Climategate Meets the Law - We want Gore

[leftysergeant]

Warwick Hughes belongs in the dock, explaining why his use of the hacked e-mails is not a crime. He is an accessessory after the fact to a felony by using them..

That he uses them to prove what they do not even indicate makes him a liar, and should make him subject to recovery of damages for libel.

That anyone takes his claims of having evidence seriously, without knowing the context of the e-mails shows that AGW debniers are lacking in cognitive skills and should thus avoid calling anyone a fraud or suggesting illegal activity.

The only illegal activity brought to light in any of this was the hacking of the e-mails. I think it says something about the intellectual capacity of certain Republican senators that they think there is a shred of evidence of anything at all strange about the scientists whose e-mails were hacked, or that the hacker is anything short of a felon.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Warwick Hughes belongs in the dock, explaining why his use of the hacked e-mails is not a crime. He is an accessessory after the fact to a felony by using them..

That he uses them to prove what they do not even indicate makes him a liar, and should make him subject to recovery of damages for libel.

That anyone takes his claims of having evidence seriously, without knowing the context of the e-mails shows that AGW debniers are lacking in cognitive skills and should thus avoid calling anyone a fraud or suggesting illegal activity.

The only illegal activity brought to light in any of this was the hacking of the e-mails. I think it says something about the intellectual capacity of certain Republican senators that they think there is a shred of evidence of anything at all strange about the scientists whose e-mails were hacked, or that the hacker is anything short of a felon.

You are aware that the hacked emails (hacker or whistle-blower is yet to be determined btw - not that it makes a lick of difference now that they are out) are bringing about parliamentary enquiries and other 'investigations' in the UK and elsewhere. It is entirely possible that some involved may have charges brought against them too.

So when you say that the only thing illegal was the hacking you are mistaken on two counts:
1. If it was a whistleblower there are laws protecting same. So not illegal.
2. The inquiries are incomplete and other illegalities remain to be seen.

I fear your attitude to this is very black and white - there are many shades of gray.

 

[leftysergeant]

You are aware that the hacked emails (hacker or whistle-blower is yet to be determined btw - not that it makes a lick of difference now that they are out) are bringing about parliamentary enquiries and other 'investigations' in the UK and elsewhere.

Which is only indicitive of the lack of common snese on the part of some members of Parliment. Those memebers seriously considering the possibility that this crap is evidence should have their asses handed to them in the next elkection, because it is vclear that they are not rational thinkers. There has been a criome committed, and they are aiding and abetting the crime.

So when you say that the only thing illegal was the hacking you are mistaken on two counts:
1. If it was a whistleblower there are laws protecting same. So not illegal.
2. The inquiries are incomplete and other illegalities remain to be seen.

I fear your attitude to this is very black and white - there are many shades of gray.

Bull flops. Whistle blowers are those who are present at the scene of a crime committed by their superiors and work mates. Hacking is a crime. That freaking simple. The hacker who obtained these e-mails is as much a criminal as p[imp boy O'Keefe, maybe more so, because it compromises the integrity of the internet.

The sad part is, only an idiot thinks that the out-of-context e-mails prove anything. They don't. Not a bit of it. People who think they do show less common sense than a twoofer or O'Keefe.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

And it is "only an idiot" who would think they mean nothing when there just might be something in them. Hence the need for independant investigation.
Hmm?

 

[mhaze]

But why does Lefty want to interrogate a dead guy?

 

[leftysergeant]

And it is "only an idiot" who would think they mean nothing when there just might be something in them. Hence the need for independant investigation.
Hmm?

But there is nothing to them. Like Breitbart's sludge, idiot boy Hughes takes crap out of context and tells you that it means something else. There is nothing in ther e-mails that supports a charge that there is fraud involved in the AGW research.

 

[leftysergeant]

But why does Lefty want to interrogate a dead guy?

Did one of the slimeballs involved croak without my hearing about it?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

But there is nothing to them. Like Breitbart's sludge, idiot boy Hughes takes crap out of context and tells you that it means something else. There is nothing in ther e-mails that supports a charge that there is fraud involved in the AGW research.

Again, I am not talking about them specifically, I have no idea who they are - and frankly don't care - and I am not defending them.
I am talking some of the general priciples of democracy: freedom of speech, freedom of the press and all that crap.

What I am saying is that by locking them up you set a very, very (is another very too much?) dangerous precedent.

 

[leftysergeant]

What I am saying is that by locking them up you set a very, very (is another very too much?) dangerous precedent.

What is dangerous about locking up hackers and thugs who commit crimes to manufacture evidence against innocent parties to stir the passions of morons who might want an excuse to commit violent crimes?

 

[Howie Felterbush]

But why does Lefty want to interrogate a dead guy?

They don't fight back.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

What is dangerous about locking up hackers and thugs who commit crimes to manufacture evidence against innocent parties to stir the passions of morons who might want an excuse to commit violent crimes?

Ywo things

1. I am not talking about the "hackers and thugs" specifically. How many times must I repeat that before you get it?
2. As for danger? Have a read of some Orwell some time. It revolves around the removal of some of the basic human rights and freedoms that I (and I assume you) enjoy every day.

 

[mhaze]

They don't fight back.

But it is so much work to dig them up and carry them around.

Look, with Gore he is alive sort of and can walk to his cell on his own power. That's a lot easier.

 

[varwoche]

That is a lie, that no one can defend. "Every assertion"? He has just scuttled his own ship.

That ship was scuttled long, long ago.

I'm not sure which is the bigger buffoon, Inhofe or this thread.

 

[leftysergeant]

I am talking some of the general priciples of democracy: freedom of speech, freedom of the press and all that crap.

What I am saying is that by locking them up you set a very, very (is another very too much?) dangerous precedent.

Freedom of speech does not extend to criminal libel or incitement to riot and revolution.

I think the world would be a better place today had Ernst Roehm and Rudolph Hess and Goebbels sat in the same prison cell with Hitler watching each other die.

And who is this "dead guy" you right wingers say I want to prosecute?

 

[fullflavormenthol]

I love the fantasy that someone who makes a film can be thrown in jail because what he says may in the maximum be alarmist and in the minimum be politically inconvenient to the party who doesn't like it.

 

[mhaze]

I love the fantasy that someone who makes a film can be thrown in jail because what he says may in the maximum be alarmist and in the minimum be politically inconvenient to the party who doesn't like it.

So do I!

Now wouldn't it be fun to see him trying to talk without his script?

Look....

We'd just like to ask some questions....

He's just...ahh... a "person of interest".

 

[fullflavormenthol]

So do I!

Now wouldn't it be fun to see him trying to talk without his script?

Look....

We'd just like to ask some questions....

He's just...ahh... a "person of interest".

What does it matter? If you have questions about the science of AGW then you should go to the sources, not the activist who choose to make a documentary on the subject. This is like me asking for Ben Stein to be called before Congress to defend Creationism. It makes little sense, he isn't the one originating the ideas in the first place.

So Gore shouldn't have to go before Congress because he didn't originate the ideas, and honestly any demand that he does, and for that matter any dreams of him going to prison is simply an example of partisan right wing mental masturbation.

 

[mhaze]

What does it matter? If you have questions about the science of AGW then you should go to the sources, not the activist who choose to make a documentary on the subject. ....

Who said it mattered? Now you are being silly. Congressional investigations do not matter, they are all show. It'd be fun entertainment.

This is the dude who said the science was settled.

You know, the guy with the giant chart and scissorslift?

The guy that wanted to scare all the school kids that the world was coming to an end...unless they got those CFLs.

Let's hear more of these nutty things.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

Who said it mattered? Now you are being silly. Congressional investigations do not matter, they are all show. It'd be fun entertainment.

This is the dude who said the science was settled.

You know, the guy with the giant chart and scissorslift?

The guy that wanted to scare all the school kids that the world was coming to an end...unless they got those CFLs.

Let's hear more of these nutty things.

But again...he is not the originator of these ideas. So why call him before Congress, and why (if it is silly) post pictures of him in a cell, and for that matter even mention him "being able to walk to his cell". Very strong terms to use if you think the idea is "silly".

So is it okay to call Ben Stein before Congress to defend the ideas of Creationism, given that his movie was used to scare people into believing that the theory of evolution caused the holocaust?

 

[leftysergeant]

I love the fantasy that someone who makes a film can be thrown in jail because what he says may in the maximum be alarmist and in the minimum be politically inconvenient to the party who doesn't like it.

And at the same time, the rightwingers get their panties on a wad when I suggest that actual criminals who committed provable crimes with indentifiable victims to manufacture evidence for their side go to jail. Go figure.

I never did accuse right wingers of being rational.