(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message . com...
wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:

Do you think that Congress should double check every Navy inquiry,
or just the Liberty? If just the Liberty then please explain what
the Navy's court did wrong and how Congress may be able to fix.

IMO the Navy's court of inquiry has a better record of finding the
facts than Congress.

But in a high profile case, leaders of a Navy Court of
Inquiry are subject to pressure of the President if that
President wants it to reach a certain conclusion.

Ha?
From http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dlj...dlj50p1835.htm
@The Supreme Court recognized potential problems with the independence
@of military judges in Weiss v. United States.139 The Court noted that
@military judges may be reassigned at any time because they have no
@fixed term of office. "Commissioned Officers are assigned or detailed
@to the position of military judge by a Judge Advocate General for a
@period of time he deems necessary or appropriate, and then they may be
@reassigned to perform other duties."140 Military judges also are
@accountable to their respective Judge Advocates General for their
@decisions. "By placing judges under the control of Judge Advocates
@General, who have no interest in the outcome of a particular [*pg 1858]
@court-martial, we believe Congress has achieved an acceptable balance
@between independence and accountability."141 What the Supreme Court
@failed to recognize is that Judge Advocates General may indeed have a
@significant interest in the outcome of cases when a large issue or
@principle is at stake.

In case you missed it, the president can not command military judges,
only the "Judge Advocates General" can do so. All the president
can, legally, do is to ask the court to take his testimony.
Pressuring judges is not effective because the president can't
fire them, and illegal pressure will cause a stink much larger
than the "The Saturday night massacre."

If you reject this claim then please give
examples of Navy courtof inquiry making mistake, and Congress fixing
them.

See the LA Times article below to see how the executive branch
may try to ?manipulate' intelligence. .

The CIA is under the president's control. He can fire the head of the
CIA whenever he wants. But the president can not fire military judges.
The Supreme Court believes that, with respect to the military court
system, "Congress has achieved an acceptable balance between
independence and accountability." Do you reject this claim,
and if yes on what grounds?

A Navy court of inquiry can subpoena the CIA just like Congress can.
And since the Navy is better than Congress in keeping secrets, the
CIA will probably be more willing to coopertae.

There was a Navy employee a number of years back who
made copies of 500,000 classified government documents
and provided them to a foreign government.

There is a difference between espionage and leaks. People who
commit espionage go to jail, Congressmen who leak win reelection.
Leaking of classified infromation is a big problem in Congress
because Congress is not willing to regulate itself. The
same can't be said about the Navy. The Navy makes a real effort
to throw everybody who passes classified information to jail.

Your assertion about the Navy being better at keeping
secrets is suspect.

Can you give example of Navy judges who leaked information
and got away with it? (And yes, I can give you examples
of Congressmen who leaked information and did not go to
jail; just ask.)

You claim that Congress investigation will be "better."
I claim that for better investigation you should either have
the ability to collect more data, or the ability to understand
the data better. Do you reject my claim, yes or no?
And if yes then what is your counter-claim?

You, like Weeks, seek to muddy the waters. Congress
has been successfully investigating the executive
branch of government for 200 years.

:-)

Your suggestion
that the executive branch investigate itself violates
the 'separation of powers' principle which has worked
so effectively since our Constitution was adopted.

The military court system has its own version of "Separation"
that works pretty well. Military courts are not kangeroo
courts; something that can't be said about
Senator Joseph McCarthy's committee.

You assume that in short time Congressmen can become better experts
than people who spent years in sea commanding ships. I don't know
what is the base of your assumption, but I can tell you that you
can force people to tell you what they know, but knoweldge and
understanding is very different thing. E.g. a clueless person
like you who has access to all the data and still has no clue.

One again, your arguments are so weak that you feel the need
to resort to name calling. Why has every previous Naval disaster
been investigated by Congress?

Because it was not.
E.g. the attack on USS Stark that killed 37 sailors.

Believe it or not, Congress is not always right.

But they are independent and they do not serve
at the pleasure of the President.

Congressmen need to get reelected. The officers of the
Navy's court of inquiry have no such concern.

Believe it or not, Joseph McCarthy "investigations"
did not catch a single Russian spy.

Maybe because he saw Communist spies under every bed?

And you see an anti-Liberty conspiracy under every bed,
table and chair.

Let's face it, when McCarthy accused President
Eisenhower's Secretary of the Army of supporting
Communism, it indicated a serious flaw in the
Senator's judgment.

McCarthy had a fun time taking the rich and famous
of Hollywood and grilling them in the Senate, and
leaking some "secret" testimonies in return to good press.
The Hollywood actors had no means to fight back, and
McCarthy felt pretty powerful.

Then he decided to pick on the army,
and the army fought back pretty well. The Army accused
Senator McCarthy and his assistant, Roy Cohn, of pressuring
the Army to give favourable treatment to a former aide.
Every Senator with half brain would realize a serious threat
and back down, but mcCarthy decided to fight, and lost.

In fact, it was the Army-McCarthy investigation
itself which not only ended McCarthy's influence,
but it also ended the national witch hunt known
as McCarthyism.

And your point is...?

Believe it or not, the Senate Watergate investigation
was partially responsible for the first Presidential
resignation in our country's history.

I'd give much more credit to Archibald Cox. After the
Saturday night massacre Nixon was *finished* in the
public's opinion.

If we had
adopted your suggestion of letting the executive
branch investigate itself, there is a good chance
Nixon would not have resigned.

What exactly did Archibald Cox do wrong?

Again, do you want to Congress to double-check everything that the
CIA say, or just the Liberty? And if just the Liberty then please
explain why the CIA can't be trusted in that case.

CIA Felt Pressure to Alter Iraq Data, Author Says

And it got caught in less than 37 years because the army
could not find those WMD.

It shows that the system works, if there is no data to support a claim.
(The failure of the LVA to make a case also shows that the system works
when there is no data to support a claim.)

Hillel

"I don't know a man, woman, or child who was not happy about what happened
in the U.S. [on 9/11/2001]" (Abdullah Al-Sabeh, a professor of psychology at
Riyadh's Imam Muhammed bin Saud Islamic University, Business Week, 11/26/2001)