Spy games - Page 2 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #11 of 23 (permalink) Old 10-20-2006, 01:20 PM
BenzWorld Senior Member
 
That Guy's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: '01 C320
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 564
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
If items were classified based on the threat they posed to national security, then this sort of crap would upset me, however Bush has proven that he classifies/declassifies information based on political expediency rather than national security so I honestly couldn't give 2 shits.
That Guy is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #12 of 23 (permalink) Old 10-20-2006, 01:24 PM
RFC
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Guy
If items were classified based on the threat they posed to national security, then this sort of crap would upset me, however Bush has proven that he classifies/declassifies information based on political expediency rather than national security so I honestly couldn't give 2 shits.
You haven't a clue about this story do you.
post #13 of 23 (permalink) Old 10-20-2006, 02:13 PM
BenzWorld Senior Member
 
That Guy's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: '01 C320
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 564
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Not anymore of a clue than you do. Apparently, some leak is being investigated and there's no proof of anything. Is there more of a clue than that or is there just more speculation and conjecture?
That Guy is offline  
post #14 of 23 (permalink) Old 10-20-2006, 02:50 PM
RFC
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Guy
Not anymore of a clue than you do. Apparently, some leak is being investigated and there's no proof of anything. Is there more of a clue than that or is there just more speculation and conjecture?
That's why it's called a investigation.
post #15 of 23 (permalink) Old 10-20-2006, 05:17 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Jayhawk's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2005
Vehicle: S500/W220/2000
Location: Lawrence, KS (USA)
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Guy
If items were classified based on the threat they posed to national security, then this sort of crap would upset me, however Bush has proven that he classifies/declassifies information based on political expediency rather than national security so I honestly couldn't give 2 shits.
You are obviously a national security expert! So what the hell would you do w/ the MoFo who released the Top Secret information? Give him a metal? That is what the real loser's are suggesting.

Don't believe everything you think
Jayhawk is offline  
post #16 of 23 (permalink) Old 10-20-2006, 05:28 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Point of accuracy: It was classified as "Secret," release will not cause "grave, irreparable harm" or something like that (been a while).

On just a general note, the fed classifies waaaaay too much stuff, especially the Whitehouse. They do that to avoid having to label stuff, "executive privilege" which still makes people think of Scirica (sp?)._ vs Nixon. But the Whitehouse can avoid that political squabble with Congress by classifying nearly everything as "Secret" which has a very high standard for declassification and ultimately approved by ... the Whitehouse.

Having said all that, this particular document is prepared as an intel doc, not as an internal Whitehouse doc. It really does contain info that if released could cause serious harm to the nation. Folks who released it should do jail time. The more we wink at folks who release classified material for political purposes the more we confuse the issue. It is wrong.
Botnst is offline  
post #17 of 23 (permalink) Old 10-20-2006, 05:44 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Jayhawk's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2005
Vehicle: S500/W220/2000
Location: Lawrence, KS (USA)
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
Point of accuracy: It was classified as "Secret," release will not cause "grave, irreparable harm" or something like that (been a while).

On just a general note, the fed classifies waaaaay too much stuff, especially the Whitehouse. They do that to avoid having to label stuff, "executive privilege" which still makes people think of Scirica (sp?)._ vs Nixon. But the Whitehouse can avoid that political squabble with Congress by classifying nearly everything as "Secret" which has a very high standard for declassification and ultimately approved by ... the Whitehouse.

Having said all that, this particular document is prepared as an intel doc, not as an internal Whitehouse doc. It really does contain info that if released could cause serious harm to the nation. Folks who released it should do jail time. The more we wink at folks who release classified material for political purposes the more we confuse the issue. It is wrong.
Oh my God! How could I make such a terrible mistake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is just a "SECRET" U.S. government document!!!!! Not a "TOP SECRET" U.S. government document!!!... How the hell could I--and al Qaeda--make such a huge mistake.

YOU GO B O Y ! ! !

Don't believe everything you think
Jayhawk is offline  
post #18 of 23 (permalink) Old 10-20-2006, 06:16 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhawk
Oh my God! How could I make such a terrible mistake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is just a "SECRET" U.S. government document!!!!! Not a "TOP SECRET" U.S. government document!!!... How the hell could I--and al Qaeda--make such a huge mistake.

YOU GO B O Y ! ! !
If you understood the difference then you would also understand its importance. Since you apparently have no clue then the value of your input concerning the importance of accuracy is correspondingly diminished.

Tell me the truth, just between you and me. Nobody else wil read this, I promise --You're really KV's opposite, right? Like an electron vs positron. Except when those collide and annihilate they produce a flash of light.

B
Botnst is offline  
post #19 of 23 (permalink) Old 10-21-2006, 09:31 AM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Pragmatism Trumps Suicide
Books

By ANDREW C. McCARTHY
October 20, 2006

Judge Richard A. Posner, of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago, is one of America's most prolific intellectuals and legal philosophers. Following the September 11, 2001, attacks, his powerful mind turned to the challenge of equipping government for the new threat environment, where sneak attacks by transnational terror networks have supplanted conventional national armies as the chief danger.

This study produced a series of books — including "Catastrophe" (2004), "Preventing Surprise Attacks" (2005), and "Uncertain Shield: The U.S. Intelligence System in the Throes of Reform" (2006) — which assessed the challenge from not only a legal perspective but the disciplines of intelligence and economics. The law, however, is the principal focus of Mr. Posner's latest contribution. "Not a Suicide Pact: The Constitution in a Time of National Emergency" (Oxford University Press, 171 pages, $18.95), is a short, accessible, and provocative analysis of the tension between security and liberty during crisis.

The apt title is drawn from a 1949 dissent by Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, who warned that a failure to "temper … doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom" would risk turning the "Bill of Rights into a suicide pact." This is the heart of Judge Posner's legal philosophy, pragmatism. Best explicated in his 1995 book, "Overcoming Law," Judge Posner's approach is, as he puts it,"instrumental": practical, not dogmatic. His chief concern is what works empirically. Formalistic methods of deduction from the Constitution's text and adjudicative theories sprung from "metaprinciples" (such as Jon Hart Ely's "representation-enforcing" judicial review, Justice Antonin Scalia's "originalism," or Justice Stephen Breyer's "active liberty") are regarded with skepticism.

For Judge Posner, the Constitution, though nearly 220 years old, continues to provide pragmatic solutions for emerging problems because its injunctions (not only in the Bill of Rights but in the articles that create governmental powers) are nebulous — framed in the language of "due process," "liberty," "unreasonable searches," and the like. This provides a wide interpretive berth. Thus, because the Constitution is difficult to amend, and because they are immune from being reversed, Supreme Court justices are the engine of a continuous "aggiornamento." Over time, the Court is better understood as having created "rights" than having discovered them latent in the Constitution's text.

Important corollaries flow from this arrangement. First, it requires a healthy judicial humility, recognizing both the limits of judicial competence and the dynamic march of time, which has a way of undermining even the most self-assured premises on which today's decisions are made. Rights do not exist in a vacuum but compete with the values represented by other rights. It is when jurists, heedless of tomorrow's challenges, become doctrinaire that they are most apt to err — when, as Judge Posner puts it, they place "a thumb on the constitutional balance" by inflating situational preferences (such as judicial warrants in search cases, or concepts of "imminent harm" and "prior restraint" in cases involving regulation of speech) into immutable rules. Second, there is a significant difference between the core values rights protect and the scope of that protection. The latter is quite elastic. Combined with the judicial propensity to circumvent straitjacketing precedents by drawing factbased distinctions, this elasticity makes the Constitution adaptable to new crises.

Judge Posner's pragmatic approach to the current crisis is to recognize that, while international terrorism is sui generis in that it does not fit precisely into either the "war" or "law enforcement" paradigm, it is closer to war. It requires for national security robust governmental powers to gather intelligence, monitor the religious exercise of jihadists, detain operatives, and conduct trials (whether they are technically "military tribunals" or not) that deny terrorists the full benefits of the criminal justice system. Judge Posner would worry far less about whether the NSA's interception of al Qaeda's international phone and email communications violates the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and far more about how FISA's obsolescence can be remedied so it is up to the modern challenge of identifying potential terrorists rather than simply surveilling the ones already known to be dangerous. If the goal is prevention of attacks, waiting to develop "probable cause" means waiting too long.

Most intriguing is Judge Posner's grappling with "the law of necessity." The specter of mass-destruction weapons that could dwarf the carnage of 9/11 means government, in an emergency, may need to coerce information by torture. Plainly, the Constitution has created an executive branch with the power to do this, but should it have the authority? Should we acknowledge necessity by providing for it in our law? Judge Posner thinks not. Our blanket prohibition, he believes, will not (and should not) prevent drastic measures when the time truly calls for them, but remains the best insurance against their being employed unnecessarily. Judge Posner suggests that this may be an example of a "law of necessity" that trumps the Constitution; I think it is better understood as an aspect of constitutional power that defies regulation.

Also noteworthy is Judge Posner's withering critique of civil liberties extremists, whose distrust of government is "excessive" and whose disparagement of the terrorist threat is "irresponsible." In their ardor, the author notes that civil libertarians fail to see their deep self-interest in capable security. Security guarantees their rights. A terrorist attack perceived as owing to an undue handcuffing of government would inevitably result in a roll-back of our liberties.

As always, Judge Posner has given us much to ponder on the day's most urgent questions. Critics right and left will disagree about many of the details. Beyond that, for all Posner's admonitions about judicial restraint, he is content to rely on judges to restrain themselves from second-guessing the political branches' conduct of warfare. About that, we could have more confidence if all judges were Judge Posner. But, as this excellent book once again shows, there is only one.
Botnst is offline  
post #20 of 23 (permalink) Old 10-21-2006, 10:40 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Jayhawk's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2005
Vehicle: S500/W220/2000
Location: Lawrence, KS (USA)
Posts: 21,652
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
If you understood the difference then you would also understand its importance. Since you apparently have no clue then the value of your input concerning the importance of accuracy is correspondingly diminished.

Tell me the truth, just between you and me. Nobody else wil read this, I promise --You're really KV's opposite, right? Like an electron vs positron. Except when those collide and annihilate they produce a flash of light.

B
Don't tell anyone, but I am KV-Right and when I collide w/ a$$holes I produce flashes of genius!

Don't believe everything you think
Jayhawk is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    Does anyone here play PC racing games? E V12 Nerd Off-Topic 5 08-04-2004 12:27 PM
    Any Benzes in PC games? MBeige General Mercedes-Benz 4 03-22-2004 09:45 PM
    G-wagen PC/Video Games Mike G. G-Class 5 01-30-2003 01:11 PM
    SLK in Video Games Ben Kokes R170 SLK-Class 5 06-07-2002 10:31 AM
    What the (*&! - weather is really playing games with us - MAX R170 SLK-Class 2 03-21-2002 01:36 PM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome