Clutching at straws

[fishbob]

GOP Leaders Urge Probe in Prisons Leak
Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/08/AR2005110800764.html?referrer=email&referrer=email)

A few bits from the article:
Congress's top Republican leaders yesterday demanded an immediate joint House and Senate investigation into the disclosure of classified information to The Washington Post that detailed a web of secret prisons being used to house and interrogate terrorism suspects.
Egad!!!

"If accurate, such an egregious disclosure could have long-term and far-reaching damaging and dangerous consequences, and will imperil our efforts to protect the American people and our homeland from terrorist attacks," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) wrote in a letter to the chairmen of the House and Senate intelligence committees. Oh no!!!

White House spokesman Scott McClellan declined to say whether the president endorsed the probe, saying the decision belonged to the congressional leaders. But he did not offer any discouragement.

"The leaking of classified information is a serious matter and ought to be taken seriously," he told reporters Yeah Scott. You tell 'em.

[WildCat]

Why should this be taken any less seriously than the Valerie Plame leak?

[mumblethrax]

For the same reason that a whistleblower should be treated differently from an inside trader.

[WildCat]

For the same reason that a whistleblower should be treated differently from an inside trader.
I see, if you agree w/ the politics they're a "whistleblower". If you disagree, hang 'em high.

Is this correct?

[mumblethrax]

Is this correct?
No. Do you have any other questions?

[WildCat]

No. Do you have any other questions?
Yes, please explain why it is incorrect. You know, clarify your position. Simply replying "yes" or "no" and leaving it at that makes for a boring and short debate.

[fishbob]

Why should this be taken any less seriously than the Valerie Plame leak?

1. We don't yet know if there was a leak of classified information.
2. The information exposes naughty and potentially illegal activities. This was not the case in the Plame incident.
3. The purpose of reporting this information was to expose naughty and potentially illegal activities. The purpose of reporting Plame's identity was to punish Joe Wilson.
4. The seriousness of Frist and Hastert in making these statements, in light of their previous purely partisan performances, requires a whole bunch of condescension toward the American public.
5. Who is not taking this seriously? If these guys were for real, they would present a clear and present danger to themselves and to the general public. In this case, they should be removed from any positions of authority and any proximity to sharp objects as soon as possible.


PS. How much does McClellan earn? Because it is not nearly enough.

[Ziggurat]

1. We don't yet know if there was a leak of classified information.

We don't know if there was any underlying crime in the Plame case either (why do you suppose Libby wasn't indicted for leaking, but only for lying about it?).

2. The information exposes naughty and potentially illegal activities. This was not the case in the Plame incident.

Not exactly. In the Plame case, Wilson was lying about what he found on his Niger trip, and who sent him there. Noting that his wife (and not Cheney) was the one who sent him puts perspective on his argument, to say the least. And the argument over WMD intelligence, I think people on both sides will concede, was of great importance.

3. The purpose of reporting this information was to expose naughty and potentially illegal activities. The purpose of reporting Plame's identity was to punish Joe Wilson.

That's quite the mind-reading ability you've got. See, I can just as easily imagine that Plame's name was leaked in order to correct the record from Wilson's lies (he claimed to have been sent by Cheney). I can also imagine someone in the CIA leaking this secret prison stuff to try to embarass the whitehouse, in retaliation for them having blamed the CIA for bad intelligence. The thing is, I can recognize that I DON'T actually know the motives of either leaker. But I will note that Wilson didn't seem to be deeply wounded by his wife's outing - if he had been, I doubt we would have seen that cute photo spread in Vanity Fair, which conveniently put a face to her name.

4. The seriousness of Frist and Hastert in making these statements, in light of their previous purely partisan performances, requires a whole bunch of condescension toward the American public.

Argument from anti-authority. You can ignore Frist and Hastert all you want, doesn't change the underlying questions: do you investigate and prosecute illegal leaks of classified information, or you don't you? Saying that you want to investigate and prosecute only some but not others is not enough, and pretty much every criterion by which you suggest to make such a distinction is arbitrary or meaningless.

[WildCat]

1. We don't yet know if there was a leak of classified information.
Likewise w/ Plame.
2. The information exposes naughty and potentially illegal activities. This was not the case in the Plame incident.
Lot's of "naughty" black ops going on all the time. Potentially illegal, also potentially legal.
3. The purpose of reporting this information was to expose naughty and potentially illegal activities. The purpose of reporting Plame's identity was to punish Joe Wilson.
Speculation.
4. The seriousness of Frist and Hastert in making these statements, in light of their previous purely partisan performances, requires a whole bunch of condescension toward the American public.
Frist and Hastert were concerned about the leaks, not the black ops themselves.
5. Who is not taking this seriously? If these guys were for real, they would present a clear and present danger to themselves and to the general public. In this case, they should be removed from any positions of authority and any proximity to sharp objects as soon as possible.
Who are "these guys"?

[mumblethrax]

Yes, please explain why it is incorrect. You know, clarify your position. Simply replying "yes" or "no" and leaving it at that makes for a boring and short debate.
Trying to read my mind makes for a debate that is convenient for you and tedious for me, so you'll have to forgive my reluctance to accept your terms. However, I'll try to explain my thinking.

If we decide that capitalism addresses the problem of production better than other available options, and establish a stock market to that end, we have an interest in ensuring that that market is seen as fair in order to maximize investment. Insider trading reduces the perception of fairness, and can therefore be seen as reducing the public good that capitalism provides. Whistleblowing, on the other hand, exposes some activity on the part of a company that reduces its contribution to the public good (for example, insider trading), allowing steps to be taken to correct the situation.

Similarly, if we decide that an intelligence agency is necessary to protect the public from some threat, activity on the part of someone with classified information which reduces the effectiveness of that agency for capricious reasons would be seen as bad. If, on the other hand, that agency is engaged in activity which undermines other things in the public interest (like justice and human rights), the result can be seen as a net negative. A leak which exposes that kind of activity is again good, since it allows corrective action to be taken.

You might argue that the Plame leak was actually in the public interest (which I will dutifully fail to take seriously), or that the CIA establishing a network of secret prisons doesn't meaningfully undermine justice or human rights (same), but it makes no sense to argue that all leaks of privileged information should be treated equivalently.

[Bjorn]

Trying to read my mind makes for a debate that is convenient for you and tedious for me, so you'll have to forgive my reluctance to accept your terms. However, I'll try to explain my thinking.

If we decide that capitalism addresses the problem of production better than other available options, and establish a stock market to that end, we have an interest in ensuring that that market is seen as fair in order to maximize investment. Insider trading reduces the perception of fairness, and can therefore be seen as reducing the public good that capitalism provides. Whistleblowing, on the other hand, exposes some activity on the part of a company that reduces its contribution to the public good (for example, insider trading), allowing steps to be taken to correct the situation.

Similarly, if we decide that an intelligence agency is necessary to protect the public from some threat, activity on the part of someone with classified information which reduces the effectiveness of that agency for capricious reasons would be seen as bad. If, on the other hand, that agency is engaged in activity which undermines other things in the public interest (like justice and human rights), the result can be seen as a net negative. A leak which exposes that kind of activity is again good, since it allows corrective action to be taken.

You might argue that the Plame leak was actually in the public interest (which I will dutifully fail to take seriously), or that the CIA establishing a network of secret prisons doesn't meaningfully undermine justice or human rights (same), but it makes no sense to argue that all leaks of privileged information should be treated equivalently.Well said.

[WildCat]

Trying to read my mind makes for a debate that is convenient for you and tedious for me, so you'll have to forgive my reluctance to accept your terms. However, I'll try to explain my thinking.

If we decide that capitalism addresses the problem of production better than other available options, and establish a stock market to that end, we have an interest in ensuring that that market is seen as fair in order to maximize investment. Insider trading reduces the perception of fairness, and can therefore be seen as reducing the public good that capitalism provides. Whistleblowing, on the other hand, exposes some activity on the part of a company that reduces its contribution to the public good (for example, insider trading), allowing steps to be taken to correct the situation.

Similarly, if we decide that an intelligence agency is necessary to protect the public from some threat, activity on the part of someone with classified information which reduces the effectiveness of that agency for capricious reasons would be seen as bad. If, on the other hand, that agency is engaged in activity which undermines other things in the public interest (like justice and human rights), the result can be seen as a net negative. A leak which exposes that kind of activity is again good, since it allows corrective action to be taken.

You might argue that the Plame leak was actually in the public interest (which I will dutifully fail to take seriously), or that the CIA establishing a network of secret prisons doesn't meaningfully undermine justice or human rights (same), but it makes no sense to argue that all leaks of privileged information should be treated equivalently.
Errr, the CIA doesn't exist to promote "justice and human rights", it exists to identify threats to the USA. How they do that involves a lot of things that you or I could be arrested for, such as breaking and entering, forgery, establishing a false identity, paying bribes, etc. This isn't unique to the Bush admin. or even the US.

I'm not saying black ops can't cross the line, for example IIRC it was French intelligence that once blew up a Greenpeace ship. But what is going on w/ the prisons is clearly done w/ the cooperation of several other countries, and I'd put even money that the Senate Intelligence Committee (Dems included) knew about it.

And I still fail to see the difference between a whistleblower and a leaker, except for political POV.

[fishbob]

Who are "these guys"? Frist and Hastert

And I still fail to see the difference between a whistleblower and a leaker, except for political POV. Maybe ADA can help. I can't.

[fishbob]

Not exactly. In the Plame case, Wilson was lying about what he found on his Niger trip, and who sent him there. Noting that his wife (and not Cheney) was the one who sent him puts perspective on his argument, to say the least. And the argument over WMD intelligence, I think people on both sides will concede, was of great importance.

That's quite the mind-reading ability you've got. See, I can just as easily imagine that Plame's name was leaked in order to correct the record from Wilson's lies (he claimed to have been sent by Cheney). I can also imagine someone in the CIA leaking this secret prison stuff to try to embarass the whitehouse, in retaliation for them having blamed the CIA for bad intelligence. The thing is, I can recognize that I DON'T actually know the motives of either leaker. But I will note that Wilson didn't seem to be deeply wounded by his wife's outing - if he had been, I doubt we would have seen that cute photo spread in Vanity Fair, which conveniently put a face to her name.

Darn those pesky facts. Wilson did not claim to have been sent by Cheney. Remind me who is lying?

[Bjorn]

Darn those pesky facts. Wilson did not claim to have been sent by Cheney. Remind me who is lying?I just tried for an hour to find a reference to where Wilson claimed to have been sent by Chaney. Anyone?

[Kevin_Lowe]

He didn't. Saying he did so was a popular gambit amongst the Limbaugh/Coulter-style conservative mouthpieces though for a while, so that is the kind of source I suspect Ziggy got his "facts" from.

[Ziggurat]

Darn those pesky facts. Wilson did not claim to have been sent by Cheney. Remind me who is lying?

I slightly mispoke. But I would advise against making the accusation of lying against me - trying to make that claim on the basis of small mistakes only opens yourself up to such charges, because we all make them.

In any case, here, in his own words, are Wilson's claims about how/why he was sent:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm
"In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake - a form of lightly processed ore - by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office."

This turns out not to have been the case. Cheney's office had nothing to do with sending him to Niger. His trip was NOT in response to a direct question from them. And it wasn't some random agency officials who asked him to go there, it was his wife who got him the job.

[mumblethrax]

Errr, the CIA doesn't exist to promote "justice and human rights", it exists to identify threats to the USA. How they do that involves a lot of things that you or I could be arrested for, such as breaking and entering, forgery, establishing a false identity, paying bribes, etc. This isn't unique to the Bush admin. or even the US.
I don't think I said that was the CIA's function. I think I was pretty clear that this is a cost-benefit analysis.

Let me put it to you this way: if documents were leaked which clearly showed that the CIA was planning to overthrow the government and install a benevolent dictatorship, ostensibly to better protect the American people from the threat of terrorism, would we be having the same discussion about how very serious it is to leak classified information? Or would we be talking instead about curtailing the power of the CIA?

As with any continuum phenomenon, it's impossible to clearly delineate the point at which the harm outweighs the benefit, but it's certainly possible to see that some points along the spectrum are well into the red. Personally, I'm comfortable drawing that line a few steps short of the point where the CIA is establishing secret prisons and attempting to exempt itself from anti-torture legislation.

I'm not saying black ops can't cross the line, for example IIRC it was French intelligence that once blew up a Greenpeace ship. But what is going on w/ the prisons is clearly done w/ the cooperation of several other countries, and I'd put even money that the Senate Intelligence Committee (Dems included) knew about it.
Countries with human rights records as commendable as Afghanistan's. That the intelligence communities in several countries acted in accordance with the CIA is not an argument for the validity of the CIA's actions, it's instead a fallacious argument by consensus. The Washington Post article made it clear that at least some of the black sites are known only to the CIA, the president, and the intelligence community in the country in question, so I don't think it can be argued that the CIA has sufficient oversight in this case.

And I still fail to see the difference between a whistleblower and a leaker, except for political POV.
A whistleblower is a leaker. What I'm trying to establish is that not all leaks are equivalent, that there are grounds for taking some leaks more seriously than others.

[daredelvis]

In the Plame case, Wilson was lying about what he found on his Niger trip, and who sent him there.



Do you have a quote from Wilsion backing this up? Are you saying this based on the Nicholas Kristof article? You know that Kristof has corrected the record.

Daredelvis

[fishbob]

I slightly mispoke. But I would advise against making the accusation of lying against me - trying to make that claim on the basis of small mistakes only opens yourself up to such charges, because we all make them.

In any case, here, in his own words, are Wilson's claims about how/why he was sent:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm
"In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake - a form of lightly processed ore - by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office."

This turns out not to have been the case. Cheney's office had nothing to do with sending him to Niger. His trip was NOT in response to a direct question from them. And it wasn't some random agency officials who asked him to go there, it was his wife who got him the job.

I advise you to refrain from making accusations of lying against anyone. Nowhere in this statement does it say that Cheney's office had anything to do with sending Wilson to Niger. The statement clearly says that the CIA sent Wilson.

In simple terms; Cheney's office raised questions, the CIA decided to investigate and sent Wilson. This is apparent when you take off your Limbaugh shades.

[daredelvis]

I slightly mispoke. But I would advise against making the accusation of lying against me - trying to make that claim on the basis of small mistakes only opens yourself up to such charges, because we all make them.

In any case, here, in his own words, are Wilson's claims about how/why he was sent:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm
"In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake - a form of lightly processed ore - by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office."

This turns out not to have been the case. Cheney's office had nothing to do with sending him to Niger. His trip was NOT in response to a direct question from them. And it wasn't some random agency officials who asked him to go there, it was his wife who got him the job.

Wow! Wilson states the facts as they were related to him and he is lying. Push that bar up higher (or lower as the case may be).
How many times do people have to be reminded that Drudge, worldnet daily and Rush aren’t good sources for facts?????????
Daredelvis

[shecky]

Careful what you wish for. (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-110805prisonleak_lat,0,4572952.story?coll=la-home-headlines)


Another Republican, Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi, said it may have been Republican senators who leaked the information to the Post. Lott told reporters that the existence of the secret prison system was discussed last week during the Republican policy luncheon, held on Capitol Hill the day before the Post story appeared.

"Information that was said in there, given out in there, did get into the newspaper," Lott said.

Asked whether he believed it was Republicans who had breached security, Lott said: "I don't know where else it came from...it looked to me that at least one of those reports came right out of that room."

That being said, I have no problem with investigating this leak. I'd like to think that if the allegations are true about the gulags and disgraceful behavior, some insider has the fortitude to tell the public about it.

[Upchurch]

Careful what you wish for. (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-110805prisonleak_lat,0,4572952.story?coll=la-home-headlines)

"As you know, if accurate, such an egregious disclosure could have long-term and far-reaching damaging and dangerous consequences," the pair said in their letter to Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
um... if accurate, wouldn't the egregious secret prisons have long-term and far-reaching damaging and dangerous consequences?

[Ziggurat]

Wow! Wilson states the facts as they were related to him and he is lying.

As for why he was sent, yes, you have a point, we don't know for sure exactly what the CIA told him when it sent him on the trip.

When it comes to what he found on the trip, though, he was flat out lying. And it's obvious he was lying because the bipartisan Senate investigation contradicted his public statements about what he found on his trip.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/senateiraqreport.pdf
Page 43 of the Senate report makes clear that Wilson found out an Iraqi trade delegation did visit Niger, and that Prime Minister Mayaki interpreted this as an attempt to establish trade in yellowcake. In other words, Wilson's own report STRENGTHENS the case that Iraq sought (but did not obtain) yellowcake from Africa. So I have absolutely no problem with characterizing Wilson's subsequent statements as lies. The only other explanation I can think of is that he's too stupid to understand the difference between seeking and acquiring, but that answer is, shall we say, unsatisfying.

How many times do people have to be reminded that Drudge, worldnet daily and Rush aren’t good sources for facts?????????

Why do you think that's where I'm getting any of my information? In point of fact, I never read Drudge, and I never listen to Rush.

[Tony]

Why isn't leaking so-called "classified information" protected under the first amendment? I was under the impression that the first amendment was designed, in part, to hold the government accountable.

[Xeriar]

Reading through your reference, Zig, makes the matter look extremely speculative. Too much is blacked out to be certain, but the evidence does look to be quite tenuous and this is acknowledged in that document.

Regardless, even if Wilson lied, he should be called on that instead of having his wife outed. Whoever leaked her name did commit a crime, and whoever leaked these illegal activities was a whistleblower. The morals are pretty clear.

[Melendwyr]

um... if accurate, wouldn't the egregious secret prisons have long-term and far-reaching damaging and dangerous consequences? Guards and prisoners can keep a secret, if the prisoners are all dead.

There are only serious political consequences if anyone ever learns about the prisons. If they remain secret, they're not hurting anybody! Other than the tortured prisoners. Who don't, of course, exist.

[Ziggurat]

Regardless, even if Wilson lied, he should be called on that instead of having his wife outed. Whoever leaked her name did commit a crime, and whoever leaked these illegal activities was a whistleblower. The morals are pretty clear.

Actually, we don't know that leaking her name WAS a crime. The only really public part of the investigation so far is the indictment against Libby, which doesn't charge him with any crime for leaking but only for lying about it. Anything beyond that is merely speculation (or leaks - oh the irony) at this point, and it's entirely possible that it wasn't actually a crime.

[Xeriar]

Actually, we don't know that leaking her name WAS a crime. The only really public part of the investigation so far is the indictment against Libby, which doesn't charge him with any crime for leaking but only for lying about it. Anything beyond that is merely speculation (or leaks - oh the irony) at this point, and it's entirely possible that it wasn't actually a crime.

The CIA and Fitzgerald are proceeding with the case as if her leak was a crime. The question is, by who? Did Rove leak? Did Libby? Did Cheney? What has been shown so far is that Libby has been indicted (not yet convicted) for obstructing the investigation.

[Ziggurat]

Why isn't leaking so-called "classified information" protected under the first amendment? I was under the impression that the first amendment was designed, in part, to hold the government accountable.

I'm surprised that the answer isn't apparent. It's because, in order to have access to classified information, you enter into a contract with the government to keep that information secret. Leaking that information then becomes a contract violation. There are plenty of otherwise legal actions which you are forbidden to engage in if you enter a contract to that effect, this is hardly unique. Note, though, that if you are NOT bound by such a contract, there is no law prohibiting you from spreading classified information. That's why the journalists who published this stuff can't be charged with anything. Freedom of speech is still fully operative regarding classified information, but that doesn't override a contract that you willingly enter.

[Ziggurat]

The CIA and Fitzgerald are proceeding with the case as if her leak was a crime.

I'm not sure it's appropriate to call it "her leak" :D

Seriously, though, that doesn't actually tell us much. In the Martha Stewart case, for example, the investigation preceded as if her stock trading was illegal. Turns out it wasn't, judging by the fact that she was never charged with insider trading. But she made the mistake of lying to investigators, and got thrown in the clink because of it. Could end up the same way here regarding Libby - his indictment (possibly with a conviction to follow) could be the end of it.

[Tony]

I'm surprised that the answer isn't apparent. It's because, in order to have access to classified information, you enter into a contract with the government to keep that information secret. Leaking that information then becomes a contract violation.

Then why is leaking classified information a criminal offense?

There are plenty of otherwise legal actions which you are forbidden to engage in if you enter a contract to that effect, this is hardly unique. Note, though, that if you are NOT bound by such a contract, there is no law prohibiting you from spreading classified information. That's why the journalists who published this stuff can't be charged with anything. Freedom of speech is still fully operative regarding classified information, but that doesn't override a contract that you willingly enter.

Can you provide a source on this?

[fishbob]

I'm surprised that the answer isn't apparent. It's because, in order to have access to classified information, you enter into a contract with the government to keep that information secret. Leaking that information then becomes a contract violation. There are plenty of otherwise legal actions which you are forbidden to engage in if you enter a contract to that effect, this is hardly unique. Note, though, that if you are NOT bound by such a contract, there is no law prohibiting you from spreading classified information. That's why the journalists who published this stuff can't be charged with anything. Freedom of speech is still fully operative regarding classified information, but that doesn't override a contract that you willingly enter.
Contracts are typically voided when one partner catches the other engaging in illegal activities.

[WildCat]

Contracts are typically voided when one partner catches the other engaging in illegal activities.
And what illegal activity was that?

[fishbob]

I certainly don't know, yet. The source of the information most likely does. I saw a news report earlier today that hinted that the information came from a US senate session.

[WildCat]

I certainly don't know, yet. The source of the information most likely does. I saw a news report earlier today that hinted that the information came from a US senate session.
If the purpose of the leak was to "whistleblow" don't you think they would give at least a mention of the activity they were exposing? The source doesn't do that, which is why this appears to me to be politically motivated. And if there is someone in the intelligence community leaking information w/ the intent to affect the politics of the US government this would be an extremely serious situation, don't you think?

Sen. Trent Lott says the issue was discussed among Republican Senators, Sen. John McCain denies that it was. The mystery deepens...

[Ziggurat]

Then why is leaking classified information a criminal offense?

I'm using the term "contract" somewhat loosely. In this case, it's a criminal offense because the government wants to make the punishment severe - criminal vs civil isn't really relevant. The point I'm trying to make is that the restriction on free speech is not unconstitutional because it is only applicable to those who willingly choose to be bound by it. Similarly, if you are employed by KFC and agree to confidentiality about their secret recipe, the constitutional protection of free speech does not shield you from laws that prohibit violations of trade secrets. If you were to discover the secret recipe from the outside, unbound by any such agreements, free speech protections do in fact allow you to publicize it without fear of reprisal.

Can you provide a source on this?

I wasn't aware I needed to. But the laws in question all pertain to leaking. A reporter without official access to classified info who publishes something they learn is not leaking. No reporter was even investigated by Fitzpatrick, because there was never any possibility that they committed any crime. Miller got thrown in the clink for refusing to cooperate in his investigation of someone else, not because she was suspected of having done anything illegal in the original leak. Every reporter involved here has been fully protected by the first amendment.

[Ziggurat]

Contracts are typically voided when one partner catches the other engaging in illegal activities.

No, they are not. Often the agrieved party is no longer obliged to fulfil their side of the contract, but that doesn't necessarily free the offending party from their obligations (particularly if the agrieved party has already fulfilled their part). Plenty of contracts also specify what the penalties are for breach of contract - when the contract terms are breached, the contract does not become null and void, but rather the penalty terms of the contract activate.

[shecky]

um... if accurate, wouldn't the egregious secret prisons have long-term and far-reaching damaging and dangerous consequences?


heh... seeing the forest for the trees...