Some conservatives will woot woot for Libby's commutation, churlishly, perhaps childishly supporting an obvious abuse of power. This isn’t football, we don’t always win when our side wins. Those who make excuses for cigars stuffed up maidens are guilty of the same fraud (part of them knows they're not down with it). You can't actually support the betrayal of the American people's confidence. That betrayal never benefits you, just as your favorite QB having a ten million dollar year does not actually benefit you. (So do we really win in football if we ourselves aren't playing? Think about those fans who reflexively moved to defend O.J. when the news broke that he was a mad dog chicken-killer.)
You ought not to make excuses for the worst in men. When I corkscrew a Cohiba up high into an intern there's no duplicity... I announce it to the world on my blog Senator Jade's Nasty Cigar Luvin' Sometimes I even light the thing, because I'm that self-actualized. That said, if only our current problems were tobacco-based.
Back to reality: I am so tired of what I've dubbed pathological loyalty. It causes me to lose faith in humanity. I don't have a side. I really wish third party candidates would make a strong showing. This political process, at its basest, is nothing but a sporting event. Ever read What's the Matter with Kansas? People don't want what's proven best for them, they want to win. We need to put the donkey and the elephant out to pasture, leveling the old loyalties, then start properly testing to see what our new candidates actually know and believe.
I don't have a side.
Hear, hear, Jade.
In the words of Treebeard -- "Side? I am on nobody's side. For nobody is on my side."
Truer words were never spoken.
|
The jail sentence Mr. Libby received was one argued for by the prosecutor as if Mr. Libby had been convicted of leaking Plame's identity. This was not the crime which he was convicted of, so the sentence was inappropriate. Libby is still guilty of the crime he commited. He has lost his job, will pay a fine, and be disbarred. The only thing that President Bush has done is to commut the jail time so that the punishment is not deemed excessive.
Incidently, this entire investigation was a politcal farce. Even before the appointment of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in December 2003, Justice Department investigators knew that it was former State Department official Richard Armitage, not Libby, who originally leaked the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame Wilson. The Justice Department also knew enough to conclude that Libby had not violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the law at issue in the case. Lacking proof that an underlying crime took place, and knowing the source of the leak, the Justice Department should have shut down the investigation then and there.
The jail sentence Mr. Libby received was one argued for by the prosecutor as if Mr. Libby had been convicted of leaking Plame's identity. This was not the crime which he was convicted of, so the sentence was inappropriate.
Huh. I don't know what the law says about appropriate punishment for leaking the name of a covert operative, but I'd say 30 months is inappropriately short for something like that. There's even a reasonable case to be made that leaking an operative's name is treason, so 30 months is VERY lenient for such a crime.
However, as you point out, that's not what Libby was convicted of. Libby was in fact convicted of lying to a grand jury, which is obstruction of justice, and 30 months is a perfectly reasonable amount of jail time.
If Libby was not intimately connected to Bush's administration, he wouldn't have lifted a finger, nor thought that his punishment was excessive.
So this argument doesn't seem to hold water to me.
Know what holds water?
Calling Hanover Fist....
"Reach out and take it" -- Cheap Trick.
|
|
Huh. I don't know what the law says about appropriate punishment for leaking the name of a covert operative, but I'd say 30 months is inappropriately short for something like that. There's even a reasonable case to be made that leaking an operative's name is treason, so 30 months is VERY lenient for such a crime.
Libby was in fact convicted of lying to a grand jury, which is obstruction of justice, and 30 months is a perfectly reasonable amount of jail time.
If Libby was not intimately connected to Bush's administration, he wouldn't have lifted a finger, nor thought that his punishment was excessive.
First off, regarding the leaking of a covert operative - It was determined during the investigation that there was no violation of the Intelligence and Identities Protection Act. If there had been, then someone would have actually been accused of that crime and charged.
As for Libby's trial, apparently, the law calls for less of a sentence for the charges which Libby was convicted on. If that is the case, then the sentence was in excess of what it should normally have been, and so was commuted.
Not all who are on the receiving end of Presidential clemency are intimately associated with the President or his administration. In fact, this is the first such case for President Bush. But that was, in my understanding, part of the purpose of these specific powers of the Executive Office. The Framers knew that they would have to provide for instances, however rare, that someone would need to be protected from zealous prosecution or conviction. Considering that this entire investigation stemmed from something that was a non-crime (the leaking of Valerie Plame's "secret identity"), I would say that this qualified.
|
|
Incidently, this entire investigation was a politcal farce.
This is mainly from memory, and some quick Googling about, as I'm stealing time from work to post this. Please feel free to correct where necessary!
Valerie Plame was, in fact, a covert operative working on counterproliferation. This was confirmed by the CIA, which requested the initial leak investigation after Robert Novak's column which reported her name and employment by the CIA. When her cover was blown, it also identified the company she nominally worked for as a CIA front, potentially endangering the safety of other operatives using the same company as official cover for their covert activities.
Prior to Novak's column, members of the Bush administration, including Scooter Libby and Karl Rove, discussed Plame's identity and CIA employment with members of the press. Bush initially promised to fire anyone "involved" in the leak, later amended to anyone "indicted" with the crime of leaking Plame's identity.
Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed as special prosecutor after then-Attorney General Ashcroft recused himself from the case. During the course of the investigation, Libby provided false or misleading information which prevented a thorough and open examination of the events leading up to the leak of Plame's identity.
Libby was charged with several counts of perjury (lying under oath) and obstruction of justice. After a trial by jury, in which each side had a chance to argue its own interpretation of events, Libby was convicted of four of the five counts of perjury and obstruction of justice, and sentenced by the judge.
After Libby lost his bid to remain out of jail during the appeals process, Bush commutes his sentence, which is very slick because it's not really a pardon (Libby still has to pay a fine and the conviction stands) but it gets Libby out of jail and, due to the ongoing appeals process, all involved parties can continue to hide behind the "we won't comment on an ongoing investigation" while administration officials run out the clock to January, 2009.
Incidentally, all of this started after Joseph Wilson investigated the authenticity of documents (used by the Bush administration as part of its justification for war in Iraq) claiming that Saddam Hussein had attempted to purchase yellow-cake uranium for Niger. He concluded, based on his investigation, that the documents supporting this claim had been forged. After his findings were ignored by Bush administration officials, he went public with his report. Not very long after, Robert Novak publishes a column insinuating that his trip was a "junket" set up by his wife, who worked for the CIA.
Coincidence? You decide ...
- MSNBC | The CIA Leak: Plame Was Still Covert
- TPMCafe | The Big Lie About Valerie Plame
- DKosopedia | Plame Leak timeline
- Wikipedia | CIA leak scandal timeline
- FackCheck.org | The Wilson-Plame-Novak-Rove Blame Game
- JustOneMinute | The Valerie Plame Wilson Affair - A Timeline
- Washington Post | Timeline: The Criminal Investigation
|
|
This is mainly from memory, and some quick Googling about, as I'm stealing time from work to post this. Please feel free to correct where necessary!
Valerie Plame was, in fact, a covert operative working on counterproliferation. This was confirmed by the CIA, which requested the initial leak investigation after Robert Novak's column which reported her name and employment by the CIA. When her cover was blown, it also identified the company she nominally worked for as a CIA front, potentially endangering the safety of other operatives using the same company as official cover for their covert activities.
Prior to Novak's column, members of the Bush administration, including Scooter Libby and Karl Rove, discussed Plame's identity and CIA employment with members of the press. Bush initially promised to fire anyone "involved" in the leak, later amended to anyone "indicted" with the crime of leaking Plame's identity.
Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed as special prosecutor after then-Attorney General Ashcroft recused himself from the case. During the course of the investigation, Libby provided false or misleading information which prevented a thorough and open examination of the events leading up to the leak of Plame's identity.
Libby was charged with several counts of perjury (lying under oath) and obstruction of justice. After a trial by jury, in which each side had a chance to argue its own interpretation of events, Libby was convicted of four of the five counts of perjury and obstruction of justice, and sentenced by the judge.
After Libby lost his bid to remain out of jail during the appeals process, Bush commutes his sentence, which is very slick because it's not really a pardon (Libby still has to pay a fine and the conviction stands) but it gets Libby out of jail and, due to the ongoing appeals process, all involved parties can continue to hide behind the "we won't comment on an ongoing investigation" while administration officials run out the clock to January, 2009.
Incidentally, all of this started after Joseph Wilson investigated the authenticity of documents (used by the Bush administration as part of its justification for war in Iraq) claiming that Saddam Hussein had attempted to purchase yellow-cake uranium for Niger. He concluded, based on his investigation, that the documents supporting this claim had been forged. After his findings were ignored by Bush administration officials, he went public with his report. Not very long after, Robert Novak publishes a column insinuating that his trip was a "junket" set up by his wife, who worked for the CIA.
Coincidence? You decide ...
If Valerie Plame was a covert operative, and they know Richard Armitage was the one who actually did leak her name, then why hasn't he been prosecuted for that crime? That is what I would like to know.
Also, it is a known fact that Valerie Plame did indeed set up her husband for the trip to Niger, even though she knew he was an opponent of the Bush Administration. As well, his "findings" were ignored by the Bush Administration because they were suspect, since the British provided evidence to the contrary of what Mr. Wilson provided.
And let's not forget that, after Libby was convicted, Fitzgerald argued that the sentence he be given be commensurate with a sentence given for violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which is not the crime for which he was convicted.
Lastly, let's not pretend that, just because the President commuted Libby's jailtime, that the man is getting off free and clear. He is still guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted, is out of a job, must pay a fine, and will be disbarred.
Considering that this entire investigation stemmed from something that was a non-crime (the leaking of Valerie Plame's "secret identity"), I would say that this qualified.
It's getting easier and easier to tell who reads which political sites and blogs, by which parts of various stories they believe, and I very much include myself in that.
Suffice to say that I do not agree that the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity as a covert op was a "non-crime." I know what stories and statements you would quote to support your assertion that it wasn't criminal to leak Plame's identity, and that it was public knowledge she was a covert agent. I have read those stories and statements, and I do not find them credible or believable, any more than you find the articles and stories I would present to support my assertion that is was, in fact, a crime credible or believable.
So, the real question(s) then becomes: How do you and I progress from here in this discussion? Is it even possible for you and I to continue discussing the topic, or does this just become another marker in the boundry between the two extremely polarized factions of our USian society that grow to hate each other more day by day, until both sides so oppose each other that they each seek the other's destruction*? We can always just be civil and agree to disagree, but in the end, is that any different from the other thing? Will the end result (two polarized factions) be the same?
There is much to be said about the right wing's glorification of self-determination. And yes, the Founding Fathers created this country to be a place where people could be free to determine their own destiny. But these days I think the right wing takes it too far. Helping each other out is not a left wing thing. It's a civilization thing. Whether we like it or not, we're all in this together. If we can't find a way to get along, there's no point. We all lose. Small government is fine. Anarchy is not.
(*Footnote: I can't help but note that more than one Neoconservative/Vile TV Pundit has explicitly stated a desire to see the total destruction of the left wing/liberalism/Democrat party. Even worse, Grover Norquist is on record as saying he wants to make government "just small enough that he can drown it in a bathtub." I don't know about you, but that's Anarchy to me. That's expressly calling for the destruction of the government of my country. I'm not down with that.)
|
|
Regarding the Plame thing, as I stated earlier, it was determined that the Intelligence Identities Protection Act was not violated. With that determination, ever bit of investigation that followed was a moot point. That, of course does not change the fact that Libby was convicted of Obstruction and Perjury. He has been punished, and the President used one of the inherent powers of the office to ensure that punishment was appropriate in accordance with the law. The same has been done before, and will likely be done again.
As for civil discussions, I try, but it is difficult. I have never started a thread with the sole purpose of disparaging a democratic official (not that you have done so for republicans, but some others have, as evidenced by this thread). I merely try to respond to things which, in my opinion, are misconceived, ill-thought, or just plain wrong. I am not always correct in my own statements, which I freely admit.
I agree that some ultra right wingers are vile and hate filled. But please, do not ignore the same level of hate and vileness that emanates from the extreme left. They can be just as guilty of gross violations of civil discourse as can the far right.
I do admire that, for the most part, the discussions here remain civil.
|
|
Lastly, let's not pretend that, just because the President commuted Libby's jailtime, that the man is getting off free and clear. He is still guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted, is out of a job, must pay a fine, and will be disbarred.
I'll respond to your other points in a different post (too busy enjoying TuesFriday night!), but I wanted to address this one very quickly.
I never said Libby was getting off free and clear. I simply meant that he has served less time in jail than Paris Hilton, but can still lean on his Fifth Amendment rights to keep his yap shut during the rest of the appeals process. I'm guessing this will last at least through January, 2009. For Bush, Cheney, Rove, et al, it's the best of both worlds.
You are right in saying that Libby is guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted. On that, at least, we can agree ;)
As for Libby being disbarred and out of a job, that's true in that he no longer has the job he once had, as "Dick!" Cheney's chief of staff. However, Scooter has some very powerful friends in the Grand Old Party, and K Street's many, many lobbying firms aren't all that far from the White House. As far as I know, you don't need a license to practice law when you're petitioning Congress to enact legislation that is favorable to your corporate benefactors.
Concerning the fine Libby will have to pay, the Libby Legal Defense Trust is raking in cash, thanks in no small part to right-wing luminaries such as Fred Thompson (himself a career lobbyist, among other things) and Richard Carlson (father of currently-bow-tie-less Tucker). So while $250,000 may be more than you or I will ever see at one time, it pales in comparison to the millions that are being raised to finance Scooter's defense.
And we all know that the stigma of scandals in your past doesn't cling very long in our modern society. Look at how well Bill and Hillary Clinton have done for themselves after Bill's term in office. In that case, at least, there was all that hue and cry from Republicans (for years!) over how "rule of law" was being abused. Funny how you don't hear quite so much of that from them these days.
|
|
And we all know that the stigma of scandals in your past doesn't cling very long in our modern society. Look at how well Bill and Hillary Clinton have done for themselves after Bill's term in office. In that case, at least, there was all that hue and cry from Republicans (for years!) over how "rule of law" was being abused. Funny how you don't hear quite so much of that from them these days.
True, Bill Clinton was excoriated for lying under oath to a judge. Of course, he kept is job, his law license, and (as far as I recall) was never fined so much as a penny.
Many of the Republicans and conservatives whose works I read (including Fred Thompson and many of the people at National Review) support Libby because they feel (in my mind rightly so) that the entire trial and conviction stemmed from an investigation that should never have happened.
Lastly, let's not pretend that, just because the President commuted Libby's jailtime, that the man is getting off free and clear...
Let's also not pretend that Libby is the point here. The President's contempt for the American legal system is... and American values, for that matter.
He's got quite a track record:
- Taking human life to save human life is unethical (except when they're Arab lives)
- Free speech is good (unless you want to burn a flag)
- People should be treated fairly (except US attorneys investigating Republicans)
- Lying is bad (unless Bush, Cheney, or any of their cronies does it -- I'll be happy to point out verifiable cases)
- Compromising national security is bad (unless Cheney et al need to out a CIA operative)
- American values should be everyone's inalienable right (except legal rights for Guantanamo detainees)
- Torture is bad (except when they're not Americans. What goes here, are non-Americans not people?)
- Power-hungry tyrants with their fingers on WMDs need to be ousted with military power (only true when the claims are false -- don't mess with North Korea)
- "If you're not with us, you are against us" (didn't Anakin Skywalker utter precisely these words at the end of Episode 3? Honestly, the man has the moral development of a three-year-old!)
- Abortion is immoral, except in the case of rape (what, it's not killing then??)
Just a few thoughts. Just because he likes the American flag and carries a Bible doesn't mean he shares the values of our founding fathers or the Christian faith :/
And just for the record, I voted for him twice -- to my everlasting shame.
True, Bill Clinton was excoriated for lying under oath to a judge. Of course, he kept is job, his law license, and (as far as I recall) was never fined so much as a penny.
There is that one little detail -- there wasn't enough evidence to convict him of a crime.
Many of the Republicans and conservatives whose works I read (including Fred Thompson and many of the people at National Review) support Libby because they feel (in my mind rightly so) that the entire trial and conviction stemmed from an investigation that should never have happened.
Damn incompetent judges! Justice really needs to be put in the hands of conservatives.
I do so miss lynch mobs...
I agree that some ultra right wingers are vile and hate filled. But please, do not ignore the same level of hate and vileness that emanates from the extreme left. They can be just as guilty of gross violations of civil discourse as can the far right.
Well said, and very true!
I do admire that, for the most part, the discussions here remain civil.
Also true. I hope my posts aren't taken personally by anyone (despite what could easily be taken as inflammatory comments).
Sadly, Bush has become a profound disappointment to me (and many others).
:(
|
|
Free speech is good (unless you want to burn a flag)
When did President Bush ever make a big speech about Flag Burning? For that matter, when did he ever deny anyone the right to free speech?
People should be treated fairly (except US attorneys investigating Republicans)
There was one attorney among those fired who was investigating Republicans. Contrary to what the media may say, those investigations did not end with the attorney's dismissal. It is the Presidents right to dismiss attorneys when he feels they do not focus on the things he would like them to. Other Presidents have done even worse, such as firing ALL of the attorneys.
Compromising national security is bad (unless Cheney et al need to out a CIA operative)
It has laready been established that Richard Armitage was the one who leaked Valerie Plame's identity. He left service in the Administration because he opposes the Administration and is not a friend of Cheney.
Power-hungry tyrants with their fingers on WMDs need to be ousted with military power (only true when the claims are false -- don't mess with North Korea)
I agree that something must be done about North Korea. Sadly, that is a difficult case what with the presence of South Korea (as a hostage to North Korean aggression) and China.
Just a few thoughts. Just because he likes the American flag and carries a Bible doesn't mean he shares the values of our founding fathers or the Christian faith :/
And I never said he did.
|
|
Sadly, Bush has become a profound disappointment to me (and many others).
:(
No doubt to many people's surprise, I'll agree with this statement. President Bush has become a profound disappointment to me as well. When he first began the so-called Bush Doctrine I approved. I thought that, with the Cold War over, it was high time we stop fostering petty dictators just for a political advantage and start encouraging democracy. The invasion of Afganistan was necessary and effective. The invasion of Iraq, I thought (and still think) was also a good move. However, there have been terrible mishandlings of the war since then.
Then there was the President's failure to ride herd (so to speak) on the Republican Congress. He allowed them to increase spending and the size of government without any arguments to the contrary. This, more than anything, in my own opinion, is what cost them the 06 elections.
Lastly, there is his foolish endorsement of the amnesty bill for illegal immigrants. The majority of the people of this country were opposed to the bill, yet that didn't stop the President. I was happy that enough senators kept their heads about them enough to defeat that terrible bill.
Those are just some of the major problems I have. There are some smaller ones. All in all, I would say that G.W. Bush has been one of the least impressive Republican Presidents in the last 100 years.
However, I remain a conservative at heart (although with something of a moderate bend), and will continue to support the Repbulican party, since most of what I see coming from Democrats reminds me too much of socialism.
However, I remain a conservative at heart (although with something of a moderate bend), and will continue to support the Repbulican party, since most of what I see coming from Democrats reminds me too much of socialism.
Again, I find myself having to ask, what is so horrible about helping each other out, and even requiring it (through taxation to fund social programs) of our citizenry? Because it sometimes feel like any and all social programs in this country are by definition "Socialism" and thus the most heinous evil known to man (barring one example not to be named here lest Godwin's Law be invoked).
I agree that something must be done about North Korea. Sadly, that is a difficult case what with the presence of South Korea (as a hostage to North Korean aggression) and China.
I might as well keep piping up about China.
I don't know how the presence of South Korea and China make disarming North Korea difficult unless your thinking that bombing them into the dark ages would do the trick, which it probably wouldn't. As America well knows, but few Americans realize, the military and political overlords of North Korea are so far underground that not even America's bunker busters can do s&#~. While their population has starved (full on famine) they have been tunneling and stockpiling like madmen.
They have their own Underdark, and I am not kidding you guys.
As I have it from a retired PLA general who visited North Korea twice, China has more interest in disarming North Korea than America does. And only a little less than South Korea and Japan. For America, the issue doesn't strike very close to home and is mostly a matter of their investment in stability in Asia.
Ironically China helped them arm themselves with aid and technological assistance. Sounds like Iraq and America...
Whatever.... the last point is: China is the country that keeps bringing the North Koreans back to the table for talks.
All in all, I would say that G.W. Bush has been one of the least impressive Republican Presidents in the last 100 years.
lol, and he is impressive in what way?
lol, and he is impressive in what way?All in all, I would say that G.W. Bush has been one of the least impressive Republican Presidents in the last 100 years.
How about in his contempt for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
Or the extent to which he has transformed the United States of America into a terrorist state?
Cheers,
Dagonet
I admire the fine craft of your jingling mask; its gracile curves hinting at a revelation of the face behind, all the while cloaking your true form in artistic finery.
Had you not mentioned your name, Dagonet, I would not have known you to be the one and only jester of good King Arthur himself!
Tell Merlin he owes me a card trick.
|
|
lol, and he is impressive in what way?All in all, I would say that G.W. Bush has been one of the least impressive Republican Presidents in the last 100 years.
How about in his contempt for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
Or the extent to which he has transformed the United States of America into a terrorist state?
Cheers,
Dagonet
Yeah, but that pesky Bill of Rights was just getting in the way anyway. Besides, as long as we behave and follow the rules, the secret police won't show up at our door and drag us off to that terrible place where we are forced to watch Teletubbies and Barney 24/7.
Free speech is good (unless you want to burn a flag)
When did President Bush ever make a big speech about Flag Burning? For that matter, when did he ever deny anyone the right to free speech?
He has, and presumably still does, support an amendment prohibiting the burning of the American flag.
|
|
Free speech is good (unless you want to burn a flag)When did President Bush ever make a big speech about Flag Burning? For that matter, when did he ever deny anyone the right to free speech?He has, and presumably still does, support an amendment prohibiting the burning of the American flag.
But does that show contempt for the American legal system, as the original poster described? Or does it show that some people have such a profound respect for the American Flag and what they believe it represents that they wish to protect it. Personally, I never agreed with an Ammendment, although I can see where those who did are coming from.
At the same time, I would hope that those who believe burning an American Flag is such a vital aspect of free speech that they (for example) opposed the crusade that drove Don Imus from the airwaves. What he said was despicable, but is also an example of free speech.
I'm not surprised that this topic is still up and running, but I am saddened. I have always felt that politics will make enemies of us all, although like so many have said before things have been surprisingly civil and polite. I remain ridiculously liberal/democratic,whatever, laugh my buns off at any accusations of socialism, communism, or whatever -ism are aimed at my way from the "other side"(I think politics,like so many things is a circle- go far enough one way, and you'll find yourself in the camp of what you consider to be a polar opposite) and laughingly accuse them of being fascist, racist or any other kind of -ist I can think of. I was somewhat on board for Afghanistan, but I have never supported military action in Iraq, I support a woman's right to choose especially in heinous situations like rape and incest(the latter of which happens at an alarming rate),I like immigrants(my parents and grandparents are immigrants), firmly believe that loving my country does not mean that you can't love others or criticize your own, etc, etc, etc. I'm not quite jaded enough to think that "whoever's on top, we still get screwed", but I'm getting there.
I don't think we'll all be enemies because we talked politics. Aberzombie and I probably don't directly agree on a single thing politically but we might game together in the near future if Tim Hitchcock and I can get out to Zherog's in PA (Zhe, did you know we were doing that? Tim decided so). We're not going to sit around and talk politics, (What, like all this babblin' on all our parts is going to change anything? We just like to talk) we'll just roll dice and laugh.
The us and them mentality has been deeply programmed into us. Screw it. When we talk at each other and not to each other that's when the powers that be have won, both left and right. Don't be sheep, people. Keep talking. And when you feel you are most righteously right... that's probably when passion is most clouding your good judgment, so keep it light and stay away from your side's buzzwords like socialism or fascism because such extentions only poke each other in the eye uneccessarily.
(Jade stats up sheep people. ECL: -1)
But does that show contempt for the American legal system, as the original poster described? Or does it show that some people have such a profound respect for the American Flag and what they believe it represents that they wish to protect it.Free speech is good (unless you want to burn a flag)When did President Bush ever make a big speech about Flag Burning? For that matter, when did he ever deny anyone the right to free speech?He has, and presumably still does, support an amendment prohibiting the burning of the American flag.
<laugh> I believe the word you're looking for here is idolatry, which is rather as big no-no as far as Christianity is concerned. One which the Amendment's supporters are, eventually, going to have to answer for.
The Jade: I left a note for Merlin with his secretary, a pretty young lady named Vivien, who promised she'd deliver it as soon as possible.
Cheers,
Dagonet
|
|
But does that show contempt for the American legal system, as the original poster described? Or does it show that some people have such a profound respect for the American Flag and what they believe it represents that they wish to protect it.Free speech is good (unless you want to burn a flag)When did President Bush ever make a big speech about Flag Burning? For that matter, when did he ever deny anyone the right to free speech?He has, and presumably still does, support an amendment prohibiting the burning of the American flag.<laugh> I believe the word you're looking for here is idolatry, which is rather as big no-no as far as Christianity is concerned. One which the Amendment's supporters are, eventually, going to have to answer for.
Let's see, according to Webster's Idolatry - 1. Worship of idols. 2. Blind or excessive adoration or devotion.
Hmm...Nope, nothing in that definition about respect, profound or otherwise, which is the term I used. There is a difference. ONe can respect something without worshipping it. People have sacrificed themselves for what they believe that flag represents. Are you saying that they don't deserve any respect?
|
At the same time, I would hope that those who believe burning an American Flag is such a vital aspect of free speech that they (for example) opposed the crusade that drove Don Imus from the airwaves. What he said was despicable, but is also an example of free speech.
But there's a difference. I might want someone who burned an American flag on TV to be fired, but I wouldn't want him put in prison. Simple public opinion (also free speech) can do the former, a Constitutional amendment would do the latter.
When did President Bush ever make a big speech about Flag Burning? For that matter, when did he ever deny anyone the right to free speech?
He has, and presumably still does, support an amendment prohibiting the burning of the American flag.
But does that show contempt for the American legal system, as the original poster described? Or does it show that some people have such a profound respect for the American Flag and what they believe it represents that they wish to protect it...
It shows contempt for one of the foundations of our legal system -- the Bill of Rights (specifically, freedom of speech). Such people should spend less time protecting the flag and spend more time protecting what it stands for.
The day I'm required to revere the flag is the day it's no longer worth revering.
But does that show contempt for the American legal system, as the original poster described? Or does it show that some people have such a profound respect for the American Flag and what they believe it represents that they wish to protect it.
<laugh> I believe the word you're looking for here is idolatry, which is rather a big no-no as far as Christianity is concerned. One which the Amendment's supporters are, eventually, going to have to answer for.
Let's see, according to Webster's Idolatry - 1. Worship of idols. 2. Blind or excessive adoration or devotion.
Hmm...Nope, nothing in that definition about respect, profound or otherwise, which is the term I used.
Indeed yes, but that's not the term which the Amendment's supporters use. I believe they speak of a law to prevent the desecration of the American flag. Can you even desecrate something which you don't, in and of itself, consider sacred? Making a change to the *foundation* of this country, demanding that no one show disrespect to a colored piece of cloth or paper or plastic--that goes far beyond any possible degree of respect. I respect my friends, I respect the human skill which raises a skyscraper, and I respect the team at Paizo which puts out quality entertainment products like Dungeon; when I try to pass a law to protect an inanimate symbol, I am going far beyond respect and falling to my knees in worship, spiritually if not physically.
As for "blind devotion," Tatterdemalion has it exactly right. You can either serve Freedom by allowing someone to spit upon the symbol of that Freedom, or you can build a wall around the symbol and spit upon Freedom itself. What else is it but blindness to confuse the two?
There is a difference. ONe can respect something without worshipping it. People have sacrificed themselves for what they believe that flag represents. Are you saying that they don't deserve any respect?
<laughing> Not bad, not bad at all. A clever tactic, and quite the interesting question. Since you bring it up, many, many people have sacrificed themselves for what they believe their flag represents. Some of them we call heroes. Others we call. . . other things. But we're not talking about what the flag *represents*. We're talking about people who want to sacrifice their rights and YOUR rights and MY rights in the name of a piece of cloth. I daresay no one was allowed to spit on the Golden Calf either.
Cheers,
Dagonet
|
|
Making a change to the *foundation* of this country, demanding that no one show disrespect to a colored piece of cloth or paper or plastic--that goes far beyond any possible degree of respect. I respect my friends, I respect the human skill which raises a skyscraper, and I respect the team at Paizo which puts out quality entertainment products like Dungeon; when I try to pass a law to protect an inanimate symbol, I am going far beyond respect and falling to my knees in worship, spiritually if not physically.
This reminds me of the Doonesbury that was published around 1990 or 1991, right when the elder shrub was making a stink over a flag-burning amendment. It had an American flag in the first frame, and in the second was one of the characters asking the audience what they would do with the strip. Since it's a likeness of the flag, you can't legally dispose of the strip without violating the constitution and going to jail! Nope, your only choice was to pin the strip to your wall and defend it forever against all would-be defilers of the glorious symbol of our freedoms. Good stuff.
|
|
Such people should spend less time protecting the flag and spend more time protecting what it stands for.
Exactly. The symbol is never (or, rather, should never be) more important than what it stands for. Every single American flag in existence could spontaneously burst into flame and be reduced to piles of ash; it would have no practical effect on the things the flag represents. America would still exist, and you can always make more flags.
|
|
Indeed yes, but that's not the term which the Amendment's supporters use. I believe they speak of a law to prevent the desecration of the American flag. Can you even desecrate something which you don't, in and of itself, consider sacred? Making a change to the *foundation* of this country, demanding that no one show disrespect to a colored piece of cloth or paper or plastic--that goes far beyond any possible degree of respect. I respect my friends, I respect the human skill which raises a skyscraper, and I respect the team at Paizo which puts out quality entertainment products like Dungeon; when I try to pass a law to protect an inanimate symbol, I am going far beyond respect and falling to my knees in worship, spiritually if not physically.
One definition of "desecrate" is to violate the sanctity of. However, a second definition is to treat disrespectfully, irreverently, or outrageously. So it can go either way, I guess. And those opposed to such an ammendment are also being clever, saying that it would prevent their free speech. Not at all. An ammedment protecting the flag woud simply allow for a legal means of punishment for those who violated the law. You could burn as many flags as you wanted to, so long as you were prepared to face the consequences.
In the end, we can't have a double standard in the law. We can't have laws that prevent or punish so-called hate speech (racist comments, homophobic comments, or anti-semetic comments for example), yet protect as free speech the burning of the flag. In my opinion it needs to be one way or the other, and better that it be in favor of full-blown, un-regulated free speech. That way someone can have the right to burn the flag, and then I can have the right to spit on them in disgust.
The day I'm required to respect other people, is the day they are no longer worth respecting.
|
|
People are not symbols. There is no equivalence.
I agree; objects (and, I feel, corporations) should not be elevated to person status, and people should not be regarded as objects. Although the policies of the current administration (and the ways they sometimes affect those of us not lucky enough to be part of the elite class) make me feel that Mr. Bush and his friends regard quite a lot of us as no more important than, say, an old used tire.
|
|
That's gibberish. People are not symbols. There is no equivalence.
The day I'm required to respect other people, is the day they are no longer worth respecting.
So, basically, are you saying that the free speech is OK for someone who wants to offend a fellow citizen by burning a flag, but that same offended citizen cannot offend in turn by uttering a disparaging comment about the flag-burner?
|
|
Although the policies of the current administration (and the ways they sometimes affect those of us not lucky enough to be part of the elite class) make me feel that Mr. Bush and his friends regard quite a lot of us as no more important than, say, an old used tire.
Gee, I could say the same thing about some folks on the other side of the politcal spectrum.
I don't see what the big deal is. I personally think we should invade whatever country we want for their natural resources, kill or convert to Christianity anyone who has a hard to pronounce name or dresses funny, forcefully impregnate all women over the age of 14, outlaw science, make telling the truth about anything a felony offense, make homosexuals wear blue hats so they are clearly recognizeable, and make all minorities store nuclear waste in their various body cavities. In addition, large animatronic bald eagles should be forcefully placed in every room of each citizen's place of residence and mounted with cameras capable of laproscopic body cavity searches.
If we don't, the terrorists win.
|
|
I don't see what the big deal is. I personally think we should invade whatever country we want for their natural resources, kill or convert to Christianity anyone who has a hard to pronounce name or dresses funny, forcefully impregnate all women over the age of 14, outlaw science, make telling the truth about anything a felony offense, make homosexuals wear blue hats so they are clearly recognizeable, and make all minorities store nuclear waste in their various body cavities. In addition, large animatronic bald eagles should be forcefully placed in every room of each citizen's place of residence and mounted with cameras capable of laproscopic body cavity searches.
If we don't, the terrorists win.
I don't know about that whole "dresses funny" thing. These days, I'm growing tired of wearing pants. I'd love to bring robes back into style for everyday wear.
|
|
I don't see what the big deal is. I personally think we should invade whatever country we want for their natural resources, kill or convert to Christianity anyone who has a hard to pronounce name or dresses funny, forcefully impregnate all women over the age of 14, outlaw science, make telling the truth about anything a felony offense, make homosexuals wear blue hats so they are clearly recognizeable, and make all minorities store nuclear waste in their various body cavities. In addition, large animatronic bald eagles should be forcefully placed in every room of each citizen's place of residence and mounted with cameras capable of laproscopic body cavity searches.
If we don't, the terrorists win.
Crap, I'm hiding my blue hats when I get home!
|
|
So, basically, are you saying that the free speech is OK for someone who wants to offend a fellow citizen by burning a flag, but that same offended citizen cannot offend in turn by uttering a disparaging comment about the flag-burner?
No, that's not even basically what I'm saying.
You turned tatterdemalion's phrase in an attempt to be witty. What I am saying is that the least of us, as living beings, deserves more protection and respect under the law than the greatest of our icons. What the U.S. flag represents is entirely context dependent. It is a symbol. The Iranian in Tehran who burns the flag means one thing by his action. Hoffman in a Chicago courtroom means something else entirely when he shows up wrapped in it. Both mean something different than the veteran who salutes the flag. Each is using the icon in his own way to express his opinion.
You can praise or disparage whomever you want, whenever you want. That's freedom of speech. But don't go burning or spitting upon whomever you want. Make yourself a big flag with a peace symbol, or a rainbow, or whatever you think best represents the left on it and torch in the public square! Good for you! But spitting on someone who's torching a flag is no better than spitting on an old man saluting it. Those are equivalent actions.
|
|
I don't know about that whole "dresses funny" thing. These days, I'm growing tired of wearing pants. I'd love to bring robes back into style for everyday wear.
You should try kilts! I know several guys around here (gamers and otherwise) who wear them, and I think there's a small but growing market.
Check out the Utilikilts website, I think they have a decent selection.
|
In the end, we can't have a double standard in the law. We can't have laws that prevent or punish so-called hate speech (racist comments, homophobic comments, or anti-semetic comments for example), yet protect as free speech the burning of the flag. In my opinion it needs to be one way or the other, and better that it be in favor of full-blown, un-regulated free speech. That way someone can have the right to burn the flag, and then I can have the right to spit on them in disgust.
The day I'm required to respect other people, is the day they are no longer worth respecting.
For me it is not the double standard between those expressions, but the double standard within the single expression of burning a flag.
Time and again it is said that burning, or otherwise desecrating, an American flag is "free speech," and must not be interefered with. But try burning another flag . . .
An episode of Seinfeld is nearly banned because it features the burning of a Puerto Rican flag.
Soft drink cups featuring the flag of Saudi Arabia were forced to be withdrawn because there is a quote from the Koran on it, and so they can't simply be thrown in the trash.
Both are treated as horrific examples of institutionalized racism in the West.
I demand the same respect and protection for my symbols as is extended to the symbols of others, and I reject any attempt to reduce them, and by extension myself, to second class status.
I don't know about that whole "dresses funny" thing. These days, I'm growing tired of wearing pants. I'd love to bring robes back into style for everyday wear.
Then you, sir, have a date with Guantanamo. I have forwarded your information to the appropriate bureau for immediate rendition. There is no action required on your part; in fact it would benefit both of us if you were to sit quietly and do nothing. Thank you in advance for your mandatory cooperation.