On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 13:10:44 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 13:16:30 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Allen wrote:
The oath is not optional. If you do not like the oath and the
lifelong commitment it entails you are in the wrong business and should
leave. If this woman is found guilty she will be subject to penalties
that she was made fully aware of when she signed the oath. She went into
it with her eyes open and now there's a clear message for the rest of us
that raised our right hands.
Sometimes, such as in this case, the honorable thing to do
is to violate your oath. The trouble with a lot of military
types is they get real confused about things like honor and
responsibility, preferring instead to wrap themselves in oaths
and flags and turn a blind eye to torture, war crimes and murder.

Mary O. McCarthy is a hero, she violated her oath and thank God
she did. She realized that she has a higher responsibility to
truth and humanity than to a CIA oath. We should have more like
her. She'll be charged with a crime, and rightly so, but if I
were on her jury she'd never be found guilty.

Ken, your argument, if accepted, essentially violates the US
Constitution. Here's why: The US is representative democracy, not an
"actual" democracy, and as such, what the representatives do is "legal
until found illegal" under the US Constitution.

The "Nixon Defense" ? LOL, that's funny.

No. Simply pointing out that a CIA officer turning foreign nationals
over to other foreign nationals, as directed by representatives of the
US government, isn't an issue of "rights" as contemplated under the US
Constitution.

The espionage statutes don't apply in this case because only
the existence of secret prisons was revealed, not classified
methods or personnel. Even if the espionage statutes did apply
it would be unconstitutional according to the First Amendment
to criminalize leaks of information which reveal illegal
activities by the government.

Today's story in the paper says that she wasn't fired for
leaking the prisons story, in fact she couldn't have known
about them, but for failing to report some contacts with
reporters.

Well, if that's the story in "the paper," then that must be the facts...

... There is simply no defense for
violating oaths.

There is no legal defense, but sometimes morality, honor and
patriotism trump mere legalities.

No, in this case, they are 4 separate and unrelated things. If
anything, honor and patriotism suggest that the oath should be observed,
and morality, being subjective, is not material to the observance of
that oath.

TC,
R