Home > Archive > Cobol > December 2005 > Re: Iraq
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Rick Smith 2005-12-09, 7:55 am |
|
"Joe Zitzelberger" <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:joe_zitzelberger-2C9912.03050509122005@ispnews.usenetserver.com...
> In article <kNikf.2818$rq3.1482@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
> "Michael Mattias" <michael.mattias@gte.net> wrote:
>
...[color=darkred]
He[color=darkred]
used[color=darkred]
The[color=darkred]
>
> That is what congressional committees do. Why should his be any
> different?
Congressional committees, at least as I understand their
function, conduct fact-finding to determine whether
legislation is needed and discussions concerning proposed
legislation. I recall from some years ago, though I can not
recall the context, that no legislation was ever discussed,
while McCarthy was running *his* hearings. It was the
absence of any clear legislative agenda that made *his*
different.
> And which "blacklists" do you mean?
>
accused[color=darkred]
and[color=darkred]
>
> Who was convicted? Who was punished?
< http://www.cobbles.com/simpp_archiv...c_blacklist.htm >
seems to answer the remaining questions you pose.
The "page" is rather long.
-----selected quote
The blacklist was not a new witches' brew concocted
by the Association of Motion Picture Producers (AMPP)
to protect the movie industry from a new threat,
"Communist infiltration." Blacklists had been routinely
used by employers in other industries against union
organizers for over a century, and frightening attacks
on freedom of expression, both political and artistic, have
occurred in the United States ever since the signing of the
Declaration of Independence. Our own government and
assorted "defenders of American ideals" have periodically
shelved our First Amendment rights whenever it has
conveniently suited their cause to do so. Do you
remember reading about the Alien and Sedition Acts of
1798, the government seizure of abolitionist literature in
the 1830s or the ruthless actions taken against railroad
strikers in the 1890s in your high school history classes?
The motion picture blacklist era was simply the
calculated product of movie studio executives acting from
primal economic fear. They believed the film industry
would lose vast portions of its audience if they didn't
cooperate with Congressional investigating committees.
Just like today, the primary concern of studio executives
during the blacklist was not politics or art, but the bottom
line. As a result, several hundred performers whose only
"crime" was belonging to or supporting organizations or
causes deemed "subversive," were sacrificed by the film
industry to a manufactured and manipulated national
hysteria over the threat of Communist world domination.
-----end quote
| |
|
| In article <11pimpb6pngbvf4@corp.supernews.com>,
Rick Smith <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
>
>"Joe Zitzelberger" <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:joe_zitzelberger-2C9912.03050509122005@ispnews.usenetserver.com...
[snip]
>
>< http://www.cobbles.com/simpp_archiv...c_blacklist.htm >
>seems to answer the remaining questions you pose.
This seems to be a reference to HUAC, Mr Smith, not McCarthy. While
working towards the same goal they are neither identical nor synonymous.
(Interesting to compare the names here, though, with the names in the
Venona traffic
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...e_Venona_papers))
DD
| |
| Rick Smith 2005-12-09, 7:55 am |
|
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:dnbm9u$3bt$1@reader2.panix.com...
> In article <11pimpb6pngbvf4@corp.supernews.com>,
> Rick Smith <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> This seems to be a reference to HUAC, Mr Smith, not McCarthy. While
> working towards the same goal they are neither identical nor synonymous.
I think, Mr Dwarf, that it is, more precisely, about
"blacklisting" and the motion picture industry; something
more closely related to McCarthy than whatever other
intent the HUAC may have had. Perhaps, McCarthy
concentrated more on actors because they are better
known to the public.
-----another quote, same source
For their own political gain, exposure and blacklisting
of "subversive" citizens was taken up first by Republicans,
then by Democrats. Such political opportunism made
Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon household names.
-----end quote
And some may have been pressured into making false
statements.
-----yet another quote, same source
Jeff Corey Interview:
Q. You were blacklisted despite being a World War II
veteran?
A. I was in the Navy and received a citation, signed by
Navy Secretary Forrestal, for outstanding achievement
in combat photography for putting myself at risk while
shooting a photo sequence of a kamikaze attack on the
U.S.S. Yorktown. The funny thing is that I was actually
out at sea on the Yorktown when a HUAC informant,
Mark Lawrence, named me as being present at various
Communist meetings.
-----end quote
The relationship, I see, is that McCarthy sought to have
witnesses "name names" thus cause those individuals to be
placed on a "blacklist". To be placed on a "blacklist" was
to be convicted ("guilt by association") and the punishment
was the inability to work in one's chose field.
| |
|
| In article <11pj09pqh22v612@corp.supernews.com>,
Rick Smith <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:dnbm9u$3bt$1@reader2.panix.com...
>
>I think, Mr Dwarf, that it is, more precisely, about
>"blacklisting" and the motion picture industry; something
>more closely related to McCarthy than whatever other
>intent the HUAC may have had. Perhaps, McCarthy
>concentrated more on actors because they are better
>known to the public.
That might be the case, Mr Smith... but what I was attempting was a kind
of precision that I've often seen employed by those who defend what they
see as the salutory effects of McCarthy's efforts and tactics.
'Lives were ruined by the 'witch hunts', sure... but everyone *McCarthy*
went after deserved it, who got hurt that didn't deserve it?'
(one of the cites given earlier was an editorial from a profit-free
newspaper funded by a Korean Christian-charismatic industrialist,
http://home.att.net/~r.s.mccain/mccarthy.html ; I found it interesting to
read there:
--begin quoted text:
Critics have claimed that McCarthy "never actually exposed a communist,"
but Mr. Herman notes the case of Mary Jane Keeney, a State Department
employee whom McCarthy accused of being a Soviet agent. In fact, she was
employed by State even though the FBI knew she had spied for the KGB.
"McCarthy didn't know that specifically, but the fact that he could come
so close is significant," Mr. Herman says.
And Mary Jane Keeney's name was on the sheet of paper that McCarthy waved
to the Republican women of Wheeling, W.Va., 50 years ago, when he said, "I
have here in my hand a list . . .."
--end quoted text
Perhaps my efforts are shoddy but I have been unable to locate,
*anywhere*, a copy of this list (or 'the sheet of paper that McCarthy
waved'); perhaps someone might be kind enough to assist me in finding it
so that it might be compared, say, to the declassified Venona documents.
(I was unable to find any of the 'Hollywood Ten' on the Venona list to
which I've already posted a link and I've read various descriptions in
various places of McCarthy's 'list of 205' which had it to be blank papers
or a list of State Department employee numbers of folks who had, for
whatever reason, failed security examinations... but never a list of two
hundred five names.)
DD
| |
| Rick Smith 2005-12-10, 3:55 am |
|
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:dnc389$8t9$1@reader2.panix.com...
> In article <11pj09pqh22v612@corp.supernews.com>,
[snip]
> That might be the case, Mr Smith... but what I was attempting was a kind
> of precision that I've often seen employed by those who defend what they
> see as the salutory effects of McCarthy's efforts and tactics.
>
> 'Lives were ruined by the 'witch hunts', sure... but everyone *McCarthy*
> went after deserved it, who got hurt that didn't deserve it?'
Now that I have my head screwed on straight, see
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tydings_Committee >.
-----begin quote
Of the 110 names McCarthy gave to the Tydings
subcommittee, 62 were at the time employed by the
State Department. The Tydings Committee cleared
all the personal, but within one year the State
Department's Loyalty Security Board instigated
proceedings against 49 of the 62. By the end of 1954,
81 of those on McCarthy's list had either resigned or
been dismissed from the government.
-----end quote
Apparently 29 that "*McCarthy* went after" were
never shown to have "deserved it", nor pressured
into resigning.
| |
| Judson McClendon 2005-12-10, 3:55 am |
| "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
> <docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Now that I have my head screwed on straight, see
> < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tydings_Committee >.
>
> -----begin quote
> Of the 110 names McCarthy gave to the Tydings
> subcommittee, 62 were at the time employed by the
> State Department. The Tydings Committee cleared
> all the personal, but within one year the State
> Department's Loyalty Security Board instigated
> proceedings against 49 of the 62. By the end of 1954,
> 81 of those on McCarthy's list had either resigned or
> been dismissed from the government.
> -----end quote
>
> Apparently 29 that "*McCarthy* went after" were
> never shown to have "deserved it", nor pressured
> into resigning.
Apparently your reasoning is that because those 29 weren't convicted of
something then they're therefore innocent. If this were the case, then we
would have no crime, because everyone who was truly guilty would have
already been convicted. Being certain someone is guilty, and being able to
prove that in court, are two very different things. :-)
Unfortunately, many innocent people who become suspects at some point get
smeared in the press before a trial. I don't know how well it works in
practice, but I understand that in Canada it is illegal to disclose the name
of someone charged with a crime, unless they are actually convicted. I
really like that idea, because many innocent people's lives have been ruined
by the media here in the U.S. before they had their day in court.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Rick Smith 2005-12-10, 7:55 am |
|
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:wnwmf.566$w7.288@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
kind[color=darkred]
they[color=darkred]
*McCarthy*[color=darkred]
>
>
> Apparently your reasoning is that because those 29 weren't convicted of
> something then they're therefore innocent.
Mr McClendon, you seem to have missed the implication,
in the article, that none of the 110 were convicted of
anything. I simply did not comment on the 81 who
"either resigned or been dismissed".
The question of "innocent" must, I believe, mean "innocent
of wrongdoing". One's appearance on a list is simply
guilt by association and not guilt of wrongdoing. One of
the articles I read mentioned a young actress, Nancy Davis,
who found her name on a "blacklist". She approached the
President of SAG, one Ronald Reagan, and asked that
her name be removed from the list. It was and they later
married. Was Nancy Reagan a Commie because her
maiden name appeared on a list? Was she guilty of any
wrongdoing?
| |
| Judson McClendon 2005-12-10, 7:55 am |
| "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> Mr McClendon, you seem to have missed the implication,
> in the article, that none of the 110 were convicted of
> anything. I simply did not comment on the 81 who
> "either resigned or been dismissed".
I didn't miss the implication, I simply said that lack of conviction does
not prove innocence. Being on a list doesn't prove guilt, either. But your
statement about the 29 is essentially meaningless as far as substantive
evidence is concerned, and this was my point. :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
|
| In article <11pknip16lcqr26@corp.supernews.com>,
Rick Smith <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:dnc389$8t9$1@reader2.panix.com...
>[snip]
>
>Now that I have my head screwed on straight, see
>< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tydings_Committee >.
>
>-----begin quote
>Of the 110 names McCarthy gave to the Tydings
>subcommittee, 62 were at the time employed by the
>State Department. The Tydings Committee cleared
>all the personal, but within one year the State
>Department's Loyalty Security Board instigated
>proceedings against 49 of the 62. By the end of 1954,
>81 of those on McCarthy's list had either resigned or
>been dismissed from the government.
>-----end quote
>
>Apparently 29 that "*McCarthy* went after" were
>never shown to have "deserved it", nor pressured
>into resigning.
Here's where you may run into trouble, Mr Smith... you see, Tydings was
of a different political party than McCarthy, this makes his conclusions,
to some, suspect. It is not enough that a Senator makes a statement, it
is not enough that a Senate Committee comes to a conclusion... they have
to be composed of members of the Proper Party, as well, or so I have seen.
DD
| |
|
| In article <wnwmf.566$w7.288@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>"Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
>
>
>Apparently your reasoning is that because those 29 weren't convicted of
>something then they're therefore innocent. If this were the case, then we
>would have no crime, because everyone who was truly guilty would have
>already been convicted. Being certain someone is guilty, and being able to
>prove that in court, are two very different things. :-)
Not quite, Mr McClendon... you see, certain legal traditions - which,
perhaps, might be foreign to you - are based on something which has been
called 'the presumption of innocence', that a person is to be presumed
innocent until proven guilty in a court of law; this is a basis of law in
the United States of America with which I am familiar.
DD
| |
| Rick Smith 2005-12-10, 6:55 pm |
|
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:dnejlb$3tg$1@reader2.panix.com...
> In article <11pknip16lcqr26@corp.supernews.com>,
> Rick Smith <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
news:dnc389$8t9$1@reader2.panix.com...[color=darkred]
kind[color=darkred]
they[color=darkred]
*McCarthy*[color=darkred]
>
> Here's where you may run into trouble, Mr Smith... you see, Tydings was
> of a different political party than McCarthy, this makes his conclusions,
> to some, suspect. It is not enough that a Senator makes a statement, it
> is not enough that a Senate Committee comes to a conclusion... they have
> to be composed of members of the Proper Party, as well, or so I have seen.
In the 4+ years, following the end of the committee's
hearings, the executive branch, under the administrations
of Presidents Truman and Eisenhower, investigated
however many of the 110 they chose. The 29 and the
81 are results attributable to the executive branch and
therefore, presumably, outside Senate politics.
The weakness, as I see it, is the absence of any
references for the article. The source of the information
was never stated.
| |
| Rick Smith 2005-12-10, 6:55 pm |
|
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:FaAmf.3707$MA2.1901@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
>
> I didn't miss the implication, I simply said that lack of conviction does
> not prove innocence. Being on a list doesn't prove guilt, either. But your
> statement about the 29 is essentially meaningless as far as substantive
> evidence is concerned, and this was my point. :-)
Four years of investigation seems not to have revealed
sufficient evidence to convict any of the 110. I do not
know what may have been found for the 81 which led
them to either resign or be dismissed, which is why I
chose not to comment on them; but for the 29 there,
apparently, was not enough evidence to warrant any
further action. Thus I conclude they "were never shown
to have 'deserved it'."
| |
| berlutte@hotmail.com 2005-12-10, 6:55 pm |
| On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 13:06:09 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>
>Not quite, Mr McClendon... you see, certain legal traditions - which,
>perhaps, might be foreign to you - are based on something which has been
>called 'the presumption of innocence', that a person is to be presumed
>innocent until proven guilty in a court of law; this is a basis of law in
>the United States of America with which I am familiar.
Yeah right! Give a holler to Jose Padilla, old chicken!
| |
|
| In article <11pm3t9ah65b914@corp.supernews.com>,
Rick Smith <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:dnejlb$3tg$1@reader2.panix.com...
>news:dnc389$8t9$1@reader2.panix.com...
>
>In the 4+ years, following the end of the committee's
>hearings, the executive branch, under the administrations
>of Presidents Truman and Eisenhower, investigated
>however many of the 110 they chose. The 29 and the
>81 are results attributable to the executive branch and
>therefore, presumably, outside Senate politics.
Ummmmmm... that presumption might be a bit... presumptive, Mr Smith.
Didn't you know that it has been asserted that 'liberals held near
absolute power in America for almost 70 years'? That being the case
then... *something* might be concluded about their influence in the
McCarthy debacle, I'm sure.
DD
| |
| Judson McClendon 2005-12-10, 9:55 pm |
| <docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
> Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> Not quite, Mr McClendon... you see, certain legal traditions - which,
> perhaps, might be foreign to you - are based on something which has been
> called 'the presumption of innocence', that a person is to be presumed
> innocent until proven guilty in a court of law; this is a basis of law in
> the United States of America with which I am familiar.
Quite right. But human judicial systems are fallible, and a finding of
guilty or innocent in a legal sense does not mean true guilt or innocent in
an absolute sense, which was what I was trying to express.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
|
| In article <ZuLmf.1394$w7.1349@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
>
>
>Quite right. But human judicial systems are fallible, and a finding of
>guilty or innocent in a legal sense does not mean true guilt or innocent in
>an absolute sense, which was what I was trying to express.
Mr McClendon, what you try to express might have some validity when a
human judicial system can promise to do its best to insure 'a perfect
trial'... at the moment I believe the most that is offered is a 'fair'
one.
Shoulda, woulda, coulda, mighta... not apparently applicable at all, Mr
McClendon. 'Presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law'
given and no proof of guilt in a court of law established... innocence is
to be presumed.
DD
| |
| Joe Zitzelberger 2005-12-11, 3:55 am |
| In article <11pj09pqh22v612@corp.supernews.com>,
"Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
> <docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:dnbm9u$3bt$1@reader2.panix.com...
>
> I think, Mr Dwarf, that it is, more precisely, about
> "blacklisting" and the motion picture industry; something
> more closely related to McCarthy than whatever other
> intent the HUAC may have had. Perhaps, McCarthy
> concentrated more on actors because they are better
> known to the public.
>
> -----another quote, same source
> For their own political gain, exposure and blacklisting
> of "subversive" citizens was taken up first by Republicans,
> then by Democrats. Such political opportunism made
> Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon household names.
> -----end quote
Interesting that you quote JM as "concentrating on ... actors" but you
give us a second-hand quote of someone claiming that JM 'concentrated on
actors'.
All of his hearings are public record. His speeches are public record
and widely available. Where do you see that JM actually 'concentrated"
on any actors? If your claim is accurate, certainly you can find a cite
that has JM actually targeting some actors?
Perhaps my historical education is lacking, but I only know of JM
'concentrating' on persons in the military hierarchy (including
civilians in the path) that could compromise the Korean/Cold War effort.
> And some may have been pressured into making false
> statements.
>
> -----yet another quote, same source
> Jeff Corey Interview:
> Q. You were blacklisted despite being a World War II
> veteran?
>
> A. I was in the Navy and received a citation, signed by
> Navy Secretary Forrestal, for outstanding achievement
> in combat photography for putting myself at risk while
> shooting a photo sequence of a kamikaze attack on the
> U.S.S. Yorktown. The funny thing is that I was actually
> out at sea on the Yorktown when a HUAC informant,
> Mark Lawrence, named me as being present at various
> Communist meetings.
> -----end quote
>
> The relationship, I see, is that McCarthy sought to have
> witnesses "name names" thus cause those individuals to be
> placed on a "blacklist". To be placed on a "blacklist" was
> to be convicted ("guilt by association") and the punishment
> was the inability to work in one's chose field.
What blacklist? Who had it? Who distributed it? And what did McCarthy
have to do with it?
How was anyone prohibited from working in their chosen field by Joe
McCarthy?
| |
| Joe Zitzelberger 2005-12-11, 3:55 am |
| In article <11plgcmib5j5391@corp.supernews.com>,
"Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
> news:wnwmf.566$w7.288@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> kind
> they
> *McCarthy*
>
> Mr McClendon, you seem to have missed the implication,
> in the article, that none of the 110 were convicted of
> anything. I simply did not comment on the 81 who
> "either resigned or been dismissed".
>
> The question of "innocent" must, I believe, mean "innocent
> of wrongdoing". One's appearance on a list is simply
> guilt by association and not guilt of wrongdoing. One of
> the articles I read mentioned a young actress, Nancy Davis,
> who found her name on a "blacklist". She approached the
> President of SAG, one Ronald Reagan, and asked that
> her name be removed from the list. It was and they later
> married. Was Nancy Reagan a Commie because her
> maiden name appeared on a list? Was she guilty of any
> wrongdoing?
Silly that you think the list of 110 is somehow a conviction.
Åt issue was if these persons would have access to classified
information, or be in a position to manipulate policy. If you applied
for the same job today you could be excluded for excessive credit card
debt or prior drug use.
No lives were ruined. People were only disallow from holding jobs where
there was a reasonable question they might not give 100% to said job.
Why should the US Army/government hire people hostile to its declared
ends? Why should the give them access to classified information?
| |
| Joe Zitzelberger 2005-12-11, 3:55 am |
| In article <11pm5f8mt9ur1d6@corp.supernews.com>,
"Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
> Four years of investigation seems not to have revealed
> sufficient evidence to convict any of the 110. I do not
> know what may have been found for the 81 which led
> them to either resign or be dismissed, which is why I
> chose not to comment on them; but for the 29 there,
> apparently, was not enough evidence to warrant any
> further action. Thus I conclude they "were never shown
> to have 'deserved it'."
Convict them on what?
There was no trial. This was, at its core, a human resource problem.
The 110 were not suited to the trust level needed for a war-time
government.
Why is this a problem?
They were not imprisoned. They were not tortured. No harm was done to
them in any way.
They were simply identified as not being 'ideal' employees in the
information flow of the Korean war and the wider cold war.
Nobody was convicted of anything.
Hell, I don't think anyone was ever charged.
| |
| Joe Zitzelberger 2005-12-11, 3:55 am |
| In article <dnejs1$m43$1@reader2.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com ()
wrote:
> Not quite, Mr McClendon... you see, certain legal traditions - which,
> perhaps, might be foreign to you - are based on something which has been
> called 'the presumption of innocence', that a person is to be presumed
> innocent until proven guilty in a court of law; this is a basis of law in
> the United States of America with which I am familiar.
>
> DD
You are quite correct in that presumption, Mr Dwarf.
However, at issue is only if the persons in question would retain their
jobs with access to classified information.
Presumption of innocence is nice, but it does not matter if there are no
charges.
The desire of the Army to not hire/employee communists does not equate
to convicting communists...the innocent-till-proven-guitly doesn't
really apply. 'Reasonable expectation of job performance' does.
| |
| Rick Smith 2005-12-11, 7:55 am |
|
"Joe Zitzelberger" <zberger@knology.net> wrote in message
news:zberger-E17D33.02201811122005@ispnews.usenetserver.com...
[snip]
> Perhaps my historical education is lacking, but I only know of JM
> 'concentrating' on persons in the military hierarchy (including
> civilians in the path) that could compromise the Korean/Cold War effort.
The "list of 205" was, according to reports, of State
Department employees in February 1950. North
Korean did not invade South Korea until June 1950.
Again, according to reports, McCarthy did not go
after the Army until 1953.
[snip]
> What blacklist? Who had it? Who distributed it? And what did McCarthy
> have to do with it?
What I recall from years, even decades ago, was
the lumping of McCarthy, Nixon, HUAC, etc.,
together. Some more recent articles still do not
distinguish among the "players"; but others, as I
found out, do. My apologies for not having made
the correct distinctions before responding.
| |
| Rick Smith 2005-12-11, 7:55 am |
|
"Joe Zitzelberger" <zberger@knology.net> wrote in message
news:zberger-F5649A.02355911122005@ispnews.usenetserver.com...
> In article <11plgcmib5j5391@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
>
[snip][color=darkred]
of[color=darkred]
>
> Silly that you think the list of 110 is somehow a conviction.
I don't know where you got that. I only used
"convicted", in response to Mr McClendon's use.
> Åt issue was if these persons would have access to classified
> information, or be in a position to manipulate policy. If you applied
> for the same job today you could be excluded for excessive credit card
> debt or prior drug use.
>
> No lives were ruined.
Mr Zitzelberger, how could possibly know?
> People were only disallow from holding jobs where
> there was a reasonable question they might not give 100% to said job.
> Why should the US Army/government hire people hostile to its declared
> ends? Why should the give them access to classified information?
Those listed were already on the payroll, doing their
jobs. Some resigned, others were dismissed due
to questionable accusations, involving "guilt by
association". Mr Zitzelberger, you state "hire people",
but McCarthy's apparent goal was to "fire people" and,
whether any individual is "hostile" depends upon the
individual not the subjective classification of others.
| |
| Rick Smith 2005-12-11, 7:55 am |
|
"Joe Zitzelberger" <zberger@knology.net> wrote in message
news:zberger-C55C7B.02463311122005@ispnews.usenetserver.com...
> In article <11pm5f8mt9ur1d6@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
>
> Convict them on what?
The criteria Mr McClendon may have intended
and I understood when he used "convicted".
[It's called "thread drift".]
> There was no trial. This was, at its core, a human resource problem.
> The 110 were not suited to the trust level needed for a war-time
> government.
Or, so said, McCarthy, at a time in which there
was no state of war.
> Why is this a problem?
>
> They were not imprisoned. They were not tortured. No harm was done to
> them in any way.
Unless one counts unwarranted investigations,
[possibly forced] resignations, and dismissals;
all of which could be causes of emotional stress.
> They were simply identified as not being 'ideal' employees in the
> information flow of the Korean war and the wider cold war.
They were identified, prior to the Korean War,
by a person who is reported to have taken his
tactics from "Mein Kampf".
< http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAmccarthy.htm >
-----begiin quote
3) Urban Van Susteren, a close friend of Joseph
McCarthy, was interviewed about him on 22nd
October, 1977
As far as I know, Joe looked at only one book
in his life. That was Mein Kampf. Joe, I think, was
more taken by the tactics, by the means and not the
end. He had no use for Hitler or for anything the
Nazis did. But when he looked at Mein Kampf, it
was like one politician comparing notes with another.
Joe was fascinated by the strategy, that's all.
-----end quote
| |
| Judson McClendon 2005-12-11, 7:55 am |
| <docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
> Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> Mr McClendon, what you try to express might have some validity when a
> human judicial system can promise to do its best to insure 'a perfect
> trial'... at the moment I believe the most that is offered is a 'fair'
> one.
>
> Shoulda, woulda, coulda, mighta... not apparently applicable at all, Mr
> McClendon. 'Presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law'
> given and no proof of guilt in a court of law established... innocence is
> to be presumed.
You don't pay that much attention to what people other than yourself
actually write, do you? I understand the legal principle, thank you very
much. Did my statement "Quite right" above completely escape you, or were
you simply unable to parse and comprehend such a complex statement? I'll
even go so far as to state that I understand and agree with the reasons
behind this legal principle. But no matter how many times you reiterate the
obvious, the fact remains that some people are in jail who committed no
crime, and many, many people are walking free who definitely committed
crimes and were tried, but were found not guilty by the judicial system. You
can (and probably will) disagree with those stated facts until doomsday, but
they do remain fact. I consider these facts *important* (is this concept
also too complex for you?). Should you become a victim of one of these
criminals who are running around loose, or should you be imprisoned for
something you did not do, then you may find these facts important to
yourself as well. Of course, you can (assuming you aren't the victim of
murder) console yourself by repeatedly chanting the phrase 'Presumed
innocent until proven guilty in a court of law', as you have done here.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
|
| In article <zberger-BD48BF.02562011122005@ispnews.usenetserver.com>,
Joe Zitzelberger <zberger@knology.net> wrote:
>In article <dnejs1$m43$1@reader2.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com ()
>wrote:
>
>You are quite correct in that presumption, Mr Dwarf.
>
>However, at issue is only if the persons in question would retain their
>jobs with access to classified information.
It seems, Mr Zitzelberger, that you are shifting from Mr McClendon's
concepts of 'guilty' to something like 'reasonable grounds for
dismissal'... is that correct?
>
>Presumption of innocence is nice, but it does not matter if there are no
>charges.
If there are accusations, Mr Zitzelberger, there is a charge... English
works that way, last I looked.
>
>The desire of the Army to not hire/employee communists does not equate
>to convicting communists...the innocent-till-proven-guitly doesn't
>really apply. 'Reasonable expectation of job performance' does.
The desire of the Army not to hire/employ those who had been members of
the Communist party, Mr Zitzelberger, appears to have been proven by the
fact of the Army's hiring of the same... the efforts of McCarthy (and the
other witch-hunters) appear to have been rendering what seems to have been
a perfectly legal political affiliation into something of suspicion, shame
and criminality.
DD
| |
|
| In article <zberger-E17D33.02201811122005@ispnews.usenetserver.com>,
Joe Zitzelberger <zberger@knology.net> wrote:
>In article <11pj09pqh22v612@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
>
[snip]
[color=darkred]
[snip]
[color=darkred]
>What blacklist? Who had it? Who distributed it? And what did McCarthy
>have to do with it?
Mr Smith, was this seen coming or was it not?
DD
| |
|
| In article <pMUmf.1487$w7.320@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
>
>
>You don't pay that much attention to what people other than yourself
>actually write, do you?
I try to, Mr McClendon, but the results might not be apparent to those
with friends in high places. This kind of pettiness seems to ill-suit
you.
>I understand the legal principle, thank you very much.
I do not know what the criteria for 'understanding' are, Mr McClendon...
the best which might be hoped for is to make it a part of one's actions
that others can see and be affected by. I don't believe you're claiming
to have done that, yet; if you are then going on about 'absolute
justice/innocence/guilt' might seem to contradict such a claim.
>Did my statement "Quite right" above completely escape you, or were
>you simply unable to parse and comprehend such a complex statement?
I do my best with the limited capacities I admit to having, Mr McClendon;
I make no claims of being able to call upon those with Divine capabilities
to aid my comprehensions. I also try my very best to do something called
'reading in context'; when a statement is followed by another statement
beginning with a 'but' (as followed the 'quite right' cited above) then I
assume the author is offering something in contrast, distinction or
exception to the statememt preceding this 'but'. If that was not the case
then I apologise for my misunderstanding of your use; if that was the case
then it might be seen that this pettiness is starting to suit you better.
DD
| |
| Judson McClendon 2005-12-11, 7:55 am |
| <docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
> Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> I try to, Mr McClendon, but the results might not be apparent to those
> with friends in high places. This kind of pettiness seems to ill-suit
> you.
>
>
> I do not know what the criteria for 'understanding' are, Mr McClendon...
> the best which might be hoped for is to make it a part of one's actions
> that others can see and be affected by. I don't believe you're claiming
> to have done that, yet; if you are then going on about 'absolute
> justice/innocence/guilt' might seem to contradict such a claim.
>
>
> I do my best with the limited capacities I admit to having, Mr McClendon;
> I make no claims of being able to call upon those with Divine capabilities
> to aid my comprehensions. I also try my very best to do something called
> 'reading in context'; when a statement is followed by another statement
> beginning with a 'but' (as followed the 'quite right' cited above) then I
> assume the author is offering something in contrast, distinction or
> exception to the statememt preceding this 'but'. If that was not the case
> then I apologise for my misunderstanding of your use; if that was the case
> then it might be seen that this pettiness is starting to suit you better.
Interesting, your use of the word "pettiness", considering your predilection
for it in so many of your own posts. :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
|
| In article <JgVmf.1492$w7.416@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
[snip]
[color=darkred]
>
>
>Interesting, your use of the word "pettiness", considering your predilection
>for it in so many of your own posts. :-)
Mr McClendon, I do not recall ever asking you if you read beyond your own
words or if a two-word statement was beyond your ability to parse; I try
to address your arguments and offer my own in return. In this case...
when you posted a sentence beginning with 'But' following your 'quite
right' were you, or were you not, offering someting in contrast,
distinction or exception to that 'quite right'? I concluded that you were
and responded as such; if that was not the case then, as noted above, I
apologised.
DD
| |
| Judson McClendon 2005-12-11, 6:55 pm |
| <docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
> Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> Mr McClendon, I do not recall ever asking you if you read beyond your own
> words or if a two-word statement was beyond your ability to parse; I try
> to address your arguments and offer my own in return. In this case...
> when you posted a sentence beginning with 'But' following your 'quite
> right' were you, or were you not, offering someting in contrast,
> distinction or exception to that 'quite right'? I concluded that you were
> and responded as such; if that was not the case then, as noted above, I
> apologised.
Of course I was offering a contrast. The contract being that I was
addressing an issue *different* from the one you had just addressed yourself
(that one is considered innocent until proven guilty by the legal system),
and specifically addressing the concept of 'true' guilt or innocence in an
absolute sense.
Look, I often appreciate your comments, contrary or otherwise, to my posts
and others. I am often amused at your irreverant and irrelevant comments
made in jest. What annoys me is when you quite purposefully use some obscure
or irrelevant point in an attempt to obfuscate a perfectly clear issue. Your
obvious intellect and educational background make it clear this is not by
accident. My comments about your understanding a two-word sentence were not
made to be critical of your intellect. Do you think a single person reading
them thought they were true? To the contrary, they were made specifically to
highlight the obvious fact that you couldn't possibly be unaware of the
sense of the exchange, even though you were proceeding as if you did.
However, if you are not quite as clever as I believe, and you do make those
annoying posts in true ignorance, then I apologize. :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
|
| In article <YKYmf.1525$w7.1004@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote:
>
>
>Of course I was offering a contrast. The contract being that I was
>addressing an issue *different* from the one you had just addressed yourself
>(that one is considered innocent until proven guilty by the legal system),
>and specifically addressing the concept of 'true' guilt or innocence in an
>absolute sense.
Oh... pardon me, then, for looking at the matter-at-hand instead of the
'but what about...?'; it is a limitation of mine which seems to show up at
the oddest of times. Being a limited and finite human being I do not find
myself talking about 'true' (quotes original) things or absolute senses
since (as mentioned in another posting) such infinites might be seen by
mere finites as irrational.
>
>Look, I often appreciate your comments, contrary or otherwise, to my posts
>and others. I am often amused at your irreverant and irrelevant comments
>made in jest. What annoys me is when you quite purposefully use some obscure
>or irrelevant point in an attempt to obfuscate a perfectly clear issue.
'Clarity' is in the mind of the beholder, Mr McClendon... as I try to
point out.
>Your
>obvious intellect and educational background make it clear this is not by
>accident.
My obvious what and what? Hot dawg, I done fooled another'un!
[snip]
>However, if you are not quite as clever as I believe, and you do make those
>annoying posts in true ignorance, then I apologize. :-)
I cannot recall the source of the quote, Mr McClendon... but it went
something like 'the world is not only stranger than we imagine, it is
stranger than we *can* imagine.'
What is Life without a bit of Mystery, eh?
DD
| |
| berlutte@hotmail.com 2005-12-11, 9:55 pm |
| On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 01:29:04 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>What is Life without a bit of Mystery, eh?
By the by maybe you heard that a blast in a crude oil farm, heard up
to the friggin' Netherland, has been declared an accident (so soon is
the first clue of the lie).
The proof that it isn't is that it is not full time on CNN and that
the BBC is exercising its usual cover up.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/4517962.stm
My guess is a real attack not the unlike the staged metro affair.
One fifth of Brutain's oil up in smoke but fear not, peasants, the
XXXXX will not freeze in the palace.
Remember kids, when civilians are killed, it is part of the "strategy
of tensions' so dear to the fascists.
Like one the Iraquis police caught those limey army assasins last
summer in their booby trap car. See:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index....&articleId=1024
Meanwhile Tokyos' gold up limit:
http://www.tocom.or.jp/souba/gold/index.html
Who's laughing now I say!
Reallly!
Wren Dition
| |
| Joe Zitzelberger 2005-12-12, 6:55 pm |
| In article <11po10c8oql862c@corp.supernews.com>,
"Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
> "Joe Zitzelberger" <zberger@knology.net> wrote in message
> news:zberger-E17D33.02201811122005@ispnews.usenetserver.com...
> [snip]
>
> The "list of 205" was, according to reports, of State
> Department employees in February 1950. North
> Korean did not invade South Korea until June 1950.
But the cold war was in full bloom. Said State Department had just done
everything it could the ensure that half of Europe and China would enjoy
50 years of Communist subjugation. And the Soviets had just detonated
their first nuke, thanks to US government document leakage.
S ing out people in government with access to classified information
and/or in positions to make/influence strategic decisions contrary to
the national interest is very different from "terrorizing actors".
Why don't you just call it HUACism?
| |
| Joe Zitzelberger 2005-12-12, 6:55 pm |
| In article <dnejs1$m43$1@reader2.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com ()
wrote:
> In article <wnwmf.566$w7.288@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
> Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> Not quite, Mr McClendon... you see, certain legal traditions - which,
> perhaps, might be foreign to you - are based on something which has been
> called 'the presumption of innocence', that a person is to be presumed
> innocent until proven guilty in a court of law; this is a basis of law in
> the United States of America with which I am familiar.
>
> DD
That is correct -- for criminal proceedings.
However, access to classified documents and holding positions of trust
(State Department Official, Military Commission) are held to much lower
standards.
Today, one can fail clearance for having excessive credit card debt or
having ever smoked marijuana. Why should acting as an agent for a
foreign government be any different?
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-12-12, 6:55 pm |
| On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 06:18:44 -0600, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>But no matter how many times you reiterate the
>obvious, the fact remains that some people are in jail who committed no
>crime, and many, many people are walking free who definitely committed
>crimes and were tried, but were found not guilty by the judicial system. You
>can (and probably will) disagree with those stated facts until doomsday, but
>they do remain fact. I consider these facts *important* (is this concept
>also too complex for you?).
You consider those important in this discussion - to what point? The
fact that our judicial system has flaws means - what?
That we should accept other flaws? That we should assume people to
be guilty when accused but evidence was not found to try them?
It's not obvious what this point is trying to direct us to.
| |
|
| In article <zberger-EA0283.09344412122005@ispnews.usenetserver.com>,
Joe Zitzelberger <zberger@knology.net> wrote:
>In article <dnejs1$m43$1@reader2.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com ()
>wrote:
>
[snip]
[color=darkred]
>
>That is correct -- for criminal proceedings.
>
>However, access to classified documents and holding positions of trust
>(State Department Official, Military Commission) are held to much lower
>standards.
>
>Today, one can fail clearance for having excessive credit card debt or
>having ever smoked marijuana. Why should acting as an agent for a
>foreign government be any different?
It is one thing to act as a foreign agent, Mr Zitzelberger, and another to
exercise a right of political association; the classic question asked only
about political affiliation ('Are you now or have you ever been...').
DD
| |
| Joe Zitzelberger 2005-12-12, 6:55 pm |
| In article <dnh5s6$ff2$1@reader2.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com ()
wrote:
> In article <zberger-BD48BF.02562011122005@ispnews.usenetserver.com>,
> Joe Zitzelberger <zberger@knology.net> wrote:
>
> It seems, Mr Zitzelberger, that you are shifting from Mr McClendon's
> concepts of 'guilty' to something like 'reasonable grounds for
> dismissal'... is that correct?
>
>
> If there are accusations, Mr Zitzelberger, there is a charge... English
> works that way, last I looked.
You cannot have it both ways Mr. Dwarf. If you are going to play fast
and loose with the term "charge" -- as you indicate, someone saying a
thing is equal to being charged in a court of law -- then you must also
let me play fast and loose with the term "guilty", in the sense the
people actually performed the act(s) of which they are accused, but not
tried and convicted in a court of law.
Since no court was involved, and fitness for government service was the
only thing questioned, why do we keep bringing court-like terms into it.
>
> The desire of the Army not to hire/employ those who had been members of
> the Communist party, Mr Zitzelberger, appears to have been proven by the
> fact of the Army's hiring of the same... the efforts of McCarthy (and the
> other witch-hunters) appear to have been rendering what seems to have been
> a perfectly legal political affiliation into something of suspicion, shame
> and criminality.
Changing times call for changing HR policies. Hiring Communists to
fight Nazism is quite different from hiring Communists to fight
Communism.
| |
|
| In article <zberger-6EA4E3.09444012122005@ispnews.usenetserver.com>,
Joe Zitzelberger <zberger@knology.net> wrote:
>In article <dnh5s6$ff2$1@reader2.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com ()
>wrote:
>
>
>You cannot have it both ways Mr. Dwarf. If you are going to play fast
>and loose with the term "charge" -- as you indicate, someone saying a
>thing is equal to being charged in a court of law -- then you must also
>let me play fast and loose with the term "guilty", in the sense the
>people actually performed the act(s) of which they are accused, but not
>tried and convicted in a court of law.
When it comes to the kind of censure that the witch-hunters generated, Mr
Zitzelberger, I do not 'play'.
>
>Since no court was involved, and fitness for government service was the
>only thing questioned, why do we keep bringing court-like terms into it.
It might be that the setting used - that of legislative hearings,
performed by, primarily, lawyers - may be seen as making the terminology
of law appropriate.
>
>
>
>Changing times call for changing HR policies. Hiring Communists to
>fight Nazism is quite different from hiring Communists to fight
>Communism.
Leaving aside the question of the State Department or the Army's mission
at that time being 'to fight Communism'... that one had ever been a member
of CPUSA, Mr Zitzelberger, did not make one a Communist, just as nowadays
a Republican's once having been a member of the Democratic party does not
make the current Republican a Democrat.
DD
| |
| Joe Zitzelberger 2005-12-12, 6:55 pm |
| In article <11po32phutksea4@corp.supernews.com>,
"Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
> "Joe Zitzelberger" <zberger@knology.net> wrote in message
> news:zberger-F5649A.02355911122005@ispnews.usenetserver.com...
> [snip]
> of
>
> I don't know where you got that. I only used
> "convicted", in response to Mr McClendon's use.
>
>
> Mr Zitzelberger, how could possibly know?
Well, people have been asking for 50 years for a name, and all people
can do is talk about actors. No one can ever come up with a name.
While I can never prove a negative, half a century of failure of anyone
to prove the positive case makes me pretty comfortable with that
statement.
>
> Those listed were already on the payroll, doing their
> jobs. Some resigned, others were dismissed due
> to questionable accusations, involving "guilt by
> association". Mr Zitzelberger, you state "hire people",
> but McCarthy's apparent goal was to "fire people" and,
> whether any individual is "hostile" depends upon the
> individual not the subjective classification of others.
When dealing with classified information, for example, it is considered
'risky' if an otherwise outstanding individual has excessive debt.
Because they might be tempted to exchange some information for ready
cash.
The same logic applies to persons who have shown a willingness or
ideology predisposition to act for a foreign government. They might be
just fine, but why take the risk when there are other qualified
individuals available without said risk factors.
There is no entitlement to a government, or any, job. Continued
performance is usually considered a standard for continued employment.
I would have felt equally good about firing all members, contributors
and sympathizers of Al-Queada on September 12th, 2001.
| |
| Judson McClendon 2005-12-12, 6:55 pm |
| "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> You consider those important in this discussion - to what point? The
> fact that our judicial system has flaws means - what?
>
> That we should accept other flaws? That we should assume people to
> be guilty when accused but evidence was not found to try them?
>
> It's not obvious what this point is trying to direct us to.
The same applies to many statements, when taken five or six message
exchanges out of context. :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-12-12, 6:55 pm |
| On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 10:01:44 -0500, Joe Zitzelberger
<zberger@knology.net> wrote:
>There is no entitlement to a government, or any, job. Continued
>performance is usually considered a standard for continued employment.
>I would have felt equally good about firing all members, contributors
>and sympathizers of Al-Queada on September 12th, 2001.
Would you feel equally good about people who were seen with
sympathizers of Al-Queada, people who look Arabic, or people who were
seen with communist sympathizers?
How about people who converse in this newsgroup with communists or
Al-Queada?
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-12-12, 6:55 pm |
| On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:44:40 -0500, Joe Zitzelberger
<zberger@knology.net> wrote:
>Changing times call for changing HR policies. Hiring Communists to
>fight Nazism is quite different from hiring Communists to fight
>Communism.
Hiring communists to fight communism is sort of like hiring hackers to
fight hackers.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-12-12, 6:55 pm |
| On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 14:59:09 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>Leaving aside the question of the State Department or the Army's mission
>at that time being 'to fight Communism'... that one had ever been a member
>of CPUSA, Mr Zitzelberger, did not make one a Communist, just as nowadays
>a Republican's once having been a member of the Democratic party does not
>make the current Republican a Democrat.
I guess if Reagan can see the light - communists can be born again as
well. Unless there's perceived political advantage in condemning
them.
| |
|
| In article <ap8rp11u33a32ojr6s72kgjlfiko7g0vli@4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 14:59:09 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf@panix.com () wrote:
>
>
>I guess if Reagan can see the light - communists can be born again as
>well. Unless there's perceived political advantage in condemning
>them.
This might be, Mr Brazee, why the label 'witch hunt' was applied; if my
memory serves me correctly nobody in Salem who named names or said that
they repented their witchcraftly acts was punished. Those who maintained
innocence or showed contempt for the procedings were shown, at times,
lethal censure.
President Truman - the only man to order the use of nuclear weapons
against another country - said 'I think the greatest asset that the
Kremlin has is Senator McCarthy'... but Truman and McCarthy were from
different political parties, you know.
DD
| |
| Rick Smith 2005-12-12, 6:55 pm |
|
"Joe Zitzelberger" <zberger@knology.net> wrote in message
news:zberger-F4087E.09271212122005@ispnews.usenetserver.com...
> In article <11po10c8oql862c@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
>
effort.[color=darkred]
>
> But the cold war was in full bloom. Said State Department had just done
> everything it could the ensure that half of Europe and China would enjoy
> 50 years of Communist subjugation. And the Soviets had just detonated
> their first nuke, thanks to US government document leakage.
Communism is, as I understand it, a socio-economic
theory. Theories can not subjugate; governments can.
So, I am not sure what to make of your use of
"Communist subjugation".
> Sing out people in government with access to classified information
> and/or in positions to make/influence strategic decisions contrary to
> the national interest is very different from "terrorizing actors".
I have often heard claims of "the national interest" used
to justify all manner of interference by government and
have seen that those making such claims tend to equate
their political interest to the national interest.
I have learned to make the distinction that anything not
consistent with the Constitution is not in the national
interest, since to do otherwise would be to make the
government more important than the people. When
politicians exceed the Constitution, they subjugate the
people to their will.
Sing out those whose political interests are different
from the political interests of those in power is not
consistent with the Constitution and, therefore, is not
in the national interest. And, in this light, not so different
from "terrorizing actors".
> Why don't you just call it HUACism?
Because many call it McCarthyism and I feel no need
to challenge that.
| |
| Rick Smith 2005-12-12, 9:55 pm |
|
"Joe Zitzelberger" <zberger@knology.net> wrote in message
news:zberger-6C9412.10014412122005@ispnews.usenetserver.com...
> In article <11po32phutksea4@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
>
[snip][color=darkred]
>
> Well, people have been asking for 50 years for a name, and all people
> can do is talk about actors. No one can ever come up with a name.
Werner. It is alleged that McCarthy made false
accusations causing Werner's defeat in an elction,
and "McCarthy not only drove my father to his
grave but turned long-standing friends against our
whole family. It was amazing how one man could
wreck the reputation of another man so loved and
honored in his community."
La Follette and Tydings. In both cases, it is alleged
that McCarthy made false accusations, both then
lost their political offices, and, subsequently, both
took their own lives.
It is reported that, several politicians who had
opposed McCarthy were falsly accused of being
part of the communist conspiracy and, subsequently,
lost their re-election bids.
None of the above on on the list McCarthy waved,
but their lives were ruined.
In any case, I have located the now de-classified
portion of the "McCarthy Hearings" and the first
item I encountered (I started with Volume 2) was
from an Editor's Note:
"[... Mary M. Kaufman did not testify in public.
Sol Auerbach (who wrote as James S. Allen) and
William Marx Mandel appeared before the
subcommittee in a televised public hearing on the
following day. During the open session, the
chairman ordered Mandel to identify publicly his
current employer, information that the witness had
provided in executive session with the request
that it be kept confidential. Mandel complained
that the subcommittee had ''arrogated itself the
right to exact punishment, although it is not a
court of law and deprives one of due process of
law. That punishment has ranged from fines
ranging from several thousand dollars in the case
of people dismissed up to the fact that you,
Senator McCarthy, murdered Raymond Kaplan
by forcing him, driving him to the point where he
jumped under a truck.. . .'']"
[The de-classified proceedings of the "Executive
Sessions of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee
on Investigations of the Committee on Government
Operations (McCarthy Hearings 1953-54)" are
available at
< http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/...ate12cp107.html >.
The documents were de-classified January 2003.]
> While I can never prove a negative, half a century of failure of anyone
> to prove the positive case makes me pretty comfortable with that
> statement.
By "prove", do you mean legal proof sufficient to
convict?
>
>
> When dealing with classified information, for example, it is considered
> 'risky' if an otherwise outstanding individual has excessive debt.
> Because they might be tempted to exchange some information for ready
> cash.
In other words, "risk" includes those who do not
share the opinion of those holding political power?
> The same logic applies to persons who have shown a willingness or
> ideology predisposition to act for a foreign government. They might be
> just fine, but why take the risk when there are other qualified
> individuals available without said risk factors.
Because those "who have shown a willingness or
ideology predisposition" is entirely subjective when
determined by those in political power.
> There is no entitlement to a government, or any, job. Continued
> performance is usually considered a standard for continued employment.
> I would have felt equally good about firing all members, contributors
> and sympathizers of Al-Queada on September 12th, 2001.
Sympathizers? Those who only hold an opinion, but do
not act on it?
|
|
|
|
|