Really? I see cases in the news all the time that demonstrate myriad manipulations of the system by those with whatever means on any side of particular issue. There are web sites dedicated to tracking and documenting such things.Originally Posted by CornedBee
7. It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.
40. There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.*
Then perhaps I'm just naive ...
All the buzzt!
CornedBee
"There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
- Flon's Law
Wow. So many hopeless posts on such a boring thread!
@MacGyver
Libby confirmed Plame's identity to Novak, after Armitage had 'let it slip' (according to Novak).
That is a crime and Libby as a lawyer would know that (assuming he could remember....).
Is concealing that crime a motive to obstruct a grand jury?
Is protecting the other leakers enough motive?
How about the other charges?
-Obstruction of justice
-Making false statements
Libby's bad memory again?
We did not spend 14 days hearing this evidence.
We did not spend 10 days deliberating.
The jury did.
The judge did.
Both agreed that it was not just a case of 'bad memory' and was a crime.
This leaves you with the position that ALL these people were politically motivated.
What evidence do you have to back up this claim?
The 'military commissions' at Camp X-Ray are sham trials. Twice declared illegal by the US supreme court.
Read up on the trial of David Hicks an Australian.
[he had been in Gitmo for ~6 years waiting for a trial, ~4 without charge]
Notice how he was given a 'gag' order preventing him speaking to the press until after the Australian election this year (which is not legal).
Given what happened on the first day of his trial, I do not think I would have had the courage to contest the case. I too would have taken the plea bargin just to get out of Gitmo, let alone to get a release date.
It was a politically motivated sham trial designed to appease the Australian public before the election later this year.
"Man alone suffers so excruciatingly in the world that he was compelled to invent laughter."
Friedrich Nietzsche
"I spent a lot of my money on booze, birds and fast cars......the rest I squandered."
George Best
"If you are going through hell....keep going."
Winston Churchill
o rly???
Nope, this isn't true. So now if we put you on trial for lying, would you want a jury to convict you of purposely making false statements even if you honestly believe this to be true? You must know that we are perfectly able to prove this right or wrong, so this is a verifiably false statement, is it not?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_Affair
Now check this out:
So what's your excuse? Are you juggling national security issues, and is this how it came to pass that you "forgot" this important fact that it was Rove and not Libby who was Novak's second source? Or perhaps you'd like to pretend to be human and just have a memory that can't be 100% relied upon, something which Libby is not allowed to use as his defense.In July 2005, it was revealed that Rove was Novak's second Bush administration source. Novak told Rove about Plame, using her maiden name, and Rove responded by saying "I heard that, too", or "Oh, you know about it."[54] Through his personal attorney, Robert Luskin, Rove has stated that other media sources told him about Plame, although he's not sure which journalist first told him.
So yes, Novak got his information from Armitage and then confirmed by Rove, but Rove's source was the media, which means Rove didn't leak out anything secret.
An interesting fact about Armitage: He was also Woodward's source.....
Assuming it happened. Try again.
Or again, maybe the fact that none of this happened, and you're arguing now about yet another crime that never occurred?
I refuse to restate it here. I've already offered my reasons why I believe the judge, the prosecutor, and the jury was biased against Libby. If you wish to disagree with my reasoning, that's your right, but do not pretend I didn't offer any reasons.
I'll add further proof that the jury was biased:
Bold addition and underlining done by me.According to Collins, "What we’re in court deciding seems to be a level or two down from what, before we went into the jury, we supposed the trial was about, or had been initially about, which was who leaked [Plame’s identity]. Some jurors commented at some point: ‘I wish we weren’t judging Libby. You know, this sucks. We don’t like being here.’ But that wasn’t our choice." Collins described how after 10 days of deliberations, "What we came up with from that was that Libby was told about Mrs. Wilson nine times...We believed he did have a bad memory, but it seemed very unlikely he would not remember about being told about Mrs. Wilson so many times....Hard to believe he would remember on Tuesday and forget on Thursday."[80][81] Collins told the press "Well, as I said before, I felt like it was a long, you know, haul to get this jury done. And if Mr. Libby is pardoned, I would have no problem with that."[82]
So overall, this is a second juror to want Libby pardoned, the Mr. Collins that stated that the jury wanted to go after Rove instead of Libby. This juror also stated that the jury did indeed believe Libby had a bad memory.
So why the conviction if jurors believed he had a bad memory, and at the same time, they wanted him to serve no time and be pardoned? Why convict him? Do you still think it's impossible for political motives to be at work here?
Sorry you are right, Libby was not Novak’s source.
I read an article that stated Libby confirmed Plame’s identity to Novak (after Armitage’s leak) but have now found multiple sources that say it was Rove.
Libby WAS however Miller’s source (according to her testimony to the grand jury) in an interview weeks before Novak’s story was published (ie Libby was the ORIGINAL leak).
Libby let Miller spend a few months in jail for contempt (refusing to name Libby).
Then Miller _suddenly_ found a waiver (from Libby) giving her permission to name Libby as the source and was released.
Libby was also suspected of being Coopers source as well.
I asked why you disagreed with the judge and jury whom had spent 24 days on this case.
Your response;
So I looked back thru the thread…..
You have presented no evidence that would allow you to make a better judgment than those whom where presented with the facts of the case over 14 days.
Your reasons for thinking the jurors are ‘politically motivated' posted in this thread are;
These are you assumptions and opinion, not reasons.
Reasons require evidence.
A few pages back it was not bias by the jurors, but now it is?
Didn’t the Republicans appoint the prosecutor and judge?
If so why did they appoint ones with such an obvious political bias? (bad memories?)
Why was disallowing a memory expert ‘bias’? (Considering the judge directed the jury to consider the limits to human memory during the trial.)
What else was disallowed?
I do not think blocking evidence is proof of bias. Legal experts agree that both the prosecutor and judge did an exceptional job (see the link I posted earlier from the Washington Post).
Read you own quote, they thought he had a bad memory but that it was not as bad as Libby made out.
That is the jurors thought Libby lied/exaggerated.
Here is another quote from Collins, (who is also a reporter for the Washington Times)
Is protecting your boss (the VP) motive?
Ahh thats right, the jurors are all politically motivated and none of the 12 gave poor old Libby a fair go.........
"Man alone suffers so excruciatingly in the world that he was compelled to invent laughter."
Friedrich Nietzsche
"I spent a lot of my money on booze, birds and fast cars......the rest I squandered."
George Best
"If you are going through hell....keep going."
Winston Churchill
No, I don't believe so. My apologies.
Thanks for the insight, I'll look into it.
But at the moment I don't care.
I'm just sweeping up a little for being too [whatever]. Maybe I'll read your arguments later.
[I at least entertain opposing arguments, unlike someone I am acquainted with.]
7. It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.
40. There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.*
False perjury accusations suck, don't they? When you make a mistake, it's a mistake because you were mislead by an article. When Libby makes one, even though the jury believes him to have a bad memory, that's not good enough, and he must have been lying for no reason in particular.
He testified he was authorized to discuss the case with Miller.In her testimony at Libby's trial, Miller reiterated that she learned of Plame from Libby on June 23, 2003, during an interview at the Old Executive Office Building, and on July 8, 2003, during a breakfast meeting at the St. Regis Hotel in Washington D.C. At the July 8 meeting, which occurred two days after Joe Wilson's op-ed in the New York Times, Libby told the grand jury "that he was specifically authorized in advance... to disclose the key judgments of the classified [October 2002] NIE to Miller" to rebut Wilson's charges. Libby "further testified that he at first advised the Vice President that he could not have this conversation with reporter Miller because of the classified nature of the NIE", but testified "that the Vice President had advised [Libby] that the President had authorized [Libby] to disclose relevant portions of the NIE."[120][121][122]
Furthermore, he told her to discuss the case while she was in jail.
The jury found her memory to suck, too, interestingly enough, but because she kept notes, the notes were believed. Poor Libby should have kept notes, I guess.
Cooper told the grand jury his sources for his article, "A War on Wilson?", were Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.[130][131][132]
During his appearance at Libby's trial, Cooper recounted how he first learned about Valerie Wilson on July 11, 2003, from Karl Rove. Cooper testified that Rove told him to be wary of Joe Wilson’s criticisms in The New York Times. "Don’t go too far out on Wilson," Cooper recalled Rove saying, adding that Wilson's wife worked at "the agency." Cooper testified that when he spoke to Libby, he told Libby that he had heard that Joe Wilson’s wife worked at the C.I.A. According to Cooper, Libby responded, "I heard that too."[123] In Libby's grand jury testimony, Libby recalled telling Cooper that he'd heard something to that effect but that he didn't know for sure if it were true. In Libby's trial, Cooper's notes became the subject of intense scrutiny by the defense.[133][134][135]
Libby was acquitted on one count involving Cooper. A juror told the press that count three of the indictment came down to Libby's word versus Cooper's word, and thus provided enough reasonable doubt.[80][81]LOL.
I have provided quotes from the jurors, and both Dave_Sinkula and I have provided articles that elaborate on the subject of the Libby trial.
Unfortunately, you fail to realize that while what I have suggested is ultimately my opinion based upon facts and other opinions, your own opposition to what I'm saying is your own opinion as well.
And while I wouldn't care if I was alone in my opinion, I am definitely by no means alone in my position that Libby's situation is a ridiculous one that should never have existed.
It is bias, but they are less to be blamed if they did not get the entire story, and therefore they can't be entirely blamed if they don't know all the facts. The judge and prosecutor are more to blame in that regard.
With that said, the assumption that Karl Rove should be on trial was a ridiculous one that displays the ignorance of the case imo.... And yes, that's my opinion. When Mr. Collins was done as a juror, I read that he rushed to the Huffington Post to send off his opinions. Very neutral spot, I must say.
Uh..... do you even read anything? Libby testified that Cheney authorized him to talk to Miller. How the @#$# is that protecting Cheney? If anything, he's putting Cheney on the spot.
Can we at least keep this debate within the realm of reality?
Sarcastic, though you may be, I am more inclined to agree with this than you may realize.
USA is just too complex...
First of all, in Estonia the president doesn't have much power (signs the new laws only). He just represents the country. President is elected by the parliament (101 members), which is elected by people. There is not much debates and stuff going on with president election, because the president just needs to be a honorable, reasonable and experienced person who could represent the country and know what's going on.
The parliament and ministries have the real power. The good thing about the president having no actual power is that then he is always highly respected. The debates and advertisings you have with president elections, we have with global elections (I don't how it's called exactly). BUT, there's an important difference in our society. The word "democrats", "socialists", "liberals" have almost no meaning here. Pretty much every party agrees which the "core of the system" should be like. Usually we have together in parliament about 6-7 parties. There are some parties with certain views of life (like the Green ones), but mostly they are generic. Every party usually makes one important campaign promise (for example lowering some kind of taxes, or, as one party did last year, promised to finance a bridge which connects the main land and our largest island) and lots of little ones. Parties are usually selected by three things: trustworthiness, campaign promise and by the people they represent (it's not liberals or democrats, it's Estonians or Russians).
About the Bush and Iraq. What I think is that at first, Bush was sure that Iraq has some mass destruction weapons which he thought would've been used when USA does something that Iraq doesn't like. He couldn't let that happen, could he. So he invaded Iraq. But no mass destruction weapons were found. But then the muslim terrorists started blowing themselves up there and Bush decided that he needs to assure the safety of Iraq, so there won't be another Afganistan. No it's been a long long time and Bush thinks he has almost finished his task. I've seen some press conferences of Bush and I can say that the man believes what the man says. So, he can't just quit it now. It's like Cancelling a download on 90%. Compare the terrorists (or lack of security) with malicious bacterials - if you don't kill them all, they come back stronger than ever.
What I can say, is that disrespect and insults against Bush are highly disgraceful. I would never ever try to insult a politician. There are more civilized way to express your criticism.
"The Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore
Estonia sounds like a nice country.
I think the American people are justified in insulting Bush. The situation in Iraq is not a simple as he and the administration would like you to believe, there were other underlying motives (oil). At first he claims that they are trying to remove WMD's, but none were found. So why are we still there? According to Bush it is because we need to free the Iraqis, so we took out Saddam Hussein. But Iraq was not ready for the democracy that we forced upon them. So now were are there to fix a problem that we in part created. And why would we choose to liberate Iraq over any other country? The Sudanese have it pretty bad.
You also must understand that terrorists are reacting in response to the invasions. Read this.
Gentoo Linux - 2.6.22.1
GCC version 4.2.0
Insulting our elected government officials is within our right. It's also within our rights to fire their a s s e s in upcoming elections.
Iraq, was a mistake, period. No Wmds, and the only other country estatic about Saddam being dead n' gone is Iran. Ruthless rulers are sometimes required to keep a chaotic and sometimes violent society in check. I don't condone his brutality, I simply understand it.
As far as reasons for still being in Iraq, well that's obvious. Miscalculations. Disbanding an entire military and policy force, inept puppet governments. And of course, we cannot forget that the reason Iraq now is a haven for terrorists is because of the war. We created the perfect environment for them to flourish inside of.
Until you need the president to mobilize the army to defend it's citizens from Russians burning the place down.
The Democrats authorized the war. As such, they supported it. If it's so obvious Bush lied and the rest of the charges the Dems like to spew, and that the Dems were somehow misled and not just too stupid to realize what they were voting for, and that now currently most people want to cut and run, then the votes would exist to end the war. They don't. The war continues because Congress fears the will of the people with this issue. Case closed.
Since when does the U.S. Congress pay attention to what the American Public wants? Near election time?
..... and everyone was misled, not just the Democrats. I'd also like to see which poll you've used to substantiate the claim that the public backs the President's failed war policy. And to get to the heart of the nut here, you don't destroy terrorism by blowing people up, you must change the conditions conducive to the rise of it.
I don't know, but it was nice to see them fold on the immigration bill after getting hounded on it.
It's one of the few issues that I actually have seen liberals and conservatives in the US (not in Congress, I might add) agreeing on an issue so strongly.
I hope you include Bush in that. If I remember correctly, the 9/11 Commission Report stated that the intelligence services failed to serve the President adequately before 9/11. I doubt they did a much better job with regard to Iraq only a few years after 9/11. Based upon the intelligence everyone had, I think Congress and the President both made the right call to start the war. Apparently the Dems got the same reports. If they weren't able to read, or chose not to, then blaming Bush over it is really a pathetic way of avoiding personal responsibility.
Since the question itself is quite biased, and you ask for a poll to find a supporter of something deemed "failed", I'll just point out that the President enjoys a better approval rating over Congress. Congress' approval rating is at an all-time low.
Overall, I think this signifies the dissatisfaction in general with the situation in Iraq. People want some fix for the situation in Iraq, and yet they know it's not likely to come. In terms of people's views of Congress, the conservatives aren't happy with the Dems in control and launching all those investigations that lead to nowhere, and the liberals aren't happy that the Dems haven't managed to somehow end the war. Hence, no one loves Congress.
In terms of the President, I think everyone wants him to pull out an Iraq Fix out of nowhere and manage to succeed and get everything over and done with. That's not likely to happen, either, but I'm happy that the war is over in Iraq rather than in Manhatten. Sorry if I'm a little selfish, but it makes sense.
The conditions you speak of are the so called holy men of the islamofascists that want to take over the world and create an islamist state according to their view of what islam is. Their message is one of hatred and disgust for the world.
As further proof of this being the cause, I'd like to point out that suicide bombings by islamic terrorists were not very common prior to the 90's. In the 70's they used to hijack jets a lot, and blow them up, but releasing the hostages was not necessarily a strange thing for them to do. Since this was getting no where, they switched strategies. They worked on brainwashing the next generations on how important it was to perform suicide bombings, and now we have this problem in the culture mixed in with other items.
Look at what they're teaching the kids now! Hamas had some Mickey Mouse character that in the last episode got assasinated by the "Jews". And then they introduced some character that I think is supposed to be a bee that says he'll take up the cause of the dead mouse guy and wants to eventually give his life to fight the Jews.
What I suggest we do is blow up the guys preaching the message. If it's so wonderful to die a death this way, let's give it to them that preach it. If they can get on al jazeera or wherever else and say they're willing to die, let's make it convienient to do it, and let's stop letting them tell this to the kids.
