When the Fitzgerald investigation was ongoing, and later during the Libby trial itself, we talked frequently about the issue of greymail, because I suspected that one of the main strategies for Libby, Rove and others up the chain would be to trot out state secrets to shut down any and all inquiry into their misdeeds.
What I hadn’t counted on then was how involved Judge Reggie Walton would be in the case, how knowledgeable about CIPA he was (a lot of judges, sadly, are not when they don’t handle these types of cases regularly) and how willing he would be to go to the mat to fashion some workable solution around the various top secret obstacles strewn along the path to indictment and trial. I’ve never been so happy to be wrong. (It didn’t hurt that Fitzgerald and his team were creative in their proposals, either.)
But most litigants trying to dig into problems which touch on information the government wants to keep hidden aren’t so lucky. Certainly, there are times when a state secrets privilege is asserted for a purely national security-based reason, where certain information if publicly disclosed could, in fact, harm our intelligence assets or agents, or could expose some substantive matter that is better kept under wraps.
But there is a significant thread of taint attached to the assertion of state secrets, precisely because administrations and agencies have used it for years to bury their own wrongdoing, for personal CYA, or simply to prevent the public from knowing about something they are ashamed to admit. Including the secret that was claimed to be essential in the case that spawned the privilege in the first place — it was a carefully crafted CYA lie. Via Congressional Quarterly:
Relatives of the dead crew members fought back in the courts. But in a landmark 1953 decision, U.S. v. Reynolds, the Supreme Court backed the Defense Department.
“Certainly, there was a reasonable danger,” the justices said, “that the accident investigation report would contain references to the secret electronic equipment which was the primary concern of the mission.”
There wasn’t, it turned out, but it’s been the law of the land for more than 50 years. And a total fraud.
Judy Loether told the subcommittee how she had stumbled across a Web site a few years ago that compiled old military crash reports.
And there she found the document that the government kept secret all these years, the 1948 crash report on her father’s B-29.
It revealed the conclusion by investigators that the plane had been brought down by errors on the part of the pilot, copilot, and engineer. There wasn’t a sensitive word in their report about the NSA eavesdroppers.
The Air Force had just used the state secrets privilege to cover its butt. The judge hadn’t even looked at the documents, taking the government at its word.
And it is far from the only case. The Federation of American Scientists has a useful list of various cases in which state secrets were asserted for reasons other than national security concerns. Hilzoy, at Obsidian Wings, has a great explanation of the legislation introduced to combat this improper assertion of state secrets:
This legislation (S. 2533; excerpts below the fold) basically says that if the government invokes the state secrets privilege, it has to provide an explanation of why it is doing so, and the information that it claims the privilege should protect. It then requires the courts to examine this evidence in order to determine whether or not it deserves protection, and allows them to exclude such evidence only if it decides that the government was right to invoke the state secrets privilege. If the government just refuses to turn the information over, then it automatically loses on the point at issue (not necessarily the whole case.) The bill also says that the procedures used to protect classified information in other cases also apply here, and that the courts can craft further rules to protect classified data, though Congress has the right to reject those rules.
In other words: this bill says that instead of just taking the government’s word that state secrets are involved, the courts have to examine the evidence and conclude that they are. It transforms the state secrets privilege from a Get Out Of Jail Free card that the government can use just by waving it around into a claim that the government has to actually justify….
One of the areas where this is particularly applicable is the issue of illegal domestic spying and the pending litigation that EFF and the ACLU have with the telecom companies — which is precisely the reason that the Bush Administration is pushing so hard for immunity for them. Heaven forbid the public finds out that these telecoms were deliberately asked to disregard the law outright. More on this in the next thread…
(YouTube of Coldplay, Spies.)
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Good Sunday morning to you, Christy…
That was part of the thesis in Naomi’s book.
(And no, I didn’t know this post was coming…*g*)
Here is a non-state secret for Mr. McCain and the rest of the Republicans: You all are going to be trounced next November.
The GOP should feel demoralized. And that’s as it should be. And I don’t give a twit what the polls say.
Let the sunshine in.
When the government hides things, most people wonder why.
No more 18 1/2 minute gaps.
To be slightly simplistic, the only reason for “state” secrets is to prevent the population from knowing what the government is doing.
Exactly.
Good Morning Christy,
Know the truth and the truth will set you free. There is one ugly state secret and he, may I mention on super bowl Sunday, would be one of my heros a MR PAT TILLMAN .
I am so tired of the paranoia about all these enemies stealing our “secrets” which can be used against us.
The whole notion of state secrets is such rubbish.
We need to have an open society, a more open society.
All the spying and so forth is not healthy.
We are manipulated by fear (unfounded) and it’s largely irrational. What nation out there wants to attack and invade and then occupy and subjugate our people? North Korea? Gimme a break. Iran? The mullahs want Minnesota? Rubbish The Taliban? A few thousand guys with machine guns and camels? China? They are more than contend to sell us junk and lend us the money to buy it at interest. If they conquered us and turned us into low wage slaves who would buy their junk?
Get real america there is no threat to your garden or swimming hole. Stop wasting your money on war and weapons. It is only making some people very very rich. Ask Eric Prince.
The Corporation is on DVD. I highly recommend it. Naomi Klein is in it. She is one of our younger patriots. Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn are also feautured. If you haven’t seen it, please do. I’m worried about rBGH Bovine Growth Hormone in my child’s milk.
To be slightly simplistic, the only reason for “state” secrets is to prevent the population from knowing what the government is doing.
———
is to prevent the People from knowing what their tax paid elected representatives are doing.
This the is the roll toward the secret itself is a secret.
So did the 5 million emails really disappear or are they just a secret secret (of which we obviously have some). If we have a secret secret who knows it, how can the People be assured to know what is going on, when is it allwed to come out….
Yep, we don’t know the truth about Tillman yet.
Why does the government need State Secrets? Well, we can’t tell you because it’s a secret.
Tilman’s statue is in front of the stadium in Phoenix. I hope they show it.
So, a case often cited in defense of state secrets is U.S. Manhattan project during WWII. Anyone know how “secret” from U.S. enemies (and “allies,” as in Stalin) that project actually was?
Not even Kucinich asked the most telling question: Why did Tillman have tighly spaced bullet entry wounds in his (forehead) fired from close range?
Suicide, obviously. /snark
State secrets? They’re kinda like in a criminal trial. If you have nothing to hide, and haven’t broken the law, you tell the truth.
The shorthand way to look at the proposed legislation is that it is a civil law equivalent of CIPA.
I doubt it will pass. CIPA passed because it involves criminal prosecutions, and the rights of [some] accused (those in the civil law system, v. those in the military law system) have powerful protection in the Constitution. No so with civil suits.
In The Corporation, Fox News executives told reporters to alter their story in favor of Monsanto. They reporters were told, (paraphrasing) we spent billions of dollars to buy these stations – we’ll tell you what the news is.
Good morning Christy, pups!
Oh that’s a good one.
Secrets are used to manipulate people.
We live in what is an effective police state especially since you can be disappeared here and sent for some rendition fun.
It’s the new feudalism fig leaf democracy.
It’s the Truman Show.
The latest fashion house – The Emperor’s Clothes
The theory of the magic bullet was long ago profferred by Snarlin’ Arlen. No problem here.
It didn’t even come up in that dog and pony congressional inquiry. Kucinich (he was the firebrand that day) did not even mention it. It is by all accounts the elephant in the room.
This state secrets abuse is the result of our nation forgetting the meaning of three words: “We the people.”
State Secrets is very much in vogue as a universal CYA for the government in the appellate courts. It has morphed into pure governmental abuse, and continues to flourish. I don’t think the legislation has been crafted carefully enough or goes far enough. It’s obvious to me that the majority of the federal judiciary has been cowed and enamoured of the State Secrets defense.
The appellate panels don’t apprise themselves of the law or C.I.P.A. and if they understand the premise of C.I.P.A.
There have already been notable cases where a fair trial has been completely foreclosed by State Secrets. The two cases in the Ninth Circuit have been badly handicapped in favor of the Telcoms already. Sibel Edmonds’ appeal by the A.C.L.U. was denied by the D.C. Circuit and the cowardly Supreme Court could not muster the 4 cert. votes to give it oral argument.
The D.C. Circuit denied Khalid El-Masri is a German citizen who was detained, flown to Afghanistan, and interrogated and tortured by the CIA for several months and the cowardly Supreme Court again denied the A.C.L.U.’s cert petition on October 9, 2007.
In the Edmonds case, the 9th Circuit took the extraordinary measures of barring Edmonds from the courtroom during oral argument, and Edmonds was barred from testifying in another class action suit brought by the families of the 911 victims.
The day Edmonds’ appeal was filed, the Inspector General released an unclassified summary of a highly classified report on an investigation that had concluded “that many of her allegations were supported, that the FBI did not take them seriously enough, and that her allegations were, in fact, the most significant factor in the FBI’s decision to terminate her services. …Rather than investigate Edmonds’ allegations vigorously and thoroughly, the FBI concluded that she was a disruption and terminated her contract.”
But on April 21, 2005, in the hours before the hearing of her appeal, three judges issued a ruling that barred all reporters and the public from the courtroom. During the proceedings, Edmonds was not allowed into the courtroom for the hearing. On May 6, 2005, when her case was dismissed, no reason was provided, and no opinion cited.
n August 5, 2005, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) petitioned for the Supreme Court of the United States to review the lower courts’ application of the State Secret Privilege in both lawsuits. The ACLU claims that the courts conflated the State Secrets Privilege and the Totten rule.[16] On November 28, 2005, the Supreme Court declined to review the decisions.
On December 11, 2003, Attorney General Ashcroft, again invoking the State Secrets Privilege, filed a motion calling for Edmonds’ deposition to be suppressed and for the entire case to be dismissed. The judge, seeking more information, ordered the government to produce any unclassified material relating to the case. In response, Ashcroft submitted further statements to justify the use of the State Secrets Privilege, and on May 13, 2004, took the unprecedented step of retroactively classifying as Top Secret all of the material and statements that had been provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2002 relating to Edmonds’ own lawsuit, as well as the letters that had been sent by the Senators and republished by POGO.
let’s not let them forget those three words
“We the People”
Hackworth — in last eight years, many elephants in many rooms. Harry? Nancy?
Tell me karma isn’t a rat terrier. The republican convention in Minnesota at the end a neglected bridge and now this ,a super bowl in a stadium with a Tillman Statue. This depressing life has some sweet ironies. And on top of it my hometown paper carried a vent I’ve submitted over ten times”What about the 1 million dead Iraqis we’ve killed”
tjbs, did they publish your letter this time?
Darn – EPU’d:
Factoid: the owl is the only creature that can turn its head 180 degrees.
It takes a Romney or McCain to turn around on a given position 180 degrees…
It’s not just the secrets that are kept from people, it’s the twisting and omission of key information/context that should be included without even a second thought.
Case in point, Timmeh yammering about Rush’s assaults on McCain this morning totally left out the recent acquisition of Rush and Clear Channel by the Mittster.
Or put another way, as somebody once observed about The Village, it’s not what’s illegal here that’s appalling, it’s what’s legal…. [my paraphrase]
Closing words on the outstanding film, The Breach, about the Robert Hanssen story portend the likely ending of this despicable Bush regime: The full extent of the damage remains classified….
— Prairie’s Eclectic Book Club: On Change — Not So Big and Bird by Bird
Show your work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibel_Edmonds
I’m looking at this legislation as a first salvo on this. Even if it passed this term, it most assuredly would face a veto from this President, don’t you think? But by bringing it up now and building some momentum, it has a much better shot at being enacted after November — especially if there is momentum coming in after the election for more reforms.
Growth hormone is a polypeptide and would be denatured in the stomach and GI tract.. therefore must be given by injection.
Yes The Vent is a call in letter to the editor and they call back the day you call in to verify it. I didn’t receive a call back 10 times before or on that day so I called the editor to complain and offered the Reuter’s news service article of 1/30 to back my claim up. It saves me from picketing their offices which I had intended to start this week.
Hey egregious…Have you moved to the left coast yet?
Morning, egregious. Getting settled in?
First morning of actually living in my new place. The shower works and the toaster works, next the all important coffeemaker. Fingers crossed.
Everybody has been so kind and helpful, and I feel in good communication with family and friends across the country thru phone and internet.
I have wifi, a bed, a chair, and a lamp. It would be great to have a desk. Hope to see my earthly possessions again, the movers said it would take 2 weeks for my stuff and car to get here. Shopping opportunity?
How it’s going: so far, so good.
OT to EG per posts of the last couple of days.
Speaking for Mrs. Retirin the 2nd and myself, divorcing our respective ex’es in our late thirties and starting over turned out to be the greatest thing that ever happened to us. Gave us a chance to build a new life from the remnant of the old life that remained. Best wishes from the both of us.
And, btw gang, sorry this is a whole boatload of information all at once on a Sunday morning. Do watch the Coldplay video if you get time — someone put together a slide show of some amazing pix, and it really is a visual feast with a number of them…
I found a really cool lap desk for my laptop at Target yesterday. In case your desk takes a while, might be worth a peek. I’m now even more mobile with the laptop than I was before…
Even if it passed this term, it most assuredly would face a veto from this President, don’t you think?
Yes, I do. It would be seen as an impermissible encroachment on Article II powers.
But by bringing it up now and building some momentum, it has a much better shot at being enacted after November
I think the subject is more than ripe for discussion. I also see the courts as possibly providing an independent role in developing the doctrine, much as the courts helped develop FISA doctrine by precluding admission of evidence in the Keith case (and other lesser known cases).
I don’t see Congress having the balls to challenge executive overreach, and when it comes to executive action in the WOT, Congress is just as willing as the executive to assert “the government makes no errors.”
Link?
Thanks for the words of encouragement, retirin. Even tho it’s amicable, the divorce feels like jumping off an airplane, hope the parachute works.
It will. Happy landings.
I do think that part of the rationale behind this is to encourage judges to show more muscle on this issue on an individual case level as well. It’s not just legislation, it’s also raising the public profile on this, which increases pressure for legislation and gives the judicial system some muscle to back up assertions against state secrets.
Nothing inside the Beltway is ever singular in its purpose. Hopefully, this will lead to some desperately needed wholesale pushback on this issue. Which is why I’m giving it some much needed sunshine as well this morning.
A bad marriage/relationship is like trying to sail dragging an anchor. One you cut it free you can make some decent way.
As for this nation, I would love to banish a whole lot of people and they could live happily ever after on their own island. The whole lot of them… good riddance.
Here is another option. It may be more suitable to your fast-paced clicking needs…
Hang in there. Might take a year or so. Just speaking from experience. But don’t fight your emotions. You have to live through them. Time heals all…
Then of course, there’s auspicious new beginnings to look forward to…
Hmmm…can’t find it online. I used to use this one from Levenger, which I love — but it doesn’t work in our chairs very well, so I can only really get good use of it in the chaise lounge upstairs which doesn’t have arms on it. Will dig around a bit and see if I can find the one we bought yesterday…
I wonder at the odds that the very same senators that are so desperate to give the telecoms immunity would also vote for this law. The very same people scrambling to hide government misdeeds that they themselves are culpable in can’t be too keen to open the door to exposing their other criminal acts.
I hope that this bill makes it but seeing that it isn’t getting any press whatsoever (big surprise) it is possible it will just be allowed to fade into nothingness.
Here’s what I found when searching for laptop desks on Target. So I take it, none are what you bought? One might work for me, though. I need to study carefully.
Aha! Here it is: I got it in a lovely chocolate brown color, with a light-aaqua interior. It’s comfy, and allows me to sit in one of our comfy chairs with an ottoman, while I’m typing away.
Ooops. Forgot link:
http://www.target.com/gp/searc…..=sr_bx_1_1
I guess people need laptop desks to make room for a (wireless) mouse, which I might get at some point…
Aha. That’s much simpler than what I had in mind, but it might work. Thanks.
You betcha. Enjoy, EG.
I must have this product.
But no room for the mouse…*g* (pace my 59)
but where do you put the kitteh?
It’s a good thing that Judge Walton is an active member
of the Federalist Society, a legal organization deeply committed
to accountability and transparency in government.
NOT.
Went through the big D 32 years ago after 1st wife needed an abortion. Only had one kid with the new wife whom I pasted the big silver anniversary few years ago and the kid graduated from Cornell.It sure didn’t seem possible at the time. My best to you.
Having watched Judge Walton in action reaming out Libby’s lawyers, I don’t think he gives a shit about what the Federalist Society wants in terms of shutting down discussion or stifling oversight of misdeeds. Reggie was fairly pissed any number of times when Team Libby overstepped or misrepresented…
Seemed to me Judge Walton was trying very hard to be fair to both sides and stay clearly within the law. He made each side unhappy at various times with his rulings.
Christy and eCAHN, thanks for the desk recommendations. Biodun and tjbs, I appreciate hearing about your experiences. This too shall pass.
EG — it has passed. This is the dawn.
Sunshine on Bush budget — biggest deficit evah. But not to worry, he’s found something unimportant to cut the “fat”: teaching hospitals.
Can we get rid of this sumbitch soon enough….
It will pass…truly. In the meantime, do be sure to take care of you.
may he reap what he sows….
Sometimes I fantasize about running for President and while doing so, saying all the “soothing” things the powers-that-be want and need to hear to obtain their support. Then, first day in office I show them that I am NOT the man that I made them think I was. I declassify by the stroke of my Executive Order Pen(tm) EVERYTHING that is 20 years or older. I declassify the majority of crap that is 15 years or older. I completely declassify any and all Bush/Cheney secrets concerning any and all policy meetings, election strategery, NSA spying, etc. The ONLY things I allow to remain classified are legitimate secrets concerning troops dispositions and capabilities, legitimate (and legal) spying ops (sources and methods), and the like. Everything else? Open to the public.
May the lawsuits then begin!
I would love to be that Trojan Horse candidate that totally eviscerates the secret crimes by all previous modern Administrations. I would call it my “No Crime Left Behind” policy.
Time heals all wounds. Time wounds all heels, including the “perfect guy” I married so many years ago @ age 20 ;-)
Been there (re: divorce & its aftermath, albeit a long time ago), done that.
Best of luck to you, egregious, in your new home w/your new everything.
Life is about change, as we all well know. Blessings on the new digs.
Christy and Egregious both showing us in ways large and small…laws and laptop desks, relationships and relocation…that change is a process, not an event.
We stand together,we stand strong, we shall overcome, survive, and prevail….
and egregious@68
I hope my message was clear.
We need more indpendent jurors like Walton,
and of course every few have made it to the
federal bench in the last 19 years.
OK, I resisted until now, but …
Definition of a bachelor(ette): person who never made the same mistake once.
Having made the same mistake twice, I have now been a very happy single for 21 years.
Indeed. Trust me on this one… You’re gonna recover fine and simply move on with your life in the Bay Area. At least you get to spend time with all the FDLers out there: punaise, TeddySanFran and others…
I hear you. Happily single for 24 years…
In Bush’s 3 trillion dollar request, a record in the history of the U.S., the medical cut plan is not just to cut funds to teaching hospitals and med schools; spending on poison control centers would be cut 62 percent, to $10 million. Rural health programs, a favorite of many senators, would be reduced 87 percent, to $16.9 million.
Additional health cuts would be 77% for the health program to care for pulmonary diseases and others for workers and volunteers who responded to the aftermath of the WTC burning; an end to the community services block grant that provides nutrition, education, job services to the poor; end programs to care for traumatic brain injury and Alzheimer’s; end federal navigator programs to coordinate cancer care and care for other illnesses; a 22% cut in the low energy assistance program; no increase for the NIH.
Bush is calling for huge cuts in Medicare and Medicaid.
Budget documents show that Mr. Bush will propose legislative changes in Medicare to save $6 billion in the next year and $91 billion from 2009 to 2013. In his last budget, by contrast, his legislative proposals would have saved $4 billion in the first year and $65.6 billion over five years.
The president’s budget also takes aim at Medicaid, the insurance program for low-income people. He would pare $1.2 billion from it next year and nearly $14 billion over five years.
Tens of billions will be cut in these programs by new regulations that do not require Congressional legislation.
In the next five years, the largest amount of Medicare savings, by far, would come from hospitals: $15 billion from an across-the-board reduction in the annual updates for inpatient care; $25 billion from special payments to hospitals serving large numbers of poor people; and $20 billion from capital payments for the construction of hospital buildings and the purchase of equipment.
In addition, the president’s budget would reduce special Medicare payments to teaching hospitals, including many in the New York area, by $23 billion over the next five years.
Border security is slated for a spending increase of 19 percent, to $12.1 billion to hire 2,200 new border patrol agents.
Iraq and Afghanistan money will include a request for $70 billion on October 1, 2008 to keep the Dover Coffins and Iraqi explosions in full force until the next President.
The deficit would be roughly $400 billion a year in 2008 and 2009, far more than the $163 billion deficit recorded last year.
This too shall pass.
Yes, it will, and does. You obviously have many friends here, and everywhere else you go, I’m sure.
{{{{eg }}}}
Thanks jayt, much appreciated. I tend to forget, and need reminders.
hmmm, i read that in the NYT: Bush Seeks Surplus via Medicare Cuts
For what it’s worth I argued against the SSP a couple of months ago over here. When you start thinking about it, it gets harder and harder to support.
EG:
Though I am mostly silent, I definitely feel an affinity for this community and want to wish you the best of new beginnings, too. Welcome to the left coast where a glimpse of the Pacific out my window constantly reminds me of the expanse of possibilities in our lives.
Thanks brook, you speak beautifully, I hope you will not be so silent. Appreciate your words of encouragement.
Would just like to repost the last part of my comment from #74, egregious, minus the acrimony left over from my one attempt @ marriage, an institution for which (by my own evaluation & everyone else’s) I am most ill-suited:
I will hold good thoughts for you & all you do. I appreciate very much your presence here @ FDL & the work you do elsewhere.
Marie, you are very kind to hold me in your thoughts. I need and appreciate the support, thanks for being there.
It’s about time, especially with the institutional lying of this crew! Thanks for the post, Christy.
egregious, all the best to you. This line from Rilke came to mind:
“Our greatest fears are like dragons guarding our greatest treasures.”
peace :>
Thanks peony that’s a terrific visual.
He and his posse pretty much proposed wide ranging medical and social assistance cuts–and physicians caring for those patients would again suffer cuts–which is one reason a large number of physicians don’t participate.
Had I simply been copying wikipedia in my post, I’d have linked it. But that’s not what the post did by any means.
Take care of the elementary school kids in your class and direct all your “orders” to them. *g*
Around these parts, we don’t copy the work of others without providing credit.
I’ve linked extensively/meticulously in every one of my posts–or haven’t you been reading around these parts. Not one of my posts simply copies someone else, and I’ve linked in hundreds of previous posts meticuolousl. Try reading for a change.
RBG–who do you think writes the articles at wikipedia? *g* How many have you written?
Who would you deign I cite for these?
Given the amount of time I spend backstage at FDL, writing is something I get to do very rarely.
From your comment #80:
From the NY Times article twolf linked at comment #83:
I wasn’t talking about what you post or write. But on that topic, you could write plenty of posts since you’re here most of the time.
When you have a long list of budget figures, the figures are the figures. I see you’re worried about adverbs, or articles or prepositions. I didn’t make them up and I guess you want them paraphrased or put into a list. Someone would still bitch the figures came from the NYT instead of the OMBwhere they in fact originated.
I have long known you don’t post anything except to bitch about what you deign offensive. You could post if you wanted to; the time is there. Go for it.
You don’t like criticism of Hillary and Bill Clinton. I understand that many women want a woman as President no matter how hypocritical or damaging her policies and votes are, or how many borderline illegal deals her husband has made, or how many disingenuous or frankly false mistatements or mischaracterizations she makes, hoping that the general pubic is too poorly read to figure it out.
I noticed after it wasrevealed that her campaign co-chairman, the Mayor of LA, took multiple contributions from Tony Rezco, the word Rezco banished from Clinton’s lips forever. After 5 days of wide publication, the Mayor of LA, Clinton Co-Chairman is Mum–i.e. mum mayor (my phrase).
I also noticed that while Senator Clinton was eager to invoke the name of Tony Rezco two debates ago, she has never made a scintilla of a syllable of mention in any debate about her contributions from federally imprisonned Norman Hsu. It would seem that if she were organized, when she was on the topic of large contributions from people who got into criminal legal trouble, she would have mentioned her contributions from Norman Hsu and her campaign co-chairman’s contributions from Tony Rezco. She did not.
A perfect case in point was Clinton’s hypocritical and false portrayal Thursday night of her vote on Iraq and the Levin Amendment:
Clinton Completely Disigenuous and Hypocritical in Portraying Iraq Vote; Hopes People Won’t Know the Difference
Another case in point was her husband’s typical and borderline illegal mining deal for contributions:
Clinton swings Mining Deal; Donor Immediately Makes over a $30 Million Contribution to Clinton Foundation
Item #1: Budget figures–I don’t get them from the stork. Maybe you or someone else does. How many ways can you paraphrase the amounts and percents?
Item #2 : The prominent state secrets copouts by the appellate courts thus far–there was a time when the federal courts didn’t need Congress as a Nanny to teach them how to examine and analyze rulings. That time has long passed given the amount of Bush Federalist Society robocops that he’s been able to put on the bench who could care less about doing any analysis.
The two cases in the Ninth, Sibel’s case in the D.C. Circuit, and El Mazri’s case in the D.C. Circuit and the cert. denials for both can be stated only so many ways. Taking sentences that state this from wikipedia to get dates accurate is hardly plaguerizing.
You will have to look long and hard at hundreds of posts here to try to find I copied anyone–and you’ll fail.
I could have stated the budget figures a number of different ways from a number of different sources, and someone would have bitched that instead of getting them from another source that I lifted them from the Times.
Additionally I wanted to make it clear in my post on the Bush Budget that there are far more extensive cuts than to teaching hospitals alone, and I don’t hold all of those figures in my head, but I’ll work on that.
The budget figures originate from OMB not the Times, although in several instances now, the Times is taking orders either from the White House or the Clintons on what they print. That’s regrettable.
Perhaps I wasn’t clear in my last comment. No where in your comment at #80 do you credit the source of the two paragraphs that are identical to what what was written in the NY Times.
And, FWIW, if criticism of Hillary was a criterion for limiting comments at FDL, there would be some pretty short threads.
The NYT article (s) and there were two that the figures came from are a list of figures with adverbs, and articles. That’s all that I quoted that they do.
I will be damn sure to list figures in my own words from now on, but you’ll still be bitching that the figures came from some publication.
The figures, and I didn’t quote any opinion or analysis of them–came from OMB–you know they did, and if you read the two articles–all the articles did was list figures.
If I read figures in several of hundreds of publications, and I list the figures in my own words, I don’t have to quote anyone. Those reporters got the figures from a source.
Again, I know you don’t understand, but the articles simply listed figures in millions of dollars in two categories–those that the Bush administration is pissing away, and those that the Bush administration proposes cutting. In the old days, they needed advise and consent. Now they just need the rubber stamps that are readily supplied by the Democratic Congress.
Perhaps I wasn’t clear. If you read the posts, I didn’t directly lift the sentences from the Times. I paraphrased their statements of the raw figures, (and injected my own sentences) which they either got from OMB or a White House press release via email or hard copy.
You want me to make up the figures detailing the medical budget cuts?
You’re new here, and have some interesting things to say, so I would like to offer this comment in the spirit of helping you become a valued participant. This kind of sarcasm directed at other commenters may be the norm at other sites, but is strongly discouraged here. We criticize ideas, not other people here.
As someone who has worked at Mass General few people are more anguished about the major cuts heading towards the teaching hospitals. No one is asking you to “make up” numbers.
The numbers are fine, the question is whether it is appropriate to quote entire paragraphs from the NYT without attribution. If you provide the link, then quoting the paragraphs is fine. If you leave out any mention of the NYT and simply provide the paragraphs taken directly from the newspaper, that is contradictory to our practice which honors copyrighted material.
The budget figures, and their were more than in that one article I included came from OMB–not the Times although lately Bush and the Clintons have been dictating to the Times which articles to withold or print regrettably.
Thank you, eg. I was trying to come up with a response. And, it would not have been nearly as gracious as the one you just made.
As someone who has worked in a large number of tertiary hospitals and clinic settings, for years and years, I’ve lived/worked through the failure in health care and worked with those failures when Democrats and Republicans were in the West Wing. I haven’t seen a plan yet that offers much detail, and Clinton’s is one of the most unworkable. Hillary has a ton to learn about health care. Hopefully she’ll learn it outside the West Wing.
Their is a lot of hoopla in every primary and promises of a chicken in every pot–but the trend has largely been to put a disproportionate burden on physicians and the poor.
Between profligate earmarks that continue unrestrained for years, and the large hemorrhage of money in Iraq, and the complete irresponsibility of the Bush agencies lately, you’re going to continue to see these hemorrhages that take needed money away from healthcare and other domestic areas. As long as you have a Congress that’s a rubber stamp on both sides of the aisles, they’ll continue.
I have tons of sources for these numbers, and I guarantee you no one will be able to bitch about the Times or any other publication. But they don’t come up from the air– I have to read them somewhere.
It’s a function of many years of helping to guide my six younger siblings. Still had to live in the same house with them after challenging their actions, best done gently.
If you want to be constructive, why not post something substantive on any issue. I probably have a long wait.
I am not disagreeing with your numbers. I am asking you to give credit to the NYT when you reproduce two of their paragraphs, word for word, in their entirety.
And in keeping with my earlier comment #105 at 6:08, as you are new I would like to pass along to you that this kind of criticism of other commenters is not how we treat each other at FDL. Probably at a lot of other sites this would be considered fine, but we hold each other to higher standards of community here.
You have a lot to contribute, I hope you will join us in treating other people here with respect, thanks.
If you think at Mass General that the cuts are confined to teaching hospitals instead of the many areas I listed, I read up on your local economists Thomas McGuire, PhD; Joe Newhouse, Ph.D. and the Princeton economists Uwe Reinhardt and Paul Krugman.
My point was and still is, that a lot more medical cuts are coming than those confined to teaching hospitals that interfere with patient care. Some of them will impact care and research for the diseases that the most affluent of the Republican base will get, and many of them won’t.
Neither Obama nor Clinton addresses getting care to the poor, or a number of medical care issues in detail, or the remedies for the Bush cuts, and obviously McCain and Romney don’t have a clue except that they want people who can afford the care McCain can get at the Senate or Romney can afford to get it.
And in keeping with my earlier comment #105 at 6:08, as you are new I would like to pass along to you that this kind of criticism of other commenters is not how we treat each other at FDL
I was responding to precisely that kind of snide, snarky criticism for Valley Girl directed at me but posted to you in typical hypocritical fashion.
Keep trying.
Yet I’m not talking here to Valley Girl, but to you. Regardless of what other people do or not, it would be advantageous for you as a new member of the community to learn what the standards are for how we treat each other. Pointing to someone else and saying they are out of bounds does not excuse your own criticisms.
We criticize ideas, not each other.
We criticize ideas, not each other.
That’s not what V Girl did in her snide criticism of me directed in a comment to you. She or he wasn’t criticizing ideas–she was criticizing me.
I have the standards down, as I’ve told you. Valley Girl’s criticism was directly aimed at me, and she used a passive agressive way to do it. I’d say you ought to do some reminding to Valley Girl.
Or do you mean as long as the snide criticism is passive agressive and people talk past an individual to someone else as quite a few people who have forgotten their manners hear are prone to do(I can show you plenty of quotes) that it’s acceptable? Or do you perceive that what Valley Girl directed at me posting to you wasn’t direct criticsm?
We criticize ideas, not each other.
Those standards would imply that people don’t passively agressively criticize each other by talking passively agressively past the person they’re criticizing which was precisely what VG did.
And they’re called being civil not childish, and being old or new here doesn’t excuse anyone from understanding them. Is it common for you at Mass General or any other setting medical or non-medical to go around whispering about people while they’re in the room? Is that within normal limits for you?
My comment at 6:14 is about teaching hospitals but by no means suggests that cuts are only coming there.
What I may or may not say to Valley Girl need not concern you. I am not interested in discussing her behavior but yours.
You are a new commenter who is getting into some trouble by posting material written by other people without attribution, the two paragraphs from the NYT. All you needed to do in the original comment was provide a link or even say, this is from the NYT if you didn’t have the actual link.
Then when you were corrected, all you needed to say was hey I’m sorry, I forgot to provide the source or the link. I’ve seen your comments, you generally provide a lot of links, so it is baffling why this one omission is anything more than an oops moment.
Being rude to RBG, who is the Site Administrator, is not wise. I’m going to assume you didn’t realize his position since you are new. He is trying to give you some guidance so that you can remain a commenter in good standing.
Please take a step back and think about your behavior, not the behavior of anyone else. We are trying to make it possible for you to remain a part of our community.
Lesson for the Belichickies (maybe they needed to steal some signals today)–don’t waste time celebrating ’til the Fat Lady sings because you may need the energy to watch the White Jersies celebrate.
new commenter
Since June of 2007.
You’re not baffled–the article was a list of figures. You wanted them paraphrased or the quote attributed. You’ll get that believe me.
Are you baffled about the rudeness of talking past people in front of them? Most people learn not to do that as children–but apparently a large number of people here didn’t.
I’m not being rude to RBG. RBG has been personally responsible for holding my comments up which were perfectly appropriate for weeks after I used a name for Clinton that hundreds of publications use, and blocking scores of comments that had no personal comments to anyone, no name for Clinton other than Clinton(which would bring voters against her out in record numbers alone), and keeping me from participating in several book salons without any premise or explantion whatsoever. So I quit bothering.
What part of that do you think I don’t realize has you in a sweat–and again these were a list of numbers–nothing else?
Again I’ve been commenting since June 2007. I don’t know what constitutes new for you. I have made hundreds of comments, and the comments come from me and are cited from me.
I understand you’re in a sweat because when I quoted figures and they were a large number of figures, I lifed them from the sentences of the Times. However many of the figures were my sentences. You’re hung up because I didn’t paraphrase the figures. Given the numbers I would have had to list them or paraphrase them to make you happy. I normally link–I didn’t then because I interspersed my own analysis into the figures.
Pete, you seem unwilling, or unable, to understand the original point folks were trying to make here.
You copied two paragraphs, word for word, from the NY Times without attribution. As one who is a prodigious linker, that is not like you.
It’s sad to see that your responses tonight have shown no appreciation for this simple fact when it was repeatedly brought to your attention.
Perhaps you will find another community that better suits your interests.