ConyersBlog Admin is marching down a dangerous path
Reader tip: Link to allegation against ConyersBlog Admin here
There's been some bantering about on the ConyersBlog about accusations of slander. Small problem: The correct cause of action would be libel; but given Congressman Conyers public figure status, I am not persuaded that the comments are reckless disregard for the truth.
On the contrary, given the subsequent explanations, I am satisfied that the basis for the comment was a fair opinion, and a reasonable public comment related to a matter of public concern.
The burden of proof, apology, and full costs for the result should be born by the ConyersBlog.
Discussion
The ConyersBlog Admin certainly is having some fun. Allegedly, someone has asserted that there has been slander. Going forward, it remains to be seen whether the ConyersBlog is serious about brining a cause of action; and what counter-claim, if any, is brought in the form of an Anti-Slapp claim.
Before proceeding, you may wish to review this criteria, and the various jury instructions.
The Details
When someone wants to assert that there has been a wrong, there needs to be some probative evidence supporting that claim.
Not only is there a requirement that the elements to the claim be proven, but that the claim be valid and that the party seeking a remedy must arrive with clean hands. Conyers Blog Admin has a problem. They are confusing written communications [libel] with spoken communications [slander].
The other problem the ConyersBlog Admin has is that they are shifting the burden of proof from ConyersBlog [in brining a cause of action for alleged slander], and shifting the burden of proof onto the party that is making statements.
This is contrary to the notion of jurisprudence. To succeed not only in the court room, but in the court of public opinion, one must ensure that the wrong is first proven before it can be remedied, not simply asserted.
This is where the ConyersBlog Admin falls down. Congressman Conyers is a public figure, which means that to be successful in a cause of action [as the Admin threatens], the Congressman, not the Admin, must prove that he is not a public figure; and/or prove that the statements that the blogger has made were made with reckless disregard for the truth.
But the facts before us suggest that this burden cannot be met. First, the asserted statements in no way specifically accuse anyone of committing a crime.
Rather, the comments follow the Durbian If-then logic: If someone didn't say X, then we might assume Y.
In this case, what the blogger has said was that if we have this statute, then those who are speaking about classified information, under the new hypothetical construct of the new statute, would then be subject to punishment.
Nothing in the comments asserts that Congressman Conyers has or hasn't committed a crime.
Rather, the blogger simply shows by way of historical reference to the Congressman's involvement in the Nixon-Watergate discussions that there is a reasonable public comment to be made.
Specifically, the blogger asserts that if someone like Congressman Conyers wants to discuss classified information that is publicly known [that the Nixon Administration has classified for whatever reason], then the legislators would be subject to sanction.
But what does this possible sanction do for the rule of law, open debate, and rights of legislators to publicly speak?
If enforced, then the blogger correctly raises for the public to consider, "Are we not putting a restraint on public servants in discussing matters that are openly reported in the Washington Post?"
I think the answer is: Yes.
One method public officials use in discussing classified information is to point to an open source. Rather than say, "I heard this from the CIA. . . " the public servants will point to open sources like the WashingtonPost and say, "According to the WashingtonPost. . . " knowing full well that the WashingtonPost is correctly reporting they heard something in a classified briefing.
I see nothing in the comments that rise to an accusation of a crime by the Congressman.
Rather, what I do see is that the Admin has twisted the interpretation of the statement into a convenient conclusion that is contrary to the bloggers‘ interests.
But let's consider how a jury works. They review the statements [evidence]; then the look at the jury instructions; evaluate which side has satisfied the elements; and then make a decision: What happened, and what list of jury instructions have been satisfied.
When the jury reviews the matter, it doesn't matter what happened outside the courtroom. Rather, it matters whether one side is more or less capable in showing that the jury elements have been satisfied.
On all counts, ConyersBlog fails.
First, the jury instructions for slander specifically state that the cause of action must be related to a spoken statement. This does not apply. Thus, we need not consider any element in the jury instructions as to whether the statement was true or false.
Second, let us suppose that by some divine hand of God, ConyersBlog Admin was magically able to deduce that the alleged slander was allegedly libel. Again, the jury instructions would show that the ConyersBlog Admin was wrong.
On this count of libel, the jury instructions would clearly show that the ConyersBlog Admin has not successfully demonstrated that the Congressman is not a public figure and/or that the statements were made with reckless disregard for the truth.
Rather, the statements alleged to have been "slander" are merely a reasonable conclusion. Moreover, the statements are about a public figure.
Thus, on this count, the jury instructions would tend to illustrate that the written statements, being about a public figure, were not in reckless disregard for the truth.
The point being is that the ConyersBlog Admin has no basis to assert that anyone has or hasn't said anything about the Congressman's specific actions.
Rather, they've simply done what Senator Durbin has done: Use a theoretical construct; outlined how that construct if applied would result in an absurd outcome; and then used that outcome to show that the original assertion and proposed legislation or objective was flawed.
This is called public dialog and discussion.
It is reasonable.
It is appropriate.
And the matters are of extreme public importance. For these issues revolve around the First Amendment and the right of legislators to freely discuss information in the ether.
How that information got into the either is a separate matter. For the blogger has not done anything to specifically assert that a public figure has or has not leaked information.
Rather, all they've done is state that the public figure has spoken about classified information.
Again, how the Public Figure gets that classified information, or whether that classified information is mention in a public-open source is a separate matter.
Going forward
The issue before us is what we can learn from this and what is going to happen next.
There are two options. First, we can take away a simple lesson of 'what happens' when someone is given the responsibility to enforce standards, but not trained on the law.
This lesson is important to notice. Because it shows, by way of analogy what happens when people are put into difficult situations, but not given adequate guidance. This is the problem we find when troops are sent into combat, but there are inadequate rules of engagement or procedures to deal with the laws of war.
Thus, the first possible outcome is to shed some light on understanding why troops do or do not do strange things when they are put into stressful situations.
The second option, and more difficult one is to consider the bantering back and forth and stir up the pot. This, I can assure you, is what the RNC wants.
At this juncture, should ConyersBlog Admin choose the more direct method and actually engage in a lawful cause of action for slander, I can assure you that there is a reasonable counter claim to be brought for harassment and Anti-Slapp.
But rather than go down that route, perhaps we might go down a middle course. The real problem is: Who is actually responsible for the blog admin's public accusations and who exercise control and responsibility for the legal actions?
Either Congressman Conyers is in charge of his blog or he is not.
At this point, regardless what he chooses [in control, not in control] the public discussion of these issues tends to undermine public confidence in his blog.
First, if the Congressman is exercising control of his blog and Admin [even if it is a volunteer] then the Congressman is allowing the Admin to publicly assert an alleged tort [slander] which is unrelated to a credible allegation [libel] without giving any consideration to whether the test is against a public figure.
Thus, to posture and threaten lawful remedies at this point are without merit, further undermining confidence in the ConyersBlog Admin.
However, if the Congress wants to assert that he has no control over Admin and that Admin is not making statements that are legally dependable, and that there is no credible threat of litigation, then the Congressman has a larger problem.
For at that juncture, the Congressman is admitting that despite the sign-in procedure and clear rules of behavior expected of bloggers, that the rules are not effectively understood by those who are charged with administering the blog.
Let us make no mistake. I am not accusing Congressman Conyers or the Admin of engaging in any reckless behavior or crime.
Rather, I am simply pointing out that the same accusations made against US troops [them engaging in violations of the standards] is apparently happening in less risky situations: Where there is poor leadership, lack of accountability, and a charge to "ensure discipline," those who are given the tasks, but not clear guidance are setting themselves up for a fall.
Moreover, by allowing the rest of the blogging community to incorrectly conclude that there is or is not a basis to "demand an apology" on the basis of slander [which doesn't apply] simply shows how easily people can be spun up on the basis of an allegation.
Again, let us not miss the point. Look how easily a group of people can be spun up, using allegations not the law, in order to go after someone that the controlling authorities choose to lash out against.
Again, I'm not suggesting that the ConyersBlog or Congressman Conyers are engaged in a cover-up or smear effort.
I am pointing to an illustration of easily the public, relying on faulty constructions of the law, can be inducted to point their finger at someone who simply is asserting their right to speak out.
This is the same type of misconduct that the RNC engages in. And the public accusations based on non-sense constructions of the law is what is at the heart of the Downing Street Memo and the outrage at the RNC for their public smearing of Wilson and other CIA personnel.
Going forward
Use this incident as a lesson: Of how easily people can be influenced to point fingers; and what will happen when people are put into position of responsibility which they have not been adequately trained or supervised.
Also, what needs to happen is the ConyersBlog Admin needs to get a better handle of what constitutes actionable claims per the membership agreement. I am not persuaded that they understand the issues related to public figures, malice, or the difference between slander and libel.
Moreover, I would hope that Congressman Conyers recognize the potential legal liability he runs should the ConyersBlog Admin publicly assert a cause of action to which there is no legal foundation. It remains a matter of time to find out whether an accused party brings a cause of action for Anti-Slap, harassment, or libel against the Congressman, the Congressman Conyers campaign, and the to-be-identified ConyersBlog Admin.
If you want to go down that route, I encourage you to ignore the above comments, continue with your accusations, and continue to ignore people who wish to discuss these issues in private.
It might have simply been resolved had you allowed the public and those you disagree with to publicly discuss these issues, or privately send emails to encourage some civil discourse.
But here we are. You have not responded to e-mails; and you are threatening legal action against those using causes of action which have no legal foundation.
Your actions tend to undermine your cause; they bring discredit upon Congressman Conyers; and they invite a vote of no confidence from the blogging community.
It is absurd to demand a public "apology" from a citizen. The real apology should come from the Congressman Conyers Campaign office that refuses to respond to e-mails and allows "volunteers" to threaten legal action for claims to which there is no merit.
Will the public wake up? Probably not, because the public likes to rally to causes even when the real problem are those making the accusations.
Make no mistake. This is the same as what happened in Animal Farm. Those who make accusations about the farmer, by the end of the book, had transformed into something else.
By the end of Animal Farm, there was no difference between the Farmer and the Animals who were in charge. I see no difference between that outcome, and where this current non-sense is taking us: That those who accuse the RNC of wrong doing and smears, or violating standards because of poor training and leadership, are simply doing the same thing, but using the RNC tactics of smearing, accusations, and innuendo.
Beware those who make accusations devoid of legal foundation. For then they will demand the world give them sympathy despite a credible threat of a counter claim for harassment, libel, and a violation of the Anti-Slapp statute.
If you want to take this matter into court, I can assure you , you will lose, be mocked, and you will waste valuable resources.
You have no credible claim to be brought against any blogger for slander. But if you want to fight this, I can assure you that there will be most likely a cause of action that will be treble damages and a prayer for relief from the court for all legal costs required with that counter claim.
That is not a prudent use of the court, public, or ConyersBlog re-election efforts. But if that is how you want to use your time and effort, by all means bring it on.
The world enjoys watching a powerful person implode. Especially when they could easily have resolved the matter with a simple response.
Want a lawsuit? Keep it up. I can assure you, given your lack of discipline, public smearing, and outrageous accusations devoid of legal foundation that you are going to walk into a very big trap.
I shall enjoy letting you fall in it, just as the RNC will do.
The only difference is that the RNC will say nothing until you are caught. Those who want you to succeed are speaking out.
Choose. Do you want to lead based on prudence and the rule of law.
Or do you want to be tyrannical and make threats without legal foundation.
Choose. You are either with the rule of law, or you are an arrogant tyrant.
Choose wisely.
Summation
It is in appropriate to threaten litigation while ignoring both the law and what was actually said.
You bring discredit upon your cause when you infer conclusions not specifically stated. Moreover, when you lash out at the world for doing exactly what you are doing to the RNC you make a mockery of yourself.
The text, as it is plainly written, is not actionable as slander. It does not specifically assert that Congressman Conyers has committed a crime.
Rather, the text specifically refers to a hypothetical situation whereby if the new law was in place, and given the Congressional habit of discussing things the Administration [in the past, and current] want to classify, then the reasonable person would conclude that the likely result would be the jailing of those who speak on the floor of any legislature.
It is not appropriate to make public accusations of a tort based on a faulty legal foundation.
It is not appropriate to assert someone "has or hasn't committed slander" when the words you refer to do not exist, and there is no specific allegation of having committed a crime.
It is not appropriate for the world to lash out against someone who dares to use their mind and discuss the legal implications if the faulty legislation is approved.
Moreover, it is not appropriate to ignore Legislators have immunity and can speak on whatever issues they want.
Is it absurd to say that those who talk about classified information that is the fruit of the ether or the open source have somehow been a source of that leak. The two are separate matters.
It is absurd to make a legally tenuous and weak legal argument, and then demand those you accuse to apologize or justify; when the real burden of proof falls onto the moving party, in this case the ConyersBlog Admin who allegedly acts on behalf of the Congressman; or Congressman Conyers.
There is no credible threat of litigation from the ConyersBlog Admin.
It remains to be seen whether the ConyersBlog Admin is held to standards of the blog in re harassment. A reasonable person could review the facts and conclude that the Admin is not trained on the definition of "public figure," "malice" or "slander vs. libel," and that the ConyersBlog Admin is allegedly engaging in a course of conduct that is harassing.
The RNC is quiet. They will say nothing as long as the DNC is fighting itself.
The consequences of shutting people out is that the ConyersBlog doesn't get the timely feedback that could calm the Admin and give them the correct information on "public figure," "malice," or "slander vs. libel."
ConyersBlog Admin has shown that they are not able to take care of simple things [responding to e-mail]; thus we are not persuaded that they can credibly bring a cause of action, nor can they persuade any attorney to file papers in this matter.
Rather, the ConyersBlog Admin threat of legal action is laughable. There exists not credible threat of litigation; and should any papers be filed, we remain convinced that a counter claim for alleged harassment, Anti-Slap, and libel could reasonably be expected.
The blogger has reasonably explained their position, but the ConyersBlog Admin chose to continue demanding an apology directly and then allowing other comments and bloggers to assert this standard. This standard and burden of proof is absurd; the burden of proof rests with the ConyersBlog Admin and/or Congressman Conyers.
The continued assertion of slander without legal foundation is an apparent course of conduct that the court would have to adjudicate: does the conduct amount to recklessness; has there been poor oversight and training; or conversely, is this an objective which Congressman Conyers wants to achieve?
we can only speculate.
The jury instructions for slander do not support a cause of action in re written statements. When a single element of that list fails, as it would in this situation, then the entire matter is dead, and the counter-claim is then reviewed.
The alleged cause for action in this theoretical legal case would be incorrect. The actual cause of action would have to be libel and include specific assertions with probative evidence that the statements met the standard of "malice" in that they were made with reckless disregard for the truth.
On that count alone, a reasonable person after reading the comments would conclude that the comments were a fair comment; and reasonably intended to advance the public debate and discuss the potential risks should the arguably flawed legislation were passed.
It is not appropriate to twist someone's words, and assert a "claim of allegation of crimes" simply because one does not like the potential inference one might get. Rather, the assertion of libel must be from a plain reading of the text that a reasonable person, taken on the face of it would conclude. We find now legal authority before us that warrants the belief that "things alleged to possibly be inferred from a strange twisting of a statement" is a credible basis to demand relief.
Public figures require recklessness to be the standard. We see nothing before us to suggest that the remarks were reckless; rather they were well thought out, complicated, and well crafted and succinct. That the ConyersBlog Admin is not able to understand them, or concludes something that might be adverse is not the problem of those who speak the words or write the comments.
Rather, it is the role of the blogosphere and the Admin to see clarification before threatening sanctions.
At this juncture, the ConyersBlog Admin choose to escalate rather than dialog; accuse rather than understand; and inflame rather than let the matter resolve itself on its won.
The blogger has made a reasonable statement about their intent and this only helps to amplify that the comments were not only appropriate but timely. Because the blogger's explanation tends to undermine this key element of the jury instructions, we reject the entire claim of slander.
Because classified information is regularly discussed on the floor of the legislature by referencing open source material in the media, we reject any claim that "any statement made on the house floor is or is not classified."
Moreover, it is absurd to suggest that "talking about classified information" [by way of referencing open source media] is the same as "leaking classified information."
The incident above offers valuable lessons. Conyers either does or does not exercise control of his blog. If he doesn't exercise control, then we have to ask what is needed to reign in ConyersBlog Admin; however, if Conyers does exercise control, we can only speculate as to the intent of smearing those who dare have an opposing view.
Either Congressman Conyers has failed to train the ConyersBlog Admin on the laws related to "public figure" and "libel," and "malice"; or Congressman Conyers has failed to supervise.
PNAC and RNC send people to do a job without training. In the above situation we see the same problem: Someone has been given a job to do without adequate support, training, or guidance. The ConyersBlog Admin appears to have been held responsible for solving the "wrong problem": Board disciple, not board accountability.
The accountability problem is with ConyersBlog Admin, not the blogger.
It is in appropriate for the ConyersBlog Admin to shift the burden of proof or demand an apology when the burden of proof rests with the ConyersBlog Admin:
Do the ConyersBlog Admin, we have several questions which appear to have answers:
ConyersBlog Admin: Pull your head out of your ass. You're looking like a complete idiot.
Point
It appears the public smear by ConyersBlog Admin, made without any legal foundation, was just a pretext to ban someone who dared risk sharing their view.
And who's talking to the RNC about the threat of "silencing dissent"?
Just as Durbin said, unless you were told that the comments below were from the ConyersBlog, you could reasonably conclude that they were the same kind of comments used to silence those who dared speak out about the WMD-ruses in Iraq.
Indeed, George Orwell's animals have turned into the RNC Farmers.
Where's Hank when you need him? The board was just fine when the open debate managed the discussion.
What's the price of silencing the dissent? People lose confidence in you, just as the public has lost confidence in the White House because of the Downing Street memo.
And so too does the public lose confidence in those in the DNC who do the same as the RNC: Make public accusations without any legal foundation.
George Orwell taught us that the animals and the farmer have to work in the same area. The question is who makes the rules.
So long as those who enforce the rules are given free license to make up rules, smear without legal foundation, and act without regard to reasonable rules of discourse, neither the farmer nor the animals are focused on the real objective: Make food.
The ConyersBlog Admin shows the danger of letting the world focus on illusory rules without there being open discussion of whether those rules are relevant, appropriate, or connected to actual deviations.
ConyersBlog Admin shows, just as the RNC-PNAC have done with WMD and the Plame smearing, that if you have an objective [regardless the legality] that if you can mobilize the world to go after the target, there is little deference made to the rule of law.
Let us hope that someone doesn't know what an Anti-Slapp statute is.
Oh, darn. Looks like the cat's out of the bag on that one.
You made a bad choice, ConyersBlog Admin.
Review of the evidence
Let's take some time to review the detailed comments made on the board.
I think you'll easily see that it's been a simple misunderstanding.
Exhibit 1 is the article which the blogger read in full, carefully relied upon. I am not speaking for them, but I have highlighted some of the relevant text.
Notice below that there are several items highlighted. Those items clearly show that there was some discussion about legislators and the risk that they could be jailed.
There is no specific mention of Congressman Conyers. Rather, the article below simply outlines the various risks associated with passing legislation that "does not permit" the discussion of classified information.
It is a separate issue whether the information is leaked, or incorporated by reference, or whether there are referrals to that information in the open media.
Comment #184: hcocdr said on 7/27/05 @ 10:05am ET... And one more to show I am not making this stuff up. http://www.nysun.com/article/17134 Political Parties Reverse Roles in Debate Over CIA Leak BY JOSH GERSTEIN - Staff Reporter of the Sun July 18, 2005 The debate over the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity has caused a curious about-face by Washington politicians, with Democrats who have long favored a laissez-faire attitude toward leaks of classified information now decrying them, and Republicans who once wanted to criminalize every such leak suggesting that the one involving Ms. Plame wasn't so terrible. "This is just shameless," a former Justice Department official, Bruce Fein, said. He said the political posturing on both sides may actually encourage more leaks. "It really is staggering. It undercuts their own claim that it's serious business, because it makes people in the bureaucracy think the only issue is whether you have enough politicians lined up behind you." Those who track government classification policy were left spinning by last week's political developments, as Democrats moved to take advantage of the disclosure that President Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, apparently played some role as a source for news stories that exposed Ms. Plame's employment at the CIA. Several Democratic senators, including Senator Schumer, pushed for a new law stripping security clearances from leakers. The Senate's Republican leadership countered with a proposal aimed at denying clearances to lawmakers who release classified FBI reports or make comments that are used as propaganda by terrorist organizations. "It teaches us to be a little bit more skeptical of claims of national security," said a leading authority on government secrecy, Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists. "Our classification policies are inevitably filtered through a political lens." Five years ago, the roles of Democrats and Republicans were essentially reversed as Congress passed a law making every leak of classified information a crime. The measure, attached to an intelligence appropriations bill, was championed by Senator Shelby, a Republican of Alabama, and supported by all the major intelligence agencies. Over the objections of those agencies, President Clinton vetoed the bill. He warned that the anti-leak measure could be used to stifle dissent. Mr. Aftergood said that as he watched the political dynamic in Congress last week, he feared that it would again pass such a measure, which critics have compared to Britain's Official Secrets Act. "If someone had been alert and ready to do a little political jujitsu, they might have re-enacted an anti-leak statute," the policy analyst said. "I was holding my breath." Earlier this month, a New York Times reporter, Judith Miller, was jailed in connection with the criminal investigation into who leaked Ms. Plame's identity. Mr. Aftergood said such jailings would be commonplace if the 2000 anti-leak law were resurrected. "It would just mean journalism is the shortest path to jail," he said. "It would have been a disaster." Mr. Schumer, who staged three press events last week about Mr. Rove's alleged role in the leak of Ms. Plame's identity, is facing particular criticism for his stance. In an e-mail to reporters, Republican Party officials noted that in 1982 Mr. Schumer was one of 32 House members who voted against the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the law at the center of the investigation that has swept up Mr. Rove and other White House officials. A spokesman for Mr. Schumer, Israel Klein, said the senator has been consistent. "Senator Schumer, who has been a longtime advocate for whistle-blower rights, felt that the initial law that was passed was a little bit too broad," Mr. Klein said. Mr. Schumer also denounced the anti-leak legislation Congress passed in 2000. "We should never forget that one of the core purposes of the First Amendment was to prohibit government from suppressing embarrassing information, not criminalizing its release," the senator said. He complained that the measure "would require all current and past government officials to guess at what might be illegal, while the threat of serious jail time hangs over their heads." Some conservative commentators have argued that if Mr. Rove did contribute to the disclosure of Ms. Plame's identity, he did so unintentionally and in the context of White House efforts to shake up an entrenched bureaucracy at the CIA. However, the anti-leak measure most Republican lawmakers supported five years ago included no requirement that prosecutors prove a leaker's intent before shipping him or her off to jail. In another twist, the man most responsible for persuading Mr. Clinton to veto the bill with the anti-leak pro vision has emerged as a vocal critic of Mr. Rove. A former chief of staff to Mr. Clinton, John Podesta, appeared yesterday on NBC's "Meet the Press," to call for Mr. Rove's ouster. In an interview with The New York Sun, Mr. Podesta said he sees the disclosure of an agent's identity as far more serious than most other leaks of classified information. "There's simply something different about naming agents' names," he said. "I don't think I'm splitting hairs here." Mr. Podesta said his main criticism of Mr. Rove is not that he violated any law, but that he may have lied about his involvement in the matter when asked by the White House press secretary, Scott McClellan. Mr. Clinton's impeachment has even been pulled into the debate over Mr. Rove's conduct. Last week, the Democratic Party sent reporters a list of quotations in which Republican lawmakers call any public official who lies unfit for office. The quotes were taken from the debate surrounding Mr. Clinton's false public statements about his relationship with a White House intern, Monica Lewsinky. Mr. Fein, who served in the Justice Department under President Reagan, said politicians appear to be incapable of holding a consistent position on leaks. He noted that Republicans complained loudly when Mr. Clinton pardoned a former director of central intelligence, John Deutch, who was facing misdemeanor charges for mishandling classified data. Democrats were similarly up in arms when a former national security adviser to Mr. Clinton, Samuel Berger, was charged criminally for removing classified documents from the National Archives. A Washington author who has been writing about American intelligence agencies for more than two decades, James Bamford, said he saw little consistency in the current debate. "The Republicans have been battling for years to criminalize this, criminalize that, creating enormous secrecy. Now all of a sudden this is just business as usual?" he said. "It's very hypocritical." Mr. Bamford said Democrats did little during the Clinton years to crack down on leaks. "It's all of a sudden come up now because they've found a potential midterm election issue here," he said. |
The above exhibit is included for all to read. It is here for discussion purposes only. It is not here for profit. Rather the information is posted so that you can get a sense of what was posted on the Conyers Blog; and see that the reasonable person would see there were problems with the statute.
There is a real risk, should the legislation be passed, that a person speaking about classified material, even if it were in the open media, could be held in violation.
The theoretical is different than the specific.
The speculative risk is not the same as an accusation.
The reasonable concern is raised
One of the nice things about the ConyersBlog has been the open discourse and dialog. People have been able to discuss particular issues.
IN this case, a reasonable person would want to show how the subject at hand relates to the Congressman.
Whether the Congressman has or hasn't leaked information isn't the point; the issue at this juncture it to show that the point being discussed is of interest to the ConyersBlog.
What better way to show the issue is relevant than to discuss what could theoretically happen to those who simply refer to information contained in the newspaper.
Again, the issue is not whether someone is leaking information; but whether someone who reads a public newspaper and then comments on it, can be held in violation of the statute.
This is the absurdity of the speculative legislation.
Again, the point of the discussion is to show that even if someone read some classified information about the Nixon Administration [and that information mentioned alleged crimes, but Nixon has classified it] or Chilean crimes [and that information was classified by the CIA to hide the connection between the US and the torture committed in Chile], then someone making a public comment would be held in violation of that statute.
However, this is absurd.
The purpose of discussion is not to create a trap to then penalize them.
This is the same absurdity to which the DSM coalition in 2005 and Minutemen in 1776 have already spoken: To speak of public wrongs is a right; and to speak out about absurdity is more than a right it is demanded when the forces of absurdity should be rejected.
The initial public statement
Exhibit 2 is the initial remark. Notice that the remark contains a simple conditional statement.
First condition: If anyone has leaked, then they should be charged.
Second condition: If we passed that legislation, then a legislator could be held in violation of that.
Notice that the references above are two conditional statements. They are not asserted as fact; nor is there an accusation that someone has violated the law.
Rather, all we have is the simply theoretical construct.
We see nothing that specifically says Congressman Conyers has leaked classified information.
Comment #129: hcocdr said on 7/27/05 @ 4:25am ET... Hey I agree anyone that has leaked Classified Info should be charged, even if it's done on the floor of the House of Representatives. If we did that JC would be a cell mate. |
Notice the above comments spring forth from the article listed blow.
Call for others to review for themselves
This is the post which outlines the call for others to review the matter.
It remains unclear why this is a problem.
[space entered] Look and see what you can find. |
Inquiry continues
Reasonable public inquiry continues. What is the status of the particular legislator's actions?
We have no answer from ConyersBlog Admin.
Comment #166: hcocdr said on 7/27/05 @ 8:56am ET... Did JC vote for or against the bill that would have included the penalties for the disclosure of classified information that exempted members of congress. |
An apology
Note here that the blogger has apologized for something they don't need to apologize for.
There is no merit to the claim that there has been slander; and the text of the original comment clearly is an if-then statement.
There has been no actual defamatory statement made; nor is there any plausible case that the if-then statement is a direct allegation of a crime.
But despite committing no wrong, the blogger assents and apologizes.
Just like Durbin did: "I cannot stand the pressure, so I'm going to apologize for simply exercising my right to state an if-then conditional statement."
Oh please!
I was not accusing Mr. Conyers I was simply encouraging Doug to look beyond the DNC talking points for information. |
But the attacks continue
Meanwhile, rather than seeing the problem is with ConyersBlog Admin, the board then increases the pressure on the blogger.
What does the blogger do? They apologize again.
This is the second time.
It's not needed.
Now, the bloggers have shifted their attention from "whether the original statements were actionable" [they were not] to the form, substance, and details of an unneeded apology.
We see nothing before us that says that the "rules of membership on the Conyersblog" are related to the "appropriateness of response."
Rather, ConyersBlog Admin has exercised new powers in rewriting the terms of "permissible use" and shifted from "rules that cannot be shown to have been violated" to new rules which were not part of the original agreement.
Thus, at this juncture, the problem is that the ConyersBlog Admin has not only ignored their own rules [which is a separate cause of action in re Conyers re-election], but is a new construct, and a diversion.
In other words, ConyersBlog Admin is doing exactly what the RNC does: Change the subject from "whether the original conduct is actionable" [in the case of Saddam's WMD it was not], and change the issue to "whether the response, apology" meets some sort of nebulous time, form, and structure standard.
Can you see the similarities between the "shifting standard of conduct" applied to both the Blogger and Saddam?
There is no difference> in short, it appears the real objective of the ConyersBlog Admin was to ban someone regardless the facts, laws, or membership agreement.
This is simply an effort of the ConyersBlog Admin to yield power, where they actually have no moral or legal authority nor a legal foundation to act.
Moreover, nothing in the membership agreement supports the imposition of some arbitrary "time and form standard" applicable to the absurdly-required apology for a non-violation of an illusory-standard.
Comment #176: hcocdr said on 7/27/05 @ 9:35am ET... As far as the comment about Carl Rove and Mr. Conyers being a cell mate, for that I truly apologize. |
The attack starts
Notice in this comment, ConyersBlog Admin makes a reference to "other measures." A plain reading of the rules and conditions makes it clear that these "other measures" are legal actions.
Thus, this is the evidence that the ConyersBlog Admin has made a veiled threat of litigation. At this juncture, given the above discussion of the absurdity of that claim [in re slander], then we can only speculate that the allegation is not only without legal foundation, but is at best absurd.
[return added] The only acceptable responses are (1) I was wrong and I am sorry or (2) here is my proof. If you don't, I will ban you and explore what other actions can be taken against you. |
Notice the above comment refers to #140, which is irrelevant, non actionable, but actually asks others to review the matter.. Thus that is no longer an issue.
Also, notice the above comments include a veiled threat of litigation.
And include comments that require retraction and an apology.
Despite the absurdity of both demands which have no legal foundation and are not logically linked with the original remarks, the blogger has already satisfied the requirements.
But what happens?
ConyersBlog Admin changes the requirements, continues the bantering, makes accusations that laws are violated, and then gets the rest of the bloggers to join in.
Unneeded apology rejected
At this point, rather than let the issue lie, ConyersBlog Admin then rejects the reasonable effort to settle [that is not needed].
And then says "that's not good enough."
Huh?
Wait a minute. There's nothing wrong with what was said. It was a conditional if-then, logically linked with a fair comment, and there was no specific allegation of a crime.
Moreover, the comment was fair, involved a matter of public importance, and was related to a public figure.
Thus, because there is a high standard of proof required on a public figure [in that there needs to be a reckless disregard for the truth], there is no claim.
But what does the ConyersBlog Admin want? They want the world to believe that "their view of the law" prevails, however disconnected from reality that is a matter of law, for the court to adjudicate in a potential defamation claim against the ConyersBlog Admin.
Comment #180: Admin said on 7/27/05 @ 9:53am ET... HCODR -- Nice try. Your post said Conyers leaked classified information, not that he opposed a bill. Are you now retracting that claim? The clock is still ticking. |
Notice the above comment is no linked with the original statements. Conyersblog Admin has twisted the words of the original comment.
There was no direct assertion that Conyers did or didn't leak anything. Rather, this is something that the ConyersBlog Admin "read into" the comment.
But it isn’t there. Just like the WMD isn’t there.
Thus, there is no merit to the arguments that the blogger has or hasn't met some arbitrary standard.
The ConyersBlog Admin then states that the clock is still ticking as the blogger "hasn't retracted" or "not made an apology."
But both are not needed as there was no infraction. Yet, despite complying with both requirements [that are illusory and not needed], ConyersBlog Admin shifts the question and burden of proof onto the blogger.
This is absurd.
The public discussion
Still not satisfied, ConyersBlog Admin is given direct quotations which essentially restate the original quote.
Again, the following document contained here in full for research and discussion purposes only is included by way of reference so that you can see the entire post and information used as the basis for the original comment.
I see nothing here by a blogger that accuses anyone of a crime.
Nor do I see anything here that warrants an apology.
Rather, I see here the exact information which the ConyersBlog Admin asked for: Proof that the original statement was not only reasonable fair, and appropriate, but that the comments was of significant public interest.
This issue was debated on the House floor. How can anyone argue that the matter is not of public importance?
Indeed, it is a fair comment to raise a conditional statement based on the following information and relate the potential risks of that proposed legislation in terms that will relate to the audience, and answer:
On all counts, the issue is: How do we move forward under a republic to discuss issues, and ensure the rule of law prevails?
The point of the discussion is not what someone has or hasn't done; but whether the rules, if they existed, would materially impact a public dialog on those issues and interfere with the needed oversight.
In this case, with respect to Congressman Conyers, given his public figure status, and position on the House Judiciary Committee, it would be a chilling affect on the needed oversight if the mere hint of a reference to pen material tended to graze the reference of wrong doing.
Bluntly, the absurdity of this discussion is the assumption that "talking about risks" is the same thing as committing the violation.
Hello! That is the same outrageous absurdity which the White House used to go after Scott Ritter and Valerie Plame: Those in a position to talk about the risks [that there was no evidence of war, and the planned action was unlawful] were targeted, not because they were saying anything wrong, but because they dared stand up to a tyrant and a bully: George Bush.
And at this juncture, it is clear that the same non-sense is occurring on the ConyersBlog, thanks to the ConyersBlog Admin: Make accusations of violations without any legal foundation; then simply ram rod people into the ground simply because you don't understand the law, and don't like "your interpretation" of what they may have said.
The problem is: The actual text and message they said is not a violation.
Rather, the real violation is to twist the facts into a construct that "justifies" more absurdity.
Do you not see the similarity between this non-sense and the Downing Street Memo? The DSM showed us that the decision to act [or ban] was already fixed; and what was needed was a set-up or pretext [however twisted] to justify the action.
But in both cases, there was no wrong doing. Rather, the real problem was that the "annoying opponent" wasn't falling into the trap.
So what to do? Make up some sort of arbitrary rule, imply that others are or are not following some illusory requirement, and then take action regardless the appropriateness of that action.
Comment #184: hcocdr said on 7/27/05 @ 10:05am ET... And one more to show I am not making this stuff up. http://www.nysun.com/article/17134 Political Parties Reverse Roles in Debate Over CIA Leak BY JOSH GERSTEIN - Staff Reporter of the Sun July 18, 2005 The debate over the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity has caused a curious about-face by Washington politicians, with Democrats who have long favored a laissez-faire attitude toward leaks of classified information now decrying them, and Republicans who once wanted to criminalize every such leak suggesting that the one involving Ms. Plame wasn't so terrible. "This is just shameless," a former Justice Department official, Bruce Fein, said. He said the political posturing on both sides may actually encourage more leaks. "It really is staggering. It undercuts their own claim that it's serious business, because it makes people in the bureaucracy think the only issue is whether you have enough politicians lined up behind you." Those who track government classification policy were left spinning by last week's political developments, as Democrats moved to take advantage of the disclosure that President Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, apparently played some role as a source for news stories that exposed Ms. Plame's employment at the CIA. Several Democratic senators, including Senator Schumer, pushed for a new law stripping security clearances from leakers. The Senate's Republican leadership countered with a proposal aimed at denying clearances to lawmakers who release classified FBI reports or make comments that are used as propaganda by terrorist organizations. "It teaches us to be a little bit more skeptical of claims of national security," said a leading authority on government secrecy, Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists. "Our classification policies are inevitably filtered through a political lens." Five years ago, the roles of Democrats and Republicans were essentially reversed as Congress passed a law making every leak of classified information a crime. The measure, attached to an intelligence appropriations bill, was championed by Senator Shelby, a Republican of Alabama, and supported by all the major intelligence agencies. Over the objections of those agencies, President Clinton vetoed the bill. He warned that the anti-leak measure could be used to stifle dissent. Mr. Aftergood said that as he watched the political dynamic in Congress last week, he feared that it would again pass such a measure, which critics have compared to Britain's Official Secrets Act. "If someone had been alert and ready to do a little political jujitsu, they might have re-enacted an anti-leak statute," the policy analyst said. "I was holding my breath." Earlier this month, a New York Times reporter, Judith Miller, was jailed in connection with the criminal investigation into who leaked Ms. Plame's identity. Mr. Aftergood said such jailings would be commonplace if the 2000 anti-leak law were resurrected. "It would just mean journalism is the shortest path to jail," he said. "It would have been a disaster." Mr. Schumer, who staged three press events last week about Mr. Rove's alleged role in the leak of Ms. Plame's identity, is facing particular criticism for his stance. In an e-mail to reporters, Republican Party officials noted that in 1982 Mr. Schumer was one of 32 House members who voted against the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the law at the center of the investigation that has swept up Mr. Rove and other White House officials. A spokesman for Mr. Schumer, Israel Klein, said the senator has been consistent. "Senator Schumer, who has been a longtime advocate for whistle-blower rights, felt that the initial law that was passed was a little bit too broad," Mr. Klein said. Mr. Schumer also denounced the anti-leak legislation Congress passed in 2000. "We should never forget that one of the core purposes of the First Amendment was to prohibit government from suppressing embarrassing information, not criminalizing its release," the senator said. He complained that the measure "would require all current and past government officials to guess at what might be illegal, while the threat of serious jail time hangs over their heads." Some conservative commentators have argued that if Mr. Rove did contribute to the disclosure of Ms. Plame's identity, he did so unintentionally and in the context of White House efforts to shake up an entrenched bureaucracy at the CIA. However, the anti-leak measure most Republican lawmakers supported five years ago included no requirement that prosecutors prove a leaker's intent before shipping him or her off to jail. In another twist, the man most responsible for persuading Mr. Clinton to veto the bill with the anti-leak pro vision has emerged as a vocal critic of Mr. Rove. A former chief of staff to Mr. Clinton, John Podesta, appeared yesterday on NBC's "Meet the Press," to call for Mr. Rove's ouster. In an interview with The New York Sun, Mr. Podesta said he sees the disclosure of an agent's identity as far more serious than most other leaks of classified information. "There's simply something different about naming agents' names," he said. "I don't think I'm splitting hairs here." Mr. Podesta said his main criticism of Mr. Rove is not that he violated any law, but that he may have lied about his involvement in the matter when asked by the White House press secretary, Scott McClellan. Mr. Clinton's impeachment has even been pulled into the debate over Mr. Rove's conduct. Last week, the Democratic Party sent reporters a list of quotations in which Republican lawmakers call any public official who lies unfit for office. The quotes were taken from the debate surrounding Mr. Clinton's false public statements about his relationship with a White House intern, Monica Lewsinky. Mr. Fein, who served in the Justice Department under President Reagan, said politicians appear to be incapable of holding a consistent position on leaks. He noted that Republicans complained loudly when Mr. Clinton pardoned a former director of central intelligence, John Deutch, who was facing misdemeanor charges for mishandling classified data. Democrats were similarly up in arms when a former national security adviser to Mr. Clinton, Samuel Berger, was charged criminally for removing classified documents from the National Archives. A Washington author who has been writing about American intelligence agencies for more than two decades, James Bamford, said he saw little consistency in the current debate. "The Republicans have been battling for years to criminalize this, criminalize that, creating enormous secrecy. Now all of a sudden this is just business as usual?" he said. "It's very hypocritical." Mr. Bamford said Democrats did little during the Clinton years to crack down on leaks. "It's all of a sudden come up now because they've found a potential midterm election issue here," he said. |
Last chance. Answer my question in #180. Also, post a link and two paragraphs instead of an entire article. You are now violating copyright laws. |
Another apology
But rather than fight the absurdity, the blogger relents and apologies.
Great. Issue over.
Comment #190: hcocdr said on 7/27/05 @ 10:30am ET... As far as the comment about Carl Rove and Mr. Conyers being a cell mate, for that I truly apologize. I am very sorry you took those comments to mean that, I said Mr. Conyers has ever leaked information from the House Floor. I am sure he would never do such a thing. See how easy it is to misunderstand people. I was right about the rest. He did not support it when he had the chance. You are the ones that jumped to the wrong conclusion as usual. |
The Witch Hunt
But just as we saw in the Salem Witch Trials, and Nazi Gestapo, and public smear efforts during the McCarthy era, what is going on here?
Why the very people who say they are for freedom, are now engaging in the smear.
Why?
Because they have been manipulated into asserting some sort of illusory standard.
The ConyersBlog Admin has been manipulated, along with the ConyersBlog Bloggers to embrace fascism: Smearing, innuendo, public humiliation, and a total disregard for the law.
Comment #242: Doug Eldritch said on 7/27/05 @ 7:43pm ET... hcocdr, Why is it that neocons are the ultimate hypocrites, when it comes to the facts!?? First, you state Represenative [stet] Conyers has leaked classified information on the House Floor. Then you later retract your statement, and say he only supporte [stet] d leaking classified information on the House Floor. Now you are simply saying it wasn't either one. What is this back-pedaling about, are you afraid that you've been caught now? The facts are it was Neocon GOP member Porter Goss, who is now director of the CIA, that reccomended [stet] and streamlined the bill in order to offer "protection" for whistle blowers. However, it was done with a different state of mind. Conyers thought at that point, it would discourage whistle blowers and others in the service by passing the bill. He opposed it for different reasons. Goss was the one who made sure this bill went through to serve a particular agenda, as you are well aware now the CIA has been politicized by this man Goss. So your three tier accusations have fallen apart. Less than 2 hours left hco, and you have not provided any proof to Conyers leaking classified information. Is that destiny I hear calling? Don't forget to take your mess with you when the door shuts. Doug E. |
Notice the above continues to assert some sort of illusory timeline and deadline that is not needed.
The masses have been rallied to assert the standard.
But where is the legal foundation for their action?
None. So what happens? Because, in their mind they are "right in their action," the next step is to rationalize the foundationless-accusations with more absurdity.
Hello, fascism!
Animal Farm
Do you see the similarity between George Orwell's Animal Farm and the ConyersBlog?
The issue is subtle.
Orwell, in the final pages of the book clearly states that the Animals and the Farmer were no different.
This is another way of saying that the original abuses allegedly committed by the Farmer were now what the Animals were doing.
In short, the oppressed became the oppressors.
With that came ridicule, secret police, and innuendo, shutting out, denying access, and smearing others.
This is what is going on on the ConyersBlog, and there is no legal foundation for the accusations.
That news item reminds me of Animal Farm when the animals went back to the constitution only to find the amendment "but some animals are more equal than others". |
Public knowledge
But it doesn't stop there.
There is now public information that the banning and 'Refusing to respond" and "nonaccess list" is widespread.
IT remains to be understood how many people have sent in e-mails and have not been responded to.
Perhaps there are IPs that are deliberately filtered out;
Maybe some IPs are not responded to;
Maybe the e-mail is "lost".
We have no idea. The point is that the apparent "problem with registration" is not isolated, but is affecting many people, and we have no idea how many.
A website and public discussion is warranted. But that is beyond the scope of this discussion.
This is because your exclusion, added to Constants exclusion compared to the extream [stet] tolerance Admin has shown to "Congressman" Van and "Commander" hcocdr, to cite the most disruptive examples, causes me to consider this obvious bias and wonder as to Admins' [stet] perception of the pourpose [stet] of this blog. This, coupled with the unreasonableness of the supposition that Congressman Conyers actually reads this blog, rather than relying upon Admin to summarize it for him, brings to the top of I even tried to use a new name, and new email address. (Resespieces) It won't post. I will continue to email those on the list who are doing a tremendous job in exposing the lies of this Bush administration. I also can respond on Media Channel.com and will continue to post on Portland indymedia. I don't think that this is a valuable as the Conyers blog, Kertis: No I can't post as I previously told you today's e mail July 27. Kertis |
Adding insult
Keep in mind, nothing that has been stated above warrants any action by ConyersBlog Admin.
There i no legal foundation.
Nothing said in the original post directly accuses anyone of doing anything.
Rather, the only problem at this point is that the ConyersBlog Admin has accused the blogger of violation the copyright law. That is a separate cause of action in a subsequent complaint which may or may not be filed against ConyersBlog Admin.
Copyright violations are a function of the use of the work. In those cases where there is a "fair use" of the work for educational, research, or public discussion, then it is permissible to include the entire work.
Again, the issue is not whether the poster did or didn't violate the copyright. Rather, the issue is what basis is ConyersBlog Admin asserting that the "fair use" doctrine is no longer applicable in a small space on the internet?
Moreover, the issue then blossoms into something else: If we are to believe that the "fair use doctrine" and the "educational and research exceptions" no longer apply, then clearly we have removed ourselves from the jurisdication under the umbreall of the US Constitution.
That is legal fiction, illusory, and absurd. The determination of what constitutes "fair use" is up to a court to adjudicate, not for some blog admin to assert.
Moreover, for the ConyersBlog Admin to assert "there was a copyright violation" all the whilte clearly communicating that they had not read any of it, despite the full citation as needed for complete reserach into this alleged slander, then ConyersBLog Admin has created a larger problem for themselves.
They first demanded some sort of documentation or proof. That proof was given in the form of necessary back up material.
That material was clearly linked with the proof required and demanded. Yet, despite that proffer, ConyersBlog Admin then used the full, complete compliance with that absurd demand as a justifcation to assert a violation.
That is unacceptable, especially when ConyersBlog Admin put such a heavy burden of proof. More outrageous is that the burden of proof actually belongs on the ConyersBlong Admin:
On all counts, the answers are adverse not sipmly to the ConyersBlog Admin, but to Congressman Conyers and the Conressman Conyers Re-election effort.
It appears ConyersBlog Admin gave not an ounce of care that the posting may fall in teh grounds of "fair use," especially when it is posted on a site that is not for commercial gain.
There also appears to be no attorney-agent agreement that gives the ConyersBlog Admin a role in acting on behalf of a publisher to assert a cause of action for a copyright claim, especially in cases where the court could adjudicate that the use was fair and an exception. But ConyersBlog Admin didn't ask about that.
It is absurd for the ConyersBlog in general to get upset about the "lack of hearing" given to the Dowinging Street Memo, patriot Act, or issues surrounding guantanamo when the ConyersBlog ADmin does the same thing as Sensenbrenner: Unilaterally decide the isses are outside the bounds of acceptance; demand some sort of arbitrary standard be met; and then without warning shut down that debated despite the audience meeting the changing rubric on presentation and standards.
It appears as though ConyersBlog Admin was either asleep during the outrage over Sensenbrenner's outragous conduct; or the ConyersBlog in gernal has shifted into such a denial about its conduct that it fails to see the reasonable comparisons between the ConyersBlog Admin and the approach the RNC takes to the issues Congressman Conyers vigorously opposes: Abuse of authority, exceptions to rules, and a failure to afford a reasonable hearing to issues.
Moreover, this phase of the Orwellian smear comes when the rest of the herd joins in with the drumbeats and demands a response.
But where is the legal foundation?
Why are the animals on the farm demanding accountability?
Do any of the animals on the farm know the definition of "public figure" or "recklessness" or "disregard for the truth"?
No!
They don't want to know. Why? Because they are convinced that those who dare comment on the public issues are somehow "one of them."
What the bloggers don't realize is that it is they who are doing exactly what the RNC does:
Comment #242: Doug Eldritch said on 7/27/05 @ 7:43pm ET... hcocdr, Why is it that neocons are the ultimate hypocrites, when it comes to the facts!?? First, you state Represenative [stet] Conyers has leaked classified information on the House Floor. Then you later retract your statement, and say he only supported leaking classified information on the House Floor. Now you are simply saying it wasn't either one. What is this back-pedaling about, are you afraid that you've been caught now? The facts are it was Neocon GOP member Porter Goss, who is now director of the CIA, that reccomended [stet] and streamlined the bill in order to offer "protection" for whistle blowers. However, it was done with a different state of mind. Conyers thought at that point, it would discourage whistle blowers and others in the service by passing the bill. He opposed it for different reasons. Goss was the one who made sure this bill went through to serve a particular agenda, as you are well aware now the CIA has been politicized by this man Goss. So your three tier accusations have fallen apart. Less than 2 hours left hco, and you have not provided any proof to Conyers leaking classified information. Is that destiny I hear calling? Don't forget to take your mess with you when the door shuts. Doug E. |
So, here the masses above, continue their smearing, just like the RNC likes to smear Plame.
Where's the evidence against the blogger? They have none.
Moreover, they have no legal foundation.
The ConyersBlog has turned into a fascist cess pool of innuendo, accusations, absurd rules, and double standards on what is or is not enforced.
Oh, and you want to know what those double standards are?
Guess who was the one who included commercial statements in their blog post?
That's right, the "big man" who says above that "the right answer" is for the target to apologize. read more here.
Hay, I'm not waiting for an apology from big Doug E. He allegedly likes to include commercial items in cuts and pastes; but is anyone in the ConyersBlog Admin doing anything about that problem?
I don't see any evidence. Last time I checked, the statement was still there and included the offending commercial link.
But I digress.
More crowds join
Oh, it certainly is interesting how quickly the buffoons run in when they have no knowledge of what was originally said.
Keep in mind, these are the same charges the DSM coalition rightfully levels against the RNC:
If not, you will be banished from Conyers Blog for good. |
Note the above comment specifically mentions "embarrassment". That is an interesting word. Because if someone is accused of a crime and subsequently shunned, that is a cause of action in re defamation.
Your words, and you keep digging yourself into a hole.
Where's the retraction from the ConyersBlog Admin? "Oh, that standard does apply to me," says the Orwellian Pig.
Shall we call ConyersBlog Admin "Napoleon" after the big pig in Orwell's book who likes to run around, make trouble, and afford himself special immunities to rules that only apply to others?
The public embraces illusory standards
The next step on the slide into Orwellian fascism is when the masses then take it upon themselves to impose some sort of standard that is not only illusory, but has neither a legal foundation nor any connection with the original agreement.
Notice the following:
Or will you continue to be a willing participant of the Republcian [stet] Attack Machine? |
After reading the above, ask yourself:
Apparently, the gap between the law and the accusation is large; and the evidence that has been provided has been ignored.
The little farm animals like to keep their blinders on, especially when they continue to follow Napoleon, however absurd an lawless he might be.
Do you see the similarity between Animal Farm and ConyersBlog?
Do you understand how people in the RNC can do what they do?
DO you see how you have been enraged to act without regard to the law?
Do you understand how people, how are poorly educated, can be manipulated to take action and justify their actions?
DO you see the danger of allowing contractors to "Lead" American troops in torture?
The answer is: If you do not see it now, I can assure you that you can be manipulated into further abuses and misconduct.
The whole world can see it.
This is how easily you can be manipulated.
For you were told to assert your rights. To such an extent that you were blind to how you were being manipulated.
Imposing standards on others not followed
But it doesn't stop there. Notice the long post and the assertion that the posts are easy to rip apart.
Notice the long talk about service in the Navy.
Oh, what relevance does that have to a comment about speaking on the House floor?
Nothing.
It is merely the arrogant fascists calling up "their public service" as some sort of verbal armor.
But Big Doug E. also likes to include commercial links in posts and then do nothing about it.
Is this how the military trained you? To create exceptions for yourself?
To wave the flag?
To jump in without examining either the laws or the facts?
The dangerous ones are those who wave the flag of the NAVY, and ask the world to grovel on the ground, "Oh, yes we blindly obey you Doug; because if we do not follow you, we will be against the military."
Wake up! They wave the flag, as does this leadership in the White House, to rally you to act without thinking.
Comment #215: Ohiodem1 said on 7/27/05 @ 3:41pm ET... hcocdr #207, 208, 177, 206 I was in the Navy. When a ship is at sea, all hands work 12 hours on, 12 hours off, 7 days a week. If you work on the flight deck, which is dangerous work, and all personnel are volunteers, those folks work 18 hours per day during combat flight operations. There is only one flight deck crew, and they are on deck any time the ship is at flight quarters. The Abraham Linclon [stet], used as a prop for the infamous "Mission Accomplished" photo op for George W. Bush was at sea for 282 days continuously, and the crew worked those hours for months on end with no liberty, which I feel is a crime against sailors. Then the President used those sailors for his own self-aggrandizement. If you get a day off every so often, that is fine. I just find it hard to believe that you can play propagandist as much as you do from a combat zone. If you are, you are screwing your fellow soldiers. You seem to be picking up all the happy talk coming off the Fox News or some other Republican Talking Points wire. My own service was, in an abstract way devoted to defending the right of all Americans to enjoy all of the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. If you are serving, which I doubt, your service is intended to protect the same rights. I do not know if you realize it or not, you as a soldier have a right to disagree with your leaders, just as long as you do not disobey a lawful order from them. The Commander in Chief has no presumptive right to the blind obedience or to the respect of his military men and women. Respect must be earned, and this president has earned very little respect from his men and women, apparently present company excepted. If you are in Iraq, I want you to consider the fact that Soldiers, Marines, Airmen and Sailors have died in large numbers, have been severely wounded and injured in large numbers, have become severe psychological casualties in large numbers, and that they are in that theater of war on the basis of lies, false statements, fear mongering and all manner of faked intelligence, misrepresentation of good intelligence, by the civilian leadership you seem to worship. Moving on, in your post #177 you reprint an article from 2000, discussing a leak of secure material law that was vetoed by Bill Clinton. In that same article, Congressman Conyers is quoted. Remember this was from the year 2000. In your post #206, you take Congressman Conyers comment out of context, and make it appear to be a contemporary comment by the use of the sentence “Now he’s defending the CIA?”, except that he said in another context on another topic in the year 2000. If anyone pays attention to your overly long posts, which by the way violates one of the rules of this blog, in that you are requested to post a paragraph or two, then provide a link, which you never do. Anyway, when someone actually pays attention to your posts, they are easy to rip apart because they do not stand up to rigorous scrutiny. I repeat my question “How about it hcocdr, are you going to retract the offending statements and apologize to Representative Conyers? Or will you continue to be a willing participant of the Republican Attack Machine?” |
Summation
Citizens! You have been manipulated to assert your rights, but to act without regard to the law.
You have become what we oppose.
If you choose to align yourself with this outrageous conduct, you are no better than the RNC.
Choose: Do you want a nation based on laws.
Or do you want tyranny.
The ConyersBlog Admin has embraced his own tyranny.
Are you with him or the rule of law?
You have chosen a poor ally.
Awaken! Do not be manipulated. Examine the facts. Know the law.
It will set you free.
General Jury Instructions on Defamation, Libel and Slander
If we review the jury instructions, we shall see that the ConyersBlog Admin has a weak legal foundation.
Public figure elements in re slander
Whether the comment has an effect on the average reader.
Whether the comment is made negligently
Fair comment, opinion, truth, or matter of public interest as a defense defamation or libel.
Accusing someone of violating the copyright law [when there is a reasonable public interest in discussing the entire document or the material is posted for research purposes] is a actionable.
Conclusion
In my personal opinion, many readers of the ConyersBlog are making statements that are disconnected from reality.
You appear to be spun up over something that is not actionable.
Any assertion that Conyers has been slandered or defamed are absurd. A reasonable reading of the comment shows that there has been no slander, libel, or defamation.
Onthe contrary, the only person who appears to have allegedly engaged in any sort of defamation is the ConyersBlog Admin when he accused someone of violating the copyright laws by posting an article.
This is absurd. Because the information as "proof" was cited as a requirement to be posted, otherwise the blogger would have been banned.
Moreover, when the issues discussed continually are ignored, a reasonable person would post the entire article. At this juncture, it is clear that despite the fullposting of the content, the ConyersBlog and ConyersBlog Admin didn't read the material.
That is not a cause of action. That is stupidity and ignorance.
The above is a fair public comment.
If you do not agree with the above, then you need to blog about it.
If you do not like the laws, then have them changed. But do not undermine your cause by assertion "violations of the law" when no violation exists. To do so simply asks the world to embrace your absurdity instead of that from the RNC.
We are a free people.
We can choose. The issue is between the rule of law and tyranny.
We are not forced to choose between RNC-absurdity or ConyersBlog Admin-absurdity.
If you do not understand the above material, then you need to keep your mouth shut, find an attorney, and figure out where your problems are.
At this juncture, it is clear many people on the ConyersBlog are spewing forth innuendo, non-sense, absurd accusations, and jumping to conclusions without any understanding of either the essential issues, what was originally said, or the legal foundations.
In short, by jumping into an issue, you have exposed yourself to litigation risk.
If you would like to continue down this path, I can assure you . . . you will lose.
And that is not a threat.
It is a promise.
How do I know?
For this is what I have done.
Your job is to quiet your bickering, settle this matter, and focus your attention on the real non-sense coming out and distracting your attention from Rove and the impeachment and war crimes.
Take the above as a lesson: How quickly a group of well intentioned people can spiral into fascism, commit abuses, make stupid statements without regard to the rule of law, and then rationalize it.
You now know the enemy you fight. How? You have become that enemy.
Take the lessons and redirect your energy to defeat that which you have become.
If you do not rally your cause to defeat the RNC, then I shall defeat both the RNC and the ConyersBlog.
I can assure you, I am far more powerful than either of those forces combined. And if you would like for me to prove it, I shall do so again.
Think about how you got to where you are.
As I said, I will do it again to make my point.
And then, when that happens, you will have nothing but defeat as your ally.
Choose. Tyranny. Or A Constitution.
Choose wisely.
If you dare do the above non0sense again, or be so absurd in your arguments as you have shown above, I will return and make utter fools of you all.
Then rub your nose in it.
Remember, your opponent has already fallen into the trap. But you now know where you are.
There is time for you to recover.
Do so, and you will succeed.
But if you fail to adjust, you will be no better than those you fight.
Then you will have to deal with me.
Do you want to choose fascism and absurdity, attempt to defeat the RNC, and dare to go up against the likes of me?
It is a waste of your time.
Snap out of it.
Your goal and prize are the Constitution.
Remember your purpose: It is to preserve the law and enforce it, not rewrite the rules and do something else.
Chose: The Constitution, or a tyrant.
Do not become that which you hope to defeat.
You will simply align yourself with those who shall be defeated.
How do I know?
For this is what I have done.
Hoc voluerunt!
posted by Constant @ 6:38 AM
<< Home