Debra Saunders in her latest San Francisco Chronicle blog John Kiriakou, ex-spy and media darling- facilely argues that the charges against John Kiriakou are not for revealing agents who engaged in torture, but rather for revealing their names and compromising intelligence agents, thus dismissing as irrelevant the intent behind the deed.
Her actions collaborate in the worst way with the administration's attempts to defend itself from accusations of illegal activities through narrowly framed assaults on whistleblowers, and confirms her preeminent status of conservative tool for the Chronicle.
The government's and Saunders' arguments are interesting, if some what ingenuous. Here we have a whistle-blower who is revealing what he sees to be a gross violation of human rights and the law, and rather than discuss this, and the validity of these actions, Debra focuses on the narrowly defined governmental accusations transparently tailored to avoid the key issue - if a crime has been committed what are the duties, obligations and rights of the whistleblower to expose such crimes, and what is the administration's obligation to consider them. Rather than consider the merits of the actions, the assail the actions themselves.
Seriously, if CIA operatives engaged in torture (I know that the definition of "torture" is a tricky question right up there with "what is sex?," or "what's the difference between a 'contribution' and a 'bribe'?"or what is earned income?" for most politicians), and we have a government that is not at all interested in discussing, clarifying, or bringing to the public light the issue, hiding every action behind a facade of "National Security", then how are We the People supposed to understand what is going on here if a few brave souls don't step forward and expose them?
And where is the accountability for the actions of the shadow figures that engage in torture if they hide behind questionable National Security filings and findings? Where is the public's right to know and understand what crimes against individuals and humanity our leaders and government have, are, and are planning to commit? Where is the role of the justice department in holding our leaders and their agents accountable for their actions? Where are the rights of the individual who has been violated and tortured? Do we want to live in a nation where torture is sanctioned and practiced?
No, I'm sorry, Debra's argument that revealing names is wrong in this case is not only wrong, but collaborates with the very torturers themselves in its intent. Just because you are an intelligence agent, doesn't mean you have immunity for your actions.
If we have defined systematic torture as part of our national defense strategy, then those engaged in it should be exposed and jailed; so too should those who either authorized or turned a blind eye to it in their managerial and executive capacities.
To discover this, and put it in the public's eye for condemnation will break a few eggs to be sure, but is required to keep this the land of the free.
Now those who argue (as the government's affidavit does) that Mr. Kiriakou signed documents recognizing that he had access to classified information and was required to maintain the secrecy of that information have learned nothing from history. Our own prosecutors held during the Nuremberg trials that "just following orders" is not a defense when violating human rights - we hung people for this crime - remember? So if someone in our government is aware of these crimes - say the fabrication of the reason to go to war against a foreign state in violation of law, or the torturing of people in this example, then they are beholden not just to not engage in the activity, but to escalate concerns about it internally; and if no action is taken (as is presumptively the case here) then to go public with the case.
As usual Debra Saunders reveals through her op-eds the degree to which she is a tool of the conservative edge of this nation that would repeal our freedoms and rights to earn some modicum of security.
As Benjamin Franklin once said - "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
There's a graph making its way through social media purporting to show the "real" speeding by Presidents over the past three decades:
Not that I don't agree with the graph, but let's recognize where and how it is misleading, and how others might draw other conclusions.
First
Most of the Conservative argument against running deficits is based on analogies to households that cannot run a deficit, and cannot raise money in the equities and debt market.
I would propose that the US government is closer to a corporation, and we all know that corporations make a business of "leveraging" other peoples money to earn a return for their shareholders.
In here, the leverage is public debt, and the return is presumably greater security and higher standards of living for the US Citizens who are the "shareholders". So with a low debt to equity ratio we are not being an efficient corporation turning equity into profit - Reagan simply adjusted that ratio to a better return ratio for all Americans.
He was a fiscal genius and a Saint.
To question that is an act of heresy.
Second
Somehow (don't ask how because it makes Conservatives uncomfortable, but rest assured it is because of those demon-Democrats and their Socialist-Communist economic policies that reward lazy good for nothings with fancy lifestyles and goods above their pathetic means, all on the backs of us hard working trust-fund babies), by the time Obama got to office we were just at the PERFECT debt ratio.
Under the keen stewardship of George the Younger we adjusted our tax rates to the optimal economic engine driving levels, and made investments in Military Interventions to keep us all safe from godless or at least Islamic terrorists.
All was good.
Then for no reason (please forget the Market crash brought on by conservative de-regulation and lack of oversight of our financial sectors because we all KNOW that laissez-faire economics is what that genius economist of the agrarian era Adam Smith would have called for) Obama has pushed the debt to unfathomable levels through his rash and extremely Socialist-Communist spending on crazy things like economic stabilization and jobs creations.
What the graph doesn't show is that his 16% is on a high base that really means that he has spent more on these misguided strategies than the previous 4 presidents. No, actually more than the rest of the Presidents combined. No wait! More than everyone who ever lived before us for all history. He just spends and spends and spends.
Since we know this to be truth, the graph must be flawed, or worse, slanted by the evil liberal media that is taking over our society.
Did I point out the liberal media?
Good.
Lastly
Conservatives understand that we're in an economic transition period that will have some transition costs for some socio-economic sectors (just not the leadership of our efforts, but fortunately our base supporters are either too dense or to indoctrinated to understand this). For Obama to make is Socialist-Communist spending so high to avoid or soften the inevitable downturn is misguided and Socialist-Communist. Did I say Socialist Communist? Just making sure you heard me.
No, we Conservatives believe in Mitt Romney's Laissez-faire (note the nod to Adam Smith to ensure we're on message) destructive-constructive capitalism where it is often more efficient, economically speaking, to tear something down and feed its rotting remains to the vultures, than to try and nurture it back to health.
Thank you for listening to why this graph makes absolutely NO SENSE.
This video article by MSNBC (The Dylan Ratigan Show) is more complex than the soundbites would have you believe. Watch before you read.
First, the American Steel industry hasn't been competitive globally since the 1950s or so, with the exception of mini-mills that have really learned how to use recycled steel efficiently. Many of the larger companies went out of business (I remember working the LTC Steel bankruptcy around 1991) and have left the detritus of a once proud industry to compete in a viscously competitive market.
Second, the show presents a cursory discussion on the decision to outsource the steel to China. The cost benefit was huge at the time, saving as they pointed out $400 MM in project costs, a not insubstantial sum that the taxpayers would have picked up as what, a subsidy to a non-competitive sector of industry? Not saying that we shouldn't do this, maybe it's the only way to recreate a competitive industrial sector, but there should be a discussion on this particular topic before we rush down the road with legislation like this.
Third, the reporting itself is incendiary - they make it sound like the entire bridge was made in China when from a value add $400MM / 7,200MM, or roughly 5% of the project was. That means 95% of the project value wasn't in this issue. I'm not saying that it was all American made (I don't know), but I do know that Mare Island has had enormous stockpiles of pilings and fittings for years which are ferried by presumably American ferries to the construction point 20 miles away, and that the concrete forms that make up the bridge are manufactured up the American River 30 or 40 miles away and once again ferried down to the bridge site. Oh, And I'm fairly certain that the hundreds of construction workers that cover the evolving structure like ants haven't been shipped in from China.
Fourth, by international treaty (which trumps US law if we bother to read the constitution and understand international law, hence all the "Black Helicopter" nut cases out there), we cannot erect trade barriers without cause - Chinese subsidization of their industry, currency manipulation, or even failing to incorporate negative externalities such as the use of slave labor or pollution would qualify, but we have to make a case for this, and with China holding, what, $1 Trillion in US debt, that's a tough case to want to make.
Not that I'm against American jobs bills.
I think we need to focus on eliminating the trade treaties we have that prompt flow of capital and goods, with
- no regard to negative externalities such as pollution, use of child or slave labor, or foreign subsidization of industry (look to China's $1 Trillion subsidization of the Solar Power industry if you'd like to understand how we're screwed before we start in green),
- no regard to trade practices others practice save the most public and egregious, and
- no consideration for the plight of labor under these laws.
I just hate poor journalism, and pithy, simple explanations of complex situations to the American people.
It's demeaning to the people, and perpetuates the bullet point dummying down of complex issues relieving us of our obligation to be informed and considered in our opinions.
It's one of the major reasons we're headed down the path to a totalitarian fascist state in my mind - read your Orwell if you need context - and needs to stop.
As an American I believe you have an obligation to be and remain informed. You need to question the simplistic sound bites that all sides bombard you with. At the most basic level, we all need to ask the one simple question that lawyers and police have asked forever:
"Who benefits"
So who benefits from shoddy journalism?
You, the viewer? It may feel good, it may be entertaining, but that doesn't make it journalism. Go watch a "reality show" if you want to be entertained. If you want to be informed, to understand the world, then demand more of these hacks.
The journalist who through either laziness or other, more sinister reasons, takes neither the time to research their article, nor makes the effort make a balanced presentation of the topic?
The congressman and party that desperately want to make a case for what here appears to be a poorly thought out jobs bill?
Powerful domestic corporate interests that would love to see some trade barriers re-erected to protect a noncompetitive market sector?
Trade Unions that want to create American jobs?
You the American voter that ultimately decide which of these wankers are put into and stay in office?
Ask yourself.
Debra Saunders in her latest San Francisco Chronicle blog John Kiriakou, ex-spy and media darling- facilely argues that the charges against John Kiriakou are not for revealing agents who engaged in torture, but rather for revealing their names and compromising intelligence agents, thus dismissing as irrelevant the intent behind the deed. 
Seriously, if CIA operatives engaged in torture (I know that the definition of "torture" is a tricky question right up there with "what is sex?," or "what's the difference between a 'contribution' and a 'bribe'?"or what is earned income?" for most politicians), and we have a government that is not at all interested in discussing, clarifying, or bringing to the public light the issue, hiding every action behind a facade of "National Security", then how are We the People supposed to understand what is going on here if a few brave souls don't step forward and expose them?
