Powered by TypePad

« Pot Meets Kettle | Main | That Whole Tedious Chief Executive Thing... »

December 11, 2010

Comments

Jack is Back!

My Wikileaks!

Jane the hostage taker

ick? You find homos disgusting?

Yeah Anduril, that sounds just like me.

Actually Anduril, I don't give gays a pass for being gay - unlike liberals. So despite the fact that you are a homosexual, you are still icky.

Is that clearer?

Frau Nachbarin

It was worth skirting today's rupture of the Cloaca Maxima to bring TK a rousing

Gute Besserung!
May your healing break records. May your smiles shine über alle vier Backen.

Cecil Turner

Nothing comparable to Larry Franklin's "leaks" to AIPAC and AIPAC's corresponding "leaks" to Israel.

Really? I'm having a hard time seeing any damage at all from those.

Apparently so did the Prosecutor . . . that's why when the Judge ruled they had to prove harm, they dropped the case:

U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III had made several legal rulings that prosecutors worried would make it almost impossible to obtain a guilty verdict. Among them was a requirement that the government would have to prove that Rosen and Weissman knew they were harming the United States by trading in sensitive national defense information. [emphasis added]
I think the "Collateral Murder" vid alone is far more damaging.

RichatUF

Jaron Lanier wrote "The New Digital Maoism", an essay that critiqued the hive mind of Web2.0. He turned that essay and his other essay "Half a Manifesto" into the book "You are not a Gadget". Glenn Renyolds (Instapundit), wrote a mildly critical review in the Wall Street Journal through the lens of his own book "Army of Davids".

anduril

that sounds just like me.

Your use of the interjection "ick" was a clearly spontaneous, unrehearsed expression of disgust, and I respect that.

despite the fact that you are a homosexual,

Here, too, in your search to find some way to insult me (as if I care!), you reach instinctively (however clumsily) for something you clearly regard as disgusting.

Ignatz

Congrats TK. My wife and a good friend are both five plus years past being told they had incurable terminal cancer and are doing fine.

Otherwise I think I'll come back after the place is fumigated.

Clarice

This is starting to get painful to watch--like the screaming schizophrenic on the street corner.

Did you ever have a nightmare that you were taking a test and you didn't have a clue about the subject? That's where O is every day for real. Every single day , like a New Yorker cartoon, he has to look in the mirror and see a fraud.

He could pull off the scam thru the election but when the rubber hit the road he's proven nowhere up to the job.

Someone online yesterday (I forgot who) reminded me that in one of the debates he claimed that executive experience was unnecessary, that the President's job was more as an inspirational guide, to which Hillary said pshaw. Pshaw it is.

hit and run

Posted by: Ignatz | December 11, 2010 at 01:43 PM

You around tomorrow? Just wondering.

Missed you this week,hope you've been having a lot of fun.

Frau Nachbarin

"despite the fact that you are a homosexual"

Uh, it is obvious to me that the "you" was used instead of the more formal "one" and was *not* a pointed insult. Sheesh. Linux is getting a bad name here with this silliness.

Danube of Thought

"'ick' was a clearly spontaneous, unrehearsed expression..."

Nothing quite as hard-hitting as the spontaneous, unrehearsed written word.

Cecil Turner

. . . you reach instinctively (however clumsily) for something you clearly regard as disgusting.

Man, that's stretching the bounds of clueless.

anduril

Cecil, I thought you were growing up--but that was yesterday, I guess. I assume Clarice cleared this comment of yours, but you should be wary of parroting her poorly thought out talking points.

The AIPAC case was dropped by Clarice's and your favorite AG, Eric Holder, over the vehement objections of the prosecutors. Yes, Ellis did make "several legal rulings that prosecutors worried would make it almost impossible to obtain a guilty verdict." Ellis' rulings were an effort to intimidate the prosecutors into dropping the case. And the Appeals Court took specific note of the unprecedented and prejudicial nature of those rulings in a highly unusual footnote:

8 Although we do not possess jurisdiction to review the § 793 Order at this juncture, it is apparent that the district court worked tirelessly to balance the competing forces inherent in a prosecution involving classified information, and that its efforts to protect the fair trial rights of the defendants were not inappropriate. We are nevertheless concerned by the potential that the § 793 Order imposes an additional burden on the prosecution not mandated by the governing statute. Section 793 must be applied according to its provisions, as any other course could result in erroneous evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.
IOW, the Appeals Court was saying, we have no jurisdiction over this matter at this juncture, but we're going to signal our opinion at this juncture anyway. This was a clear and highly unusual warning to the trial judge Ellis, a signal that if the issue of the § 793 Order should come before the Appeal Court in the future they would rule against him, so he should review it and get it right. They specifically note that the Order appears to "impose[] an additional burden on the prosecution not mandated by the governing statute." For an Appeals Court to signal its opinion in this way over a ruling by a trial judge--over which the Appeals Court has as yet no jurisdiction--before the matter has come to trial is a clear expression of their concern and is highly unusual display of their hand.

In a blatantly political move--but standard for this DoJ--when the prosecutors decided to proceed in spite of Ellis' attempts to intimidate them with his unprecedented Order, Holder intervened to prevent a trial.

Too bad.

Boy, you really are determined to steer clear of any discussion of Ron Paul's statement, aren't you?

Danube of Thought

Should we suppose that Anduril is unaware of his illness?

Ignatz

--You around tomorrow? Just wondering.--

Probably not, hit. Several people in my and my wife's family all have b-days quite close to each other so will probably visit wifey's pop's place.
Are you still out in this neck of the woods?

DebinNC

{{{{{Threadkiller}}}}}

anduril

Oh, well, good night.

Minimalist Poster

ThreadKiller,
Congratulations on finishing your treatments. 98% sounds fantastic. Hope all continuues to go well for you. I've enjoyed your posts.

Cecil Turner

Cecil, I thought you were growing up--but that was yesterday, I guess.

Back to the opening ad-homs I see. And like your Jane-hates-gays stupidity above, you rather completely miss the point (honestly? hard to credit) on the AIPAC ruling. You claimed harm above . . . Judge Ellis ordered the Prosecutors to show harm and they folded . . . you claim Judge Ellis's ruling was flawed. (See how that doesn't follow? It's called a "non-sequitur.") Whether the ruling was flawed or not, showing harm was a problem. For the prosecution. Because they couldn't. Now why don't you meander on back to the topic and explain why the AIPAC info was harmful, but "Collateral Murder" less so? Or admit it isn't?

Boy, you really are determined to steer clear of any discussion of Ron Paul's statement, aren't you?

Life's too short to spend it deconstructing Ron Paul. (Besides, I only skimmed it, and ain't gonna go back for a second exposure.)

hit and run

Ignatz:
--You around tomorrow? Just wondering.--

Probably not, hit.


Oh. Well. In that case.

hit and run

I wouldn't normally do this on a thread this far back in the rotation -- but in this case,it looks like this is where the action is.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY IGNATZ!!!!!
(tomorrow)

You are the only person whose chainsaw I envy.

Frau Nachbarin

You are the only person whose chainsaw I envy.

Sarah Palin packs a great chainsaw, hit.

centralcal

Oh, Iggy - happy birthday! Hope you have a wonderful day and year ahead.

I have always been really fond of Ignatz's pictures of heavy equipment. The better to run liberals over with.

Jane the hostage taker

Your use of the interjection "ick" was a clearly spontaneous, unrehearsed expression of disgust, and I respect that.

LOL - is that how you would describe your inability to act like a decent human being. But you are right, you completely disgust me altho it has nothing to do with the fact that you are gay.

RichatUF

Happy Birthday Ignatz.

Jane the hostage taker

Happy Birthday Ignatz!

Have a wonderful day tomorrow.

Ignatz

--Oh. Well. In that case.--

Monday I am open during the day if you are still around then, hit.

--You are the only person whose chainsaw I envy.--

Got outbid this very morning on a Stihl 088 with a 52" Cannon bar.

Thanks for the early birthday wishes all.

Frau Nachbarin

Have the best of birthdays, Ignatz.

Clarice

HB, Iggy!

Captain Hate

Happy birthday to Iggy

hit and run

Ignatz:
Monday I am open during the day if you are still around then, hit.

Alas,I flew out Thurs morning.

Pagar

Happy Birthday Ignatz.
--------------------------------------------For those who are unhappy with the TSA.

84 million of your southern neighbors will be able to bypass US airport security.

This is insane!

Janet the tea-vangelist!

Happy Birthday Ignatz...may you move through life like a Mexican in the "Trusted Traveler" program!

Pagar

While you're wondering why the TSA is more worried about American citizens than Mexican
citizens, keep in mind that AG Holder had to fly to California and "Holder spoke at the dinner and reassured Muslims of "DOJ's anti-bias focus.".

Is there anyone in the current US government looking out for the rest of the Americans?

anduril

Judge Ellis ordered the Prosecutors to show harm and they folded . . . you claim Judge Ellis's ruling was flawed. (See how that doesn't follow? It's called a "non-sequitur.") Whether the ruling was flawed or not, showing harm was a problem. For the prosecution. Because they couldn't. Now why don't you meander on back to the topic and explain why the AIPAC info was harmful, but "Collateral Murder" less so? Or admit it isn't?

Poor Cecil--I had hopes that you were coming around, and your manifest dishonesty here is distressing.

Judge Ellis ordered the Prosecutors to show harm and they folded

Wrong. Holder and his henchman ordered them to fold. Big diff.

Judge Ellis ordered the Prosecutors to show harm and they folded . . . you claim Judge Ellis's ruling was flawed. (See how that doesn't follow? It's called a "non-sequitur.")

You obviously don't understand what non sequitur means:

Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.[1] In a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion.

As you have stated my argument, there is no non sequitur. The fact is, however, you have dishonestly suppressed my factual premise in an inept but unsuccessful attempt to set up a non sequitur. You can go back to my initial post and see how it flows logically. If you want to establish some logical flaw in my argument, please have the decency to use my actual words, rather than trying to put words in my mouth.

Whether the ruling was flawed or not, showing harm was a problem. For the prosecution. Because they couldn't.

The reason the ruling was problematic was because, as the Appeals Court noted, it set up an improper standard of proof, one which was not mandated by the statute:

the § 793 Order imposes an additional burden on the prosecution not mandated by the governing statute. Section 793 must be applied according to its provisions, as any other course could result in erroneous evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.

The bolded words make clear that the Appeals Court saw this as a problem for Judge Ellis to address. His failure to do so can be construed as contumacious, but he was spared the consequences by Holder's fortuitous (well...) intervention.

explain why the AIPAC info was harmful, but "Collateral Murder" less so? Or admit it isn't?

Here--in the case of "Collateral Murder"--you're more knowledgeable than I am. If you can demonstrate that the leak of "Collateral Murder" has been harmful, please do so. I'm open to the argument, and in any event I don't oppose the prosecution of Manning (why you should think that I would is anyone's guess). I've not read that our helicopter operations have suffered a decline in their effectiveness since the leak of "Collateral Murder." If you can demonstrate that they have, then I'll agree with your estimation of damage. As a practical matter, I suspect that professional militaries already have a pretty good idea of the capabilities on exhibit in "Collateral Murder," and amateurs (I don't include Al Qaeda, the Taliban or the various Iraqi insurgent groups in that category) wouldn't learn much anyway.

The point of the Appeals Court's footnote is that the Government is not required by the Espionage Act to demonstrate that perps know that they are harming the US, only that they know they are releasing information that they are not authorized to release as provided in the Act:

Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter.

See? I know you're not a lawyer and can't be expected to understand these things, but you should be able to see that there's no requirement that the Government demonstrate actual harm. That's why Assange is in jeopardy, as is Manning, as were Rosen and Weissman. There are other complications, but I'll leave that for some other time, or you can look them up--I'm sure I've discussed them already. Ellis' ruling violated the clear wording of the Espionage Act, which is what upset the Appeals Court. That's why, although I doubt that the Government could establish actual harm from the leak of "Collateral Murder," I don't oppose the prosecution of Manning. I reason and conduct my life according to principle. I recommend the same course to you.

anduril

Is there anyone in the current US government looking out for the rest of the Americans?

Certainly not Holder. That should have been apparent from his interference in the AIPAC case. Cecil's and Clarice's protestations in defense of Holder are simply special pleading, but his actions in case after case are of a piece.

MayBee

Happy birthday, Ignatz!

Extraneus

Happy Birthday, Ig.

glasater

Happy Birthday Ignatz! MayBee's hunk:)

Just remember folks that anduril's dad was a shrink and over indulged the kid.

sbw

HB, Ig!

Danube of Thought

Final: Navy 31, Army 17.

Happy birthday, Iggy.

boris

"I reason and conduct my life according to principle"

Maybe in a psych ward sense ... reason and principle only you can "comprehend".

Regardless of whether Ellis ruled correctly the prosecution folded when they couldn't show harm. That is clear indication that there likely wasn't any ... so what the defendents knew is mox nix. Had there been some evident harm then legal jeopardy would simply require "they know they are releasing information that they are not authorized to release".

Jack is Back!

HB, Iggy.

Churchill had the best line about birthdays. He defined a diplomat, once, as a person who never asked a lady her age but always remembered her birthday.

MaryD

Also late to comment, but best wishes and congratulations to TK. Prayers are with you.
Keep up the good fight!

narciso

Happy birthday ,Ignatz.

anduril

BTW, Cecil, if you're having trouble finding where I ever said that Manning couldn't/shouldn't be prosecuted, you might want to enlist hit and run to help you--he seems to be a real talent at mining for information. He helped me nail poor Jane to the wall re Sibel Edmonds. It'd be a real feather in your, um, hat if you could nail me on this one.

Go ahead. Knock yourself out. Take all the time you want.

hit and run

He helped me nail poor Jane

Come on. Now you're just over-compensating for being called gay.

You didn't nail anyone,to the wall or otherwise.

Melinda Romanoff

Happy Birthday, Ig!

rse

Happy Birthday Ignatz.

Congrats TK. We are glad we are a nice distraction.

As I mentioned before, the Kengor Dupes book is amazing especially for anyone who has already read Kurtz's R-i-C.

Longtime Lurker

As a longtime follower of this blog I have always enjoyed the intellectual rigor and civility that is almost always on display here. However, I feel I must comment on the way many of the regular JOMers have chosen to respond to the postings of Anduril. While you may or may not agree with him he usually raises serious issues and supports his positions with clear and obviously well researched arguments, particularly regarding the Middle East. Given the substantial expenditure of blood and treasure the U.S. has commited to the Middle East with very little to show for it and the unquestioned linkage of U.S. and Israeli policy in that part of the world, Anduril's attempts to open a discussion/re-evaluation of U.S. policy in the Middle East would seem to warrant a serious response free of name calling, ad hominem attacks or gratuitous smears. If Anduril truly is the anti-semitic nut job that so many JOMers try to characterize him as it should be well within the abilities of the posters here to debunk his theories and vanquish him with intelligent and well supported argumentation rather than drag the usually high level of discourse found at this blog into the gutter of McCarthyism.

So please, for the benefit of those of us who rarely or never contribute to the discussions here but have long enjoyed the high level of discourse found here, stop the name calling and invective and debate these important issues like adults.


anduril

hit, are you going to help Cecil, the way you "helped" poor the hapless Jane? After that last research project of yours I was afraid you'd be totally shunned here.

anduril

Whoa, Longtime Lurker! Appeals to intellectual rigor and civility won't get you the time of day around here. Sad. But you frame the issues well. These really are important issues, the more so for the fact that they apparently can't be publicly discussed without the vilest sorts of ad hominem attacks.

anduril

Now you're just over-compensating for being called gay.

God, I luv it when you talk psychobabble. But what's with the hyphenation? Hmmm. Is an obsession with correct English another form of overcompensation?

sbw

Dear LL, Anduril may seem serious, but in past incarnations he has acted more like a cat toying with his prey. I don't care to play that game. So, into the Narcisolator went Anduril, along with other trolls not worth reading.

Proper discussion happens between those interested in coming to understanding. There seemed no hope.

anduril

Each must decide for him/herself, sbw. OTOH, I would say that any impartial observer would have to come to the conclusion that I'm entirely consistent in my positions--which is to say, my principles are easily divined. Anyone who has engaged me on those principles has found that out.

anduril

Oh, and anyone who has engaged me seriously on those principles has received a thorough and sincere response.

Ignatz

--Anduril's attempts to open a discussion/re-evaluation of U.S. policy in the Middle East would seem to warrant a serious response free of name calling, ad hominem attacks or gratuitous smears.--

LL,
I attempted on more than one occasion in the past to engage anduril sincerely in discussions, but he is not interested in discussions, so the attempts proved futile and ended in the usual recriminations that doing anything other than serviley agreeing with him brings.
He is at heart a propagandist, deaf to virtually any ideas other than his own, except for those few small areas where he concedes a lack of expertise. It's a pity because he is far from stupid and he holds a considerable number of useful ideas, but the incorrigible are still incorrigible no matter what their views.

And thanks to all the other B-day wishes.

Clarice

Dear LL, if you care to spend all your days discussing such subjects as why Moslems can and should be barred from immigrating to the US, why Israel is a hateful place deserving of no support whatsoever, why Judaism is not a true religion, feel free to join with anduril in starting his own blog. He insists every day on hijacking every thread with his pet notions and driving posters away or to distraction with long cuts and pastes with bolding to make sure we see his views.

In sum, I suggest you and he find a more compatible place to exchange your views because day by day the civility we once enjoyed at this site is vanishing because of his unremitting rude, egotistical behavior.

MayBee

Thank goodness Clarice showed up to give us our talking points for the night. ;-)

narciso

So, Clarice, doesn't it seem like the inclusion of Collins, on the Libby jury was
a remarkable conflict of interest, he didn't
seem to be interested in the point at hand

DrJ

I'm getting in late, but best wishes and continued good luck TK!

And (early) Happy Birthday Ignatz! You gotta come by the lab one of these days!

Clarice

You're welcome, MayBee. I know you just aren't capable of telling off this pair of blowhards on your own.(HEH)

Narciso, the judge had to pick the final jury that day or start all over again. I think it was a dreadful mistake to include him and IIRC Libby was out of preemptory challenges and was stuck with the judges decision.

Ignatz

--And (early) Happy Birthday Ignatz! You gotta come by the lab one of these days!--

Thanks doc, you're on my radar.

Clarice

**peremptory chalenges**

Longtime Lurker

Well, my first attempt at posting here certainly confirms the wisdom in abstaining lo these many years. I rest my case.

PaulL

with long cuts and pastes with bolding to make sure we see his views

Actually, there seem to be only a couple of people who once in a while read his posts. Everyone else scrolls on by and the boldface is particularly helpful in that regard for tipping one off that it is probably a post by that jerk.

Threadkiller

Well, my first attempt at posting here certainly confirms the wisdom in abstaining lo these many years. I rest my case.

Well, you learned that faster than anduril.

Thank you everybody. This has been a rough day. Chemo works you over like a mega-flu. I am so happy to have met this community.

LL, lurk a little more if you are for real.

Rick Ballard

TK,

Best wishes for 100% remission forever.

Ignatz,

Happy Birthday!

DrJ,

Congratulations - hope you find a lot more of those auction deals.

sbw

TK, rest, recover, return refreshed.

MayBee

Well, my first attempt at posting here certainly confirms the wisdom in abstaining lo these many years. I rest my case.

What? People responded to you. People engaged your point. Many disagreed with you. I and a few others welcomed you to debate here. Or not debate- just participate.
You could have said anything you wanted lo these many years, and this is how you chose to engage.
That's disappointing, but perhaps you will reconsider.

Longtime Lurker

TK,

"Well, you learned that faster than anduril."

Yes, that any deviation from the JOM orthodoxy will be dealt with severely and rudely.

DrJ

Well, LL, if that's how you see things, then find another blog to pollute.

 Ann

Late to the thread but Rick just summed up by thoughts. My heartfelt best wishes go to all of you.

Not that it matters but I believe JMH was the first person accused of the Sibel Edmonds carp. Hard to tell because I scroll by a lot (on certain odious threads) and is one of the advantages of reading posts late in the day.

Mel, hope you feel better. I have had the same fever, aches and pains the last couple of days. Watching the Edwards funeral this afternoon made me get out of bed and shut the thing off. The second speaker made a rude comment about Elizabeth Edwards wanting a piece of Liz Cheney and I got so mad I think it cleared up the fever. Who knew anger was homeopathic?

narciso

It seems there is always one of these jurors,
on some of these controversial cases, in the Holy Land foundation, there was William Neal,
who steered the jurors away from the Salafi connections and toward purported American and Israeli wrongdoing, come to think of it. . .

anduril

Maybee: What? People responded to you. People engaged your point.

DrJ: Well, LL, if that's how you see things, then find another blog to pollute.

LOL

Longtime Lurker: Yes, that any deviation from the JOM orthodoxy will be dealt with severely and rudely.

Well, I believe there is an current thread on incest. Maybe you should take the issue up there. JOM orthodoxy seems peculiarly incestuous.

Porchlight

Happy birthday, Ignatz! I was toddling along merrily on the other thread this evening not realizing this one had been active all day, so I missed the announcement. I hope you are having/have had a wonderful day.

narciso

I've been out for much of the day, Ann, so I missed that moment. Isn't it enough to say she
was a loving daughter, mother and wife to John Edwards, what a bunch of bitter people.

Clarice

Glad you're feeling better, ann.

BTW I've noticed that over the past few days someone using my name is posting crap all over the IT. In most cases there's no way to report this to anyone. With IOWNTHE WORLD, I happened to be chatting with Gebert at the time and he yanked it.

Should you see any of this nonsense in your strolls about, it in't me.

narciso

Hope your feeling better, Ann, sometimes anger has a purging effect, I felt a little
run down some weeks ago, after I took my uncle to the hospital, I think it's just floating in the air, because I was feeling
great when I got home

Clarice

narciso, I hope your mom is well. Please send her myh regards.

Jane (get off the couch - come save the country)

Well, my first attempt at posting here certainly confirms the wisdom in abstaining lo these many years.

LL,

Our tolerance for rude boorish people like Anduril runs very thin. Despite honest and kind requests to simply post a link rather than foot-long posts he has such a need for attention that he makes every thread he posts in unreadable. He has utter distain for everyone here but won't go away. We are a community that you are welcome to join but if you attempt to hijack it by acting like a 10 year old thug, don't be surprised if we tell you.

And now think for a while why someone continues to post here when everyone thinks his only goal is to be rude.

 Ann

Thanks, Clarice and narciso,

Clarice, As they say, we have your back :). I am afraid a lot more of that is going to happen and it will be one more reason for the government to interfere...and another good reason to ignore the trolls and point out the impostors, imo.

narciso, Glad to hear your uncle is better.

There is something so ungracious and even evil about the funerals of democrat politicians where they feel a need in church to ridicule and spit at their adversaries.

Danube of Thought

Everyone here understands that LL is Anduril's imaginary friend. I am sure that in the fevered conversations that take place behind Anduril's manifestly disturbed brow, LL provides some badly needed comfort.

I can readily imagine that sometimes these conversations are conducted out loud; perhaps they even take place in front of a mirror, with appropriate changes in facial expression from time to time.

JOMerWACKIES

"In sum, I suggest you and he find a more compatible place to exchange your views because day by day the civility we once enjoyed at this site is vanishing because of his unremitting rude, egotistical behavior."

Dear Lurkers;

This coffee klatch is currently at full capacity. Thank you for your visits, we value your patronage, Please continue to hold and the next customer service representative will be with you in a minute.

If you wish to make a comment, please be sure to coddle the local groupthink. We want your traffic, but not your inane and off topic drivel, unless it augers our
paper-thin point of view.

In other words, if you are not a member of our club, go fuck yourself.

Cecil Turner

As you have stated my argument, there is no non sequitur.

Nonsense, I just didn't bother to restate it fully. Here's your argument (in dispute of the contention there was no demonstrable harm from the AIPAC case):

  • Although Ellis ordered prosecutors to show harm and they declined;
  • Ellis's ruling was flawed; hence,
  • One cannot draw the conclusion there was no harm.
Note the (implied) conclusion does not follow. (You could alternatively classify it as a "red herring" since Ellis's ruling being flawed is irrelevant to the discussion.) And if you think that's "dishonest," maybe you could try stating your own argument more clearly (esp. why belaboring the appeals court comments on Ellis's ruling seems pertinent).

I've not read that our helicopter operations have suffered a decline in their effectiveness since the leak of "Collateral Murder."

If you think the aim of "Collateral Murder" was helicopter operations, you're dimmer on the subject than I think plausible. I recognize you're a sucker for Pali propaganda, but surely you recognize the goal of such, at least in theory. I suspect the best measure of merit would be frequency of insurgent attacks in Iraq, which in fact rose, and attitudes of civilians toward Islamist attacks on our soldiers, which has worsened.

The point of the Appeals Court's footnote . . .

Is still entirely irrelevant. You've not even attempted to make a positive case for damage from the AIPAC case, leaving me with proving a negative. Still, one can make a fairly strong inference from the multiple sources admitting the ruling made the case difficult (e.g., "almost impossible") for the prosecution. Want to try again? Or admit your statement was unsupportable?

Best way to cleanse your colon

I was wishful and not with bated breath for a mind-blower pill, I only just desirable it of a piece with jamboree at minimum niche characteristic of what it claimed of a piece with festivities. The colon cleanse is a pun. It serves NO objective, and has not made any discordancy. The Acia berry doesn't event anything at all for hunger and it makes me unsettled which causes me as good as faculty revolting which causes me equivalent to knack quiescent. I refuge't regular had the motion I above all have equal to regimen. I took it for 10 days. I'employment debarment as hinting (at) up to date consequently I keister or keester have not too or very many activity again. I'business repentant I starved my means. Please don't spoliation yours

Al Asad

Today, friends and families gathered in Raleigh, NC to mourn Elizabeth Edwards, who died this week after battling cancer. Outside, a small group of protesters from the extremist anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church picketed the event because they said Edwards “spent her life in defiance and disobedience to God.” The church regularly harasses the families of dead American soldiers by picketing homosexuality at their funerals with signs like “pray for more dead soldiers,” and “your sons are in hell.”

But at Edwards’ funeral today, the tiny group of hate mongers was confronted by more than300 counterprotesters, who turned out to stand against hate, despite the rain:

Members of the controversial Westboro Baptist Church picketed the funeral of Elizabeth Edwards in Raleigh, N.C. Saturday. But they were vastly outnumbered by a “human buffer” of people who quietly stood in the rain singing Christmas carols and carrying signs reading “God loves Elizabeth Edwards” or simply “Grace” and “Hope.” [...]"

Winning friends and influencing people since the conception of Jesus Christ.............we are the nutbags of Christendom; the happy nazis of anti-choice;
the finest bats for halibut-bashing; we are
the Maddest Hatters in the Tea Party.

Cecil Turner

We want your traffic . . .

Don't kid yourself, Mr Wauck.

Torquemada

Seven Thoughts on Wikileaks

by Jack Goldsmith

* I find myself agreeing with those who think Assange is being unduly vilified. I certainly do not support or like his disclosure of secrets that harm U.S. national security or foreign policy interests. But as all the hand-wringing over the 1917 Espionage Act shows, it is not obvious what law he has violated. It is also important to remember, to paraphrase Justice Stewart in the Pentagon Papers, that the responsibility for these disclosures lies firmly with the institution empowered to keep them secret: the Executive branch. The Executive was unconscionably lax in allowing Bradley Manning to have access to all these secrets and to exfiltrate them so easily.

* I do not understand why so much ire is directed at Assange and so little at the New York Times. What if there were no wikileaks and Manning had simply given the Lady Gaga CD to the Times? Presumably the Times would eventually have published most of the same information, with a few redactions, for all the world to see. Would our reaction to that have been more subdued than our reaction now to Assange? If so, why? If not, why is our reaction so subdued when the Times receives and publishes the information from Bradley through Assange the intermediary? Finally, in 2005-2006, the Times disclosed information about important but fragile government surveillance programs. There is no way to know, but I would bet that these disclosures were more harmful to national security than the wikileaks disclosures. There was outcry over the Times’ surveillance disclosures, but nothing compared to the outcry over wikileaks. Why the difference? Because of quantity? Because Assange is not a U.S. citizen? Because he has a philosophy more menacing than “freedom of the press”? Because he is not a journalist? Because he has a bad motive?

* In Obama’s Wars, Bob Woodward, with the obvious assistance of many top Obama administration officials, disclosed many details about top secret programs, code names, documents, meetings, and the like. I have a hard time squaring the anger the government is directing toward wikileaks with its top officials openly violating classification rules and opportunistically revealing without authorization top secret information.

* Whatever one thinks of what Assange is doing, the flailing U.S. government reaction has been self-defeating. It cannot stop the publication of the documents that have already leaked out, and it should stop trying, for doing so makes the United States look very weak and gives the documents a greater significance than they deserve. It is also weak and pointless to prevent U.S. officials from viewing the wikileaks documents that the rest of the world can easily see. Also, I think trying to prosecute Assange under the Espionage Act would be a mistake. The prosecution could fail for any number of reasons (no legal violation, extradition impossible, First Amendment). Trying but failing to put Assange in jail is worse than not trying at all. And succeeding will harm First Amendment press protections, make a martyr of Assange, and invite further chaotic Internet attacks. The best thing to do – I realize that this is politically impossible – would be to ignore Assange and fix the secrecy system so this does not happen again.

* As others have pointed out, the U.S. government reaction to wikileaks is more than a little awkward for the State Department’s Internet Freedom initiative. The contradictions of the initiative were apparent in the speech that announced it, where Secretary Clinton complained about cyberattacks seven paragraphs before she boasted of her support for hacktivism. I doubt the State Department is very keen about freedom of Internet speech or Internet hacktivism right now.

* Tim Wu and I wrote a book called Who Controls The Internet? One thesis of the book was that states could exercise pretty good control over unwanted Internet communications and transactions from abroad by regulating the intermediaries that make the communications and transactions possible – e.g. backbone operators, ISPs, search engines, financial intermediaries (e.g. mastercard), and the like. The book identified one area where such intermediary regulation did not work terribly well: Cross-border cybercrime. An exception we did not discuss is the exposure of secrets. Once information is on the web, it is practically impossible to stop it from being copied and distributed. The current strategy of pressuring intermediaries (paypal, mastercard, amazon, various domain name services, etc.) to stop doing business with wikileaks will have a marginal effect on its ability to raise money and store information. But the information already in its possession has been encrypted and widely distributed, and once it is revealed it is practically impossible to stop it from being circulated globally. The United States could in theory take harsh steps to stop its circulation domestically – it could, for example, punish the New York Times and order ISPs and search engines to filter out a continuously updated list of identified wikileaks sites. But what would be the point of that? (Tim and I also did not anticipate that state attempts to pressure intermediaries would be met by distributed denial-of-service attacks on those intermediaries.)

* The wikileaks saga gives the lie to the claim of United States omnipotence over the naming and numbering system via ICANN. Even assuming the United States could order ICANN (through its contractual arrangements and de facto control) to shut down all wikileaks sites (something that is far from obvious), ICANN could not follow through because its main leverage over unwanted wikileaks websites is its threat to de-list top-level domain names where the wikileaks sites appear. It is doubtful that ICANN could make that threat credibly for many reasons, including (a) the sites are shifting across top-level domains too quickly, (b) ICANN is not going to shut down a top-level domain to get at a handful of sites, and (c) alternative and perhaps root-splitting DNS alternatives might arise if it did".

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2010/12/seven-thoughts-on-wikileaks/

Eat Shit and LIVE !  Holder !

Jeff Jarvis;

Bill of Rights in Cyberspace, amended
December 10th, 2010

I’m still refining my thoughts on a Bill of Rights in Cyberspace — the latest version in preparation for tomorrow’s PDF symposium on WIkileaks and transparency. The idea is to have principles we can point to when dealing with such events as Wikileaks, Google/Verizon, Google/China, and so on. Try this on for size:

I. We have the right to connect.
II. We have the right to speak freely.
III. We have the right to assemble and act.
IV. Information should be public by default, secret by necessity.
V. What is public is a public good.
VI. All bits are created equal.
VII. The internet shall be operated openly.

narciso

Is Jack Goldsmith, really that stupid, 'magic
eightball' and previous experience would suggest yes, his ignorance of 'unlawful detention precedents,' re Gitmo,

Eat Shit and LIVE !  Holder !

You aren't usually this stupid, narco.

Cecil Turner

Gosh, that's awkward. Do I apologize to the troll? And which one?

anduril

Cecil, you continue to ignore my actual argument, despite my having spelled it out in bold type for you, so I'll leave you to continue playing Alan Greenspan to Clarice's aging Ayn Rand. Your "goddess."

boris

Say what? "Holder and his henchman ordered them to fold. Big diff."

No it isn't. There is exactly zero sequitur in that claim.

Cecil Turner

Cecil, you continue to ignore my actual argument . . .

To recap: I disputed your claim AIPAC was more damaging than Assange's leaks. I note your unwillingness (inability?) to support your claim.

I'd also note the volume of material provided to WikiLeaks exceeds that of the Pollard case, so that talking point is also down the crapper. I'm not terribly interested in your sophomoric interpretation of section 793, so you can continue arguing that one with yourself.

MaryD

Longtime Lurker sounds amazingly like Anduril. Just sayin'

anduril

Larry Franklin provided AIPAC officials who then provided to Israeli officials classified information regarding US policy toward Iran as well as the rationale for that policy and the views of various European governments on these matters, which had been provided in confidence to the US.

I'd say that's more sensitive than anything I've seen that Assange revealed. It would have given Israel an inside look at US decision making re Iran and assisted Israel to influence US policy. That's a deliberate attempt to advantage a specific foreign country, something that I have yet to see with the Wikileaks, although it may yet emerge.

I understand that you applaud Franklin's espionage. It remains espionage and a crime against US national security.

BTW,

1. You've shifted your ground again and still refuse to quote my actual words.

2. Re "Collateral Murder" your two links are very general articles which fail to mention "Collateral Murder" and claim no link between that leak and rising resentment towards the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. As I said, I'm open to the idea that the "Collateral Murder" leak caused harm, but I'd like to see it documented before I draw any conclusions.

anduril

Re the AIPAC dismissal:

WaPo: Lawyers for Rosen and Weissman attributed the withdrawal of the case in part to the Obama administration.

NYT: The Justice Department said that the decision to drop the case had been made solely by career prosecutors in Alexandria, and that senior officials of the Obama administration had acted only to approve the recommendation.

Several other officials said, however, that while senior political appointees at the Justice Department did not direct subordinates to drop the case, they were heavily involved in the deliberations. These officials said David S. Kris, the newly appointed chief of the department’s national security division, and Dana J. Boente, the interim United States attorney in Alexandria, had conferred regularly with prosecutors and ultimately decided to accept the recommendation to abandon the case. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. was informed and raised no objections.

That "Several other officials said, however," signals a counter leak, taking issue with the official DoJ version.

David Bromwich does a nice job parsing it all:

The New York Times story today on the dropping of the government case against the AIPAC lobbyists Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman comes in separate parts, not entirely signaled by paragraph breaks or outward format. The report by Neil A. Lewis and David Johnston sets out to answer three questions. What was this investigation about? Who is pleased and who displeased by the reversal? And why was the case dropped at just this moment?

The last question is the easiest to answer. The Justice Department announced that the charges would be dropped two days before the opening of the 2009 AIPAC Convention. One may have noticed earlier that the Obama administration and the government of Israel play each other on a tight clock. Israel withdrew from its devastating assault on Gaza only hours before the inauguration of Barack Obama. The administration has let off the AIPAC lobbyists in time to be considered a sentimental encourager and not a spoiler of the mutual uplift that marks the annual AIPAC gathering.

About the contest within the Justice Department over the pursuit of the case, the Times reporters Lewis and Johnston finesse every point of actual information with aggregate nouns, omitted definite articles, and many unnamed sources. We are told that "F.B.I agents poured substantial resources into the case, and the decision to seek a dismissal infuriated many within the law enforcement agency." The FBI is itself part of the Justice Department, and its agents are likely to have been conversant, if anyone was, with the sort of evidence needed for a conviction, even under the difficult burden of proof required in this case by Judge T.S. Ellis III. We are told that Joseph Persichini, Jr., head of the bureau's DC office, was also disappointed by the decision to drop the charges. Whom does that leave satisfied? The final decision was made, say Lewis and Johnson, "solely by career prosecutors in Alexandria." So the Obama administration acted in obedience to the wish of "prosecutors," but it is left unclear whether this was the wish of all the prosecutors.

Nor were they the only persons present at the discussions. "While senior political appointees at the Justice Department did not direct subordinates to drop the case, they were heavily involved in the deliberations." Heavily involved. "David S. Kris," unnamed sources told the Times, "the newly appointed chief of the department's national security division, and Dana J. Boente, the interim United States attorney in Alexandria, had conferred regularly with prosecutors and ultimately decided to accept the recommendation to abandon the case. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. was informed and raised no objections." A curious sequence of facts. Holder raised no objections to a decision which was arrived at by prosecutors with the help of two men -- a fresh appointee and an interim U.S. attorney -- whom he himself had sent into the discussion for some purpose. Let us assume he was not displeased with a result that his own men had sought, even against the wishes of the relevant office chief at the FBI.

Whether or not it was the right decision, it was a clearly in part a political decision. But what was this case about? Here is how the New York Times lets AIPAC immaterialize:

While Mr. Rosen and Mr. Weissman trafficked in facts, ideas and rumor, they had done so with the full awareness of officials in the United States and Israel, who found they often helped lubricate the wheels of decision-making between two close, but sometimes quarrelsome, friends.

The above words should be ascribed to the paper and not the reporters -- they are cast in the idiom and carry the momentum of an editorial. Smoother words were surely never uttered about spying; but under every phrase is a hidden premise.

"Facts, ideas, and rumor": let us break it down. Were the facts true? And if true were they state secrets? Were the rumors true? If so, they, also, were facts. If the rumors were untrue, to be of value they must have been accurate reports of an intent to make use of a falsehood. Both sorts of acquisition, of course, have always been greatly interesting to foreign states.

"Ideas": bright ideas? speculations? These would only be important if traced to a source. But to know who puts forward which ideas is to possess inside knowledge of no small value.

"With the full awareness of officials in the United States": which officials in the Unites States? Not, apparently, Joseph Persichini. And not, one would guess, the director of the FBI Robert Mueller III, either. Was Representative Jane Harman one of the officials who approved of the passing of facts with full awareness? Was Douglas Feith?

"And in Israel": which officials in Israel? Was any member of the lately formed government of Israel, with which the Obama administration now must deal, a party to the passing of classified data? For example: Binyamin Netanyahu's national security appointee Uzi Arad, a former Mossad agent who, according to the Washington Post, was for many years denied U.S. security clearance "because of a meeting he had with a Pentagon employee involved in leaking information." If he was among the "officials in Israel" who approved the commerce between Lawrence Franklin, Steven Rosen, and Keith Weissman, that would be useful to know.

"They often helped lubricate the wheels of decision-making": lubricate -- delicate word. But the wheels were oiled by grease that had to be smuggled in; and somebody must have been slowing down those wheels for the lubricant to have become necessary. Decisions, the Times doubtless means to say, were tipped one way, but this was exactly the way that those in charge of both countries would have wanted to see them tip. Meanwhile the confidence of those who gave advice to the contrary was being breached; which is to say, the outcome of the discussion was prejudiced.

Like most stories of spying, this one has a prehistory. And like many stories about Israel and the neoconservatives, the prehistory of the case against Rosen and Weissman lies somewhere in the run-up to the war in Iraq and its immediate aftermath.

For the precursor of the FBI investigation of Rosen and Weissman was the FBI investigation of Ahmed Chalabi in 2004. There, too, very substantial accusations seemed on the point of being leveled against a prize asset of the neoconservative forces in the White House; there, too, the accusations were dropped for reasons obscure to the public.

Lawrence Franklin, who was sentenced to twelve years in federal prison for passing information to Rosen and Weissman -- information the Times says both governments knew and approved of having passed -- was also a target of that earlier FBI probe. According to a Washington Post story by Robin Wright and Thomas E. Ricks on September 3, 2004, the FBI closely scrutinized both Franklin and Douglas Feith in that U.S./Israel/Iraq inquiry; for, as Wright and Ricks noticed in an unsettling paragraph, the 2004 investigation had extended far beyond Chalabi:

The FBI probe is actually much broader, according to senior U.S. officials, and has been underway for at least two years. Several sources familiar with the case say the probe now extends to other Pentagon personnel who have a particular interest in assisting both Israel and Chalabi, the former Iraqi dissident who was long a Pentagon favorite but who has fallen out of favor with the U.S. government.
The earlier FBI probe of the Israel Lobby, then, was aimed at the convergence of Chalabi -- the most effective outside promoter of the Iraq war -- and a huddle of persons "who have a particular interest in assisting Israel." But the probe also branched out, in a second direction, to cover links between some particularly pro-Israel officials in the U.S. government and "a pro-Israel lobbying group." This sounds as if it might have been AIPAC.

Wright and Ricks, in their Washington Post story of September 2004, continued:

There appear to be at least two common threads in the multi-faceted investigation. First, the FBI is investigating whether the same people passed highly classified information to two disparate allies -- Chalabi and a pro-Israel lobbying group. Second, at least some of the intelligence in both instances included sensitive information about Iran.

The broader investigation is also looking into the movement of classified materials on U.S. intentions in Iraq and on the Arab-Israeli peace process, sources added.

U.S. officials said the alleged transfer of classified intelligence to Chalabi has been part of the FBI investigation at least since a raid in May by Iraqi officials on the Baghdad compound of Chalabi's party, the Iraqi National Congress. Classified U.S. intelligence material was found in that raid, a senior official said.

Thus, two main features of the 2004 investigation were: (a) it touched on the Arab-Israeli peace process, and (b) it related to the occupation of Iraq -- the likely future (it may be guessed) as well as the recent past of that occupation.

The previous FBI investigation also brought to light sensitive information about Iran. Remember that Ahmed Chalabi, "a Shiite but our Shiite," was at that time accused of leaking information to Iran. And recall that this accusation somehow tactfully disappeared without ever being answered or dispelled. An unnamed source in the Wright-Ricks article, close to U.S. intelligence, said that the investigation was only an outward sign of a deeper conflict between CIA regulars and the overseers brought in by the Office of the Vice President to fix the facts around the new policies.

The new people won out -- with what results in Iraq we know. They also appear to have succeeded in quelling the investigation of Chalabi. It is true that Chalabi's extraordinarily poor showing in the Iraqi election of December 2005 -- he received too few votes to earn a seat in the national assembly -- called the neoconservative bluff regarding the cordial welcome democracy would offer to the people we were backing in Iraq. Yet a position was found for Chalabi: he was made Oil Minister of the new Iraq; placed in control of the one national asset the U.S. guarded with care, while the library of Baghdad was pillaged and the museum looted. Such things may happen by accident, but two, or three, or several of them cannot be strung together so as to form a convincing pattern by accident.

Through the recent tergiversations of policy and prosecution, including the conduct of the U.S. government against "enemy combatants," the FBI has played a relatively honorable part. To judge by the evidence of internal disputation that has made its way into public view, the bureau moved on at least three occasions to prevent U.S. policy from being corrupted by secret influence and by a twisting of international law. In all three cases, the FBI was overridden -- in the first instance, the dispute over torture, by lawyers for President George W. Bush; in the second, over Chalabi, by the people around Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld; and in the third, to infer the what is all but clinched in the Times today, by U.S. attorneys coming late to a difficult case and putting their hand in the scale to achieve a result that President Obama wanted.

These perplexities are bound to continue until we change the situation that fosters them. For the recurrence of plausible accusations against AIPAC, the difficulty of both bringing and completing a case against its lobbyists, and the bad faith of the reasons that must be used to pretend that the cases are frivolous or the evidence negligible, all throw us back upon the question, Do we really want the U.S. to have a "special relationship to Israel" -- with all the benefits and allowances this brings to adepts of channeling like Rosen and Weissman, and the sub rosa understanding that the American people have consented to the arrangement? In that case, every friend of Israel is a friend of the U.S., and there is no such thing as spying for Israel. An Israeli agent caught passing state secrets becomes an American agent by definition.

How close is Israel to the United States -- in politics, national interest, practice of equality, and other relevant traits? How close do the people of either country wish us to be? AIPAC is based, of course, on an ideology of total identification. It would be absurd to claim that someone could spy on America for California or New York. Someone who seems to be doing that must be trying "to lubricate the wheels of decision-making" between the federal and state governments that are "close but sometimes quarrelsome friends." The New York Times supposes the idea of information passed from the U.S. to Israel without both sides wanting it passed is likewise simply absurd. The true doctrine is, they know we know they know. With the exception of the agents at the FBI, and maybe a few U.S. attorneys, everybody understands. But do we?

The suppressed alternative is that we treat Israel as an ally with whom we sympathize, but with whom on occasion we have differences which we are not afraid to show. Can Israel become again, what it once preferred to be, an ally of the United States in the same sense in which France or Australia is an ally? Or will it press, like AIPAC, for total identification of interest and cause? Our friends are your friends, our enemies are your enemies, our weapons are your weapons. And our self-destruction? It is time to slow down and look hard.

Cecil Turner

That's a deliberate attempt to advantage a specific foreign country, something that I have yet to see with the Wikileaks, although it may yet emerge.

You continue to avoid the subject of harm to the US. And you really ought to reread Ellis's ruling on the 793 section, because it speaks to it rather well. In short, classified material is classified because it can harm the US. Hence his test for properly classified material (that its release would cause harm), because otherwise one must conclude it was overclassified. It actually runs parallel with much of your argument about WikiLeaks.

Regardless, if information can only be used to help another country without harming the US, its classification is problematic. And your fascination with Israel is hard to identify with. If the contention is "ohmygod that could've helped Israel" and thus that's supposed to cause outrage, my response is "so what?" I certainly don't care. And if the "harm" to the US is that it makes the Jewish lobby more effective in influencing US policy, that's just not very convincing.

Finally, I rather like this forum, and I don't care for your apparently intentional attempts to vandalize it. I was going to congratulate you on keeping this on an open thread. But I see you couldn't do that. So rather than persist in being part of the problem myself, I'll eschew further conversation with you. Cheers.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame