Cpl Maxwell Q. Klinger and the NY Times

http://commentarymagazine.com/production/files/schoenfeld0306advance.html
from JoeUser Forums

In an early episode of M*A*S*H, Dr. Sidney Friedman analyzes Klinger.  As anyone who is even remotely aware of the series knows, Klinger was always bucking for a section 8 (Crazy) discharge.  By the end of this show, Friedman has finished his evaluation and calls Klinger in to sign it.  Klinger thinking he has gotten his section 8, is all too happy to sign until Dr. Friedman tells him what it say.  That he is a transvestite, but not crazy.  Klinger of course refused.

What brought this remembrance on, was the brouhaha over the wiretaps.  So far, no one outside of the administration knows what was wiretapped, or if any laws were broken.  Yet the Times in their inevitable glee to nail Bush for whatever they can on whatever they can, broke a story with insufficient information to actually be called a breaking story.  And the kooks on the left have taken up a chant of impeachment for Bush for high crimes and mis-demeanors, along with some of the left leadership (but then I repeat myself).

And to the delight of many, an investigation is taking place.  However, this investigation is not into what was done, but who did it.  We know the end sources, James Risen and the NY Times.  We do not know where they got their information, and even their information does not indicate a crime has been committed, only that one may have been.  Again, depending upon who was wiretapped.

But one thing seems to be certain.  Critical information was given to the enemy of what the US was doing.  As in 1998 when another story blabbed that the US was listening to Satellite phone conversations, and Bin Laden abruptly stopped using them, so the administration has declared that the revelation of this information has damaged the intelligence gathering against Al Qaeda.  So some heads are going to roll, and in this case, the NY Times seems to be front and center.  Which should not surprise them since they were one of the loudest to call for who outed Plame, at least at first.

The investigation is going to determine if anyone, and that includes the Times, violated the Espionage Act of 1917.  The investigation is not and cannot determine if the wiretaps were legal or not.  For in this case that is a matter of national security, and only Congress, and not a delegated body, can investigate that.

In the end, the truth will come out.  And the more this story progresses the more it looks like a Rathergate, with the "press" being caught with their hands in the cookie jar.  The NY Times is going to squeal like a stuck pig before this is all said and done, but they have only their bias to blame, and their hatred of a president to claim as a defense.  And as the linked commentary states, courts are not sympathetic to claims like that.

politics
10,561 views 32 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Thanks Orrin Hatch! (For the Sat phone leak)
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
That's the point isn't it. They don't care what the truth might or might not be. They don't care how much this leak might help the terrorists. They don't even care who dies.

In another situation, before the return of hositilities with Iraq, CNN knew that Hussein was running the torture chambers, the murders, CNN knew all sorts of things. Why didn't they report it? Because if they reported on any of it, Hussein wouldn't allow CNN reporters in his country anymore.

The MSM is all about blood and death and nothing else. They feast on the blood of our troops and personally, I think that they should be called to task for their ghoulish ways.

The "Bash Bush Bus" is quick to jump to all sorts of conclusions about the wiretaps. Those in Congress make all sorts of claims about how they wrote a memo, or voiced oposition to this years ago when it Prs. Bush first informed them of his order. Not one of them brought it up with FISA though. Doesn't anyone else wonder why, if they had a problem with it, they didn't bring it up with the ONLY department that could actually do anything about it?
Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

Thanks Orrin Hatch! (For the Sat phone leak)

That was really stupid!  But I guess inevitable.  And the reason that the founders knew that congress could not keep a secret and hence gave the president wide latitude in waging war.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

The "Bash Bush Bus" is quick to jump to all sorts of conclusions about the wiretaps. Those in Congress make all sorts of claims about how they wrote a memo, or voiced oposition to this years ago when it Prs. Bush first informed them of his order. Not one of them brought it up with FISA though. Doesn't anyone else wonder why, if they had a problem with it, they didn't bring it up with the ONLY department that could actually do anything about it?

IN truth, I think this is going to blow up in their faces, and the Times is going down.  Maybe not a conviction, but it is going to be shown for the dan rather they are.  Why do I think this?  Because Bush is holding all the cards, and he is smiling.  He just rope-a-doped them again.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Not one of them brought it up with FISA though. Doesn't anyone else wonder why, if they had a problem with it, they didn't bring it up with the ONLY department that could actually do anything about it?


Yeah, I guess it doesn't count that Rockefeller brought it up to Cheney because we all know he has no power.

Where exactly is this provision that you speak of that outlines that FISA are the only ones who could "do anything about it"?

The FISA court plays a very specific role dictated by law. Their role (as defined by law) is not to field complaints from congress about something the administration has said time and time again, does not fall under FISA's purview.

If such a provision exists, what do you think the FISA court could have done about it? They have no authority to tell anyone...especially the white house what to do.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Because Bush is holding all the cards, and he is smiling.


We'll see who is "holding all the cards", come November.

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
The FISA court plays a very specific role dictated by law. Their role (as defined by law) is not to field complaints from congress about something the administration has said time and time again, does not fall under FISA's purview.


But FISA is the only one in the position to decide if they should or shouldn't act. Complaining to VP Cheney isn't much different than complaining to Prs. Bush. Both agree that the wiretap order is legal, but neither can make it legal just by stating it is. The FISA (like other courts) can rule on it and their ruling becomes the basis for the legality or lack thereof.

The Senators and House members who disagreed with this had a few choices. Go to FISA and cite the law that they think was broken, or call for Prs. Bush to be impeached.. again citing the law that was broken.

They did neither. In fact they did little more than sit around whining about it. Now that it has be leaked, all of the sudden some are jumping up to do something. I you or I knew about a crime in progress, and we said nothing, what would happen to us if we kept our mouth shut about it?

If a law was broken here, then those who didn't act against it were in colusion. If there wasn't a law broken, then they have no complaint.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Go to FISA and cite the law that they think was broken, or call for Prs. Bush to be impeached.. again citing the law that was broken.


From reading the role of FISA, I just don't think they would have been able to do anything about it either.

If a law was broken here, then those who didn't act against it were in colusion. If there wasn't a law broken, then they have no complaint.


I really don't think there's much doubt the FISA law was broken, as it clearly stated that it is the only law that applies to this type of action. The question is whether the administrations claims that the constitution and the AUMF allow them to sidetep FISA.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Critical information was given to the enemy of what the US was doing. As in 1998 when another story blabbed that the US was listening to Satellite phone conversations, and Bin Laden abruptly stopped using them. Please tell me you're not serious--you can't be that naive.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

Yeah, I guess it doesn't count that Rockefeller brought it up to Cheney because we all know he has no power.

Apparently just a bunch of black helicopter freaks think that Cheney is president.  So you are including Rockefeller in that group?  Would not surprise me.

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

We'll see who is "holding all the cards", come November.

It will be over long before that, as will (probably) the Plame kerfluffle.

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

They did neither. In fact they did little more than sit around whining about it.

They did not even do that until the NY Times broke the story.  Which indicates they are just jumping in to get their next 15 minutes. 

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

I really don't think there's much doubt the FISA law was broken, as it clearly stated that it is the only law that applies to this type of action. The question is whether the administrations claims that the constitution and the AUMF allow them to sidetep FISA.

Very good!  Now you are starting to see the light.  One cannot break a law that does not apply to the situation at hand.

Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

Please tell me you're not serious--you can't be that naive.

Turn it around.  It is documented.  Can you be that naive?  Or did bin Laden just decide the minutes cost too much? 

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Apparently just a bunch of black helicopter freaks think that Cheney is president. So you are including Rockefeller in that group? Would not surprise me.


If you were more familiar with the facts involved, you would realize that Cheney was involved with the briefings given to congress.

I really don't think there's much doubt the FISA law was broken, as it clearly stated that it is the only law that applies to this type of action. The question is whether the administrations claims that the constitution and the AUMF allow them to sidetep FISA.

Very good! Now you are starting to see the light. One cannot break a law that does not apply to the situation at hand.


Once again you fail miserably at attempting to appear more if an expert on these issues that dozens of legal scholars, several Senators on both sides of the aisle, the Congressional Research Service, and many others.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

If you were more familiar with the facts involved, you would realize that Cheney was involved with the briefings given to congress.

So if I attend a lecture, then I am culpable.  Great logic.

Once again you fail miserably at attempting to appear more if an expert on these issues that dozens of legal scholars, several Senators on both sides of the aisle, the Congressional Research Service, and many others.

Please quote the sources, with links that state that a President is not Commander in Chief, and it is not him, once congress has declared war, that conducts said war.  Further please provide the legal opinions that says spying during wartime on foreign nationals and enemy agents is constricted by the FISA and the Bill of Rights for said enemy agents and foreign nationals.

Once having provided me with said proof, I will buy your argument.  Until then, waving a magic wand and conjuring up a bunch of natering nabobs that dont know the precedence or the point will not win you any points.

I will be waiting.

O, but you dont prove anything.  You just try to counter our ignorance.  So whose is showing now?

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Once having provided me with said proof, I will buy your argument. Until then, waving a magic wand and conjuring up a bunch of natering nabobs that dont know the precedence or the point will not win you any points.


Once again you attempt to show that you are more knowledgable about these matter than legal scholars, and Senators, calling them "natering nabobs". Do you really think you fool anyone with that blather?

If you can show me any proof that any of these people are in fact "spies", then I'll be more than happy to research it. However, you can't do that because no one has been charged as "spies" or anything close to it as a result of this surveillance. Gonzales even testified yesterday that there is no guarantee that completely innocent americans won't be spied on.

If you were more familiar with the facts involved, you would realize that Cheney was involved with the briefings given to congress.

So if I attend a lecture, then I am culpable. Great logic.


Again, you show your ignorance of the facts. Cheney did not just "attend a lecture", the congressmen were brought to his office, and he led the briefing. He wasn't being briefed, he was briefing them.

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

Again, you show your ignorance of the facts. Cheney did not just "attend a lecture", the congressmen were brought to his office, and he led the briefing. He wasn't being briefed, he was briefing them.

You still have yet to show how that makes him Mata Hari. 

Once again you attempt to show that you are more knowledgable about these matter than legal scholars, and Senators, calling them "natering nabobs". Do you really think you fool anyone with that blather?


Ohm but I did. Since you provided no proof, no links and anyone knows that Senators are nattering nabobs! You are the one doing a poor job of fooling. I asked for you to back up your spurious claims. And you come back with the same tired rhetoric.
If you can show me any proof that any of these people are in fact "spies",


Uh, excuse me Comrade. This is the US. Innocent until proven guilty? I dont have to prove innocence. You have to prove guilt. Now why dont you give it a stab.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you can show me any proof that any of these people are in fact "spies",

Uh, excuse me Comrade. This is the US. Innocent until proven guilty? I dont have to prove innocence. You have to prove guilt. Now why dont you give it a stab.


Ok, I'm seriously starting to wonder...are you mentally handicapped? If you aren't severely handicapped, you are perfectly capable of turning on CSPAN or reading the news to see that there are dozens of legal scholars who don't agree that the President has this authority.

Read what you just wrote, where's the proof of guilt that anyone who's been monitored by the NSA is a spy? There is none, therefore they are not spies and that shoots your entire argument down.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

Ok, I'm seriously starting to wonder...are you mentally handicapped? If you aren't severely handicapped, you are perfectly capable of turning on CSPAN or reading the news to see that there are dozens of legal scholars who don't agree that the President has this authority.

Read what you just wrote, where's the proof of guilt that anyone who's been monitored by the NSA is a spy? There is none, therefore they are not spies and that shoots your entire argument down.

See?  You cant argue.  You must continually denigrate your opponent when you have no argument.  I am not questioning your mental capacity, just your facts.  yet you come back again and insult.

Now, once again, just for you, show me where anyone has been spied upon that was not doing something suspicious.  Show me where said spying is being used in a court of law.  Show me where the legal scholars are saying that we cannot spy on our enemies, both foreign and domestic.  Show me where the constitution says we cannot.  Show me where the Constitution specifically prohibits the president to wage war (after congress has declared it).

No, I am not from Missouri, but you aint showed me yet.  But you are good at insults.  Any other talents?

Finally, show me where the 'legal scholars' (those imaginary beasts) deny the above.

Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
There is nothing to argue. You are aguing that these people are enemy agents, but they are not. The people being monitored are not enemy agents, nor have they been charged with any crime. So what makes regular american people "enemies"? Doing something suspicious? Where exactly in the constitution does it state that "suspicious" people are not entitled to their rights under the 4th amendment?

So no there are no legal scholars that refute your claim about spying on enemy agents, because these people are not enemy agents.

The law is very clear on what the definition of an enemy agent is. However, according to your logic, the law doesn't matter, only the constitution.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you can show me any proof that any of these people are in fact "spies",

Uh, excuse me Comrade. This is the US. Innocent until proven guilty? I dont have to prove innocence. You have to prove guilt. Now why dont you give it a stab.


Ok, I'm seriously starting to wonder...are you mentally handicapped? If you aren't severely handicapped, you are perfectly capable of turning on CSPAN or reading the news to see that there are dozens of legal scholars who don't agree that the President has this authority.


Sorry, but legal "scholars" don't amount to spit when the US Attorney General says different.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
There is nothing to argue. You are arguing that these people are enemy agents, but they are not.


Can you say with "absolute certainty" that they aren't?

The law is very clear on what the definition of an enemy agent is. However, according to your logic, the law doesn't matter, only the constitution.


And "where" do you think our laws have their base? IN THE CONSTITUTION is where! And if you want to start talking legalities. Since when does "any" law top the constitution? How many laws have been struck down as "unconstitutional"? So "yes" the constitution carries more legal weight than any law!
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sorry, but legal "scholars" don't amount to spit when the US Attorney General says different.


Are you saying the AG has the final say on whether something is constitutional or not?

There is nothing to argue. You are arguing that these people are enemy agents, but they are not.

Can you say with "absolute certainty" that they aren't?


There's no evidence to show they are. You remember the constitution right? Innocent until proven guilty.

And "where" do you think our laws have their base? IN THE CONSTITUTION is where! And if you want to start talking legalities. Since when does "any" law top the constitution? How many laws have been struck down as "unconstitutional"? So "yes" the constitution carries more legal weight than any law!


Yes, many of our laws are based in the constitution. But there are many laws that deal with issues not specifically addressed in the constitution. I never said any law topped the constitution did I? Why are you constantly implying that I said things that I didn't? Are you just being funny, or are you trying to lie and hope people won't notice?
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sorry, but legal "scholars" don't amount to spit when the US Attorney General says different.


Are you saying the AG has the final say on whether something is constitutional or not?


No but then neither do these legal "scholars". The AG's word carries a LOT more weight than theirs.

Yes, many of our laws are based in the constitution. But there are many laws that deal with issues not specifically addressed in the constitution. I never said any law topped the constitution did I? Why are you constantly implying that I said things that I didn't? Are you just being funny, or are you trying to lie and hope people won't notice?


You didn't huh? Then what is this?


#21 by davad70
Tuesday, February 07, 2006





There is nothing to argue. You are aguing that these people are enemy agents, but they are not. The people being monitored are not enemy agents, nor have they been charged with any crime. So what makes regular american people "enemies"? Doing something suspicious? Where exactly in the constitution does it state that "suspicious" people are not entitled to their rights under the 4th amendment?

So no there are no legal scholars that refute your claim about spying on enemy agents, because these people are not enemy agents.

The law is very clear on what the definition of an enemy agent is. However, according to your logic, the law doesn't matter, only the constitution.


That's how I read this. From what I see, you are implying that the law counts and the constitution doesn't. And just an fyi..."all" our laws are based in the constitution. if they weren't they'd be struck down as "unconstitutional".