Presidential authority, it applies to them too.

*It is left as an exercise for the Reader to discern if I am being serious or merely trolling.

Re:Exact same punishment for Rove

[LBJLVC]

No one can tell the difference between the guy leaking the information because he wanted the public to know and leaking the information because of some vindictive motive about her husband writing a piece about the fact that there was no deal to sell yellowcake to Iraq because he wanted the public to know... So its public needs to know about the truth or the same punishment for all?

Re:Exact same punishment for Rove

[Myopic]

Cheney is an admitted war criminal (he admitted authorizing torture) and belongs in a prison in Geneva. An international court should decide whether he is executed, but I don't actually think international courts do executions anymore. Life in prison seems most appropriate to me.

Rove is not a war criminal, he is a traitor (he purposely outed state secrets), who should be prosecuted under a3s3 of the Constitution. At the very least least he should be convicted of treason and threatened with execution, but perhaps not sentenced to it. A decade in jail seems more appropriate to me.

Re:You know they talk about risking lives by leaki

[GmExtremacy]

People seem to like to excuse the imprisonment of whistleblowers by saying that it could endanger people. I believe evil practices should be revealed whether or not it puts a few people in danger. "A few people might react to the information that you just released in a way that you did not intend! Therefore, what you did was illegal." Basically punishing them because of the potential actions of other people!

Re:Yes you do...

[Nadaka]

Ron Paul is a theocrat and Ayn Rand zealot. Completely unacceptable.

Not even Gary Johnson meets my stardards because he endorses slavery through for profit private prisons exploiting forcing convicts to perform factory work that at the expense of paying wages to free citizens.

Re:You can write in Ron Paul

[Nadaka]

Ron Paul is completely unacceptable. He is a theocrat and Ayn Rand zealot who actively wants to gut the federal government and remove the supreme courts ability to defend citizens rights against trespass by the state.

He voted for DOMA, he wrote the "We the People Act". He is an anti-libertarian in sheeps cloths seeking to legitimize tyranny at the state level instead of the federal level.

Re:I don't have anyone I can vote for any more.

[Nadaka]

early 30's.

I Know of One Group of People That Feel Vindicated

[LifesABeach]

Hitlers surviving General Staff after World War 2. The Nureumberg Trials were a sham?

CIA Whistleblower indicted

[dgharmon]

"John Kiriakou, a former CIA officer from 1999 to 2004, was indicted on Thursday for allegedly disclosing classified information to journalists" link

"John Kiriakou .. is notable as the first official within the U.S. government to confirm the use of waterboarding of al-Qaeda prisoners as an interrogation technique, which he described as torture." link

Re:Thats' what THEY said

[jc42]

OK, what happens when you use Godwin Law in a Poe's Law comment? Did the Universe just end?

Yes, but it was immediately replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

(1 mod point for identifying the literary source. 2 points for extending the joke. ;-)

Re:Nothing

[element-o.p.]

If you call me a pessimist you'd be wrong. I'm what you call a realist, because my conclusions are based on simple observations of reality, rather than hope, fear, and idealogy.

Pessimists always say that. Note that I'm not saying everything else before what I quoted was wrong, however :)

Re:You know they talk about risking lives by leaki

[element-o.p.]

In either case, the torturer deserves the same fate.

With all due respect, I disagree. IMHO, subjecting the torturer to the same fate as the torturer's victims is perpetuating the barbarity, requires someone else to do the exact same thing you think is wrong (i.e., hypocrisy) and creates a window of time in which they can escape, potentially allowing them to victimize others. Once they have had their due process, just kill them quickly and humanely and be done with it.

Re:when dick cheney did it he wasn't charged

[will_die]

FYI Scooter Libby was never pardoned by Bush.

Who was misquoting her?

[Tancred]

It was a funny exaggeration by Tina Fey. Nobody thought Palin said Fey's line in my circle. We're a little more plugged in politically than the general population though, so I wouldn't be surprised if some people thought Palin actually said it. Anyone that was actually misquoting her and trying to mislead people should be ashamed.

As you say, her statement is true. But I don't think it really counts as foreign policy experience either, which was the context. I'm not sure it was worthwhile for Couric to bring up that specific statement again in the next interview, but Palin sure fumbled her response. Putin rearing his head and invading Alaskan airspace? It sounded like she was having a Red Dawn fight-the-commies fantasy.

Actually...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually we do not decide what is torture. The main treaty which has the full force of law as under the constitution; that law states that the Red Cross is the 3rd party who legally decides what is torture and they decided on the issue LONG ago; in fact the International Red Cross brought up the widespread Iraqi program after the 2004 election having kindly sat on the news until Bush won.

Obama is the only sane republican candidate. Yes, we are screwed.

Re:You know they talk about risking lives by leaki

[Thing 1]

IMHO, subjecting the torturer to the same fate as the torturer's victims is perpetuating the barbarity [...]

I believe the OP meant "US torturers and Japanese torturers deserve the same fate" of being tried and sentenced for their behavior, because they are from the same class of criminal. Not the same fate that they provided to the tortured.

Look forward, not backward

[guspasho]

I thought we had a policy of "look forward, not backward". Or does that only apply to the torturers and not the people who blew the whistle on their crimes?

America

[HangingChad]

The land where no good deed goes unpunished.

Re:You know they talk about risking lives by leaki

[element-o.p.]

Ah...thanks for the clarification. *THAT* I would agree with.

You're right

[Tancred]

But getting his prison sentence commuted is pretty close. For a guy in those circles, the $250K fine is no problem. Having it on his record is a badge of honor in neo-con circles, so that's no problem either from a social or work standpoint. What other effects will the record have? The two years probation sounds annoying.

Valerie Plume Anyone?

[Chickenlips]

Deja Vu all over again ...

When the Bush White House orchestrated the "outing" of then CIA operative Valerie Plume (Wilson by marriage), not a single individual was ever held accountable. The ultimate motivation for destroying Mrs. Wilson's 'cover' was to head off her husband (Ambassador) Joseph Wilson from calling out the Bush White House on the lies it was manufacturing, which eventually paved the way for the invasion of Iraq.

John Kiriakou's allegedly acted as a "whistle blower", publicizing illegal/immoral activity within a government organization. I am pretty sure a whistle blower protection law was passed in the late 80's. It appears increasingly true that laws were made to be broken by the government that creates, and then selectively enforces them.

Hard to imagine who I'll choose who to vote for in November. Right now the write in candidate "None of the Above" looks good.

You're right, troll was unwarranted

[Tancred]

Glad others voted it up. Good comment.

Re:Scenarios where torture won't work

[DamnStupidElf]

Additionally, we're talking about using torture on "terrorists" who have been rather careful to form cell structures that are designed to make torture ineffective in the first place.

Identities Protection Act vs Espionage Act

[decora]

two entirely different laws, two entirely different purposes.

The IPA is to protect the safety of individual CIA officers.

The Espionage Act... well nobody knows exactly what the fuck it is supposed to protect, but "information related to the national defense" is the language actually used in the law. Not "classified material". In theory it should protect the vital secrets of the nation. In reality, it, and its spawn the Computer Espionage Act, are protecting shit like unclassified information from inspector general reports, and state department emails about the icelandic parliaments feelings regarding banking fraud.

"information related to the national defense"

[decora]

that is the phrase used in the actual espionage law. and i find it difficult to understand how the existence of torture, or enhanced IG or whatever you want to call it, is vitally 'related to the national defense'.

So much for we would never do that

[AlleyTrotte]

Just so's I have this right, this arrest was by the 'torture free' O'Bama administration.

Re:You can write in Ron Paul

[Magius_AR]

seeking to legitimize tyranny at the state level instead of the federal level.

Well. tyranny at the state level is a huge step in a more appropriate direction than tyranny at the federal level. So I applaud him.

Re:You know they talk about risking lives by leaki

[peawormsworth]

How much time do you think Cheney and Rove should get?

0 time. Put them to death. A public hanging would really scare the remaining torture supporters into reforming their methods.

Re:You know they talk about risking lives by leaki

[peawormsworth]

In either case, the torturer deserves the same fate.

...Once they have had their due process, just kill them quickly and humanely and be done with it.

I generally do not support capital punishment. However, when it comes to crimes against humanity and torture... I think public execution is appropriate and called for. Similar to the fate of sadam hussein. Torture is a different game, and those who practice and command it, should be removed from earth quickly.