"regardless of whether it was unlawful or contrary to the national security of the United States"

"regardless of whether it was unlawful or contrary to the national security of the United States" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

farglebargle -> "regardless of whether it was unlawful or contrary to the national security of the United States" (8/12/2008 8:24:45 PM)
quote: The court ruled Cheney and the others were acting within their official capacity when they revealed Plame's identity to reporters. Government employees who engage in questionable acts, such as abusing prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay facility or engaging in defamatory speech, cannot be held individually liable if they are carrying out official duties, the court said. "The conduct, then, was in the defendants' scope of employment regardless of whether it was unlawful or contrary to the national security of the United States," Appeals Court Chief Judge David Sentelle wrote in the opinion. http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN12487250 I'm speechless. Literally "Above-The-Law".

slavebianca -> RE: "regardless of whether it was unlawful or contrary to the national security of the United States" (8/13/2008 4:15:28 AM)
It's unbelievable and worse...My country is so damned brainwashed they don't even care. It's like living in bazzorro world.

Alumbrado -> RE: "regardless of whether it was unlawful or contrary to the national security of the United States" (8/13/2008 4:19:39 AM)
That is bizarre...

farglebargle -> RE: "regardless of whether it was unlawful or contrary to the national security of the United States" (8/13/2008 4:31:13 AM)
I can't reconcile how an ILLEGAL ACT can be within the scope of anyone's employment.

pahunkboy -> RE: "regardless of whether it was unlawful or contrary to the national security of the United S (8/13/2008 5:14:25 AM)
OMG- no one is safe!

Sanity -> RE: "regardless of whether it was unlawful or contrary to the national security of the United States (8/13/2008 6:53:31 AM)
Above that particular kind of lawsuit, which is good. If every citizen could sue every government official for every action they must perform in their official functions then government would be moribund. Highways wouldn't be built, mail would go undelivered... And how were any of them "above the law" exactly when they were all endlessly investigated by Congress and special counsel and the left-wing media. quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle I'm speechless. Literally "Above-The-Law".

Thadius -> RE: "regardless of whether it was unlawful or contrary to the national security of the United States" (8/13/2008 7:08:11 AM)
Time to play my favorite game.... guess who said this. quote: While we are prepared to prosecute vigorously those who are responsible for leaks of classified information,… I also want to say that the Department of Justice believes that criminal prosecution is not the most effective way to address the leak problem. quote: In general, we believe that the better way to address the problem of leaks is to try to prevent them through stricter personnel security practices, including prohibitions of unauthorized contacts with the press, regular security reminders, and through administrative sanctions, I will reveal the mysterious person in a later post.

Termyn8or -> RE: "regardless of whether it was unlawful or contrary to the national security of the United States" (8/13/2008 8:49:32 AM)
Thad, I really don't know but I would bet fifty to one that it was either Bush or someone in his administration. I'll bet a hundred to one it was someone in the last five administrations. How much did I win ? T

Thadius -> RE: "regardless of whether it was unlawful or contrary to the national security of the United States" (8/13/2008 8:54:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Thad, I really don't know but I would bet fifty to one that it was either Bush or someone in his administration. I'll bet a hundred to one it was someone in the last five administrations. How much did I win ? T It was the AG from the previous administration... Ms (mr?) Janet Reno. http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2007/03/janet_reno_on_leaks_2000.html http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/renoleaks.html BEFORE THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE CONCERNING UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION JUNE 14, 2000

Alumbrado -> RE: "regardless of whether it was unlawful or contrary to the national security of the United States (8/13/2008 8:59:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Above that particular kind of lawsuit, which is good. If every citizen could sue every government official for every action they must perform in their official functions then government would be moribund. Highways wouldn't be built, mail would go undelivered... And how were any of them "above the law" exactly when they were all endlessly investigated by Congress and special counsel and the left-wing media. Which has long been the purpose of qualified immunity. Qualified in that the actions could not automatically assume blanket immunity merely because of the job of the person committing them. Doing away with that and replacing it with immunity for crimes committed while in a government position is not a good thing.

Real_Trouble -> RE: "regardless of whether it was unlawful or contrary to the national security of the United States (8/13/2008 9:31:22 AM)
This is, however, context dependent, as stated above. Immunity to civil prosecution while in office, acting as a government official, is probably a good thing. Keep in mind what this lawsuit says is not that they cannot be held criminally liable (ask Libby about that), but rather that civil lawsuits (ie, suing them) for actions while in office is untenable. Which, as stated above, is good, otherwise government would grind to a screeching halt immediately and we'd be left with the "efficiency" of Zimbabwe.

farglebargle -> RE: "regardless of whether it was unlawful or contrary to the national security of the United States (8/13/2008 3:20:51 PM)
Screeching Halt means they don't spend anymore money. I'm not sure there's a downside.

PanthersMom -> RE: "regardless of whether it was unlawful or contrary to the national security of the United S (8/13/2008 5:12:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy OMG- no one is safe! and you thought anyone was? my grandfather died almost 25 yrs ago. he used to talk about stuff like this, everyone thought he was nuts. i listened and figured time would tell. he was a man before his time. nobody is safe from anyone in this thing we call a government. it's a monster and lives by rules it makes up as it goes along to suit whatever it wants to do. PM

Vendaval -> RE: "regardless of whether it was unlawful or contrary to the national security of the United States" (8/13/2008 10:44:16 PM)
I am disappointed but not surprised.

candystripper -> RE: "regardless of whether it was unlawful or contrary to the national security of the United States" (8/14/2008 12:48:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: The court ruled Cheney and the others were acting within their official capacity when they revealed Plame's identity to reporters. Government employees who engage in questionable acts, such as abusing prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay facility or engaging in defamatory speech, cannot be held individually liable if they are carrying out official duties, the court said. "The conduct, then, was in the defendants' scope of employment regardless of whether it was unlawful or contrary to the national security of the United States," Appeals Court Chief Judge David Sentelle wrote in the opinion. http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN12487250 I'm speechless. Literally "Above-The-Law". The Op is correct. You do not need more than a dash of common sense to know this decision is wrong. An illegal act cannot be within the scope of anyone's employment. The government cannot be 'in the business' of committing illegal acts....it is logically impossible. It will be many, many years before the effects of this despicable presidency have fully worn off. candystripper

Sanity -> RE: "regardless of whether it was unlawful or contrary to the national security of the United States (8/14/2008 3:35:17 AM)
No, wrong. First, it turned out that Richard Armitage, an administration critic, was the source of the leak - not Bush, not Cheney, or Libby. So there was nothing illegal to sue for, merely allegations. Second, if people are allowed to sue public officials with nuisance lawsuits like that you won't be able to find anyone decent who is willing to run for office, which is a problem already because of the "gotcha" attitude that's on display all around us.

farglebargle -> RE: "regardless of whether it was unlawful or contrary to the national security of the United States (8/14/2008 4:41:14 PM)
It is the Judge's job ( sitting in the court the action is filed ) to determine if ( upon motion to dismiss ) if there is cause for dismissal. To say that "You shouldn't be sued for..." is to deprive the plaintiff the opportunity for Justice.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125