Do As I Say Not As I Say
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
By Gary [email protected]
First, the Massachusetts Dems.
Back when John Kerry ran for president in 2004, they were a bit concerned because Mitt Romney, a Republican, was governor.
See, if Kerry, a US senator from Massachusetts, won, Romney - according to the laws of the state - would appoint Kerry's replacement. Romney likely would have appointed a Republican.
Well that's no good. Can't have that.
So the Demo-controlled legislature amended the state law to strip Romney of the authority to appoint Kerry's would-be replacement. Turns out Kerry lost and it was moot, but nonetheless, they changed the law.
Now, instead of a gubernatorial appointment, the law in Massachusetts prescribes a special election to fill a midterm US Senate vacancy.
You can imagine the rationale at the time. The arguments were that the people must be involved in the selection of a US senator and it shouldn't be left to one man to fill the vacancy of such a high office.
And you know what? I agree with that.
Of course, a special election takes time - five months to be exact, based on the Demos handiwork in the amendment they crafted.
Comes now the untimely death of US Sen. Edward Kennedy.
This raises the very significant concerned that a five-month vacancy might leave Kennedy's Democratic colleagues in the Senate a critical vote short in their quest to pass health care legislation. Sixty votes are required to halt a Republican filibuster, you see.
So Sen. Kennedy, in his last days, appealed to Massachusetts lawmakers to give Deval Patrick, the Democrat governor of Massachusetts, the authority to appoint an interim replacement.
Of course, none of this would have been necessary if they hadn't fiddled with the law back in 2004 to their perceived advantage.
And now the argument being made by some of the very same lawmakers who argued about the people's right to choose their senator is that it's just too important a position to have vacant for five months.
No time for an election.
Really? Well why didn't they think of that back in 2004? That's a rhetorical question, of course. We all know why.
Ah, politics.
In the end, I suppose - all blatant hypocrisy aside - lawmakers giveth and lawmakers taketh away.
And they wonder why people don't trust politicians.
****[[In-content Ad]]Next, the American Civil Liberties Union.
The Washington Post reports three defense attorneys representing detainees at Guantanamo Bay are under investigation for outing covert CIA operatives.
Apparently, they were showing photos of suspected CIA operatives to their terrorist clients at the prison.
The lawyers reportedly were trying to identify CIA officers and contractors who might have been harshly interrogating suspected terrorists.
The lawyers are part of the military Judge Advocate General's Corps. Their clients all have been charged with crimes of terrorism related to 9/11. The lawyers are preparing their clients for trials before a military commission.
The Post reports that the lawyers are considering calling the CIA operatives as witnesses. (Remember the people who argued that trying terror suspects in civilian courts would lead to national security problems just like this?)
Here's the fun part.
The photos reportedly were taken by researchers hired by the John Adams Project, an outfit run by the ACLU and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Reports say some of the photos were taken clandestinely outside the homes of CIA operatives.
If I remember correctly, federal laws preclude disclosing the identity of covert CIA operatives. I would think that would include snapping their photos and sharing them with terror suspects, but that's just me. I'm no lawyer.
"We are confident that no laws or regulations have been broken as we investigated the circumstances of the torture of our clients and as we have vigorously defended our clients' interests," Anthony D. Romero, the ACLU's executive director, told the Post. "Rather than investigate the CIA officials who undertook the torture, they are now investigating the military lawyers who have courageously stepped up to defend these clients in these sham proceedings."
And this:
"It's a normal part of human rights research projects, and certainly in defense work, to compile lists of individuals who interacted with clients," Romero said.
But other sources told the Post:
"Tracking international CIA-chartered flights, researchers have identified hotels in Europe where CIA personnel or contractors stayed. In some cases, through hotel phone records, they have been able to identify agency employees who jeopardized their cover by dialing numbers in the United States. Working from these lists, some of which include up to 45 names, researchers photographed agency workers and obtained other photos from public records," the sources said.
Now that's just totally bogus for a couple of reasons.
First, I remember the ululations of the left when Valerie Plame was named in a column by reporter Robert Novak. She wasn't even a covert operative. At the time of her "outing," she was an analyst.
Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Scooter Libby, was indicted and convicted on federal charges of obstruction and perjury after a grand jury investigated the leak of Valerie Plame's identity.
Lots of people back then were calling this "outing" of Valerie Plame "treason."
Are those same people screaming now?
Well, they should be because in this case we have covert operatives - field agents - being exposed not just to the public, but to the enemy. Who knows how many lives have been put at risk or how many covert operations have been compromised?
And second, I thought the ACLU was really big into defending the right to privacy. Apparently, that's only when it's convenient for them, because those John Adams Project researchers the ACLU hired trampled all over the privacy rights of these CIA operatives.
Seemingly, in the addled brains of the ACLU, terrorists have a right to privacy, but the American operatives fighting them don't.
First, the Massachusetts Dems.
Back when John Kerry ran for president in 2004, they were a bit concerned because Mitt Romney, a Republican, was governor.
See, if Kerry, a US senator from Massachusetts, won, Romney - according to the laws of the state - would appoint Kerry's replacement. Romney likely would have appointed a Republican.
Well that's no good. Can't have that.
So the Demo-controlled legislature amended the state law to strip Romney of the authority to appoint Kerry's would-be replacement. Turns out Kerry lost and it was moot, but nonetheless, they changed the law.
Now, instead of a gubernatorial appointment, the law in Massachusetts prescribes a special election to fill a midterm US Senate vacancy.
You can imagine the rationale at the time. The arguments were that the people must be involved in the selection of a US senator and it shouldn't be left to one man to fill the vacancy of such a high office.
And you know what? I agree with that.
Of course, a special election takes time - five months to be exact, based on the Demos handiwork in the amendment they crafted.
Comes now the untimely death of US Sen. Edward Kennedy.
This raises the very significant concerned that a five-month vacancy might leave Kennedy's Democratic colleagues in the Senate a critical vote short in their quest to pass health care legislation. Sixty votes are required to halt a Republican filibuster, you see.
So Sen. Kennedy, in his last days, appealed to Massachusetts lawmakers to give Deval Patrick, the Democrat governor of Massachusetts, the authority to appoint an interim replacement.
Of course, none of this would have been necessary if they hadn't fiddled with the law back in 2004 to their perceived advantage.
And now the argument being made by some of the very same lawmakers who argued about the people's right to choose their senator is that it's just too important a position to have vacant for five months.
No time for an election.
Really? Well why didn't they think of that back in 2004? That's a rhetorical question, of course. We all know why.
Ah, politics.
In the end, I suppose - all blatant hypocrisy aside - lawmakers giveth and lawmakers taketh away.
And they wonder why people don't trust politicians.
****[[In-content Ad]]Next, the American Civil Liberties Union.
The Washington Post reports three defense attorneys representing detainees at Guantanamo Bay are under investigation for outing covert CIA operatives.
Apparently, they were showing photos of suspected CIA operatives to their terrorist clients at the prison.
The lawyers reportedly were trying to identify CIA officers and contractors who might have been harshly interrogating suspected terrorists.
The lawyers are part of the military Judge Advocate General's Corps. Their clients all have been charged with crimes of terrorism related to 9/11. The lawyers are preparing their clients for trials before a military commission.
The Post reports that the lawyers are considering calling the CIA operatives as witnesses. (Remember the people who argued that trying terror suspects in civilian courts would lead to national security problems just like this?)
Here's the fun part.
The photos reportedly were taken by researchers hired by the John Adams Project, an outfit run by the ACLU and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Reports say some of the photos were taken clandestinely outside the homes of CIA operatives.
If I remember correctly, federal laws preclude disclosing the identity of covert CIA operatives. I would think that would include snapping their photos and sharing them with terror suspects, but that's just me. I'm no lawyer.
"We are confident that no laws or regulations have been broken as we investigated the circumstances of the torture of our clients and as we have vigorously defended our clients' interests," Anthony D. Romero, the ACLU's executive director, told the Post. "Rather than investigate the CIA officials who undertook the torture, they are now investigating the military lawyers who have courageously stepped up to defend these clients in these sham proceedings."
And this:
"It's a normal part of human rights research projects, and certainly in defense work, to compile lists of individuals who interacted with clients," Romero said.
But other sources told the Post:
"Tracking international CIA-chartered flights, researchers have identified hotels in Europe where CIA personnel or contractors stayed. In some cases, through hotel phone records, they have been able to identify agency employees who jeopardized their cover by dialing numbers in the United States. Working from these lists, some of which include up to 45 names, researchers photographed agency workers and obtained other photos from public records," the sources said.
Now that's just totally bogus for a couple of reasons.
First, I remember the ululations of the left when Valerie Plame was named in a column by reporter Robert Novak. She wasn't even a covert operative. At the time of her "outing," she was an analyst.
Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Scooter Libby, was indicted and convicted on federal charges of obstruction and perjury after a grand jury investigated the leak of Valerie Plame's identity.
Lots of people back then were calling this "outing" of Valerie Plame "treason."
Are those same people screaming now?
Well, they should be because in this case we have covert operatives - field agents - being exposed not just to the public, but to the enemy. Who knows how many lives have been put at risk or how many covert operations have been compromised?
And second, I thought the ACLU was really big into defending the right to privacy. Apparently, that's only when it's convenient for them, because those John Adams Project researchers the ACLU hired trampled all over the privacy rights of these CIA operatives.
Seemingly, in the addled brains of the ACLU, terrorists have a right to privacy, but the American operatives fighting them don't.
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092