Tim wrote:
And when it's all over, and it indeed IS Karl Rove, what will you say
then?

And when it''s all over, you still will not prove your are NOT Kevin
noble....?

Sure I will, but will you, Smithers et al, JohnH, Fritz, and JimH be
man enough to apologize for calling me Kevin Noble? Will you all be man
enough to admit that you were ignorantly wrong?

Kevin,
Why are you sending email to people using Kevin Noble's signature?


wrote in message
ups.com...


Tim wrote:
And when it's all over, and it indeed IS Karl Rove, what will you say
then?

And when it''s all over, you still will not prove your are NOT Kevin
noble....?

Sure I will, but will you, Smithers et al, JohnH, Fritz, and JimH be
man enough to apologize for calling me Kevin Noble? Will you all be man
enough to admit that you were ignorantly wrong?

John H. wrote:
On 8 Jul 2005 12:50:07 -0700, wrote:


regarding him and his wife." That's about as low as a politician can
go!

Almost as bad as, "Awe.....how cute. Was you jacking off about it, Jim?"

Right?

No, but it was about as bad as "you're a ****ing liar".

Curtis CCR wrote:
You should have paid attention in school. You cannot be compelled to
testify against *yourself*.

Really? Does that include being forced to hand over documents, including
ones which probably don't exist? Seems to me that people are compelled
to testify against themselves all the time.


... People are compelled to testify against
others in court everyday.


And this makes it right? Especially the situation under discussion, that
two reporters considered hostile by the Administration are ordered to
jail while other reporters who have done the exact same thing but are
pro-Bush/Cheney walk free?



And what about Plame's husband? Jeeezzz.. He is worried about his
wife's career? Why has been on every mountaintop he can find for the
last year yelling, "These dirty *******s told everyone that my wife is
a CIA agent? Did you hear me?!?! I said these guys are telling people
that my wife is a CIA agent!!!"


I think it's not so much his wife's career, but a career move for
himself ;)

However, John Cairns has a good point... not much in the news about the
situation.


There isn't much to report. You are not seeing a lot of detail in the
news about this because nobody in the news business knows more than a
couple of facts about the case.

We still don't know if a crime was committed.


Possibly, but it seems pretty likely that one was.

One of the reasons I distrust the Bush Administration so much is their
overwhelming urge towards secrecy.
http://www.archivists.org/news/secrecyorder.asp
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-13233.htm
Now, who needs a reminder on what the Bible tells us about those who
hateth the light?


DSK

HarryKrause wrote:
thunder wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:52:11 -0700, Curtis CCR wrote:


Dirty politics to disclose her identity? Yes. A crime? Maybe not.


While you may be right, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act is
quite narrow in scope, but consider this. If there was no crime
committed, why is a reporter going to jail?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...2305-2005Jan11

Because she's not Robert Novak?

I think Novak coughed up something that has satisfied prosecutors.
Cooper got permission to talk, reportedly from Rove (Rove has said so).
Rove may not be Miller's source, therefore she sits in jail.

DSK wrote:
Curtis CCR wrote:
You should have paid attention in school. You cannot be compelled to
testify against *yourself*.

Really? Does that include being forced to hand over documents, including
ones which probably don't exist? Seems to me that people are compelled
to testify against themselves all the time.

Yes. You can be compelled to hand over documents. Documents can be
entered into evidence - They are not testitmony. (Before some wise-ass
tries to bring up transcripts from depositions, those are different
kinds of documents).


... People are compelled to testify against
others in court everyday.

And this makes it right? Especially the situation under discussion, that
two reporters considered hostile by the Administration are ordered to
jail while other reporters who have done the exact same thing but are
pro-Bush/Cheney walk free?

Let me see if I have the correct score here.

ONE reporter sits in jail for refusing to disclose information she says
she has. Miller says she won't reveal her source - I don't believe any
one has ever claimed that she didn't have a source. She is not sitting
in jail for refusing to testify against herself. Get that straight -
there is no fifth ammendment issue here.

And yes, the general principal of compelling people to testify in court
is quite sound.

And what about Plame's husband? Jeeezzz.. He is worried about his
wife's career? Why has been on every mountaintop he can find for the
last year yelling, "These dirty *******s told everyone that my wife is
a CIA agent? Did you hear me?!?! I said these guys are telling people
that my wife is a CIA agent!!!"


I think it's not so much his wife's career, but a career move for
himself ;)

However, John Cairns has a good point... not much in the news about the
situation.


There isn't much to report. You are not seeing a lot of detail in the
news about this because nobody in the news business knows more than a
couple of facts about the case.

We still don't know if a crime was committed.

Possibly, but it seems pretty likely that one was.

You have nothing to back that up. The question is still very much up
in the air and you have nothing to show that it is "pretty likely" to
fall one way or another. Please list what verified facts you have that
show a crime was committed. We don't know if this special prosecutor
is looking to charge anyone with anything, or if he just digging to the
bottom what will prove to be a political mess.

You should have paid attention in school. You cannot be compelled to
testify against *yourself*.


Really? Does that include being forced to hand over documents, including
ones which probably don't exist? Seems to me that people are compelled
to testify against themselves all the time.


Curtis CCR wrote:
Yes. You can be compelled to hand over documents.

Of course, you *can* be, but should you be? To frame the question more
accurately, the Constitution & Bill of Rights set up very limited
circumstances in which the state (meaning the federal gov't) can stomp
down the citizen, and forbid such stopming all other times. I understood
this to be one of the latter, honored more in the breach with the
'advance of civiliation' into modern times.

Sort of like the way the police can tap your phone, read your email, or
even ust down your door and give your home & belongings a good tossing.
Hey, if you're not a criminal, drug dealer, or terrorist, you have
nothing to fear, right?


... People are compelled to testify against
others in court everyday.


And this makes it right? Especially the situation under discussion, that
two reporters considered hostile by the Administration are ordered to
jail while other reporters who have done the exact same thing but are
pro-Bush/Cheney walk free?


Let me see if I have the correct score here.

ONE reporter sits in jail for refusing to disclose information

Not long ago it was two.

... she says
she has. Miller says she won't reveal her source - I don't believe any
one has ever claimed that she didn't have a source. She is not sitting
in jail for refusing to testify against herself. Get that straight -
there is no fifth ammendment issue here.

And yes, the general principal of compelling people to testify in court
is quite sound.


So, the state can force you to give evidence... documents or verbal
testimony... which you may or may not have... and lock you up forever if
you don't satisfy the court (meaning the prosecutor).

That sounds just peachy... are you allowed to sing all those songs about
what a free country this is while you rot in jail?



You have nothing to back that up. The question is still very much up
in the air and you have nothing to show that it is "pretty likely" to
fall one way or another.

C'mon, usually you have more sense than this. Is this going to be
President Bush's official backpedal tag-line? "No crime has been
committed" just like "We don't know or care where Bin Laden is now."

If no crime was committed, then why have a prosecutor in the first
place? Who's in charge here?

... We don't know if this special prosecutor
is looking to charge anyone with anything, or if he just digging to the
bottom what will prove to be a political mess.


Actually, I assume that the special prosecutor is seeking to whitewash
the whole thing.

DSK

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 06:22:16 -0700, Curtis CCR wrote:


A host of people alledgedly knew she worked for the CIA. It has been
reported that it was common knowledge in D.C. "cocktail circuit" that
Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Lot's of people knew PRIOR to the White
House's alledged leak. But nobody talked much about it because it wasn't
important. This goes to another element of the definition of covert agent
- the government needs to be taking step to keep her identity secret.

You seem to be concentrating on the Intelligence Identities Protection
Act. However, the prosecutor could be using the much broader Espionage
Act, similar to Reagan's use of it against Samuel Morison.

http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/sc.../20030926.html

Have a problem with the IRS and see if you can go to jail for not handing
over documents.

"DSK" wrote in message
...
You should have paid attention in school. You cannot be compelled to
testify against *yourself*.


Really? Does that include being forced to hand over documents, including
ones which probably don't exist? Seems to me that people are compelled
to testify against themselves all the time.


Curtis CCR wrote:
Yes. You can be compelled to hand over documents.

Of course, you *can* be, but should you be? To frame the question more
accurately, the Constitution & Bill of Rights set up very limited
circumstances in which the state (meaning the federal gov't) can stomp
down the citizen, and forbid such stopming all other times. I understood
this to be one of the latter, honored more in the breach with the 'advance
of civiliation' into modern times.

Sort of like the way the police can tap your phone, read your email, or
even ust down your door and give your home & belongings a good tossing.
Hey, if you're not a criminal, drug dealer, or terrorist, you have nothing
to fear, right?


... People are compelled to testify against
others in court everyday.


And this makes it right? Especially the situation under discussion, that
two reporters considered hostile by the Administration are ordered to
jail while other reporters who have done the exact same thing but are
pro-Bush/Cheney walk free?


Let me see if I have the correct score here.

ONE reporter sits in jail for refusing to disclose information

Not long ago it was two.

... she says
she has. Miller says she won't reveal her source - I don't believe any
one has ever claimed that she didn't have a source. She is not sitting
in jail for refusing to testify against herself. Get that straight -
there is no fifth ammendment issue here.

And yes, the general principal of compelling people to testify in court
is quite sound.


So, the state can force you to give evidence... documents or verbal
testimony... which you may or may not have... and lock you up forever if
you don't satisfy the court (meaning the prosecutor).

That sounds just peachy... are you allowed to sing all those songs about
what a free country this is while you rot in jail?



You have nothing to back that up. The question is still very much up
in the air and you have nothing to show that it is "pretty likely" to
fall one way or another.

C'mon, usually you have more sense than this. Is this going to be
President Bush's official backpedal tag-line? "No crime has been
committed" just like "We don't know or care where Bin Laden is now."

If no crime was committed, then why have a prosecutor in the first place?
Who's in charge here?

... We don't know if this special prosecutor
is looking to charge anyone with anything, or if he just digging to the
bottom what will prove to be a political mess.


Actually, I assume that the special prosecutor is seeking to whitewash the
whole thing.

DSK

Bill McKee wrote:
Have a problem with the IRS and see if you can go to jail for not handing
over documents.


True... but again, is it right? And that's one of my mainpoints here.

The IRS will not only send you to jail but will seize your property.

Maybe those reporters are lucky they were only sent to jail, maybe the
judge could have ordered them to hand over all their '60s albums too.

DSK