Shakespeare might have had a few goods ideas after all.
I'm guessing you mean Bill would probably explain through prose the similarities between the two cases, 'cause I ain't seeing it. It's more comparable to the Plame case - and look what happened there. Nothing but journalistic martyrs from the Times and two years of mud slinging accusations - when Armitage and Powell were RIGHT THERE. Oh, and Bob Novak laughing at his "peers". Ha!
The reporters repeatedly have said they would rather go to jail than reveal how they obtained the transcripts from a grand jury that investigated the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative.The pair published a series of articles and a book based partly on the leaked testimony by Bonds, Jason Giambi and others.
"I'm supposed to keep my promises when people help me and take me at my word," Williams said in court Thursday. "I do despair for our country if we go very far down this road, because no one will talk to reporters."
"My name is Mark Fainaru-Wada," he told a packed courtroom, "and I have been a journalist for most of my adult life. ... Like many of my colleagues today, I had seen the movie and read the book 'All The President's Men,' and it inspired me to become a reporter. Journalism seemed like an honorable, meaningful profession."
What a crock of shit. Good Riddance
FLEA
(edited by RYDER FAKIN on 22.9.06 0846) Demonstrations are a drag. Besides, we're much too high
Yeah I gotta say I don't see the comparison either. Much as I'm glad they wrote the book, they are hiding someone they know broke an important law. They knew when they got the information that this is what they would face, and it's the right thing to do. You let them walk you basically tell anyone they can give over grand jury testimony without having to fear ever being caught.
This whole, "no one would ever talk to them again" thing seems like poop. Why? You should say no one would ever give them grand jury information that they could later be forced to reveal by a court. How is that a bad thing? They aren't supposed to get it anyway. I seriously doubt anyone who isn't giving them anything illegally is going to give a crap. And I would really bet they would run away screaming if any one tried to give them grand jury testimony again.
Now other reporters, well they'd rip these guys to shreds for giving up a source but really who cares what reporters think?
I'm mighty close to a First Amendment absolutist and even I think that these two morons should be rotting in jail for their made-up "principles".
Originally posted by the 1st AmendmentCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I don't see anything in that text that suggests that a member of the "press", and let's not even open the can of worms of trying to define who is or is not a member of the "press", has the right to commit a crime and not be liable for said action. It's not like they are being prosecuted for telling the truth, no matter how they try and spin it. They're being imprisoned for contempt because they are deliberately and maliciously obstructing justice. Williams and Fainaru-Wada are trying to hold themselves up as martyrs to the cause but the cause is a farce. In this case, Williams and Fainaru-Wada are getting both what they asked for and what they deserve, prison, pending appeal.
Enjoy your time in jail you hypocritical, self-serving, egotistical, self-proclaimed martyrs.
Tim
Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit. -- Erasmus
All others things being equal, the simplest solution is usually stupidity. -- Darwin Minor
Originally posted by wmatisticYeah I gotta say I don't see the comparison either. Much as I'm glad they wrote the book, they are hiding someone they know broke an important law.
Should Mark Felt (Deep Throat) be in jail or have gone to jail for not just coming right out and telling reporters what he knew, instead stringing Woodward and Bernstein along for months?
Don't you think we are better off for knowing what we know due to these guys' stories? I don't think they sould have used the anonymous sources, because bullshit like what is happening to them right now is pretty predictable in this country at the moment, but that doesn't mean their story wasn't worthwhile. What's more important to you - ending the country's widespread use of steroids, or finding out who leaked Giambi and Bonds' grand jury testimonies? And hell, why stop at the reporters or their unnamed sources - Giambi admitted to using 'roids, isn't that illegal? Let's throw him in jail!
Oh, right, he's given immunity because the information he provided was deemed far more important than punishing him was.
And who the fuck is anyone here to judge these guys or mockingly call them martyrs? I hope, if I were in their position, that I could display the kind of honor they are. They gave someone their word - on which, they base their entire fucking careers - and now they're sticking to it. I'll admit I don't know these guys any better than anyone else here, but I doubt their exactly foaming at the mouth with the prospect of going to jail.
(edited by TheBucsFan on 22.9.06 1322) "I have as much authority as the Pope, I just don't have as many people who believe it."
I am of course glad we have the information out that we do. That we know what really went on. However that doesn't change the fact they broke the law by not giving up whoever did this. And no cleaning up steroids is not as important to me as protecting grand jury testimony. I know I rail on the steroid users but you have to keep this in perspective.
And really what has come out of their book other than public knowledge? The feds are still investigating and trying to get people, but haven't had a ton of luck. The respective sports have done....well who the hell knows if MLB has done much with their investigation. Sure doesn't seem like it. The info they gave us the authorities already knew from their supposedly protected grand jury testimony and evidence.
In other words they haven't brought anyone to justice with this. They just made some money, knowing the risk when they went in. This isn't honorable. This is protecting someone who they know committed a crime. Because they are "journalists" it makes it ok? No, not in my eyes. Your buddy tells you he's going to kill someone and then does it and you try and say "I gave my word I wouldn't tell!", well you're an idiot for giving your word, not honorable for protecting a killer. Granted that's a whole different level than this, but the principle has to be the same otherwise what's the point of having laws?
Hell I don't know that I even agree with the legal exceptions to this as in attorney or priest.
Originally posted by wmatisticYeah I gotta say I don't see the comparison either. Much as I'm glad they wrote the book, they are hiding someone they know broke an important law.
Should Mark Felt (Deep Throat) be in jail or have gone to jail for not just coming right out and telling reporters what he knew, instead stringing Woodward and Bernstein along for months
Considering most of the people in this thread lament Nixon having to resign in the first place I don't see this line of argument working well.
A truly free and active press is incompatible with a modern capitalist First World country. All it can do is create disillusionment and discord amongst a populace who needs to be as compliant as possible to maximize profit potential. The job of the press in the modern day is to provide an organ for major entities to get their message out in a supposedly unbiased setting while generating profit for many of those same entities. Not that any of this is new, simply accelerated, as are most things, in the shrinking world of transnational finance and global quasi-governance. And really, as long as the Nikes stay within the price range of the middle class who cares?
Originally posted by spfConsidering most of the people in this thread lament Nixon having to resign in the first place I don't see this line of argument working well.
Totally unnecessary, inaccurate, trolling, and stupid. You should know better.
Originally posted by TheBucsFanShould Mark Felt (Deep Throat) be in jail or have gone to jail for not just coming right out and telling reporters what he knew, instead stringing Woodward and Bernstein along for months?
Don't you think we are better off for knowing what we know due to these guys' stories? I don't think they sould have used the anonymous sources, because bullshit like what is happening to them right now is pretty predictable in this country at the moment, but that doesn't mean their story wasn't worthwhile. What's more important to you - ending the country's widespread use of steroids, or finding out who leaked Giambi and Bonds' grand jury testimonies? And hell, why stop at the reporters or their unnamed sources - Giambi admitted to using 'roids, isn't that illegal? Let's throw him in jail!
Oh, right, he's given immunity because the information he provided was deemed far more important than punishing him was.
And who the fuck is anyone here to judge these guys or mockingly call them martyrs? I hope, if I were in their position, that I could display the kind of honor they are. They gave someone their word - on which, they base their entire fucking careers - and now they're sticking to it. I'll admit I don't know these guys any better than anyone else here, but I doubt their exactly foaming at the mouth with the prospect of going to jail.
Usually, I just ignore the truly blatant trolls, but since I'm being sworn at, I'll respond to part of this particular one. What do you call someone who knowingly breaks the law, who suborns others to break the law, has repeatedly said they would rather go to jail than follow the law, and now is whining because they are going to jail? In my opinion, Fainaru-Wada and Williams have been planning this since the book was published in order to garner more publicity for themselves. Personally, I find their position morally and professionally repugnant. Claiming that you gave your word to a source to protect a criminal and obstruct an investigation into a criminal act isn't honorable, it's cowardly. Furthermore, when you've loudly proclaimed you'll suffer the consequences rather than betray your word, it's rather disingenuous to claim you're being persecuted. In fact, it's an attempt to make yourself into a martyr.
Are we better off for knowing the information they provided? My answer would be a resounding "Eh"? I don't see that it's all that important or vital.
Are we better off because 2 reporters are trying to argue that their word is more important than the social contract that allows them to practice their trade freely? Unequivocally not, and the fact that people actually are buying their pathetic excuse for an argument scares and saddens me. The press has the right to write whatever they choose. That absolutely does not exempt them from the possibility of punishment for what has been written, either in the form of civil punishments like monetary recompense for libel or in the form of criminal punishment for actions like obstruction of justice. The First Amendment protects the press from prior governmental restraint. It does not shield them from the consequences of their actions. What Fainaru-Wada and Williams are seeking is to unilaterally abrogate their role in the equation because they don't want to face the consequences of their actions.
Tim
Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit. -- Erasmus
All others things being equal, the simplest solution is usually stupidity. -- Darwin Minor
Enjoy your time in jail you hypocritical, self-serving, egotistical, self-proclaimed martyrs.
Do they get the-w.com in jail? This would explain so many posts.
Anyway, what I find funny is the book appears to spell out who leaked the testimony, and everyone in the book seems to be aware of it - they strongly imply Victor Conte was the leak, and that everyone close to the case already figures that to be true. (Or at least that's how I read it.)
Either that's a huge misdirection or they didn't really care much about protecting their secret source at that time. I mean, I guess it's obvious to everyone else that this is purely about the principle and both sides trying to establish judicial precedence for later cases where the secret is actually a secret, but it just seems weird to me.
Enjoy your time in jail you hypocritical, self-serving, egotistical, self-proclaimed martyrs.
Do they get the-w.com in jail? This would explain so many posts.
Anyway, what I find funny is the book appears to spell out who leaked the testimony, and everyone in the book seems to be aware of it - they strongly imply Victor Conte was the leak, and that everyone close to the case already figures that to be true. (Or at least that's how I read it.)
Either that's a huge misdirection or they didn't really care much about protecting their secret source at that time. I mean, I guess it's obvious to everyone else that this is purely about the principle and both sides trying to establish judicial precedence for later cases where the secret is actually a secret, but it just seems weird to me.
I thought the same. It seems very obvious, and as a result, it just seems petty to demand that these reporters name the guy who everyone knows is the leak. "Just say it!!" How incompetent is the government if they can't investigate this and find the answers some other way? I mean, really.
Meh. They likely realize their careers will only take off even more as a result of their jail-time notoriety. So I doubt they're too unhappy. Martha Stewart seems to be doing just fine these days, last I checked.
They revealed info someone else told them - info we all accept as true, with or without Grand Jury testimoy and evidence. I recognize the problem at hand, but scoff at how typical it is when matters like this are overblown. Meanwhile, bigger crimes get slaps on the wrist - and sadly there are far too many examples nowadays to make it worth mentioning a few of those.
Originally posted by RYDER FAKINShakespeare might have had a few goods ideas after all.
I'm guessing you mean Bill would probably explain through prose the similarities between the two cases, 'cause I ain't seeing it.
I think he meant this
Henry VI, part 2
Act 4, Scene 2
SCENE II. Blackheath.
Enter GEORGE BEVIS and JOHN HOLLAND much discussion, verrily
Drum. Enter CADE, DICK the Butcher, SMITH the Weaver, and a Sawyer, with infinite numbers
much more talk, then CADE
Be brave, then; for your captain is brave, and vows reformation. There shall be in England seven halfpenny loaves sold for a penny: the three-hooped pot; shall have ten hoops and I will make it felony to drink small beer: all the realm shall be in common; and in Cheapside shall my palfrey go to grass: and when I am king, as king I will be,--
ALL
God save your majesty!
CADE
I thank you, good people: there shall be no money; all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like brothers and worship me their lord.
DICK
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers
CADE
Nay, that I mean to do. Is not this a lamentable thing, that of the skin of an innocent lamb should be made parchment? that parchment, being scribbled o'er, should undo a man? Some say the bee stings: but I say, 'tis the bee's wax; for I did but seal once to a thing, and I was never mine own man since.
the old ideas are the best
We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.
Originally posted by TheBucsFanShould Mark Felt (Deep Throat) be in jail or have gone to jail for not just coming right out and telling reporters what he knew, instead stringing Woodward and Bernstein along for months?
Don't you think we are better off for knowing what we know due to these guys' stories? I don't think they sould have used the anonymous sources, because bullshit like what is happening to them right now is pretty predictable in this country at the moment, but that doesn't mean their story wasn't worthwhile. What's more important to you - ending the country's widespread use of steroids, or finding out who leaked Giambi and Bonds' grand jury testimonies? And hell, why stop at the reporters or their unnamed sources - Giambi admitted to using 'roids, isn't that illegal? Let's throw him in jail!
Oh, right, he's given immunity because the information he provided was deemed far more important than punishing him was.
And who the fuck is anyone here to judge these guys or mockingly call them martyrs? I hope, if I were in their position, that I could display the kind of honor they are. They gave someone their word - on which, they base their entire fucking careers - and now they're sticking to it. I'll admit I don't know these guys any better than anyone else here, but I doubt their exactly foaming at the mouth with the prospect of going to jail.
Usually, I just ignore the truly blatant trolls, but since I'm being sworn at, I'll respond to part of this particular one. What do you call someone who knowingly breaks the law, who suborns others to break the law, has repeatedly said they would rather go to jail than follow the law, and now is whining because they are going to jail? In my opinion, Fainaru-Wada and Williams have been planning this since the book was published in order to garner more publicity for themselves. Personally, I find their position morally and professionally repugnant. Claiming that you gave your word to a source to protect a criminal and obstruct an investigation into a criminal act isn't honorable, it's cowardly. Furthermore, when you've loudly proclaimed you'll suffer the consequences rather than betray your word, it's rather disingenuous to claim you're being persecuted. In fact, it's an attempt to make yourself into a martyr.
Are we better off for knowing the information they provided? My answer would be a resounding "Eh"? I don't see that it's all that important or vital.
Are we better off because 2 reporters are trying to argue that their word is more important than the social contract that allows them to practice their trade freely? Unequivocally not, and the fact that people actually are buying their pathetic excuse for an argument scares and saddens me. The press has the right to write whatever they choose. That absolutely does not exempt them from the possibility of punishment for what has been written, either in the form of civil punishments like monetary recompense for libel or in the form of criminal punishment for actions like obstruction of justice. The First Amendment protects the press from prior governmental restraint. It does not shield them from the consequences of their actions. What Fainaru-Wada and Williams are seeking is to unilaterally abrogate their role in the equation because they don't want to face the consequences of their actions.
Tim
I think thecubsfan really spelled it out pretty clearly (though I can't tell if he's being sarcastic...):
I mean, I guess it's obvious to everyone else that this is purely about the principle and both sides trying to establish judicial precedence for later cases where the secret is actually a secret, but it just seems weird to me.
I value the reporters' principle here - prtoecting a free press and outing the real criminals in this saga - over the government's - bullying the media to prove that it can. Your response to their stories is "Eh?" I'd say it's hard for me to take a person who is apathetic or ambivelant towards the stories as a relevent source of discussion on this. If the info in their stories - that Giambi and Bonds are criminals - is not important, than why does it matter who leaked the story?
I'm not too worried about the next round of juiced-up meatheads going to a grand jury being afraid to be honest - hey, maybe they shouldn't be using steroids. I definitely don't think the reporters should be forced to divulge their sources.
I don't think the government should be granting immunity to these guys. I definitely think that while, for many players, tax dollars go to build the stadiums these guys make their millions upon millions of dollars to play in, that the American people have a right to know what the fuck is going on. So i guess what I'm saying is, I don't think leaking the testimony should be illegal - it shouldn't have been secret in the first place, I say. So if they find out who did it, send him to trial, let him defend himself, and see what happens.
Wait, I forgot to start my post by calling you a name to imply my superiority ... nah, bash91 will do.
(edited by TheBucsFan on 23.9.06 0131) "I have as much authority as the Pope, I just don't have as many people who believe it."
Originally posted by RYDER FAKINShakespeare might have had a few goods ideas after all.
I'm guessing you mean Bill would probably explain through prose the similarities between the two cases, 'cause I ain't seeing it.
I think he meant this
Henry VI, part 2
Act 4, Scene 2
SCENE II. DICK
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers
That's what I thought too.
They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the internet. And again, the internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck.
Originally posted by TheBucsFan I value the reporters' principle here - prtoecting a free press and outing the real criminals in this saga - over the government's - bullying the media to prove that it can. Your response to their stories is "Eh?" I'd say it's hard for me to take a person who is apathetic or ambivelant towards the stories as a relevent source of discussion on this. If the info in their stories - that Giambi and Bonds are criminals - is not important, than why does it matter who leaked the story?
I'm not too worried about the next round of juiced-up meatheads going to a grand jury being afraid to be honest - hey, maybe they shouldn't be using steroids. I definitely don't think the reporters should be forced to divulge their sources.
I don't think the government should be granting immunity to these guys. I definitely think that while, for many players, tax dollars go to build the stadiums these guys make their millions upon millions of dollars to play in, that the American people have a right to know what the fuck is going on. So i guess what I'm saying is, I don't think leaking the testimony should be illegal - it shouldn't have been secret in the first place, I say. So if they find out who did it, send him to trial, let him defend himself, and see what happens.
Wait, I forgot to start my post by calling you a name to imply my superiority ... nah, bash91 will do.
(edited by TheBucsFan on 23.9.06 0131)
They didn't out the real criminals. Not to the people that can convict them. That had already been done. And the real criminals aren't the players as much as the people that developed and supplied the drugs. That was the whole purpose of the grand jury, to get those guys finally. While I consider the players dirty rotten cheaters I reserve I burning hatred for the men like Conte. If it was not a "secret" testimony I don't think they would have gotten people to talk like they did.
I mean if you know you'll get in trouble for telling the truth, wouldn't you just keep your mouth shut? Like these reporters?
I'd have to thank Jon Heyman at SI.com for reminding me of this, but Victor Conte only got four months in prison for creating and providing the drugs, so it seems disingenuous that these writers would be looking at four-and-a-half times that amount.
"You know what you need? Some new quotes in your sig. Yeah, I said it." -- DJFrostyFreeze
Originally posted by spfConsidering most of the people in this thread lament Nixon having to resign in the first place I don't see this line of argument working well.
Totally unnecessary, inaccurate, trolling, and stupid. You should know better.
I would have sworn that we had a thread about Watergate where some of the people involved had said something along those lines. But an hour of searching the Politics folder turned up absolutely nothing, so I just wanted to apologize for the implication. I was 100% wrong on that one.
I'll be honest; I don't think I've fully appreciated just how great (sports.espn.go.com) Pedro Martinez is: Like him or hate him, those are damn impressive numbers. It doesn't even take into account his postseason record: 6-2, 79.1 IP (in 11 starts)...
Thread rated: 5.59
#
#
