IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 1 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New True, but ...
I'm not suggesting that the civilian leadership should be accountable to the military. I'm saying that the civilian leadership should be as accountable to the electorate as the military is to the civilian leadership.

In other words, if a service member can be prosecuted and punished for activities that aren't expressly forbidden, but which are counter to the proper functioning of the military, then it seems reasonable that an elected official should be similarly liable to civilian punishment for activities that aren't yadda yadda yadda.
===

Kip Hawley is still an idiot.

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
New Devil's in the details.
Who decides what "conduct unbecoming" is where the CIC is concerned?

Let's take a real leadership example. To save Medicare it is highly likely that benefits will be cut for a majority of our citizens...and it will be hugely unpopular..but a true leader will have to lead and do it anyway.

Should this person, who did the right thing, then be prosecuted by the popular masses for doing what needed to be done simply because it was unpopular?

What you propose will make that scenario a distinct possibility.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New Did I say prosecuted by the 'popular masses'?
Well, I guess you could kind of read it that way. But no, what I mean is it seems reasonable to be able to hold officials accountable for activities that aren't explicitly prohibited. I wasn't focused on who would do the prosecution.

The devil is always in the details. But your repeated implication that there is nothing "wrong" with what this or that administration official did, just because it didn't violate the letter of any laws, doesn't fly. "Legally allowed" shouldn't be equated with "acceptable".
===

Kip Hawley is still an idiot.

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
New Believe this conundrum is ~ same class as
the little contretemps (EZBoard?) 'twixt us'ns and one 'daleross' (a M$ minion of some sort) - which ensued, following his assertion that -

If it's legal it's ethical!

(Well, you can see where That can lead. And did.)

The historic remedy for 'bad character' / slime in high places has been Recall
(when was the last time we heard of a recall election, except CA's governor of recent note?) and voting-out at next election. But that was when most people Were 'citizens' at least, sort-of. And if the National level of outrage is successfully opiated by some mix of ignorance, insouciance and just plain ennui: then there IS no remedy for the likes of the Neocons, nor for the discovery nay, finally: Proof that one has elected a simpleton and a nut-case zealot, to boot. (And opened the floodgates to much more capable, nastier operatives - if they just express Love-for-Shrub.)

Ergo - no 'law' can make the disinterested / the willfully ignorant safe from the looneys. Nor IMO is that trend other than down. More info surfaces daily (as the books, footnootes get written) re the illegal chicanery just last Nov - some say, quite more extensive than in 00/04.
("Landslide Denied" comes to mind):

[link|http://adreampuppet.blogspot.com/2006/11/landslide-denied.html|http://adreampuppet....slide-denied.html]

[link|http://themonitor.wordpress.com/2006/11/|http://themonitor.wordpress.com/2006/11/]
(article dated 3/19, down page) - and surely a passel on Googling.

When the skullduggery is so pervasive as to be routine; when the number of individual infractions --> crimes quickly exceeds a normal person's memory capacity - I think that denial gives way to, simply: acceptance of the inevitability of further unravelling. We have succeeded in rendering 'dialogue' impossible, even amidst the minority who ~ pay attention.

Hey.. Kunstler may be acerbic - but he's decidedly Got Our Number;
we could not be less-prepared for the twin concepts of 'adequacy' / 'conservation of resources' - precisely at the stage where [remember the word, 'thrift'?? .. way back] the profligate are apt to freeze - in all senses.

Luck to all us new Banana Republic-ans.
(Expecting competence next to magically appear, truly would be a sign of neural disconnect.. nope, 'luck' is about all that's left in that sack)

     Presidential Records Act. Any enforcement teeth? - (Silverlock) - (45)
         a link to yahoo mail? -NT - (boxley) - (1)
             Fixed. - (Silverlock)
         thanks for fixing the link, questions - (boxley) - (42)
             My two cents - (jbrabeck) - (41)
                 disagree and heres why - (boxley) - (40)
                     But... - (jbrabeck) - (25)
                         no, the sources shouldnt have to be public - (boxley) - (23)
                             So Cheney's forming his "energy policy"... - (jb4) - (22)
                                 Yes. - (bepatient) - (19)
                                     I'd like that to be true - (drewk) - (18)
                                         So? - (bepatient) - (17)
                                             No you don't - (drewk) - (16)
                                                 I thought we were talking about policy? - (bepatient) - (15)
                                                     The spin always comes out first, though - (drewk) - (14)
                                                         And this necessitates making advice public how, exactly? - (bepatient) - (13)
                                                             The selling, and the reaction to it, *is* how it's developed -NT - (drewk) - (12)
                                                                 I thought it was developed by secret meetings - (bepatient) - (11)
                                                                     Since we're clearly talking past each other - (drewk) - (10)
                                                                         I don't think its that clear ;-) - (bepatient) - (9)
                                                                             Which limits impact, but doesn't solve the problem - (drewk) - (8)
                                                                                 So everyone should be held to UCMJ standards? - (bepatient) - (7)
                                                                                     So you agree - (drewk) - (5)
                                                                                         nope, the military is subordinate to the people - (boxley) - (4)
                                                                                             True, but ... - (drewk) - (3)
                                                                                                 Devil's in the details. - (bepatient) - (2)
                                                                                                     Did I say prosecuted by the 'popular masses'? - (drewk) - (1)
                                                                                                         Believe this conundrum is ~ same class as - (Ashton)
                                                                                     Perhaps not EVERYBODY - but someone who makes such a... - (CRConrad)
                                 they wernt lobbyists dumass, they were oil execs, knew the - (boxley) - (1)
                                     Up next - hiring rats to set cheese management policy - (tuberculosis)
                         Absolutely not. -NT - (bepatient)
                     Up to a point - (JayMehaffey) - (13)
                         Good thing they can't then, isn't it? -NT - (bepatient) - (12)
                             What if they are pushing us down a slippery slope of secrecy -NT - (Seamus) - (11)
                                 "What if"? -NT - (pwhysall) - (10)
                                     secrecy in governmantal decisions - (Seamus) - (8)
                                         Both the laws and the policy are public - (bepatient) - (4)
                                             Let me real clear for you - (Seamus) - (3)
                                                 I don't see an issue here. - (bepatient) - (2)
                                                     My thoughts. - (Another Scott)
                                                     I am sure you don't - (Seamus)
                                         You misunderstand. - (CRConrad) - (2)
                                             ICLRPD (new thread) - (jb4)
                                             I hope I did misunderstand him - (Seamus)
                                     Gee, thanks ;-) -NT - (bepatient)

Jump, jive and wail!
113 ms