Can't even say she is sorry

[renots]

Is it just me or is this the most arrogant (http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000914/ts/crime_scientist_dc_38.html) justice dept we've ever had?

;0)

[spigidygak]

Hehe, they know they were wrong and are a bunch of asses, but they still don't want to admit it.

[sbp]

Janet Reno is an incompetent jacka$$ who should have never been attorney general in the first place. Slick Willie hired her because she/he is allegedly a woman. :mad2:

[Edited by sbp on 09-14-2000 at 12:55 PM]

[Nanotech9]

is there anything in the constitution against sh00ting people like her? If so, can we cross out that part with dissappearing(sp?) ink and do the deed before the ink dissappears(sp?)? pretty please? :angel:

[Claypatch]

Originally posted by Nanotech9
is there anything in the constitution against sh00ting people like her? If so, can we cross out that part with dissappearing(sp?) ink and do the deed before the ink dissappears(sp?)? pretty please? :angel:

Jeezis! It's not so much that there is anything in the Constitution against shooting people as it's against the morals of society at large, any society you care to live in. I'm sorry but it seems to me, IMHO, that you are rather cavalier with your idea of wanting to shoot Janet Reno. Anybody else that you want to kill just because they piss you off? Hey, ya know, we live in a imperfect society, and justice, like democracy is sometimes a messy thing. I'm not a fan of Janet Reno at all, remember the Waco fiasco, but to endorse shooting her...I also recall the Ed Meese days from the Reagan administration, now there was a arrogant fat pig! He got his start as the Alameda County prosecutor, back in the Berkeley heydays, and came to then Gov Reagans attention when he called in the National Guard to break up a demo; the Guard ended up shooting some kid off the roof of a building because he was *allegedly* a sniper. Reagan supposedly liked this kind of law and order and kept the fat f*** around, bringing him along to WA DC for the *glory* days of the Reagan years. Eventually ol' boy Meese got to preside over the most indicted and convicted of all Presidential Administrations: the Reagan one. Meese even refused to pay his parking tickets all those years, some example he set.

*Whew* Okay, I'm...ok now, done with the rant. Sorry it went on for so long, blame it on my higher ed in politics and history and too much caffiene. Anyways, all I'm really suggesting is let's be a little more circumspect with the way we diss the people we disagree with (unless they are telemarketers: death to them all!! ;^))

[sbp]

That fat pig Meese should be shot too and ate for dinner. Bon Appêtit! ;)

Ultimate fighting championship: Ed "the Pig" Meese versus Janet "the Man" Reno.

Everyone knows only college student atheletes should get away without paying all those parking tickets they get. That'll affect their grades you know. :rolleyes: Geez soon enough they'll be making BIG money.



[Edited by sbp on 09-14-2000 at 02:37 PM]

[pennypinch]

I frankly think the Reagan years were some of the more progressive years economically: hey, it may not have been entirely successful, but you never know unless you try, and Reagan's advisors had the cojones to give it a shot! I admire that.
Ed Meese, on the other hand, was perhaps the most bigoted, kangaroo-like of any DOJ head. His Meese Commission was a particular farce, and truly entertaining if you sit down to read through it. I've yet to meet somebody that has a single kind word to say about that she-man Janet Reno, but I'd be surprised if there was a more roundly hated person who filled the position than Ed Meese.

[pennypinch]

Originally posted by sbp
That fat pig should be shot too and ate for dinner. Bon Appêtit! ;)

Ultimate fighting championship: Ed "the Pig" Meese versus Janet "the Man" Reno.


Yeesh, that'd be a very, very short set-to. Jan the Man would absolutely obliterate that simpering idiot.
To get back to the original topic, though, Reno and her cohorts had some absolutely dispicable remarks in that article. To quote sbp, "Shame on them!"

[sbp]

So your saying Meese would taste like a kangaroo? Yuck. :puke:

http://www.geocities.com/sbp7777/files2/kangaroo.jpg
What you saying about eating 'roos?

[Edited by sbp on 09-14-2000 at 02:51 PM]

[Claypatch]

[/B][/QUOTE]
Yeesh, that'd be a very, very short set-to. Jan the Man would absolutely obliterate that simpering idiot.
To get back to the original topic, though, Reno and her cohorts had some absolutely dispicable remarks in that article. To quote sbp, "Shame on them!" [/B][/QUOTE]

LOL! Yea, a very quick and bloody battle.

You are right. It would be nice, finally, to see Reno get hers behind the woodshed for this and so many other f***ups: Waco, Richard Jewell (sp?), and now Mr Lee. Someone explain to me how is that of all Slick Willie's Cabinet, why is it that Jan da Man is the only one -besides the Wife- to have survived into the 2nd term? What kind of dirt does she have on Bill that has him keeping her around? Is it because she makes for such a good *target* that she takes *shots* that otherwise would come to him? Hmmmm....I love a good conspiracy theory :^P.

[sbp]

Maybe she does sexual stuff for him that even Monica wouldn't do. http://news.agn.com/forum3d/i/expressions/face-icon-small-shocked.gif Nahh. Even Slick Willie can't be that bad can he?

[renots]

Originally posted by Nanotech9
is there anything in the constitution against sh00ting people like her? If so, can we cross out that part with dissappearing(sp?) ink and do the deed before the ink dissappears(sp?)? pretty please? :angel:

...that do carry a capital penalty

;0)

[Claypatch]

Originally posted by pennypinch
I frankly think the Reagan years were some of the more progressive years economically: hey, it may not have been entirely successful, but you never know unless you try, and Reagan's advisors had the cojones to give it a shot! I admire that.
Ed Meese, on the other hand, was perhaps the most bigoted, kangaroo-like of any DOJ head. His Meese Commission was a particular farce, and truly entertaining if you sit down to read through it. I've yet to meet somebody that has a single kind word to say about that she-man Janet Reno, but I'd be surprised if there was a more roundly hated person who filled the position than Ed Meese.

Ohhhh ick! Pardon me while I puke!!

Ok...I'm back. Sure the Reagan years were great...If you were a white male who was in with a miltary contractor, on Wall St, a investment banker, etc. Everybody else got screwed. So what else is new(s)? Same s*** different day. Same crap goes on today. Reagan was just able to cover it up a little better because he was so freakin' telegenic and *likable*, although personally I will take a ferret in my pants than admit that I like ANYTHING about the man. Remember the "trickle down" theory of economics, the theory that if you put enough $$ into the large corporations (read: his cronies) the $$ will "trickle" down to the rest of society? Ahhhh <sigh> the good ol' days...NOT!

[Nanotech9]

bummer :( and I thought I had such a good idea going there :(

oh well, just figured she liked to use guns soo much, it would be an ironic way to put her out of her misery...

really though, I'm not exactally happy with the way she/he's been ordering around the US Marshals etc, storming places w/o having prior served a warrant etc...

(I have a feeling I just stirred up some coals - oops :D)

[pennypinch]

Originally posted by Claypatch
Ohhhh ick! Pardon me while I puke!!

Ok...I'm back. Sure the Reagan years were great...If you were a white male who was in with a miltary contractor, on Wall St, a investment banker, etc. Everybody else got screwed. So what else is new(s)? Same s*** different day. Same crap goes on today. Reagan was just able to cover it up a little better because he was so freakin' telegenic and *likable*, although personally I will take a ferret in my pants than admit that I like ANYTHING about the man. Remember the "trickle down" theory of economics, the theory that if you put enough $$ into the large corporations (read: his cronies) the $$ will "trickle" down to the rest of society? Ahhhh <sigh> the good ol' days...NOT!
Well, well, well, isn't your hindsight sharp! Correct me if I'm wrong, but slashing taxes to particular demographics had not be done as extensively before his terms. The 1982 crash notwithstanding, I believe quite a few people were riding pretty high for a while. Mid-80's prosperity much? Granted, it ran the interest rate up quite sight, but it seemed like a good idea at the time. Honestly, it had quite a bit of support from the intelligencia and academic illuminati. The fact that it was a failed experiment was as valuable as anything; it disabused us of the notion that money "trickles" especially well, something we DIDN'T know then.
I wouldn't be so quick to judge. While I think Bush was probably the victim of both the business cycle AND Reagan's policies, and Clinton has likewise benefitted unduly from the cycle comin' on back, his administration's moderate touch with the economic tiller has probably steered us to reasonably sustainable growth and prosperity for the next little while. I don't know about you, but the boom and bust tactics some have used in the past are not for me. Not until I put more capital together, anyway...

[pennypinch]

Originally posted by Claypatch
Ohhhh ick! Pardon me while I puke!!

Ok...I'm back. Sure the Reagan years were great...If you were a white male who was in with a miltary contractor, on Wall St, a investment banker, etc. Everybody else got screwed. So what else is new(s)? Same s*** different day. Same crap goes on today. Reagan was just able to cover it up a little better because he was so freakin' telegenic and *likable*, although personally I will take a ferret in my pants than admit that I like ANYTHING about the man. Remember the "trickle down" theory of economics, the theory that if you put enough $$ into the large corporations (read: his cronies) the $$ will "trickle" down to the rest of society? Ahhhh <sigh> the good ol' days...NOT! And furthermore, this has been eating at me for the last little while, especially when I whack these topics around with renots (you aren't renots, are you?!). Just what is the ideal state of affairs? Everyone zippin' around in Boxsters and having cash falling out of their pockets? Universal wealth? There have to be general and foot soldiers, and I think there are relatively few people today who are starving like the average Depression era family. You might have to face the reality that wealth is relative, and that poverty is simply the flip side of wealth. I certainly not saying that we should strive towards the status quo, but I really don't understand where some of these arguments terminate.
While some of the disparity in wealth has to do with ingrained policy and social norms, a lot has to do with a lot of people busting their ass for a very long period of time, and being very intelligent people. They have the added advantage of being good at what we as a society value. Perhaps you're saying we should be changing what society values, but don't devalue some of these peoples' accomplishments.

[renots]

ders only ONE renots in da hauz![or this forum, so to speak]

;0)

[pennypinch]

Originally posted by renots
ders only ONE renots in da hauz![or this forum, so to speak]

;0)
aNd he Be a Thug4LiFE.
What is with that, lately?
"Whoze DA biggest Cenzer of dem all?"

[renots]

WOOF...WOOFWOOFWOOF!

;0)

still as cute as ever, eh?

[Claypatch]

[/B][/QUOTE]And furthermore, this has been eating at me for the last little while, especially when I whack these topics around with renots (you aren't renots, are you?!). Just what is the ideal state of affairs? Everyone zippin' around in Boxsters and having cash falling out of their pockets? Universal wealth? There have to be general and foot soldiers, and I think there are relatively few people today who are starving like the average Depression era family. You might have to face the reality that wealth is relative, and that poverty is simply the flip side of wealth. I certainly not saying that we should strive towards the status quo, but I really don't understand where some of these arguments terminate.
While some of the disparity in wealth has to do with ingrained policy and social norms, a lot has to do with a lot of people busting their ass for a very long period of time, and being very intelligent people. They have the added advantage of being good at what we as a society value. Perhaps you're saying we should be changing what society values, but don't devalue some of these peoples' accomplishments. [/B][/QUOTE]


Me "renots"?!? HuH? Hey, I'm just little ol' claypatch and I take sole responsibility for everything I say.

And I agree with you that wealth does come, sometimes, from people bustin' their asses and I want to be the last person to take away anybody's accomplishment. But I would recommend re-visiting Reagan's tax cutting policy. He did cut taxes to a demographic -the rich- but taxes stayed pretty much the same across the board for everyone else. He also increased military spending, WAY WAY more than what was needed. Yeah it did force the Soviet Union into bankruptcy but I will argue to my dyin' bed that the Soviets were nothing more than a straw man for the military/industrial complex to make a boatload/buttload/what have you load of loot. A military economy, which ours is, has to have continuous enemies to justify things like B2 bombers -which are literally worth their weight in gold.

If taxes were cut, as they were, and if military spending was raised, as it was, something had to give. And give it did. What gave was social spending, ya know things that make a society more livable (sorry about the sarcasm there), like environmental protections, $$ for national park upkeep, job re-training programs, $$ to help homeless; Christ I remember seeing many more homeless in LA at the time because spending for mental institutions went way down, so what becomes the growth industry of the 80's and 90s? Prisons. Ya gotta have someplace to house those bums...Reagan, imho, was a friggin' disaster, up and down.

Poverty is the flip side of wealth but where is it stated that just because you make it you piss down the back of those who haven't? Now I am not saying that you do that or anybody else you know does either. But as a society we are taught that there is something very wrong with poor people and I say "WHAT THE F*** IS UP WITH THAT" (please excuse the shouting). We spend the least of any industrial country on poverty programs, social welfare programs, job training, drug rehab, pre-natal, etc etc, and the most on prisons and the military, and we are the richest country on earth, bar none. So again I say (see the shout above). Someone once said, and I wish I knew who, that a society as only as strong as it protects it's weakest members. By that standard I would say we are probably a pretty weak society. So really, I would argue that we need to rethink our societal priorities -and not vote in losers like Reagan/Bush/Clinton- and start working towards a rich inclusive society that we can have, really truthfully.

Hey, I am enjoying this thread very much, and I hope that no-one takes offense to my rants, as no offense is meant.

claypatch

[renots]

whozeYoDadee?

Just wish janet r and slick Will could kick back, light up a doobie,and stop being so mean to people for minute. It would really polish up 'how history will remember" them at least in the minds of future Americans

;0)

[renots]

Originally posted by Claypatch
So really, I would argue that we need to rethink our societal priorities -and not vote in losers like Reagan/Bush/Clinton- and start working towards a rich inclusive society that we can have, really truthfully.[/B]

...on a state and local level though, NOT on a Federal level. geez, this is where alot of good people's thinking goes a little wack.

Yes schools. healthcare, and jobs are important issues. So important I think it is best to cut them out of the big porkbarrel factory known as D.C.[and their accompanying Taxation] and allow communities to decide How they want to teach their children, take care of their elderly, or train their workers.

The VITAL parts of Federal government could be run off of Capital Gains taxes, which would be significant with the ELIMINATION of Income Tax

Vote Nader or Hagelin

[yes, I know. I'm sure they'll come around]

;0)

[Claypatch]

I don't know about you, but the boom and bust tactics some have used in the past are not for me. Not until I put more capital together, anyway... [/B][/QUOTE]

Which boom and bust economic tactics are you thinking of? Just curious.

[Claypatch]

Originally posted by renots
whozeYoDadee?

Just wish janet r and slick Will could kick back, light up a doobie,and stop being so mean to people for minute. It would really polish up 'how history will remember" them at least in the minds of future Americans

;0)

LOL!!
Yas Yas! And let's not forget that little tab of happiness while they are passing 'round the doobage.

[renots]

Originally posted by Unknown Web Denizen
I don't know about you, but the boom and bust tactics some have used in the past are not for me.

Which boom and bust economic tactics are you thinking of? Just curious. [/B][/QUOTE]

...THIS IS AMERICA D#MN IT, LAND OF BOOMS AND BUSTS

amazing how we take it all for granted.

most places have bust and bust and fart and bust cycles instead!

[sound of slapping ]


Originally posted by Unknown Web Denizen
Not until I put more capital together, anyway...

Now you're talkin sense

;0)

[Edited by renots on 09-14-2000 at 06:35 PM]

[Claypatch]

Originally posted by renots

Vote Nader or Hagelin

[yes, I know. I'm sure they'll come around]

;0) [/B]

Yes yes YES! Nader all the way, Dawg!
Bow wow wow Yippe Yo Yippe Yaa

[Claypatch]

Originally posted by renots

Originally posted by Claypatch
I don't know about you, but the boom and bust tactics some have used in the past are not for me.

Which boom and bust economic tactics are you thinking of? Just curious.

...THIS IS AMERICA D#MN IT, LAND OF BOOMS AND BUSTS

amazing how we take it all for granted.

most places have bust and bust and fart and bust cycles instead!

[sound of slapping]


Originally posted by Claypatch
Not until I put more capital together, anyway...

Now you're talkin sense

;0) [/B][/QUOTE]


Ummmm....ya know homes...those 2 quotes you have attributed to me up above....? [whisper aside] They aint mine.

The only quote above that's mineallmine is the one asking which boom and bust cycles he's thinkin' of. Love your analysis of the boombustfart US economic cycle, can I plaigirize(sp?) it? Please? Pretty please??

[pennypinch]

Originally posted by Claypatch
I don't know about you, but the boom and bust tactics some have used in the past are not for me. Not until I put more capital together, anyway...

Which boom and bust economic tactics are you thinking of? Just curious. [/B][/QUOTE]
Well, I don't have time to address you above longer post, I'm sick of being at work right now, but the boom and bust periods I'm talking about are the early 80's to the early 90's. Stock market crash to amazing affluence to recession to where we were circa 1993. While politically I'm not for it, economic centerism seems to be the path to managealbe, sustainable growth.
More tomorrow, folks, I'm headed home.

[renots]

My bad

;0)

[sbp]

And I agree with you that wealth does come, sometimes, from people bustin' their asses and I want to be the last person to take away anybody's accomplishment. But I would recommend re-visiting Reagan's tax cutting policy. He did cut taxes to a demographic -the rich- but taxes stayed pretty much the same across the board for everyone else. He also increased military spending, WAY WAY more than what was needed. Yeah it did force the Soviet Union into bankruptcy but I will argue to my dyin' bed that the Soviets were nothing more than a straw man for the military/industrial complex to make a boatload/buttload/what have you load of loot. A military economy, which ours is, has to have continuous enemies to justify things like B2 bombers -which are literally worth their weight in gold.Working class people are getting killed by all these frigging taxes and its just going to get worse unless we put a stop to it. Take a look at all the red tape and taxes small business owners have to deal with.

Reagan inherited a military that was in shambles from the weakwilled Jimmy Carter. To rebuild the military, spending on it had to go up. The Soviet Union imo was the biggest threat to freedom the world ever saw. Thank God it crumbled. Hopefully you give credit to Reagan for delivering the peace dividend which has enabled $pending on those precious social programs to go up.
If taxes were cut, as they were, and if military spending was raised, as it was, something had to give. And give it did. What gave was social spending, ya know things that make a society more livable (sorry about the sarcasm there), like environmental protections, $$ for national park upkeep, job re-training programs, $$ to help homeless; Christ I remember seeing many more homeless in LA at the time because spending for mental institutions went way down, so what becomes the growth industry of the 80's and 90s? Prisons. Ya gotta have someplace to house those bums...Reagan, imho, was a friggin' disaster, up and down.Liberals in Congress led by Tip O' Neill and Ted Kennedy went on a $pending rampage during the 1980's and early 90's. It was like they were crack addicted 'ho's unable to stop spending taxpayer money on rock. Hell these liberals in Congress didn't even want to cut back on the rate of growth of social programs. Its no damn wonder the deficit grew so much. Its great their tax and spend arses lost control of Congress and we as a result got a balanced budget with surpluses.

It was Jimmy Carter who deinstitutionalized the mentally ill yet Reagan keeps getting blamed for this. Its interesting when a liberal does something like that, its because they don't want people to be kept in impersonal institutions. Yet when a conservative supposely does something like that, its done because those meanspirited bastards were trying to hurt people. :rolleyes:
Poverty is the flip side of wealth but where is it stated that just because you make it you piss down the back of those who haven't? Now I am not saying that you do that or anybody else you know does either. But as a society we are taught that there is something very wrong with poor people and I say "WHAT THE F*** IS UP WITH THAT" (please excuse the shouting). We spend the least of any industrial country on poverty programs, social welfare programs, job training, drug rehab, pre-natal, etc etc, and the most on prisons and the military, and we are the richest country on earth, bar none. So again I say (see the shout above). Someone once said, and I wish I knew who, that a society as only as strong as it protects it's weakest members. By that standard I would say we are probably a pretty weak society. So really, I would argue that we need to rethink our societal priorities -and not vote in losers like Reagan/Bush/Clinton- and start working towards a rich inclusive society that we can have, really truthfully.All this big government run amok is making life harder for the middle class. Government is way too big and is involved in far too many things it never should have been involved with in the first place. As a result it fails when it does many things poorly. No doubt about it this country has way too many hands outstretched to DC and needs to stop penalizing productive people. Working people can do far more with the money they work hard for than some mindless bureaucrat.

We've had 40 years of this socialism and $pent trillions of dollars. Throwing all that money at problems sure didn't work. Certainly serious rethinking of our societal priorities must be done. We don't want to end up and be like all these socialist countries where life revolves around sucking the nanny state breast for everything. We should not want to be like these European countries where truckers are protesting the super high tax on gasoline.

Its time to get Uncle Sugar out of people's lives. Lets begin right now. :)

[Claypatch]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by sbp
Hopefully you give credit to Reagan for delivering the peace dividend which has enabled $pending on those precious social programs to go up.

Buh! Sorry sbp, but I will only give Reagan credit for being a senile stupid corporate lackey who was good at being the smiley face of the corporate criminals who actually ran his administration. You know, there is a very good reason Reagan gave the fewest press conferences of any prez in history, his "handlers" were always afraid that he would go off script and start babbling and foaming at the mouth: "Ladies and Gentlemen I have outlawed Russia. We will start bombing in 5 minutes". I've said it before, but maybe not in this thread, and I will say it again, Reagan was an idiot. He was a law&order fascist as governor of Cali, a corporate shill for GE -Death Valley Theatre- and a stool pigeon for HUAC when he was prez of the Screen Actors Guild. Reagan made it ok to be a public racist again, remember "welfare queens", started the trend of union busting by busting the PATCO strike, and because of his economic policies that you like took us from being the largest creditor in the world to the largest debtor one. It became a race to see who was going to spend themselves into a grave, the Soviets or us, and personally I'm glad we lost, but it was a STUPID race.

What peace dividend? Give me evidence that there was a peace dividend? What programs did that $$ go into? There was no peace dividend, military spending did not go down one bit. We are still spending far more on the military than is needed, and Carter did not leave us with a enfeebled military, that is a myth. I know this from personal experience.

But please, don't insult me, by mistake, of thinking me a "liberal" or a Democrat. I am just as disgusted with the Clinton Administration and the Democrats as I am the Republicans. I just call a spade a spade, and Clinton is just as much a corporate weasel as BushandReagan were before him.

[renots]

Originally posted by Claypatch
I just call a spade a spade, and Clinton is just as much a corporate weasel as BushandReagan were before him.

...if not more of one. Reagan talked tough, but Clinton actually signed off on more fascist corporate-friendly legislation. Seems the overly smart presidents can't help but try to make waves; the idiots just do what they are told

;0)

[Claypatch]

Originally posted by renots

Originally posted by Claypatch
I just call a spade a spade, and Clinton is just as much a corporate weasel as BushandReagan were before him.

...if not more of one. Reagan talked tough, but Clinton actually signed off on more fascist corporate-friendly legislation. Seems the overly smart presidents can't help but try to make waves; the idiots just do what they are told

;0)

True true...<sigh> so sad. It seems that it has been our sad history to be cursed by a gang of mediocrities and idiots that have for Presidents. Washington, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Carter, good decent, intelligent men, the rest...fools and goons.

[Butch]

OK . . . so back to the original topic of the handling of the Wen Ho Lee case . . .

I'm sorry, but I have NO sympathy for Lee. He KNEW when he accepted the job that he was subject to TREMENDOUS scrutiny and EXTREMELY high security requirements - and he opened himself up to problems by downloading classified files to unsecure computers. Had he followed the security guidelines, he would not have been a suspect. He knew the reprocussions of what could happen if he were suspected of violating national security - and he put himself in a suspicious position. It's a risk that was known to him when he took the job and a risk that was known to him when he consciously decided to break the rules.

National security is NOT something to be f*cked with - and if you work in a position where you have access to information that is of national interest, you have assumed a tremendous responsibility. If you're not careful with it - the reprocussions of your actions are YOUR responsibility.

[renots]

FBI[atthedoorflashing badges]:Hi, we'd like to ask you a few questions and then we'll be on our way

WHL[surprised&disarmed]:uh, sure

several hours later WHL goes out in cuffs for telling the wrong folks the truth about a widespread practice at the lab of transferring data to unsecure[but more usable] computers

dept of justice MY #SS

;0)

[Butch]

Ah - the old "Everyone else is doing it, so I should too" excuse.

Are you trying to argue that just because everyone else downloads classified information to unsecure computers that that makes it OK that he did it? They are ALL wrong, and they ALL put themselves in a bad position. Lee is simply the one who went down for it. Like I said before . . . it's his fault.

BTW - have you been paying attention to what's been going on with Deutsch, the former head of the CIA?? He kept classified information on his personal computer. What happened? He's losing all of his clearance - and if he were suspected of giving information to a foreign government, the same thing would have happened to him as had to WHL.

They were both stupid for putting themselves in these positions and they have nobody to blame but themselves.

[zenbooty]

Originally posted by Butch
Ah - the old "Everyone else is doing it, so I should too" excuse.

Are you trying to argue that just because everyone else downloads classified information to unsecure computers that that makes it OK that he did it? They are ALL wrong, and they ALL put themselves in a bad position. Lee is simply the one who went down for it. Like I said before . . . it's his fault.

It must be great to see the world through your rose colored glasses. Where can I get a pair?


BTW - have you been paying attention to what's been going on with Deutsch, the former head of the CIA?? He kept classified information on his personal computer. What happened? He's losing all of his clearance - and if he were suspected of giving information to a foreign government, the same thing would have happened to him as had to WHL.


You think if Lee were white they would have targeted someone else? I sure do. Deutch was ex-head of the CIA. He gets caught doing exactly what Lee was doing, keeping classified info on insecure computers. Deutch will lose credentials that mean nothing to him, since he is no longer head of the CIA. Lee got to spend 9 months in solitary (not even serial killers get this kind of treatment anymore). And you think this is OK? How do you know Lee was made aware of the importance of security regarding this data? After all, all his coworkers, his supervisors, even the leader of his organization broke the same rules regularly. We learn mostly by example and experience, dude, not by some 2000 page handbook given to us the first day of work. And in the end the files he "stole" were not nearly as damning as originally reported, i.e. more Bull**** Justice Department lies, but this time they got called on them.

How can you believe justice is being served here when its the "servers of Justice" that are behaving like criminals and thugs?

[Butch]

Originally posted by zenbooty

Originally posted by Butch
Ah - the old "Everyone else is doing it, so I should too" excuse.

Are you trying to argue that just because everyone else downloads classified information to unsecure computers that that makes it OK that he did it? They are ALL wrong, and they ALL put themselves in a bad position. Lee is simply the one who went down for it. Like I said before . . . it's his fault.

It must be great to see the world through your rose colored glasses. Where can I get a pair?


BTW - have you been paying attention to what's been going on with Deutsch, the former head of the CIA?? He kept classified information on his personal computer. What happened? He's losing all of his clearance - and if he were suspected of giving information to a foreign government, the same thing would have happened to him as had to WHL.


You think if Lee were white they would have targeted someone else? I sure do. Deutch was ex-head of the CIA. He gets caught doing exactly what Lee was doing, keeping classified info on insecure computers. Deutch will lose credentials that mean nothing to him, since he is no longer head of the CIA. Lee got to spend 9 months in solitary (not even serial killers get this kind of treatment anymore). And you think this is OK? How do you know Lee was made aware of the importance of security regarding this data? After all, all his coworkers, his supervisors, even the leader of his organization broke the same rules regularly. We learn mostly by example and experience, dude, not by some 2000 page handbook given to us the first day of work. And in the end the files he "stole" were not nearly as damning as originally reported, i.e. more Bull**** Justice Department lies, but this time they got called on them.

How can you believe justice is being served here when its the "servers of Justice" that are behaving like criminals and thugs?

OK . . .first off . . . DUH his ethnicity was a factor in making WHL a suspect!! He was SUSPECTED OF GIVING/SELLING secrets to the CHINESE! Are you telling me you don't think if a scientist were accused of giving/selling secrets to Iraq, they wouldn't be looking for a middle easterner??

Further, do you REALLY think that these scientists did not know that they weren't supposed to download classified information to unsecure computers???? They are WELL versed in the security requirements of their position!! Even if they weren't, since when is ignorance of the law a valid reason?? Try going to traffic court and saying that you didn't know it was a school zone and THAT is why you were going 50MPH with all your friends doing the same thing - doesn't work THERE, and it sure as HECK won't work in a national security issue.

Regardless, in being given the privilege of working on such top secret projects and being on the cutting edge of his field, WHL forfeited MANY other rights due to the sensitive nature of his research. He KNEW the reprocussions of his actions COULD be tremendous - but he took the risk of doing it anyway since he felt there was little chance of something actually HAPPENING to him for it. He was wrong, but he KNEW the risks.

As for Deutsch, if he had been suspected of selling or giving away his secrets instead of simply storing them on an unsecure computer, you'd better believe he would have been treated in the SAME way. Now that Lee is no longer suspected of selling/giving secrets, is he being treated any worse than Deutsch???

[Edited by Butch on 09-18-2000 at 06:15 PM]

[renots]

Originally posted by Butch
He was SUSPECTED OF GIVING/SELLING secrets to the CHINESE!

...and i don't think he looks too chinese

[Ethnicity has always been used as a easy criterion for arbitrary prosecution. Ever hear of the Dreyfus affair?]

;0)

[Butch]

Originally posted by renots

Originally posted by Butch
He was SUSPECTED OF GIVING/SELLING secrets to the CHINESE!

...and i don't think he looks too chinese

[Ethnicity has always been used as a easy criterion for arbitrary prosecution. Ever hear of the Dreyfus affair?]

;0)

Why don't you just compare apples and oranges as far as justice is concerned??? Dreyfus was CONVICTED without substantial evidence . . . WHL was simply held on SUSPICION and subsequently RELEASED.

[renots]

Originally posted by Butch
WHL was simply held on SUSPICION and subsequently RELEASED.

oh yea. solitary confinement for 9 months is just a vacation now isn't it?

...And Justice for All!

;0)