Besides what **Bricker *said, these “legal semantics” are the criminal code itself, which you seem to have no respect for. If Rove “outed” a CIA agent, that’s a serious crime in and of itself and could carry a hefty penalty. Why must you up the ante to the point of absurdity? Do you actually want Rove executed and no other punishment is enough?
*which was exactly what I planned to post before he beat me to it
I would feel a whole lot better about it if I were convinced that all, or even a majority, of the people in Gitmo were Al Qaeda terrorists. There is much evidence that this is not so. Also, although I did admit to enjoying the thought of Rove suffering for his crimes, at no time did I advocate extralegal proceedings against him. I just think it’s a crying shame and an outrage that what Rove has done seems to merit no punishment under our current system, much less serious punishment, and I think it’s a crying shame that so many people apparently think what he has done is OK, “so long as it’s not against current law.”
People can squirm and work semantics all they want – it just doesn’t work for me. Rove did something that was fucking EVIL for petty and vindictive reasons. He belongs in a cage. Or worse.
DUDE!!
I am like SO with you on this!
You go get Rove and kick his ass, and I’ll tell Bush not to worry about Gitmo, wiretap like crazy, and give the Ok to torture.
It’s good to know that you’re on my side and you’ll never complain about the legality about it.
Hey! While we’re dispensing with the “legal semantics” what say you and I go kidnap some six year olds and marry 'em?
Yeah, I have little respect for laws that let people like Rove get away with what is tantamount to murder. Maybe you think that’s a fine, just and noble thing. Maybe it makes your heart swell with pride. Our mileage must vary or something. I mean, do you really not think Rove deliberately outed Plame, or do you think that was an OK thing to do?
If he did it, yeah, anything short of execution would be second best. Unfortunately, my opposition to the death penalty means I must accept second best.
So, you think OJ didn’t kill his wife, too, eh? Interesting.
“killed,” “didn’t kill” I see no reason to get hung up on the “semantics” of it. After we marry the six year olds we can go kidnap him and bring him to our dungeon of pain too, if you want.
What law is letting him get away with murder? If he outed Plame, there are at least 2 laws he broke-- disclosing classified information and revealing the name of a covert operative. There is nothing stopping Fitzgerald from charging him with either of those crimes if he thinks he has a case.
IIRC, there were Americans who went to Iraq prior to the war to act as human shields in order to prevent the US from bombing. Would you support charging them with treason?
Maybe it isn’t treason, as defined in the law, but it was still a scumbag slimy turdblossomy thing to do. I really hoped Fitzgerald would hang him put to dry. It just goes to show you, the scumbags really do get away with shit.
C’mon, Scylla, get real. I think it’s horrible that apparently there’s no legal structure to appropriately punish the crime that Rove committed. You think it’s OK to imprison folks indefinitely without trial and torture them. It’s not the same thing.
But thanks for playing. When come back, bring forebrain.
jeebus, John, Rove admits he was spilling Plame’s name to Cooper prior to Novak’s printing of the story. Cooper declined to run it. I know you don’t WANT to admit Rove’s a traitor, but he’s a traitor. Give it up. You got no legs for standing on.
If they’d been bombed, I would have given them Darwin Awards and laughed my ass off at them for being so stupid. Seems appropriate.
What is your point? Do you think Fitzgerald did have a prosecutable case against Rove but decided not to procescute because… why? You’re statement that “legal semantics” are letting Rove off the hook is flat out wrong. If he was responsible for murder, as you claim, he can be charged with murder. My legs are fine-- you’re the one making unsupportable assertions.
Would you or would you not support charging them with treason?
The legal semantics are as follows: per the original discussions about this case, which I remember if you do not, in order to be charged with treason, you have to have a security clearance and access to classified info in order to be charged with treason for disclosing it. But Rove didn’t have that clearance or access or whatever. It was disclosed to him by someone – speculation is that our fine UN ambassador Robert Bolton could be the one who filled that bill – and Rove then passed it on to Cooper. Because he was one link removed, he couldn’t be charged. (Hmm, the comparison to “teflon dons” looks more and more accurate here.)
This is in my opinion a serious flaw in the law that results in the moral outrage of Rove’s freedom to betray. It’s the legal semantics by which you defenders hang your banners. I don’t buy it as a legitimate defense. Cheney, Rove and Libby ordered up the data and sent it to the media, and they are the guilty ones. What a gross travesty of reason, logic and fairness it is to think otherwise. Perhaps you could explain how you can support such a shameful position.
How is this relevant to the topic under discussion?
It demonstrates that you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about and the only reason you’re harping about Rove and treason is that he’s on the other side, politically.
It is the same thing. You are lamenting that we just can’t take a shortcut to get what you want, bypassing the system of laws.
You want Rove punished because you “know” he’s a bad guy. Some think it’s ok to hold and torture because they “know” the people they are doing it to are bad guys.
Once you are willing to assume your conclusions and “know” something so strongly that it supercedes the rule of law and in your mind is no longer subject to it, you become an authoritarian scumbag.
It’s exactly the same.
Sorry, despite your pressing need, I don’t have a spare you can use.