Posted on 04/28/2005 1:50:07 PM PDT by IsraelBeach
What is that supposed to mean?
You are accusing the American government of anti-semitism. America, the country that has done MORE for the government of Israel than ANY country, in money and blood.
And you accuse them (and us) of anti-semitism? Please explain yourself.
The SOB should have fried.
And then today we see:
A Pentagon analyst was arrested Wednesday and charged with giving top secret information about potential attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq to employees of a pro-Israel group.
Larry Franklin, a 58-year-old Air Force Reserves colonel who once worked for the Pentagon's No. 3 official, is the first person charged in a long-running investigation into whether Israel improperly obtained U.S. secrets.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/bw-exec/2005/may/04/050409867.html
Seems that you don't even know what day it is.
I saw that on Drudge today.
Couldn't find a FR thread on it
For the record, I am willing to entertain the notion that he should have been treated slightly differently because he was spying on his country for a supposed ally.
What I am not willing to budge on is the fact that he has not only been unrepentant for spying on his own country, but has refused to come clean and participate in damage control.
I can forgive anyone for things they may have done in their life. Believe it or not, I could even forgive Osama Bin Laden if he genuinely repented, and was willing to be responsible and pay the price of what he did and denounce his activities.
It is not just a "Christian" thing, it is a "human" thing to be able to forgive. But it all hinges on genuine repentance, of which there is none forthcoming from Mr. Pollard.
Maybe you should read the documents that Pollard had to sign in order to get his clearances. They clearly spell out the penalty for giving such information to ANYBODY not authorized, friend or foe. I know. I signed them too.
That old-school democracy is based on Liberty. Individuals acting on their own under their own moral compass in pursuit of their own good and in respect of the common good.
To the extent we relinquish our independence to act in what to each us independently seems the best for ourselves and for the nation we thereby diminish Liberty.
John Paul Jones acted in such Liberty -- with it he took on the mightiest navy in the world while he only had a floating toothpick box to start. Liberty -- the individual of respect, of energy, of independence and acting thereon -- is more potent than the mightiest Navy.
When you or I signed those papers we gave up that Liberty, the system constrained us -- in some ways proper, but in more I come to see --- more ways a ruination.
Am I wrong or is this the same Ted Olsen who is now the Solicitor General for the Bush Admin? Must be. He was also the husband of the late lamented Barbara Olsen who died in the terrorist piloted plane that crashed into the Pentagon. Barbara also wrote a scathing book about Hitlery titled "Hell to Pay" a very good read and a devastating attack against Frau Hitlery.
bvw, I am not sure you understand the republic we live in. We are a country of laws. Are you saying that it is up to each individual's concept of liberty to decide whether to break the laws that have been formulated, debated, approved and passed by legally elected representative government?
Yes it is.
You said: "When you or I signed those papers we gave up that Liberty, the system constrained us -- in some ways proper, but in more I come to see --- more ways a ruination."
bvw, if you signed some papers in order to get a job, and you view the signing of those papers as you do above...why did you sign them? Was it a case of 'I'll sign anything to get in the front door'?
The ruination of our country is the refusal of some to uphold the oaths, signed or spoken, that they vowed. This is precisely the problem we have with the judicial system in our country. Many of them are not beholden to anyone once on the bench, and can "legislate" when they should be interpreting.
A jury is King in its chambers. Laws are good only when carried out by good reasonable men and women -- the law itself is hollow without reasoned moral action in use of it.
When laws are decided by individuals and not society or elected representatives, that is anarchy, not liberty.
If a law is not moral or just, it is our job to change it, not disregard it.
A law is not "good only when it is carried out by good reasonable men and women." That is no measure of the "goodness" of a law. Bad men and women can carry out good laws, and vice versa.
There are plenty of nasty and unjust people who enforce our just and right laws.
You and I disagree on a fundamental level. In your opinion, if a law is not right or just (in your personal opinion or analysis of that law), you can disobey it and should not be subject to the will of the greater society. in your view, if I believe rape and robbery are okay, I should be able to do it without penalty. You may cry foul here, and accuse me of being polemic, but the point is, you think the individual should draw the line at right and wrong.
I believe that if one sees a law as unjust or wrong, change should come through the system. I believe that you can oppose a law and break it if you choose, but you must be subject to the penalties mandated by the electorate. If you disagree with laws, it is your right, your duty as a citizen to work to change it, not to just cherry-pick what you will obey and not obey.
Your view is anarchy, my view is representative democracy.
I don't recall having a gun pointed at my head when I signed the papers.
Yet we do not check our brains, our consciense, our morality and even our self-interest at the door in so doing.
E Pluribus Unum. Out of many one.
The Union -- the United States, or and decent governemnt, is best when acheived by means of individuals acting as individuals, yet in accord to the good. To the common good, to the ideals of the land.
It is harmed and degraded towards tyrannmy, towards despotism, towards corruption and poverty and ineffectualism when the individuals permit too much of their Liberty of action, association and property to be hamstrung, to be cut-off, or to be denied in favor of some purported national interest as put forth by yet other individuals.
John Paul Jones, Daniel Boone, Daniel Webster and other individuals acted freely in their own interests -- in today's monolithic federal bureaucracy -- including the DOD and the security classifications and process -- such powerful and potent individuals would not be found, they would be rejected or arrested. What for? For disagreeing with the monolith god of Process, and it's step-sister goddess of Loyalty to Present Prevailing Opinion.
Our security and inteliigence systems are incmopetent because they so reject the individual and make Process and Group-think king.
Drama queen.
No. End of discussion.
Pollard was guilty of espionage and he may have been guilty of treason if some of the information was sold to the Soviets.
Constitutional treason consists of four elements: (1) an intent to betray; (2) by means of an ovet act; (3)testified to by two witnesses; and (4) giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The Pollard case meets the first three. I guess the only real question is whether Israel can be defined as an enemy, for the purposes of treason.
and we're not giving up Michael J. Pollard either...
http://www.thecollectorzone.com/images/products/1692_s.jpg
;o)
This is a waste of time. You see nothing wrong with your rationale, even though it is completely at odds with the foundations of our republic.
You fail to see that you CANNOT have it both ways. You set up a straw man by saying: "We all act in our daily lifes according to laws and regulation. It is necessary.
Yet we do not check our brains, our consciense, our morality and even our self-interest at the door in so doing." and implying that those who do not think as you do just that.
We are a republic of laws, or we are not. You seem to think you can make your own laws. You can, but if they are at odds with what the representative legistlature has determined to be the law, then you do so at your own peril, and rightly so.
If you own a house, how would you like it if someone brought a backhoe into your backyard and began digging it up and building a shack to live in? What would you say to that person? That there are laws against digging up someone elses yard and building a shack on it?
In your world, that person would have every right to say "Not my laws. I am allowed to do this. I don't recognize the right of you to keep me off of this land." And you would have no recourse but to violence.
You may think you can, BUT YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.
Your views are NOT what the founders of this country had in mind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
