Execution is a bit much.

Post #288,216 by Another Scott 7/2/07 9:51:41 PM Reply	Execution is a bit much. Even for someone called "Scooter". :-) There's no remotely plausible reason for Scooter to release her name and occupation without being directed to do so by Cheney. There's a fundamental unfairness of an underling being professionally destroyed while at the same time the immediate boss who ordered the action suffers no consequences. Of course Scooter was guilty and I think he should have served the sentence that Fitzgerald recommended (30-37 months). But Cheney should be kicked out of office for his abuse(s) of power. Stringing only Scooter up won't serve as a deterrent. Bush should have stayed out of it, but he's too much of a prisoner of his "base" (and I'm sure Cheney put in a good word for the action...). Of course, Scooter didn't meet any of the [link\|http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-12-29-bush-pardons_x.htm\|conditions Bush previously outlined for getting a pardon] (in December 2005): Erin Healy, a White House spokeswoman, says everyone pardoned by Bush has "demonstrated full acceptance of responsibility and remorse for their offense and ... they've repaid their debt to society by either becoming an active citizen or by making a positive contribution to their community." Even after his fine and probation, Scooter won't be out of the woods. It's hard to believe that the Wilson's [link\|http://www.wilsonsupport.org/\|lawsuit] won't go forward. (A decision on that is expected by the end of the summer according to the link.) My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #288,217 by a6l6e6x 7/2/07 10:39:28 PM Reply	Well, you're right, of course. Scooter is taking one for the team. But, if it turns out that some of Valerie's contacts in Niger get executed by al Qaeda, my proposal is back on. :) Alex When fascism comes to America, it'll be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross. -- Sinclair Lewis
Post #288,239 by Andrew Grygus 7/3/07 10:33:07 AM Reply	"Taking one for the team" I think an underling that "takes one for the team" should get the cumulative hypothetical sentences sentences the entire team would have had without his actions. We'd have a lot less people "taking one for the team". [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #288,264 by Ashton 7/3/07 4:53:01 PM Reply	Imagine the punishment, though - for someone proven to have been near Hitler, with a killing device handy - which s/he didn't use... Omission! is as deadly an action as any other. (No wonder those huge Morality Books always teach the gullible pure mindless drivel.)
Post #289,429 by Another Scott 7/19/07 4:16:46 PM Reply	Plame/Wilson lawsuit dismissed. [link\|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071901395.html?nav=hcmodule\|Washington Post]: Thursday, July 19, 2007; 3:30 PM A federal judge today dismissed a lawsuit filed by former CIA officer Valerie Plame and her husband against Vice President Cheney and top administration officials over the disclosure of Plame's name and covert status to the media. U.S. District Judge John D. Bates said that Cheney and White House aides cannot be held liable for the disclosure of information about Plame in the summer of 2003 while they were trying to rebut criticism of the administration's war efforts levied by her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. The judge said such efforts were certainly part of the officials' scope of normal duties. "The alleged tortious conduct, namely the disclosure of Mrs. Wilson's status as a covert operative, was incidental to the kind of conduct that defendants were employed to perform," Bates wrote in an opinion released this afternoon. Bates also ruled that the court lacked the power to award damages for public disclosure of private information about Plame. The judge said that was because Plame and Wilson had failed to exhaust other remedies in seeking compensation from appropriate federal agencies for the alleged privacy violations. [...] Independent of the merits, and I think there are clearly some there, I'm not terribly surprised that a Federal Judge didn't want to get involved in a case like this. They generally shy away from suits against the Executive Branch. Cheers, Scott.
Post #289,431 by a6l6e6x 7/19/07 5:13:38 PM Reply	That's a diappointment. No mention of an appeal in the article. Alex Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. -- Sophocles (496? - 406 BCE)
Post #289,451 by Another Scott 7/19/07 7:02:53 PM Reply	Their lawyers "anticipate filing an appeal" [link\|http://www.wilsonsupport.org/\|WilsonSupport.org]: Washington, DC -- Earlier today, District of Columbia District Court Judge John D. Bates dismissed Joe and Valerie Wilsons' civil suit against Vice President Dick Cheney, presidential aide Karl Rove, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and Richard Armitage. While Judge Bates recognized that the Wilsons' claims "pose important questions relating to the propriety of actions undertaken by our highest government officials," he dismissed their suit on a threshold legal issue: that there is no constitutional remedy available to them. While the Wilsons' lawyers are reviewing the decision, they anticipate filing an appeal. Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington ("CREW"), one of the Wilsons' lawyers, said today, "While we are obviously very disappointed by today\ufffds decision, we have always expected that this case would ultimately be decided by a higher court." Sloan continued, "We disagree with the court's holding and intend to pursue this case vigorously to protect all Americans from vindictive government officials who abuse their power for their own political ends." Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!