Oh for crying out loud this is the worst cop-out I've ever heard in my life. Sam, do you really think that we are going to believe that you are personally working on this case? Especially considering all the "rich commentary" that you have provided over the past few months on this very topic? Sounds like you have no answer to the article. The silence tells me all I need to know. Now get back to filing papers, it's only 9:20pm on a Friday night!
Uhm... The premature celebration over some words that lawyers involved in the case filed doesn't need much defense from Sam or anyone else. It isn't even really an issue. The article itself says that the news agencies don't like the prosecution trying to find out who the felon in the Bush Whitehouse is by pressuring their reporters, so they filed these briefs. The briefs aren't proof of anything. Before a trial starts all lawyers claim their side is has all the information they need to win. The strange thing is that in this case a bunch of people are whooping, cheering, and declaring victory just because the lawyers for one side have spoken. But I'll keep playing the legal briefs equal certainty game if you guys want. Guess what everyone! Bush lost in 2000. His petitions before the court weren't worth a hill of beans. Just look at what this legal brief that was filed by the other side has to say about it. There you have it, We should all throw the tyrant out. There was no support for his arguments. It was in a legal brief so it must be certain.
You are convicting an unknown person with zero evidence. Are you denying a political motivation here?
Yes I am denying political motivation. If new evidence comes out and somehow shows that a crime was not committed then I will be in favor of not presecuting, and ending the investigation. Remember, it was initially investigated by Ashcroft, who thought there was enough evidence to turn it over to special prosescutor. The FBI has been brought in, and eventually a Grand Jury. Imagine you and your family are away from your house and you arrive back home to find the door kicked in. All of your valuables are gone when you arrive back home. Are you convicting an unkown person with zero evidence by saying a crime was committed? As you see here it is admitted(contrary to Basso's assertion) that Plame was a clandestine operative. http://justoneminute.typepad.com/footnotes/2004/07/the_joseph_wils.html To knowingly reveal that identity is a felony. We know that the crime has been committed. We know who had access to that information. It is just a matter of narrowing that field down to find the exact person involved. She was an undercover agent investigating Weapons of Mass destruction. While are troops were involved in war supposedly for that very reason, someone with top security clearance in the whitehouse leaked her identity. A crime has been committed, and the field of suspects is relatively small.
I thought you had to have evidence that a crime was committed? You are reversing the process yet claim no special motivation....
The evidence is that an undercover CIA's identity was revealed. That is the evidence that a crime was committed. It is the same as the analogy I gave. If you came home and found your door kicked in and your valuables missing, do you say there is no evidence a crime was committed? We know from intel officials that Plame was undercover. We know that somebody blew that cover. We know from the law, that it is a felony to uncover the identity of a covert operative. Those are the pieces to the puzzle we have so far. Look at those events, please. How do you deny that a crime was committed.
How do you deny that a crime was committed. I am guessing the NYT and WoPa are saying that their reporters didn't the crime; they just reported it.
To be fair to giddyup, he employs a pretty liberal standard when determining whether a crime's been committed. We know from a recent thread he's not even sure rape should be considered a crime if the rapist is really, really horny.
he's not even sure rape should be considered a crime if the rapist is really, really horny. ahhh, the hormone defense.
That's the only thing that I could think of that you might use. Typically, you've contorted my meaning to demean me... again. Yes, I admit it, I am all for Free Rape. It feels better now that that is out on the table.
I'd love to know how I've 'contorted your meaning.' You asked if someone that "crossed the line" and had sex with a woman against her will was really a criminal. I'm hardly taking liberties there. If you've been demeaned, you did it to yourself. Maybe you just meant date rape wasn't necessarily a crime?
What I meant is that sometimes date-rape is a hollow, dishonest accusation. The question of having sex with someone against their will was not brought up directly. Have you ever had sex?!? Sometimes it is indeed too late to stop. That is animalistic but not criminal in my opinion. Batman, I have three daughters. If you think I would be lenient towards a definition of rape you are wrong. That being said, surely there are false accusations. Tyson's case seemed like a very good candidate for that kind of misjustice-- as despicable as Tyson generally is. You chose the wrong 60's icon for your moniker; you should have gone with Eddie Haskell!
It is criminal not to stop when your partner asks you to -- no matter when. That's the law. If you don't stop when asked, for whatever reason, it's rape. I hope that if one of your daughters is one day in that sort of situation -- whether married, dating or whatever -- and asks a man to stop, he will. I'm sure you do too. And I'm sure that if he doesn't, you'll want him prosecuted under the law. But this stuff is only relevant to this thread because you presently have an apparently lenient opinion as to what constitutes a crime (even a crime as serious as rape). Before these other guys got into a ninety page last word war with you on the matter, I thought they ought to know that. That's all. And I really have no idea what you mean about Eddie Haskell. That makes no sense to me at all.
<b>Originally posted by Batman Jones It is criminal not to stop when your partner asks you to -- no matter when. That's the law. If you don't stop when asked, for whatever reason, it's rape. I hope that if one of your daughters is one day in that sort of situation -- whether married, dating or whatever -- and asks a man to stop, he will. I'm sure you do too. And I'm sure that if he doesn't, you'll want him prosecuted under the law. </b> There is a great spectrum of possibility here. If some guy is approaching climax, I really don't expect him to stop. That is Nature's Law. I don't think that is rape either. If a woman starts to feel unsafe or something, that is a different matter. I'm not going to describe every possible scenario but I think you get my drift. <b>But this stuff is only relevant to this thread because you presently have an apparently lenient opinion as to what constitutes a crime (even a crime as serious as rape). Before these other guys got into a ninety page last word war with you on the matter, I thought they ought to know that. That's all.</b> My complaint to FB was that he insinuated "a White House felon" as the culpirit-- with no shred of evidence of responsibility. Is that really that hard to understand, Eddie? <b>And I really have no idea what you mean about Eddie Haskell. That makes no sense to me at all.</b> Watch "Leave It to Beaver" sometime.
My silence has been due to personal matters and I still maintain that it is disgusting that a WH official committed the crime of leaking Plame's name (a crime was most definitely committed) and has been allowed to continue working for this long. This piece was about the media protecting their interests in not revealing sources. They are not saying that a crime has not been committed, they are simply trying to maintain anonymity for thier sources. These are two extremely different issues and if you cannot see that, then you are willfully sticking your head in the sand, as you have since the Plame affair happened.
According to you and what other source? I ahve never seen anything approaching evidence that Plame's name was known in public to be that of a CIA agent. You need to read the article again. The special prosecutor is threatening to send reporters to jail if they don't reveal their sources. I don't know how that bites anyone in the ass except the reporters and their sources. All but the most rabidly partisan do tend to agree that there was some malfeasance by a high level WH official. I will grant that there may never be anyone jailed for the offense, but that does not mean that it did not happen.
