Death penalty and espionage

[juliod]

We know that the conservatives here, especially the religious conservatives, favor the death penalty very much. And we know that they alos take the GWOT (Global War against Terrorism) seriously.

So, with that in mind, if Rove and Libby are indicted for leaking the identity of a CIA agent, shouldn't they be charged with espionage? During wartime, isn't the penalty for that death?

OK, innocent until proven guilty and all that. But I mean, the media are presenting this as a sort of legal technicality or the usual political rough-and-tumble.

But let's be clear about this. They were US officials, and as their official duties had access to much classified information. They were also acting as agents for a foreign body, namely the government now in power in Iraq. That's espionage, even if they believed what they were doing was in the interests of the US as well as the Iraqi political groups they were working for.

Are conservatives afraid or unwilling to employ their own draconian policies towards their own people?

DanZ

[micatala]

Probably yes.

But first, they will make every effort to redefine the truth so they won't have to admit there is a problem.

To be fair, we shouldn't really say 'the conservatives' but more appropriately the Bush administration.

[Cathar1950]

I would think so.


micatala wrote:

But first, they will make every effort to redefine the truth so they won't have to admit there is a problem.

I see this as the trend. I noticed one Republican defender saying they hoped it was on some real charge and not purgery.
Ann Coulter if asked would just make some stupid comment about Kennedy and giggle because she thinks she is so funny.
I am against the death penalty so I don't advocate killing anyone including the neo-right.

[juliod]

To be fair, we shouldn't really say 'the conservatives' but more appropriately the Bush administration.

Actually, by conservatives, I really meant those conservative here in the forum. It's part of a point I was tying to make, but didn't bring out very well. Christian conservatives tend to support the death penalty, even in the face of opposition by Jesus. And they do so in a sort of absolutist stance about law and order. So I would expect them to be quite serious about the death penalty when a fellow conservative commits a relevant crime.

But instead what I really expect is that the conservative absolutism will fade when it is a conservative political operative under question. In other words, their doctrine about morality, law, and the death penalty, is insignificant compared to their secular need to support a conservative political party.

DanZ

[Cathar1950]

There are some conservatives that are the religious right and support the death penalty. I think they would support anything as long as they are in charge and they are not the ones on trial.
I think they would like to kill people over any infraction sometimes. I could see the outreach program now to those on death row. They would be trying to get them to repent and confess their sins and accept Jesus in their hearts before they died to save their souls. It could be big bucks. Then you need more people to save(jobs are at stake), so you make stricter rules so you get more on death row.
This sounds like the inquisition. If you take their property I suppose it would be.

[Dilettante]

I do not support the death penalty for common criminals, but in extreme cases, such as self-confessed terrorists who have been convicted of mass murder or people who endanger the society they live in, whether it is in time of war or in time of peace, I wouldn't oppose it. There are people who are incapable of empathy, irrecuperable moral imbeciles, and the only alternative to the death penalty is to lock them up for life. I don't know which is better.
Anyway, I'm not sure that's the case of Rove and Libby. Did they endanger US society? If they did, then I agree.
By the way, I don't remember Jesus saying anything about the death penalty. Which gospel is it in?

[juliod]

Anyway, I'm not sure that's the case of Rove and Libby. Did they endanger US society? If they did, then I agree.

Yes, they did, almost by definition. Information is classified only if it's disclosure would cause harm to the US. Top Secret information (which I presume the identities of covert agents is) is defined as information which would cause "exceptional harm" to the US if disclosed.

I imagine that this case is causing a bit of concern in the CIA. Imagine being asked to undertake a potentially dangerous covert operation knowing that an unelected political "advisor" may leak your identity on a whim. Not a pleasant thought.

The question is, can a conservative, who supports the execution of a murderer, also support the execution of someone who may have caused the deaths of thousands. The point is that this case is being treated as a minor technical political scandal. In reality this is a major case of espionage leading to mass death and destruction.

By the way, I don't remember Jesus saying anything about the death penalty. Which gospel is it in?

Didn't he say something like "Let he who is without sin heave the first brick"?

DanZ

[Dilettante]

juliod wrote:

Yes, they did, almost by definition.

In that case I agree.

Imagine being asked to undertake a potentially dangerous covert operation knowing that an unelected political "advisor" may leak your identity on a whim. Not a pleasant thought.

...to say the least. Who would want to risk his/her neck in such a situation?

The point is that this case is being treated as a minor technical political scandal. In reality this is a major case of espionage leading to mass death and destruction.

In other words, there is a clear double standard then.

Didn't he say something like "Let he who is without sin heave the first brick"?

Oh, yes. But I had always interpreted that as a condemnation of hypocrisy and double standards (you know, seeing the speck in someone else's eye and not the beam in one's own), which is a recurrent theme in the Gospels. It doesn't seem to me a direct condemnation of death penalty per se. In fact, Jesus is also reported as saying this:
"But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea." Matthew 18:6
So it's not at all clear if the NT condemns or authorizes death penalty categorically. Jesus was a Jew, and Judaism contemplated such a punishment in certain extreme cases.

[juliod]

So the investgation is over. Result: Obstruction of Justice, Perjury, and Making False Statements.

How disappointing. It seems to imply that Libby was not directly involved in the criminal activity. That may mean that further charges could be made against others. It is reported that Rove remains under investigation. And it appears that Cheney may be involved (if Libby is only guilty of lying about it, it seems likely that Cheney was the main actor). But I doubt that any serious investigation will be continued.

It all just going to show that this case is being treated as a technicality rather than a serious crime undermining our national security and leading to the death of thousands.

DanZ

[micatala]

So the investgation is over. Result: Obstruction of Justice, Perjury, and Making False Statements.

How disappointing. It seems to imply that Libby was not directly involved in the criminal activity. That may mean that further charges could be made against others. It is reported that Rove remains under investigation. And it appears that Cheney may be involved (if Libby is only guilty of lying about it, it seems likely that Cheney was the main actor). But I doubt that any serious investigation will be continued.

It all just going to show that this case is being treated as a technicality rather than a serious crime undermining our national security and leading to the death of thousands.

I have to say I am also disappointed, although I still hold out some hope they will eventually make a charge as to the actual leaking of the name.

However, I would consider the 'leak case' as much smaller than the overall 'lying about Iraq' problem. I'm not sure how this leak in and of itself was supposed to have lead to the death of thousands.

Should there be a case made on the larger problem? Yes, I think so. I personally don't buy that it was all the CIA's fault. There was enough discussion at high levels of the problems with the intelligence (some guy called Curve Ball, for example) that Bush et al should have known they were on slippery ground, at best.

Will there be a case on the larger issue? There, I share your pessimism. Not even the court of public opinion was enough to get Bush et al out of office.