La Cage Aux Foley

Sen. Lindsey Graham:

quote:

---

What would happen if a CIA agent were captured in Iran trying to suppress their nuclear program, and the Iranian government put this person on trial as a war criminal, and the Iranian prosecutor had a file marked "secret," gave it to their judge and their jury and said convict this man, and they never shared the evidence with the American agent? We would go nuts. We would say that secret trial violates the Geneva Convention standards for trying people. What if the Iranians gave him a lawyer and allowed the lawyer to look at the evidence the jury had but would not allow the lawyer to talk to the agent about the case against them? What would we do if the Iranians sentenced an American to death based on evidence the American never saw? We would go crazy.

---

quote:

---

Pedophiles and terrorists -- everybody we try deserves to know what they're accused of so they can defend themselves. And if we do it differently now -- different than we've done in 200 years -- it will come back to haunt us, because other people will start doing this. And imagine an American in a foreign land going to the death chamber never seeing the evidence against them. It would be an outrage against our people, and we can't legitimize that.

---

Strong words - though unfortunately I don't the majority opinion.Hang on a minute That's the problem with these political topics, they go off topic so easily because there are so many other topical issues that get commented on. I agree that there are more important issues that need discussion and attention. Unfortunately - it's been said that politics is showbusiness for ugly people...and these kind of stories are no exception.No better a villain than a hypocritical villain. The story is far more entertaining than some old latin phrase related to some old Swiss city.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : Mad formatting insanity.

When the reputation of a party member is stained when he commits a crime that he was involved in passing - that *is* political. When that same politician seeks treatment and releases a mitigation statement, that is political issue. When, just before a vote, a safe seat for the party in power is in jeopardy because his name is going to be still on the ballot we have ourselves a political issue.A public servant in a party that crusades on the moral ground being involved in a sex scandal is always political and significant. It often spells the downfall of that party in the next election.What has been argued is that it is less significant and less political than other issues.That it is a personal criminal act does not mean it is not a political issue. When a public servant commits a criminal act - especially a criminal act that is so contrary to the message of the party in question - it affects the confidence people have in that party, swing voters might vote the other way. Other support voters might not turn out at all. This could begin a shift in the clichingly named political landscape. When other members of the party don't report a crime, and try to pervert the course of justice...there is a big abuse of power that may be prevalent. That's going to affect the country because it will effect the balance of power, in a potentially surprising area.The politicians should be focussing on their jobs for sure - and not scandals. The media though, is right to call this as newsworthy...though as always it has all the sensationalist spins left, right and centre

I don't think anyone has debated that 'case', have they? I know that is what I said in Message 43. You said that it was nonpolitical and insignificant. I disagreed. On the nonpolitical side it seems you meant political to mean 'the functioning of gov't as encoded in law' and not 'relating to politics'. Florida Department of Law Enforcement are conducting an inquiry to see if any of the messages occurred in their state and decide whether state law has been violated. The FBI are doing the same thing at the federal level, so I guess we'll be finding out the answer in good time. Sometimes events prove to be more significant than they should be compared with other seemingly more important affairs. I said this as support to my point that this is not an insignificant issue. Its significant. Probably not as significant as the media are making out, and the media are probably going to make it more significant than it is. I agree with that - a seeming constant truth about the relationship between democracy based politicians and a free press. The problem is that the Democrats are not trying to get Democratic voters to agree with them, they are trying to get Republican voters to be outraged enough about the Republicans that they simply don't bother to vote. Republican voters have so far been relatively unperturbed with the Republican's attitude towards previously enshrined rights - perhaps especially where it concerns non-citizens. Republican voters, on the other hand, are very vocal when it comes to moral scandals - which is why a sex scandal can be more significant to the voting landscape than a rights scandal.

None, whatsoever. It doesn't! I am in agreement that the thing that should be causing the shakedown should be the personal rights issues. However, voters don't seem to respond to media outrage at personal rights issues. Of course, they do - but not nearly in as near numbers a sex scandal can.I don't have to like it, but sex is always going interest more people than taking away the rights of non-citizens. That being the case, politics being politics exploits that to a level that people start seeing what they are doing and it gets irritating. As such, sex scandals are often more significant than actual political scandals. Though of course, a large political scandal is far worse than most sex scandals for a politicians career - but large political scandals are fewer and further between than sex scandals...probably because large political scandals can often be newspeaked away in the spin machine. That can happen with sex scandals too, but its much harder to play down the spin than it is to play up. Cigar, anyone? It most definitely is not true for all! However, there is talk of a safe seat being lost because enough Republican voters might not want to put their cross next to Foley's name. The Dems will probably lose some conservatives, they may also win some republican biased swingers too. We'll have to see how far it gets egged - negative campaigning is quite the rage, despite the protestations of many that dislike it. Well - so far the rep spin wins. But it's the third period and there's everything to play for...or some other fitting sporting analogy.