Skip to main content

View Diary: [UPDATE] Fitzgerald preparing indictments under the Espionage Act? (239 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Don't Trivialize Serious Matters (4.00)
    Over 100,000 innocent people are dead and thousands of American soldiers are dead and/or grievously wounded because of these illegal actions, and you think this is because people want to make "the opposition suffer"?  Come on.  That's bogus.

    The law is the law.  This is not dead letter law.  It's the reality and it involves a war and actions to undermine the Constitution, our national security, and, in fact, we are prosecuting people who DID MAKE THE OPPOSITION SUFFER INTENTIONALLY while doing the same.  They also coldly made thousands die and suffer, for invalid reasons.  People who did the right thing, who legally exposed the truth, were caused serious harm - and not just them, but their colleagues and our best sources who may be foreign citizens as well.  That harm was not some excuse for targetting them.  It's real.  Plame is alive, but she could just as well be dead now too.  Others may not have been so lucky, and we may never know.  We could all be in much more danger because of this leak and certainly we've lost access to important information.  But there is also the harm already caused to millions of innocents and thousands of Americans.  And you think we are talking about this to make "the opposition suffer"?  That's trivialization of a serious matter.

    There are better ways to score political points.  High Crimes are crimes.

    •  I'm not trivializing anything (4.00)
      There are plenty of ways to prosecute Karl Rove, why does Fitzgerald have to stretch a bad law to do it?  I'm not suggesting he go free, only that there are better ways to put him in a jail cell for a long time than using the law in question

      You're abviously not a civil libertarian otherwise you'd realize that you need to protect the rights of your enemies as well as your friends in order for them to mean anything.  I'm more interested in preserving the right to dissent for future generations than I am in being extra-vindictive.

      Besides, loving your enemies is a great strategy:  it drives them crazy.

      JR

      The trouble with capitalism is capitalists. They're too greedy. - Herbert Hoover

      by JR Monsterfodder on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 09:45:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I know a lot of civil libertarians and economic (none)
        and you are the FIRST one I know to ever argue that civil liberty means the ability to abrogate national defense. In fact, one of the few areas in which they all say govt plays a roll is precisely in the area of national defense. I have zero idea what your beef is besides wanting to protect the administration. For the record, if this stuff is true, and the administration did this, they are not worthy of this kind of cowardly support.
        •  I am arguing nothing of the sort (none)
          It's very simple...The Sedition Act  (at least as I understand it) is overly broad and a flagrant violation of the spirit of the First Amendment.  In World War I, for example, it was used to shut up Eugene V. Debs simply for giving a speech against the war that he had given a 1,000 times before.

          Protecting the administration is the last thing I want to do.  All I'm suggesting is that there are better ways to put Karl Rove in jail than by using a law that will inevitably be turned around and used on anti-war protestors.

          Is that so hard to understand?

          JR

          The trouble with capitalism is capitalists. They're too greedy. - Herbert Hoover

          by JR Monsterfodder on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 12:45:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I Don't Disagree About Loving Your Enemies (none)
        But the comment about which law, and who is the civil liberatarian is simply incorrect.  You apparently don't know what law Fitzgerald is using to prosecute this case, from what I understand and you are reaching for stuff that is beyond the scope of the case to make your point.  

        Secondly, all of the judges agree that Fitzgerald is NOT stretching the law, even the sympathetic ones.  To suggest that this prosecution is endangering all of our liberties is to get it all backwards.  Fitzgerald is prosecuting a retaliation against whistleblowers BY the executive - an executive in pursuit of absolute power over life and death of not just enemies, but innocents and loyal servants of the government.  This prosecution WILL secure our rights.  Not to prosecute will ensure that we lose our rights.

        I love Karl Rove.  I'll be glad when he can sit down and learn the meaning of his faith in peace, and without the power to do evil to all of the people he perceives as his enemies, who apparently, contrary to what you're saying, stand in the way of his achieving absolute power.

    •  Amen, BigBite (none)
      We can't see the consequences of this leak, not all of them. Is it "bad law" to punish someone who would leak an undercover operative's name? Or conspire to do so?  Not in my book, and more importantly, not in the law. Rule of Law dammit.

      War is not an adventure. It is a disease. It is like typhus. - Antoine De Saint-Exupery

      by Margot on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 11:58:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "A bad law" not "bad law" (none)
        I don't remember the name of the law, but it is a crime to to disclose the name of CIA agent.  That is good law.  Why do you need to open up a can of worms and bring the Espionage Act into it?

        JR

        The trouble with capitalism is capitalists. They're too greedy. - Herbert Hoover

        by JR Monsterfodder on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 12:59:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't know (none)
          THe answer to that, really.  What if there was espionage, as in someone tipping off Chalabi who tipped off Iran, etc.?  I am not a lawyer, so I'll leave it alone.

          War is not an adventure. It is a disease. It is like typhus. - Antoine De Saint-Exupery

          by Margot on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 03:07:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  You Made Me Go to Wikipedia on This (4.00)
      Their entry follows:

      This act made it a crime, punishable by a $10,000 fine and 20 years in jail, for a person to convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies.

      The laws were ruled constitutional in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).

      The law was later extended by the Sedition Act of 1918, which made it illegal even to speak out against the government.

      During and after World War I the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act were used in prosecutions that would be considered constitutionally unacceptable in the U.S. even in the political climate after the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack on New York's World Trade Center. While much of the laws were repealed in 1921, major portions of the Espionage Act remain part of U.S. law (18 USC 793, 794) and form the legal basis for most classified information.

      Do you endorse making it illegal to speak against the government?  Was leaking photos from Abu Graib "interfering with the war effort?  Until we all understand what parts of these acts are still going, I would hesitate to endores this kind of prosecution.  

      Get Karl by other means.

      JR

      The trouble with capitalism is capitalists. They're too greedy. - Herbert Hoover

      by JR Monsterfodder on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 01:10:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sections under discussion criminalize leaks (none)
        Not the parts of the old law that made speaking out against the gov't illegal.  It would certainly have covered the Pentagon Papers, however.

        "False language, evil in itself, infects the soul with evil." ----Socrates

        by Mimikatz on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 02:28:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  You're Citing The Wrong Law (none)
        This is not the law under which they are being prosecuted under.  This is also NOT the law under which Cooper and Miller found they had to testify.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site