The Press vs. The Gubmint!

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.

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.

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

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

--
Ken Fortenberry

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

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:

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...

I share your cynicism, inasmuch as today's story contradicts
yesterday's story in the same paper (_The Washington Post_ ).

wrote:
... 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.

We'll have to agree to disagree, in my world morality and
responsibility are always material and in my opinion leaking
the existence of torture prisons is more honorable and patriotic
than keeping them a secret because of an oath.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:

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...

I share your cynicism, inasmuch as today's story contradicts
yesterday's story in the same paper (_The Washington Post_ ).

wrote:
... 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.

We'll have to agree to disagree, in my world morality and
responsibility are always material and in my opinion leaking
the existence of torture prisons is more honorable and patriotic
than keeping them a secret because of an oath.

--
Ken Fortenberry

If the oath and the "honor" are more important than morality we should
retroactively pardon all the members of the SS and a few other groups
in history.

On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 14:20:46 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:



We'll have to agree to disagree, in my world morality and
responsibility are always material and in my opinion leaking
the existence of torture prisons is more honorable and patriotic
than keeping them a secret because of an oath.

Hmm...OK. Now reverse it. Suppose the officer in question discovers
that a foreign national, in the US, has a bomb and is planning to blow
up a school, so they decide that honor, morality, and patriotism suggest
that they kill this person immediately. And in doing so, they discover
a co-conspirator on-scene, so they start questioning them. With no
answers readily offered, they shoot them in the foot. In walks family
members...

In short, you are making the biggest mistake one can make with this type
of thing. You are attempting to substitute _your_ judgment in place of
the law for guidance as to what one should do. And that's real
comforting and all...until the judgment made isn't one _you_ like.
That's why things like personal judgment and "morality" have nothing to
do with this and the law and lawful orders is and should be controlling.

It's a whole lot easier on the soul and the psyche to lead men into the
breach than to order them into it, and both are harder than following
someone in, and until you've had to do all of it and understand why,
it's pretty difficult to even comprehend any of it.

HTH,
R

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
We'll have to agree to disagree, in my world morality and
responsibility are always material and in my opinion leaking
the existence of torture prisons is more honorable and patriotic
than keeping them a secret because of an oath.

Hmm...OK. Now reverse it. Suppose the officer in question discovers
that a foreign national, in the US, has a bomb and is planning to blow
up a school, so they decide that honor, morality, and patriotism suggest
that they kill this person immediately.

Huh ? Leaking information about secret torture prisons is
comparable to vigilante murder ? How so ?

In short, you are making the biggest mistake one can make with this type
of thing. You are attempting to substitute _your_ judgment in place of
the law for guidance as to what one should do.

Exactly. Sometimes my judgment would lead me to do the honorable,
moral and responsible thing as opposed to what is strictly legal.
So long as I'm willing to pay the legal penalty for my actions I
will, and do, claim the moral high ground. I know that drives some
of the military types completely bonkers but that's just a bonus,
not really intentional. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 16:31:40 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
We'll have to agree to disagree, in my world morality and
responsibility are always material and in my opinion leaking
the existence of torture prisons is more honorable and patriotic
than keeping them a secret because of an oath.

Hmm...OK. Now reverse it. Suppose the officer in question discovers
that a foreign national, in the US, has a bomb and is planning to blow
up a school, so they decide that honor, morality, and patriotism suggest
that they kill this person immediately.

Huh ? Leaking information about secret torture prisons is
comparable to vigilante murder ? How so ?

Hey, if you're gonna let anyone and everyone make such decisions, you
say "vigilante murder" someone else says "necessary and proper action."
And in your scenario of personal decision-making, you'd both be right.

In short, you are making the biggest mistake one can make with this type
of thing. You are attempting to substitute _your_ judgment in place of
the law for guidance as to what one should do.

Exactly. Sometimes my judgment would lead me to do the honorable,
moral and responsible thing as opposed to what is strictly legal.

Er, no. It might lead you to do what _you_ believe is the honorable,
moral, and responsible thing. That doesn't make it _the_ honorable,
moral, and responsible thing. The legal thing in these cases is, while
not absolutely certain, the most objective thing available.

So long as I'm willing to pay the legal penalty for my actions I
will, and do, claim the moral high ground.

Be careful about certitude of altitude...somebody could drop something
on you...

TC,
R

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Exactly. Sometimes my judgment would lead me to do the honorable,
moral and responsible thing as opposed to what is strictly legal.

Er, no. It might lead you to do what _you_ believe is the honorable,
moral, and responsible thing. That doesn't make it _the_ honorable,
moral, and responsible thing. The legal thing in these cases is, while
not absolutely certain, the most objective thing available.

Let's see, on the one hand we've got illegal, secret torture
prisons and on the other a CIA oath to keep them secret. That
should be a no-brainer for anyone who has the best interests
of the country in mind. The honorable, moral, responsible, and
yes, patriotic thing is to shine the light of public scrutiny
on this despicable and damaging blight on the national soul and
oaths be damned.

So long as I'm willing to pay the legal penalty for my actions I
will, and do, claim the moral high ground.

Be careful about certitude of altitude...somebody could drop something
on you...

I'll take my chances, thanks.

--
Ken Fortenberry

wrote in message
...
...Be careful about certitude of altitude...somebody could drop something
on you...

Bombs away!

Wolfgang
here it comes.....wait fo it.......

wrote in message
...
...It's a whole lot easier on the soul and the psyche to lead men into the
breach than to order them into it, and both are harder than following
someone in, and until you've had to do all of it and understand why,
it's pretty difficult to even comprehend any of it.

And who can speak to the subject of leading men into the breach with greater
certitude and authority than our own El Mysterioso, eh?

Tell us the story of how you single-handedly saved the world for
democracy......um......well, o.k., not REAL democracy.....that
representative stuff.....so many times.

Wolfgang
who just LOVES that story.....or so he supposes.