Opinari.net
Opinari - Latin term for Opinion. Opinari.net is just what it seems: a cornucopia of rants, raves and poignant soliloquy. |
Saturday, October 29, 2005
Regarding my post last night that asked what crime was committed, and asserted that the Fitzgerald investigation was nothing more than a waste of time, I should note that I feel exactly the same way about Clinton-Lewinsky. It was ultimately just a big waste of America's time and money, and I would like to see these "special prosecutions" disposed of somehow. Nothing good comes of them, except to make one side of the political aisle feel better about themselves at the expense of the other side.
Is the nation better off because of Clinton/Lewinsky? No. Will it be better off because of Libby/Plame? Not a chance.
My point is that a crime was not committed in Plamegate because Valerie Plame was not a covert operative within the CIA. Her identity was known. There has been ample evidence of that. The alleged crimes were committed by Libby in the sense that his testimony differs from the testimony of three reporters. If he knowingly deceived the grand jury, that is indeed a crime, just as Clinton's perjury was.
But the investigated crime (outing a covert agent) is not being alleged by the prosecution and it's unfortunate that the media seems intent on pinning a non-existent charge on Libby as well. Without those specious allegations, Plamegate would never have happened at all, and to me, that is the real crime here.Labels: Archives_2005
.: posted by
Dave
10:33 AM
Friday, October 28, 2005
On Libby:
I've tried to stay out of the Plamegate discussion, but today's indictment of now former Cheney Chief of Staff Scooter Libby has caught my interest. If I understand this correctly, Libby is being charged with a count of obstruction of justice, two counts of lying to a grand jury, and two counts of making false statements. It also appears that there is no accusation by prosecutor Fitzgerald of any outing of a covert CIA agent. The indictments are, in fact, regarding alleged inconsistencies in Libby's testimony. If this is the case, then it seems that there was no crime until there was an investigation.
I can guarantee if a special prosecutor came after me asking me to recollect every detail of conversations I had with, for example, my boss and my staff at the office, and if those same superiors and subordinates were interviewed, there would be myriad inconsistencies. That appears to me to be what happened here.
We have a crime that wasn't a crime, and an indictment of a man whose recollection of seemingly benign events differed from those of several other interviewees. Furthermore, the original scope of the indictment was to determine who told columnist Robert Novak that Valerie Plame was a "covert" CIA agent. Apparently, that question was never answered. If it was, Libby certainly isn't being indicted for being that person.
So what gives? Was Valerie Plame "covert"? Not if you take into consideration Joseph Wilson's "Who's Who" bio which plainly identified her. Her identity wasn't well known, but it sure as heck wasn't "covert". There is no alleged "conspiracy", as Joseph Wilson has long claimed. There is no violation of the Covert Agent Act, or whatever it's called. So where's the crime? One man's testimony differs from anothers? And it took two years to come to this conclusion? What a waste of time and resources.Labels: Archives_2005
.: posted by
Dave
3:20 PM
Friday, October 21, 2005
The Alabama - Tennessee game makes news in the U.K.
A packed “informal” programme will see the Foreign Secretary and the US Secretary of State flipping a coin to decide who kicks off the Alabama v Tennesse football match, sharing dinner in a city centre restaurant and worshipping together on Sunday morning.Labels: Archives_2005
.: posted by
Dave
4:58 PM
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Yahoo Bans Teens from Using Online Chatrooms...
thereby creating a built-in defense for pedophiles who use the same chatrooms. To wit, consider that now, each person who signs up for Yahoo Chat must attest to their age in the EULA. Anyone with common sense knows that kids who are intent on using online chatrooms will simply lie about their age, just like they do for buying cigarettes/alcohol/porn magazines. So now, the state can no longer prosecute pedophiles based upon the assumption that they knew the age of the victim.
Furthermore, this "solution" ignores the real issue - parental negligence. Instead of invoking the powers of the "internet police", why don't we insist that parents actually do their job and parent? Maybe limiting your child's time online, engaging them in non-virtual activities, or simply spending time with them instead of shoving them away would do much toward discouraging kids from running to chatrooms for social interaction. Heck, you could even try a techie solution such as using a proxy server to filter internet traffic, blocking chat apps at the router, or blocking ActiveX controls in the browser.
So what does this move by Yahoo accomplish? It lets the government claim that they are doing something to combat pedophilia. It lets Yahoo off the hook for any claims of liability against them. It lets parents ignore their obligations to protect and raise their children. Finally, it enables pedophiles to have the excuse of plausible deniability. It should be obvious that this is a bad solution all around. Instead of looking to the nanny-state, parents need to step up and take responsibility for their kids and tell the government to concentrate their efforts elsewhere.Labels: Archives_2005
.: posted by
Dave
8:49 AM
| |
Recommended Reading
|
