The Law of Unintended Consequences
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Now I remember why I typically avoid this place...
Because you are easily duped by Republican BS and hence find reality upsetting? A little reality for you Mike, unpleasant though it may be. The Republican Administration instituted policy of torture, carried out by various government employees and contractors, and given a veneer of legitimacy by DOJ lawyers. Some Democrats may have been informed that it was going on in national security briefings that, by law, they were forbidden from publicising and did not publicise. So please tell me what crime you think the Democrats committed.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Because you are easily duped by Republican BS and hence find reality upsetting?
Huh? You have no idea what my thoughts are on this topic because I've not stated them.
John Carson wrote:
So please tell me what crime you think the Democrats committed.
In this particular instance... I have no idea if they have committed a crime. Your statement was not specific to this instance though. It was a blanket statement that implies you are the one with "reality" problems.
-
John Carson wrote:
Because you are easily duped by Republican BS and hence find reality upsetting?
Huh? You have no idea what my thoughts are on this topic because I've not stated them.
John Carson wrote:
So please tell me what crime you think the Democrats committed.
In this particular instance... I have no idea if they have committed a crime. Your statement was not specific to this instance though. It was a blanket statement that implies you are the one with "reality" problems.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
You have no idea what my thoughts are on this topic because I've not stated them.
You mean to say that your last post was completely thoughtless? I'd almost agree with you.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
In this particular instance... I have no idea if they have committed a crime.
Uh huh. Your remarks were your usual knee-jerk response. Thought so.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Your statement was not specific to this instance though. It was a blanket statement that implies you are the one with "reality" problems.
You thought I was denying that Democrats ever in any context commit crimes? You really aren't giving any of this much thought at all are you. Read in context, my comment was very specific. It referred to Democratic members of Congress having some legal liability for their alleged failure to oppose the torture policies of which they were allegedly informed.
John Carson
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
You have no idea what my thoughts are on this topic because I've not stated them.
You mean to say that your last post was completely thoughtless? I'd almost agree with you.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
In this particular instance... I have no idea if they have committed a crime.
Uh huh. Your remarks were your usual knee-jerk response. Thought so.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
Your statement was not specific to this instance though. It was a blanket statement that implies you are the one with "reality" problems.
You thought I was denying that Democrats ever in any context commit crimes? You really aren't giving any of this much thought at all are you. Read in context, my comment was very specific. It referred to Democratic members of Congress having some legal liability for their alleged failure to oppose the torture policies of which they were allegedly informed.
John Carson
-
Oakman wrote:
What would be revealed by a star chamber is that many democrats who are now claiming to be learning of waterboarding for the first time and (simultaneously) to have disapproved of it as an instrument of national policy since 1976, are (here's a surprise) hypocrites and liars.
I think a lot of things might be revealed and I think that looking torture in the face is a bit different from discussing it in the abstract. I think that the authors of the torture policy may come out of it looking considerably worse than they do now. By the way, being a hypocrite and a liar isn't (usually) against the law. As such, it should be pretty marginal to any enquiry concerned with illegal torture.
Oakman wrote:
What will not happen, whether or not there is a People's Truth Commission, is anyone being prosecuted for torture. When it's just as likely that Boxer and Pelosi will end up in the dock as Rumsfeld and Powell, there will be no political will for court proceedings.
As I have already remarked, there is essentially zero chance that Pelosi or any other Democrat committed a crime. Thus this "just as likely" claim is complete BS. There are two reasons why prominent Republicans are unlikely to be charged: 1. It would be politically divisive, 2. It would be hard to get a conviction. The supposed legal jeopardy of Democrats has nothing to do with it.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
I think a lot of things might be revealed
Actually, you guess. You don't know what happened any more than I do
John Carson wrote:
By the way, being a hypocrite and a liar isn't (usually) against the law.
But it has been known to make you unelectable - something politicans fear far more.
John Carson wrote:
As I have already remarked, there is essentially zero chance that Pelosi or any other Democrat committed a crime.
And as I proved to you (so you said) that in this country, knowing a crime has been committed and not reporting it is equivalent to having committed the crime, either no-one is guilty or she is. Unless she moves to Australia.
John Carson wrote:
The supposed legal jeopardy of Democrats has nothing to do with it.
Their legal jeopardy comes from having to testify under oath. I was using the phrase "in the dock" to mean under intense scrutiny. I should have realised that in this context it would appear I meant that they were prisoners. Sorry.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
FIFY - You Betcha.
I see that you have entered your second childhood.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Mike Gaskey wrote: FIFY - You Betcha. I see that you have entered your second childhood.
minimally, and having a fucking ball investigating a new business. how's that burdensome adulthood thing working for you and the other world saviors?
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
John Carson wrote:
I think a lot of things might be revealed
Actually, you guess. You don't know what happened any more than I do
John Carson wrote:
By the way, being a hypocrite and a liar isn't (usually) against the law.
But it has been known to make you unelectable - something politicans fear far more.
John Carson wrote:
As I have already remarked, there is essentially zero chance that Pelosi or any other Democrat committed a crime.
And as I proved to you (so you said) that in this country, knowing a crime has been committed and not reporting it is equivalent to having committed the crime, either no-one is guilty or she is. Unless she moves to Australia.
John Carson wrote:
The supposed legal jeopardy of Democrats has nothing to do with it.
Their legal jeopardy comes from having to testify under oath. I was using the phrase "in the dock" to mean under intense scrutiny. I should have realised that in this context it would appear I meant that they were prisoners. Sorry.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
John Carson wrote: I think a lot of things might be revealed Actually, you guess. You don't know what happened any more than I do
That's just silly pedantry. I think... is not I know. So I guess is irrelevant as I think includes I guess. Then there's the keyword "might". There isn't a single statement of knowing in Carson's statement there, yet you rail against it like there was. Come on Jon, you are better than this, no?
This statement is false
-
Perhaps the Republicans have outsmarted themselves here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-18/gops-torture-tricks-backfire/[^]
John Carson
Blah blah Republicans blah :zzz:
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Perhaps the Republicans have outsmarted themselves here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-18/gops-torture-tricks-backfire/[^]
John Carson
Sorry, John, the 'lets get Nancy and blame it on the Republicans scam' ain't gonna work on any one who really matters.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
John Carson wrote: I think a lot of things might be revealed Actually, you guess. You don't know what happened any more than I do
That's just silly pedantry. I think... is not I know. So I guess is irrelevant as I think includes I guess. Then there's the keyword "might". There isn't a single statement of knowing in Carson's statement there, yet you rail against it like there was. Come on Jon, you are better than this, no?
This statement is false
Synaptrik wrote:
So I guess is irrelevant as I think includes I guess.
You may be right - however, of everything I said, this was the least important point. To focus on it rather than the issues I raised somes to be a bit pedantic itself, no?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Synaptrik wrote:
So I guess is irrelevant as I think includes I guess.
You may be right - however, of everything I said, this was the least important point. To focus on it rather than the issues I raised somes to be a bit pedantic itself, no?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
John Carson wrote:
I think a lot of things might be revealed
Actually, you guess. You don't know what happened any more than I do
John Carson wrote:
By the way, being a hypocrite and a liar isn't (usually) against the law.
But it has been known to make you unelectable - something politicans fear far more.
John Carson wrote:
As I have already remarked, there is essentially zero chance that Pelosi or any other Democrat committed a crime.
And as I proved to you (so you said) that in this country, knowing a crime has been committed and not reporting it is equivalent to having committed the crime, either no-one is guilty or she is. Unless she moves to Australia.
John Carson wrote:
The supposed legal jeopardy of Democrats has nothing to do with it.
Their legal jeopardy comes from having to testify under oath. I was using the phrase "in the dock" to mean under intense scrutiny. I should have realised that in this context it would appear I meant that they were prisoners. Sorry.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
And as I proved to you (so you said) that in this country, knowing a crime has been committed and not reporting it is equivalent to having committed the crime, either no-one is guilty or she is. Unless she moves to Australia.
1. There is a difference between "accessory" and "accessory after the fact". Only the former is equivalent to committing the crime. The most that could be claimed about failing to report a crime after it had been committed would be that it was a case of "accessory after the fact". In response, you could argue that a) it was still a crime, even if a lesser crime, b) Pelosi may have known of ongoing criminal acts and not merely past ones. However, both arguments fail because... 2. There is no general obligation to report a crime, though there are some jurisdictions and some classes of crime where such an obligation exists. Reference[^] http://law.jrank.org/pages/8605/Misprision.html[^] According to the second reference, the general Federal offence requires "affirmative steps to conceal the felony", which goes beyond a mere failure to report. 3. In any event, it would be impossible to prove that Pelosi "knew" a crime was committed if she was told the DOJ had cleared it.
Oakman wrote:
Their legal jeopardy comes from having to testify under oath.
Given the Clinton precedent, I guess I can't rule this out. However, people give evidence under oath all the time and conviction for lying under oath is very rare.
John Carson
-
Oakman wrote:
And as I proved to you (so you said) that in this country, knowing a crime has been committed and not reporting it is equivalent to having committed the crime, either no-one is guilty or she is. Unless she moves to Australia.
1. There is a difference between "accessory" and "accessory after the fact". Only the former is equivalent to committing the crime. The most that could be claimed about failing to report a crime after it had been committed would be that it was a case of "accessory after the fact". In response, you could argue that a) it was still a crime, even if a lesser crime, b) Pelosi may have known of ongoing criminal acts and not merely past ones. However, both arguments fail because... 2. There is no general obligation to report a crime, though there are some jurisdictions and some classes of crime where such an obligation exists. Reference[^] http://law.jrank.org/pages/8605/Misprision.html[^] According to the second reference, the general Federal offence requires "affirmative steps to conceal the felony", which goes beyond a mere failure to report. 3. In any event, it would be impossible to prove that Pelosi "knew" a crime was committed if she was told the DOJ had cleared it.
Oakman wrote:
Their legal jeopardy comes from having to testify under oath.
Given the Clinton precedent, I guess I can't rule this out. However, people give evidence under oath all the time and conviction for lying under oath is very rare.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
The most that could be claimed about failing to report a crime after it had been committed would be that it was a case of "accessory after the fact".
John, I am afraid you aren't following this case closely enough. Pelosi's "defense" is that she was told that the CIA was planning on committing waterboarding.
John Carson wrote:
the general Federal offence requires "affirmative steps to conceal the felony", which goes beyond a mere failure to report.
Which she certainly took - again by her own testimony.
John Carson wrote:
In any event, it would be impossible to prove that Pelosi "knew" a crime was committed if she was told the DOJ had cleared it.
Equally true of all the conservatives she wishes to hang out to dry.
John Carson wrote:
Given the Clinton precedent, I guess I can't rule this out. However, people give evidence under oath all the time and conviction for lying under oath is very rare.
Not nearly as rare as trying an senior official of the previous administration for attempting to discover if there are sleeper cells in the U.S.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
John Carson wrote:
The most that could be claimed about failing to report a crime after it had been committed would be that it was a case of "accessory after the fact".
John, I am afraid you aren't following this case closely enough. Pelosi's "defense" is that she was told that the CIA was planning on committing waterboarding.
John Carson wrote:
the general Federal offence requires "affirmative steps to conceal the felony", which goes beyond a mere failure to report.
Which she certainly took - again by her own testimony.
John Carson wrote:
In any event, it would be impossible to prove that Pelosi "knew" a crime was committed if she was told the DOJ had cleared it.
Equally true of all the conservatives she wishes to hang out to dry.
John Carson wrote:
Given the Clinton precedent, I guess I can't rule this out. However, people give evidence under oath all the time and conviction for lying under oath is very rare.
Not nearly as rare as trying an senior official of the previous administration for attempting to discover if there are sleeper cells in the U.S.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
John, I am afraid you aren't following this case closely enough. Pelosi's "defense" is that she was told that the CIA was planning on committing waterboarding.
I was responding to your exact words which referred to a past crime: "knowing a crime has been committed and not reporting it is equivalent to having committed the crime". This is false. The possibility of future crime was incorporated in my reply, which you have ignored. Since you raise the issue of Pelosi's comments...from what I have heard, Pelosi hasn't said "she was told the CIA was planning on committing waterboarding". Pelosi has said that they told her they had received legal advice saying certain things would be permissible should they decide to do them, not that they had decided to do them.
Oakman wrote:
Which she certainly took - again by her own testimony.
Quotes please.
Oakman wrote:
Equally true of all the conservatives she wishes to hang out to dry.
I doubt that. The legal position of someone who commits an offence is not the same as the legal position of someone who merely knows about it. For a person who commits an offence, the general rule is that "ignorance of the law is no excuse", though reliance on legal advice may offer some sort of defence or mitigation in limited circumstances. For someone who merely knows about it --- well they don't know about it in any meaningful sense if they are ignorant of the relevant law. It would be an impossible burden to place on bystanders to insist that they assume responsibility for notifying the authorities of an offence, even when they don't know it is an offence and have a good reason for not thinking it is. Since the crime of "failure to report" is so rarely prosecuted, I doubt that I can find case law to support this contention, but I have no doubt that any court would find as I have stated. The fact is that Pelosi is almost irrelevant to this whole drama. The Republicans have been desperately trying to make the case that a bystander is equivalent to a principal, but it just isn't so.
John Carson
modified on Wednesday, May 20, 2009 9:35 AM