Buck,
yes, as you point out, there is so much we don't know, about both the
Plame case and the other cases.
yet, nearly every one of us has different sets of 'proof' that tell us
which ones were crimes and which ones weren't, based almost solely on
our respective political perspectives of the players.
On 10/25/07, Buck Calabro <kc2hiz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
That was just one of them there were three in succession, all of which
did serious damage to ongoing efforts to track down, kill and capture
al-q.
Since the programs and their results are covert, we can't actually
discuss the methodology or the results. We're forced to take the word
of people we ought to inherently distrust. That healthy distrust is
offhandedly referred to as checks and balances, but it is distrust
that keeps government on the straight and narrow.
I don't know probably anything beyond the odd trivia answer, but my
trust / faith level in the past few administrations is not very high.
Was it wrong to _publish_ SWIFT et al details? If I had more faith
that the President is working to preserve my freedoms, I might say
yes. As it is, I would say that they made a judgment call that these
weren't anti-terror programs, despite the nomenclature.
The leaker who divulged classified information is another story. That
person is clearly violating the law. Whether he will be seen as a
future Nathan Hale or Benedict Arnold depends entirely on how the
results of those programs will be used by government. Sometimes, the
law stands in the way of what's right. I don't think there is a clear
case for determining what's right and wrong in the SWIFT disclosure.
--buck
--
This is the Open discussion among iSeries Users (CPF0000) mailing list
To post a message email: CPF0000@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/cpf0000
or email: CPF0000-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/cpf0000.
