Free Republic

Don't you see? Yes, the documents may indeed be trivial, unless you are a presidential historian or the curator of the Carter library.

But Williams admits that he is not one of the "rightful owners" of the document.

Where I come from, if you take something when you know you are not its rightful owner, that is called stealing. And it was a significant enough theft, in Williams' own mind, that by his own admission he was "perspiring heavily" at the prospect of being caught.

No big scandal. Just a revelation of the man's character. He took documents that he recognized were of historical importance, whether or not you consider that they were. He considered them important enough that he was "perspiring heavily" at the prospect of being discovered as the one who took, and lost, the documents. Yet in spite of such concern, he didn't find a way to give them back. He very easily could have returned them anonymously, or in some other way done the right thing. But he didn't.

This doesn't rise to the level of what Berger, or Ellsberg, or any number of others have done. But neither Berger nor Ellsberg tried to pass themselves off as ethical journalists.

I wonder how many documents are lying around the offices of NBC or General Electric, waiting for someone with Williams' ethics to "discover" them and take them home? Was it "no big deal" for Williams to steal documents pertaining to the Ford/Carter transition? If so, I trust he will acknowledge that it will be even less of a big deal if NBC/GE employees steal any interesting documents pertaining to the Brokaw/Williams transition.

Yes, if the aeronautical chart were a unique and irreplaceable document, which you knew would be of value to a Presidential (or war?) library, then indeed it is the same sort of thing. But if it were merely a cool item, readily replaceable, then it's not the same thing at all.

Remember, Williams acknowledged that he was "perspiring heavily" upon realizing that he might have lost this valuable document. He knew the gravity of what he had done.

Of course, compared to what Berger, Billary and others have done, Williams' theft is "small potatoes." But it is still serious, especially for a supposedly ethical journalist.

I wonder how many conservatives will read (or listen to) the Williams interview, and upon noting his positive assessment of Rush will "give him a pass" for his unethical activities. You just KNOW that if Jennings or Rather had taken a Reagan administration document, the conservative movement would be ALL OVER them.

But elsewhere in his interview, Williams talks about how he's just an ordinary red-state, Rush Limbaugh-listening regular guy, who buys his suits off the rack at the same places everybody else does.

Are you suggesting that he is lying -- that he has his suits custom-made?

He couldn't POSSIBLY be lying about that... nor could he cynically be mentioning Rush in the hope of de-fanging potential conservative critics, could he?

Now, NBC's new anchor has admitted that he STOLE documents from the Carter White House, and held on to them for more than 25 years. Even if he gives them back to the White House, doesn't this act of long-term dishonesty pretty much disqualify him as a serious and ethical journalist worthy of the anchor's chair?

Weren't the Rosenbergs actually convicted for "conspiracy to commit espionage"? That's a treasonous act that does not require a declaration of war (just as Jonathan Pollard was convicted of espionage on behalf of a U.S. "ally").

Note my statement in my original message:

as if to require the formal judgment of a court and/or a formal declaration of war

No court has determined that John Kerry gave aid and comfort to the enemy. It appears that the 14th amendment wouldn't apply to Kerry until or unless this has occurred.

So what's stopping someone from filing a criminal complaint against Kerry? If a court, evaluating the facts, could convict Kerry, the 14th amendment provision could then be put into effect with far less controversy.

It is usually the "liberal" Left that abuses and misconstrues the Constitution and the courts for its nefarious purposes. I would hate to see the Right follow suit. Yet Kerry would clearly be compromised (to put it mildly) on this 14th amendment point, if proper legal procedures were followed. So why doesn't somebody with standing file the damn lawsuit already!?

The Rosenbergs, convicted of treason, would not have been eligible to serve as President, under the terms of the 14th amendment.

John Kerry, not convicted of treason, remains eligible (though manifestly unqualified).

John Kerry may be the moral equivalent of the Rosenbergs, but my point is that he is not the LEGAL equivalent.

It appears that "aid and comfort to the enemy" is rather narrowly construed, as if to require the formal judgment of a court and/or a formal declaration of war. Remember, too, that there was never a formal "declaration of war" in Vietnam -- the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution came closest, and certainly functioned to escalate the conflict, but did not rise to the legal status of an actual declaration of war.

Perhaps this is for the best, because if one could enforce this 14th amendment provision without a formal declaration of war, what would stop leftist nutbars from saying, "Lyndon Johnson declared a War on Poverty. Such-and-such Republican policy gives aid and comfort to those who oppose the War on Poverty. Therefore, these Republicans are not eligible to serve"?

Or I can easily imagine a leftist saying, "Donald Rumsfeld gave aid and comfort to Osama bin Laden in the 1980s. Osama is our enemy (although we love Islam as a religion of peace, and acknowledge Osama's legitimate grievances against the USA). Therefore, Donald Rumsfeld is not eligible to serve as SecDef."

Clearly, John Kerry gave aid and comfort to the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese. However, absent a formal declaration of war, and the concomitant legal status of "enemy" it would have brought, this point about the 14th amendment is merely a sound rhetorical point, rather than an enforceable point of law.