Clarke To GOP: Declassify it all

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-03-30 01:00am

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:
Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:Never Attribute to Malice What Can Be Adequately Explained By Incompetence.
You always state this as if its some sort of law of nature; its completely unfounded considering the VAST number of cases in human history where cruelty was diliberatly caused not by incompetence, but by malice, religous fanaticism, or the persuit of gain.

Either back up your arbitrary assertion with evidence or henceforth it will be regarded as, and treated as, bullshit.

If you have any conclusive evidence of deliberate negligence on Bush's part, feel free to present it. Otherwise, I say that Ein's statement stands, baring evidence one way or another.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-03-30 01:11am

If you have any conclusive evidence of deliberate negligence on Bush's part, feel free to present it.

And how, pray tell, do I provide evidence for "diliberate" negligence as oppossed to the volumes of "accidental" negligence (and lies, etc) that seem to afflict Bush's administration like a plauge?

Otherwise, I say that Ein's statement stands, baring evidence one way or another.

And why is that? Why is it that Ein's statement is suddenly the accepted default when either case seems credible? Why should one NOT accept that there are evil people out there who would kill you for more money and/or power? History has certainly shown that there is an abundance of such behavior, and in Western countries, in the 21st century, the only way someone, or a group of someones, could get away with it is by masking their actions under some sort of noble veneer.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-03-30 01:57am

Yes, because we know the best way to encourage abuse of power is to remove checks and balances.

But weighed against what?

Like Nixon, Bush may have a hard time escaping a bad rap, but when you get down to it, he can legitimately complain of leaks, bureaucratic holes, and abuse of information by subordinates.

And why is that? Why is it that Ein's statement is suddenly the accepted default when either case seems credible? Why should one NOT accept that there are evil people out there who would kill you for more money and/or power? History has certainly shown that there is an abundance of such behavior, and in Western countries, in the 21st century, the only way someone, or a group of someones, could get away with it is by masking their actions under some sort of noble veneer.

Why brings you to the conclusion that September 11th needed to be a successful act of terrorism on al-Qaeda's rather than a successful intelligence coup on our part in order to punish Afghanistan or go after Iraq?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-03-30 02:08am

Axis Kast wrote:
Yes, because we know the best way to encourage abuse of power is to remove checks and balances.
But weighed against what?

That would be your cue to demonstrate any problem you can spin on this natural check on the power of the President. Got any?

Like Nixon, Bush may have a hard time escaping a bad rap, but when you get down to it, he can legitimately complain of leaks, bureaucratic holes, and abuse of information by subordinates.

And the public is supposed to know what he's doing, or at least know that powers other than the White House are able to exercise a balance against it's power by learning this disclosed information. It's one of those principles behind which the US' government is based on.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-03-30 02:18am

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:Either back up your arbitrary assertion with evidence or henceforth it will be regarded as, and treated as, bullshit.

If I were you, I wouldn't be demanding that others present evidence. Ein represents the status quo (IE nothing harmful was intentionally done). The burden of proof is on you, not him.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-03-30 02:21am

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote: And how, pray tell, do I provide evidence for "diliberate" negligence as oppossed to the volumes of "accidental" negligence (and lies, etc) that seem to afflict Bush's administration like a plauge?

You should follow the same logic the courts do; burden of proof is on YOU and if you can't find direct evidence (which is YOUR problem) then your theories are nothing but wild speculation.

And why is that? Why is it that Ein's statement is suddenly the accepted default when either case seems credible? Why should one NOT accept that there are evil people out there who would kill you for more money and/or power? History has certainly shown that there is an abundance of such behavior, and in Western countries, in the 21st century, the only way someone, or a group of someones, could get away with it is by masking their actions under some sort of noble veneer.

Without proof, you cannot simply infer maliciousness. What about this is hard for you to understand?

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-03-30 09:59am

That would be your cue to demonstrate any problem you can spin on this natural check on the power of the President. Got any?

Now keep in mind that you're advocating change from the norm: we have never required intelligence chiefs to "spill all" before Congress. "This natural check on the power of the President" doesn't go quite as far as you seem to think.

Nixon's points are equally as valid today as they were in the 1970s: too many parties to too much information can be national security liabilities. The Bush administration has plenty of leaks. That they're not interested in compromising the sources and nature of their most secret intelligence isn't anything special.

And the public is supposed to know what he's doing, or at least know that powers other than the White House are able to exercise a balance against it's power by learning this disclosed information. It's one of those principles behind which the US' government is based on.

But that's never been the case. This country has always given the CIA and the NSA the benefit of the doubt. Too many chefs make for a bad batter. Too many people in the intelligence analysis process make for information falling into the wrong hands. Too many people in the foreign policy formulation process makes for slow, often hamstrung diplomacy.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-03-30 10:35am

Cut the bullshit Axis. Rice could always plead the Fifth Amendment if asked questions she feels could compromise national security. The only excuse Condi has is...none.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-03-30 10:59am

Cut the bullshit Axis. Rice could always plead the Fifth Amendment if asked questions she feels could compromise national security. The only excuse Condi has is...none.

Yes, Rice could always take that plea, and she would always take that plea. Just like every other NSA and CIA head would be obliged to do.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-03-30 11:19am

Axis Kast wrote:
Cut the bullshit Axis. Rice could always plead the Fifth Amendment if asked questions she feels could compromise national security. The only excuse Condi has is...none.
Yes, Rice could always take that plea, and she would always take that plea. Just like every other NSA and CIA head would be obliged to do.

I just bitch slapped your fundamental reason why Condi shouldn't publicly testify, and this is what you come back with? A derivative of the point of my post? You're useless.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-03-30 11:23am

You "bitchslapped" nothing.

What's the point of her going before Congress to present nothing but the same data she's already given the public?

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-03-30 11:31am

Axis Kast wrote:You "bitchslapped" nothing.

What's the point of her going before Congress to present nothing but the same data she's already given the public?

To answer under oath the questions Clarke's accusations have raised, asshole.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-03-30 01:16pm

Axis Kast wrote:
That would be your cue to demonstrate any problem you can spin on this natural check on the power of the President. Got any?
Now keep in mind that you're advocating change from the norm: we have never required intelligence chiefs to "spill all" before Congress. "This natural check on the power of the President" doesn't go quite as far as you seem to think.

If you had been paying attention and engaging multiple braincells, you'd know that I refer to more than just Congress as part of oversight. Since you didn't, your reply will be somewhat lacking.

Nixon's points are equally as valid today as they were in the 1970s: too many parties to too much information can be national security liabilities. The Bush administration has plenty of leaks. That they're not interested in compromising the sources and nature of their most secret intelligence isn't anything special.

And again you fail to explain why any of this might be a national security concern, or why we should grant carte blanche to the President.

And the public is supposed to know what he's doing, or at least know that powers other than the White House are able to exercise a balance against it's power by learning this disclosed information. It's one of those principles behind which the US' government is based on.
But that's never been the case. This country has always given the CIA and the NSA the benefit of the doubt. Too many chefs make for a bad batter. Too many people in the intelligence analysis process make for information falling into the wrong hands. Too many people in the foreign policy formulation process makes for slow, often hamstrung diplomacy.

You really think there's no oversight at all? Amusing.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-03-30 01:37pm

Axis Kast wrote:
Cut the bullshit Axis. Rice could always plead the Fifth Amendment if asked questions she feels could compromise national security. The only excuse Condi has is...none.
Yes, Rice could always take that plea, and she would always take that plea. Just like every other NSA and CIA head would be obliged to do.

The Fifth Amendment prohibits self incrimination, not testimony compromising national security.

If Rice 'took the 5th' before the 9/11 committee, the Democrats would be organizing impeachment hearings for Bush and a grant of immunity for Condi before the end of the day.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-03-30 01:56pm

Glocksman wrote:
Axis Kast wrote:
Cut the bullshit Axis. Rice could always plead the Fifth Amendment if asked questions she feels could compromise national security. The only excuse Condi has is...none.
Yes, Rice could always take that plea, and she would always take that plea. Just like every other NSA and CIA head would be obliged to do.
The Fifth Amendment prohibits self incrimination, not testimony compromising national security.

The Fifth Amendment:http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/cons ... endment05/

The Fifth Amendment wrote: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

She could plead the Fifth on grounds of compromising national security [which would fall under "public danger"].

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-03-30 02:03pm

You're misreading it.

The part you highlighted is a qualification on the first part of the sentence, which states that you must be indicted by a Grand Jury in order to be held 'to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime'.

In other words, if you're in the Military, or in the Militia during wartime, the government doesn't have to get a Grand Jury to indict you.

Rice isn't under indictment nor is she in the military.

The part you're thinking of is this:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-03-30 02:10pm

Are you sure? For me, the meaning isn't very clear.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-03-30 02:29pm

The intelligence community is not subject to complete oversight. CIA directors and National Security Advisers can withhold information deemed vital to national security from those commissions.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-03-30 02:29pm

The writing style is archaic, but the meaning is clear.

The semicolons break up that long sentence into discrete sections.

The first section deals with indicting a person for a capital crime. The second section prohibits the government from trying someone twice for the same crime. The third section prohibits forced self-incrimination. The fourth section requires due process of law (a trial, etc.), and the fifth section requires that the owner of any private property taken over for public use be paid a fair price for his/her property.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-03-30 02:32pm

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:
If you have any conclusive evidence of deliberate negligence on Bush's part, feel free to present it.
And how, pray tell, do I provide evidence for "diliberate" negligence as oppossed to the volumes of "accidental" negligence (and lies, etc) that seem to afflict Bush's administration like a plauge?

That's your problem, not ours. If there was an active conspiracy to allow 911 to happen, dozens, maybe hundreds of people would have had to have been involved, yet nobody with any credibility has come forward and even hinted at it. Not to mention there would have to be a paper trail of some sort, yet not a single document has emerged. There hasn't been so much as an anonymous leak. Your claim requires dozens or hundreds of people all throughout the executive branch to have absolutely no conscience, not to mention no fear the whole thing could unravel and they might end up taking the fall for 3000 murders. For Christ's sake, Deep Throat risked his career and maybe his life over a burgulary coverup, yet you expect nobody to make a peep over the President allowing terrorists to kill thousands of people to further his own agenda.

If there was a conspiracy, the proof exists somewhere, and it's not in your paranoid inferences.

Otherwise, I say that Ein's statement stands, baring evidence one way or another.
And why is that? Why is it that Ein's statement is suddenly the accepted default when either case seems credible? Why should one NOT accept that there are evil people out there who would kill you for more money and/or power? History has certainly shown that there is an abundance of such behavior, and in Western countries, in the 21st century, the only way someone, or a group of someones, could get away with it is by masking their actions under some sort of noble veneer.

Ein's statement is the accepted default because there's plenty of evidence for bureacratic foulups, bungling, miscommunication, and bad judgement, in this administration and every administration since Washington. There are any number of incidents in the past where such factors contributed to disasters which could have been prevented.

Your hypothesis, on the other hand, introduces multiple elements that are not necessary to explain the outcome and are not proven to exist in the specific people you're accusing. It doesn't matter worth a damn if somebody else might have been capable of it: you have to prove THESE SPECIFIC PEOPLE were capable of murdering 3000 people, and then you have to prove they actually did. And frankly, even the people who loathe Bush (the rational ones, anyway) don't think he's capable of killing 3000 Americans for his personal aggandizement. It simply doesn't fit with what we know about his personality. As for his advisors, they're unscrupulous neocon technocrats, but that does not equate to mass murderers. I've already addressed the issue of providing proof of their alleged actions, which neither you nor anyone else has even tried to do, other than trying to fit evidence of mere incompetence into your preconcieved sinister conclusions.

Now let's talk about motive, something else you don't have. Your conspiracy requires dozens or hundreds of people to plot to murder thousands of American citizens, and risk getting executed for treason, in order to....what, exactly? Get Bush reelected? Go to war in Iraq? Pass a wish list for law enforcement called the PATRIOT Act? If Bush suspends the Constitution on September 12 and sends the army to enforce martial law, then at least you have a credible motive, but you don't even have that. Any plausible motive could have been accomplsihed with a huge intelligence coup like catching Atta and his pals at the gate, or even letting one airliner hit and then shooting down the other three. Are you seriously suggesting that every bureaucrat, every secretary, every Secret Service agent, every intern who might have overheard something, is so devoted to the President (or afraid of retribution) they'd risk lethal injection over John Ashcroft's legal wankery or Paul Wolfowitz's war?

In short, your laughable assertions in other threads that "parsimony doesn't apply to human behavior" aside, Occam slices your hypothesis to ribbons while leaving Einhander's (and virtually everone else's) intact. I know your tinfoil hatted self gets a huge woody thinking September 11 is Bushitlers Reichstag fire, but take your hand off your dick for a minute and use your fucking brain.