If “it’s almost too easy”, why not go ahead, then? It won’t take long, right?
Wrong. That’s not all we see, but it’s obviously all you see, for pretty transparent reasons. Out here in the reality-based community, the most serious problem, and the most discussion, is about the illegal, unchecked wiretapping program itself, a program which may or may not have as much connection to what you confidently claim, with no evidence, is the “global war on terror” as the Iraq invasion did.
Bit of a disconnect there. I refer you to this for further discussion.
Let me get this straight. There is a very high probability that the NSA has been spying on US citizens in violation of the law. This information is leaked, and the person that the right wants to go after is the leaker?
It has been said that leaking any confidential information is a violation of law. It has also been said that everything that NSA does is confidential. Therefore, it is a violation of the law to leak anything that NSA does. If this is the case, what is the check on NSA? Do the Bush apologists really think that NSA has carte blanche to do whatever they want, legal or not, and that to stop them from breaking the law is a serious violation in and of itself? This is frightening to me.
It has been suggested that the proper recourse would have been to notify your congressman. How are we supposed to know that he/she isn’t part of the illegal operation as well? I suspect that to try this route would have been the same as asking to be relocated to Guantanamo. This would be similar to a German citizen of the 1940s reporting criminal activity of the SS to the Reichstag. Not a wise move.
This whole business is a very serious affair. Essentially, Bush admitted to impeachable offenses. Whether enough Republicans of honor exist to force him to repent or be impeached remains to be seen.
Because your congresscritter is outside the executive bureaucracy; he/she holds his/her position by election, not by presidential appointment or civil service seniority; therefore there is no reason to presume involvement.
And let’s not Godwinize. Things aren’t that bad yet.
Perhaps it isn’t that bad yet. But I’d just as soon not take that chance. If I’m the whistleblower, the only thing that I’m going to trust for protection is public knowledge.
But, in this case, Congressional oversight consisted of informing 9 Congresscritters of the the program, then preventing them from discussing the matter with ANYONE. Same for Judicial “oversight.”
What is “easy” to refute is the notion that BrainGlutton posited - that a leak is not serious unless some “damage” (he used the quotes, apparently to indicate that there was none) could be demonstrated.
Which leaves you and yours in a cruel dilemma. If you argue that no, a leak should be prosecuted even no damage has occurred, then the NSA leaker should be prosecuted. If you argue that a leak should not be prosecuted unless some damage has occurred, then the Plame leak should not be prosecuted, since no evidence of damage has been produced. There was a Wiki cite, but it only offered a suggestion that was, to be charitable, far-fetched and unsupported by evidence.
I realize this isn’t what you meant. I am arguing as if this were not a case of special pleading, where (as no doubt you would prefer) no leak would be prosecuted or investigated unless it did not hurt the Bush adminstration.
I am assuming, in other words, honest debate. If you would like to come right out and say that it is OK to break the law if it damages the enemies of the country, feel free. And I will then point out that you have offered a strong justification for continuing the NSA wire-tapping even if it were illegal, as well as a spirited defense of Iran-Contra and the Nixon administration.
Or you could be even more honest, and come right out and say that breaking the law is OK if it hurts your political enemies. Which is a spirited defense of the Plame leak itself.
Or you could continue to attempt to shift the burden of proof off yourself and your speculations, and onto me to disprove them. But I hope you aren’t holding your breath waiting for it to work.
You are misrepresenting my argument, which is that any “damage” caused by leaking the information in these cases is negligible compared to the damage caused by not leaking them.
It amazes me that, at the third page of this thread, you and Evil One are still maintaining the attitude of the Cardinals in the pedophile-priest episode of South Park. “Father Ralphie, you brought this problem to our attention. What do you think we should do to not get caught?”
But, so far as we can tell from what we know so far, the NSA wiretapping does not “damage the enemies of the country.” Neither did the Iran-Contra affair. Nor any of the illegal acts of the Nixon Administration.
Rather, the people who perpetrated these deeds were (and are) enemies of the country, even if they were/are incapable of understanding that.
By pointing out that the “classified information” is all about government activities that are themselves illegal. If I were a lawyer representing the leakers (whoever they might be), I would try to stretch the whistleblower-protections statutes as far as they could conceivably be argued to go. And do the same thing with “Congressional immunity,” if the leakers turned out to be Congresscritters.
BTW, the way I conceive of the Tribunate (set forth in my thread on the idea), the tribunes would have absolute and unlimited authority to investigate any government activity, including “black ops”; it would be a felony for the president himself to get in their way. OTOH, they would not have unlimited discretion to publish or leak such information. If the whole board of ten tribunes decided, by majority vote, to publish classified information, they would be constitutionally immune from any legal repercussions. If a single tribune or tribunician official decided to publish or leak such information without such a vote having authorized it, he/she would not be immune from criminal or civil prosecution (to say nothing of internal discipline by whatever means the Tribunate might have in place). That would not preclude the leaker from taking advantage of any other legal defenses that might be available, including whistleblower-protection statutes.
And what controls would there be on the Tribunate?
That’s already been tried. Cf. “KGB” and “SS” for the primary examples. We’re not willing to become a police state - our system depends on checks and balances by the existing branches.
By weighing that violation against the violation upon which you’re considering blowing the whistle. It’s better to commit a small violation than to let a much larger violation continue, isn’t it? Should we allow a police state to be created, in violation of the law and of our principles as a free people, rather than violate a law used largely to protect that police state? Should the conductors of the Underground Railroad have scrupulously avoided violating the Fugitive Slave Law? Shodan, your continued attempts to dismiss any disagreement whatsoevr with Bush’s approach to governing as simple partisan sniping does no one any good, least of all you, and that’s where the linked Pit post *should * (but, sadly, won’t) be illuminating. It may be impossible for you to conceive that country and principle could *ever * come before party, especially for “the other guys”, but it can nevertheless, and for most of us across the spectrum at that.
The tribunes would be elected. And all other “error-correcting machinery” we have in our system would remain in place.
Furthermore, the Tribunate itself would not be monolithic. The tribunes would be elected by the party-list form of proportional representation – so you might get a board with three Pubs, three Dems, one Green, on Socialist, one Libertarian, one America Firster. And each party would have very different ideas about what constitutes an “abuse” of government power. Each tribune would have his/her own staff and independent investigative authority. A decision to indict/prosecute could be made only by majority vote of the whole board, but every individual tribune could drag things that piss him/her off into public light and include them in his/her annual report to Congress (live, like the State of the Union address, although it probably would not be broadcast except on C-Span). So the tribunes act as a check on each other.
The difference is, the Tribunate would have power to investigate only government officials/employees/activities. E.g., it could investigate Dick Cheney’s ties to Halliburton, and it might dig up dirt on Halliburton officers – but it could do nothing with that dirt but publish it and/or hand it over to the Justice Department, which would have the discretion whether to prosecute or not.
Looks like you’ve just discovered Plato. There are any number of critiques of the same proposal in The Republic that needn’t be rehashed here.
If this new bureaucracy would be elected, it would be susceptible to pretty much the same pressures as the existing elected branches, which do have the power to do everything you suggest. There is no power you’d give them that doesn’t already exist, and there’s nothing they’d do better. Also, if you’re going to keep prosecutorial discretion in DOJ anyway, this new branch would be powerless. So what’s the point?
And dammitall, I *wish * the Google ads for “Humor Writing Workshops” would go away from the bottom of this page. I am *not * trying to be funny.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Also, if you’re going to keep prosecutorial discretion in DOJ anyway, this new branch would be powerless. So what’s the point?QUOTE]
The Tribunate would have prosecutorial power – limited to government officials.
The point is that the Tribunate would be separately elected, while the DOJ is under the AG, who ultimately reports to the president, so it’s a case of the foxes guarding the henhouse.
I don’t recall Plato’s Republic mentioning any politically-independent watchdog on the government.
