Forum Replies Created
-
Sorry Mac but the U.S. Supreme Court has long held that for there to be a violation of the Espionage Act there must be a finding that the alleged perpetrator either intended or had reason to believe that the information to be obtained was to be used to the
injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation.In many cases the criminal intent to harm a person is presumed such as in a drunk driver who kills another. Such a crime is analogous to civil “strict liability” cases. While the intoxicated driver did not get in his car to go kill someone he or she did act with intent to violate a law by drinking to the point of being intoxicated. In so doing the driver acted with such a conscious disregard for the safety of others the law will find him criminally responsible for injuries caused to another. Simply stated: when you demonstrate a conscious violation of other people’s rights to safety and as a direct result of that a person is injured you can be found criminally liable because you intentionally committed an act in violation of the law that was foreseeable to cause injury. “Mens Rea” does not n mean an intent to injure. It simply means one who intentionally sets out to commit a crime such as the person who continues to drink until intoxicated and as a result injures another is criminally responsible.. The term literally -in latin- means a “guilty mind”. … Mens rea allows the criminal justice system to differentiate between someone who did not mean to commit a crime and someone who intentionally set out to commit a crime.
Many people like yourself look at the words “gross negligence” -such as in the Espionage Act-and believe that means any requirement of mens rea is deleted or to be more plain-something above just being negligent. “Gross negligence” means a conscious disregard for the rights or safety of others which is so great it appears to be a “conscious” violation of other people’s rights to safety. In such a case the actor is knowingly acting in a manner that is likely to injure another. That “state of mind” is mens rea. the actor is presumed to know that someone will more than likely be hurt. That is a long way from “negligence” or “inadvertence”. It is also not the same as “extreme carelessness” whatever the heck Comey meant by those words.
In sum, for her -in the eyes of the FBI-to be guilty of the relevant statutes her conduct would have had to be so terrible that she would be presumed to have known that the United States would be injured. As Levinson wrote: the attorney general looks for the “leakers” not the “bunglers”.
I understand why people who dislike, distrust, and even hate Clinton wish the bar was not as high as it is. As far as whether she is actually “qualified” to be President independent of her record, views, and policies-well that’s an entirely different subject than whether she should be prosecuted. Besides that drawer is not shut-hopefully.
Here’s an interesting and factual piece on the subject that might shed some light to some:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pol-clinton-email-legal-analysis-20160705-snap-story.html
BTW: note in the article that General Petraeus was also accused of lying to the FBI during its investigation. I was unaware of that.
BTW: “Gross Negligence” in the law carries a far more difficult burden to prove than mere “carelessness”. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care. Ordinary negligence and gross negligence differ in degree of inattention, while both differ from willful and wanton conduct, which is conduct that is reasonably considered to cause injury.
For those on the fence and not sure I suspect it will. For the others their minds are made up and it won’t matter. I think the public for the most part is more focused on terrorism and jobs. In my own mind it showed a lack of judgment and probably a lack of tech. understanding and nothing anymore nefarious than that. Good politicians and military leaders do stupid stuff all the time that in retrospect could be said to be a breach of security. The difference between the email issue and General Petraeus was that the 4 star General knowingly provided classified information to a woman he was having an affair with and who was his own biographer. Big f-ing difference. That’s the stuff Hollywood makes movies about. But in terms of his military competence he had few if any peers and ended up being the CIA Director. Clinton’s breach-if you can call it that-should not in and of itself reflect on her capability as serving as President no more than Petraeus’ ability to serve as a General and CIA Director.
For better or for worse we are a country of wolves-at least in the economic sense. It is the price we pay for what we perceive as “freedom”
This is where we disagree. Like all countries our country is a country of policies. It is true that the wolf-friendly have control of the policies. But there are countries with very different or even opposite policies which have as much freedom as we do, if not more.
But I think the sheer size of our country, the huge divergence of interests, the number of people living here, the enormous assimilation of varying cultures and immigrants makes it difficult to compare the United States with other countries
W to be honest I don’t buy that. I think it;s an excuse to naturalize the status quo.
…
I disagree. Monocultures like Japan cannot correlate to the US or UK or France.
And…where did you get the idea that Japan is a “monoculture?”
Compared to the US it is.
Examples of political monoculture includes Japan.
“If we change the laws to make the means of production publicly owned, and compensate former owners”
Not to be glib but good luck with that. Who makes the decision as to what is “fair compensation” ? If I have farmed acres of land that has been in my family for years and a “political committee” comes in and says I no longer own it and here is compensation-is that really what you want Billy? What if the offer of “compensation” is less than the value of the property but is justified for the “good of all”. Is that what you want? If so I don’t think we can in good faith discuss this any more. I know I can’t.
You really have no respect for those who wrote the Constitution because they were white and owned slaves? Really? Would your opinion on our system of governance change if the Constitution was written by black men who owned no slaves or owned white slaves?
Sorry but I don’t look upon the constitution in such a caviler manner.
W,
It’s fine, all things considered. A year and a half now without any chemo. Knock on the proverbial wood. Thanks for asking.
No worries about ending the conversation on the topic. Not a lot of people like talking about this stuff.
But I hope you’d at least consider this, about those wolves. From my reading and observations of real life, I don’t see most people as wolves. I see a very tiny minority in that light. Most people just want to get along, eat, drink, be merry, make love and so on — and are surprisingly selfless**. They’re actually very few Napoleons among us, though the capitalist system gives them wings. I’d rather have a system that doesn’t encourage them, promote them, protect them and bail them out when they fail. I’d rather have a system that has social justice baked in from the start, and doesn’t empower sociopaths (wolves).
Happy for you Billy. My wife, son, and I have all addressed cancer but certainly not on the same order as you. He had stage 3 melanoma on his lip from all the years of ski instruction and racing while in college. With surgery and radiation he appears to have won the battle-but needs constant monitoring because the margins were very close and the surgery could only go so far without a total disfigurement. My wife has the protein that is consistent with Multiple Myeloma that requires periodic visits to Stanford to check on any eruption that would cause the blood cancer to be addressed, etc.Mine is only a sliver of a cell found in my prostate gland that needs periodic monitoring.
Now on to a more fun topic: Doesn’t the 5th Amendment to the Constitution’s ensure private property rights to citizens ? I’m no constitutional scholar but I believe it does. Private property ownership allows individuals to do what they want with their goods. That ownership allows and enables a citizen to use his property to start a business or provide a service. How would that work under the system you described? Do we just can the Constitution? -The U.S. was founded on certain principals embedded in the Constitution. To get where you want do we just abandon the Constitution and simply start all over? I assume you would agree that is not in the works. If not then what do we do? My answer is we do the best we can to keep the wolves at bay. I mean what else can we do?
So, basically, W, I’m just not getting your objections. In every case, the system I describe would do infinitely better than our current one . . . on all scores. Everyone would have a voice. Everyone would get to hash out their objections, put in their two cents, should we do this, should we do that, let’s try this or that. That’s NOT the case under capitalism. Which means you’re not going to have a bunch of wolves killing the sheep. You’re going to have town meetings, workplace meetings, with everyone having an equal say, all voices heard, and then votes. No bosses. No political parties. The lowest levels of hierarchy possible — closing in on none. Rotating facilitators. No permanent power structures. No elections. Lotteries for civil service and workplace facilitators instead.
In capitalism, you have a few wolves eating up all the sheep. You have a few wolves deciding EVERYTHING for all the sheep. No dissent is allowed. It’s the boss’s way or the highway. No chance for democratic processes, debate, resolving conflicts using that process. You do what he or she says, or you don’t keep your job — and the bosses receive the lion’s share, even though they never do the lion’s share of work. And, as consumers, you get to buy what they tell you to buy, while making you believe you have “choice,” though you don’t. And most of that “choice” is the same old same old thing, cuz Capitalism encourages sameness, cuz mass production reduces costs, etc.
Again, not getting your objections.
Your knowledge of the intricacies of socialism is far greater than mine-so maybe I should stop arguing with you here. I understand your philosophy of the subject and the clear end game. I just don’t ever see that happening in this country. For better or for worse we are a country of wolves-at least in the economic sense. It is the price we pay for what we perceive as “freedom”. Unfortunately, that price is often devastating to the disadvantaged. No system of governance has perfected a way to prevent the wolves from eating the sheep or even their young.
I do bow to your critical analysis and expressive thought. I just don’t want to go on.
How’s your health BTW? I would ask you that in a private mail but can’t find the email add.
W,
Also: Actual socialism’s core tenets make it next to impossible for it to be what you describe. Because the people own the means of production, literally, directly, not through proxies, the entire economy is democratized, society itself is democratized. The real thing breaks down hierarchies of power, wealth and privilege. It breaks down concentrations of power, wealth and privilege. If it follows its own internal logic, it gets rid of the class system itself, over time, and paves the way for actual “communism,” which means the absence of the state.
So, contrary to the myths about both socialism and communism, there is actually far less government in the former, and none in the latter. Capitalism, OTOH, requires a massive state to support its imperative to Grow or Die and forever unify markets. Socialism seeks the opposite. To go back to local, independent, autonomous, cooperative economies, federated with one another, democratically.
Back for more punishment.
I think what your describing is a system designed to preserve human liberties while forcing everyone into communal economic arrangements. The key is to have “the people” collectively make all important economic decisions. Well your faith in the people to make decisions for the betterment of all is much stronger than mine. All I need to do is look at the Trump movement. Besides how does your system handle dissenters since economic decisions by necessity are made collectively. To me it’s like a gang of wolves sitting down with a few sheep to decide who to invite over for dinner. Venezuela was an oil fueled economy when in 1999 the voters installed the “democratic socialist” administration of Hugo Chavez. In the name of equality the “wolves” looted the nations wealth and confiscated entire industries while at the same time muzzling the press. Today there is rampant inflation, social unrest, and clear signs of an economic calamity. The wolves have eaten their dinner guests.
And Billy-you won’t get any argument from me that our present system of governing is a panacea. It has been over run by corporate interests to the detriment of many. What I see in the future is an attempt to blend some of the ideas and values of socialism within our present system. But we will never have a system of governance in this country that resembles what you have described.
