Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Legality does not equal morality.

Posted By: Patty on 2009-06-01
In Reply to: Why should they have locked the doc up? - ExMQMT

Many things in this country are legal that God would disapprove of. You cannot serve God and man. I wouldn't go so far as to call this murderer a doctor. Doctor's try to save lives. He was far from a doctor.


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Interesting regarding equal pay for equal work...
http://www.gop.com/news/NewsRead.aspx?GUID=8b69f23e-3ec7-4e68-b1e0-15fdf136d68c
the logic is in the legality, though
Killing the adult with cancer would be illegal. Abortion is legal. Does that spell it out for you?
Hoekstra questions legality of Bush secrecy.

This is the same guy who tried to peddle the bogus WMD story a few weeks ago with Santorum.  Would have never figured HIM to write something like this.  It's either a good sign or just political pandering to an increasingly unhappy base.  I hope it's sincere.


July 9, 2006


Ally Told Bush Project Secrecy Might Be Illegal




WASHINGTON, July 8 — In a sharply worded letter to President Bush in May, an important Congressional ally charged that the administration might have violated the law by failing to inform Congress of some secret intelligence programs and risked losing Republican support on national security matters.


The letter from Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, did not specify the intelligence activities that he believed had been hidden from Congress.


But Mr. Hoekstra, who was briefed on and supported the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program and the Treasury Department's tracking of international banking transactions, clearly was referring to programs that have not been publicly revealed.


Recently, after the harsh criticism from Mr. Hoekstra, intelligence officials have appeared at two closed committee briefings to answer questions from the chairman and other members. The briefings appear to have eased but not erased the concerns of Mr. Hoekstra and other lawmakers about whether the administration is sharing information on all of its intelligence operations.


A copy of the four-page letter dated May 18, which has not been previously disclosed, was obtained by The New York Times.


I have learned of some alleged intelligence community activities about which our committee has not been briefed, Mr. Hoesktra wrote. If these allegations are true, they may represent a breach of responsibility by the administration, a violation of the law, and, just as importantly, a direct affront to me and the members of this committee who have so ardently supported efforts to collect information on our enemies.


He added: The U.S. Congress simply should not have to play Twenty Questions to get the information that it deserves under our Constitution.


Frederick Jones, a White House spokesman, declined to comment on the concerns raised by Mr. Hoekstra but said that we will continue to work closely with the chairman and other Congressional leaders on important national security issues.


A spokesman for Mr. Hoekstra, Jamal D. Ware, said he could not discuss the activities allegedly withheld from Congress. But he said that Mr. Hoekstra remained adamant that no intelligence programs could be hidden from oversight committees.


Chairman Hoekstra has raised these issues with the administration to ensure that the Intelligence Committee is able to conduct its job of oversight, Mr. Ware said. Intelligence officials have committed to being forthcoming with Congress, and Chairman Hoekstra is going to hold them to their word.


Mr. Hoekstra's blunt letter is evidence of a rift between the White House and House Republican leaders over the administration's perceived indifference to Congressional oversight and input on intelligence matters. Mr. Hoekstra wrote that he had shared his complaints with House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Republican of Illinois, and that the speaker concurs with my concerns.


A spokesman for Mr. Hastert declined to comment.


The letter appears to have resulted at least in part from the White House's decision, made early in May, to name Gen. Michael V. Hayden to lead the Central Intelligence Agency, with Stephen R. Kappes as his deputy. The letter was sent the day of General Hayden's confirmation hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee.


Mr. Hoekstra (pronounced HOOK-stra) complained publicly about the choices when they were announced, but his private letter to Mr. Bush was much harsher. He warned that the choice of Mr. Kappes, who he said was part of a group at the C.I.A. that intentionally undermined the administration, sends a clear signal that the days of collaborative reform between the White House and this committee may be over.


Mr. Hoekstra also expressed concern about the intelligence reorganization under John D. Negroponte, the first director of national intelligence, who he said was creating a large, bureaucratic and hierarchical structure that will be less flexible and agile than our adversaries.


Mr. Hoekstra's views on oversight appear to be shared by some other Intelligence Committee members.


I think the executive branch has been insufficiently forthcoming on a number of important programs, Representative Heather A. Wilson, Republican of New Mexico, said in an interview. She would not discuss any programs on which the committee had not been briefed, but she said that in the Bush administration, there's a presumption that if they don't tell anybody, a problem may get better or it will solve itself.


Ms. Wilson said she shared deep concerns about the pace and direction of intelligence reforms overseen by Mr. Negroponte's office. We have some troubled programs, she said.


American intelligence agencies routinely conduct many secret programs, but under the National Security Act, the agencies are required to keep the Congressional intelligence committees fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities. Even in the case of especially sensitive covert actions, the law requires briefings for at least the leaders from both parties of the committees and the House and Senate.


As the administration has asserted broad presidential authority to fight terrorism, concerns about Congressional oversight and checks and balances between the branches of government have become increasingly heated. Democrats complained that the administration's failure to brief the full Intelligence Committees on the N.S.A. warrantless eavesdropping, which focuses on the international communications of Americans and others inside the United States, was a violation of the National Security law. Some members of Congress said they had been briefed on the Treasury Department's bank monitoring program, which examines international money transfers through a Brussels-based consortium, only after The New York Times began making inquiries in recent months.


But the assertion that other intelligence activities had been hidden from Congress is particularly surprising coming from Mr. Hoekstra, who defended the administration's limited briefings on the N.S.A. program against Democratic criticism.


An official familiar with recent exchanges between the intelligence agencies and the House committee said Friday that General Hayden had twice briefed the full committee and had addressed Mr. Hoekstra's questions about the intelligence activities referred to in the letter. The C.I.A. director promised a free flow of information, and Mr. Hoekstra, who initially objected to placing a military officer in charge of the C.I.A., said he would work closely with the agency's new leadership.


The official, who spoke of the briefings only when granted anonymity because they were classified, declined to say anything about what the activities were or which agencies they involved.


Officials with both Mr. Negroponte's office and the C.I.A. declined to comment specifically on Mr. Hoekstra's letter. But Carl Kropf, a spokesman for Mr. Negroponte, said that over the past year his office had engaged in hundreds of briefings, meetings and discussions with Congressional committees.


He added, We value this dialogue with Congress, and we will continue to provide the committee with the information they need to fulfill their responsibilities.


Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, a spokeswoman for General Hayden, said that the director believes in the important oversight role Congress plays, and he will continue regular and transparent interactions with members.


Since his appointment as committee chairman in August 2004, Mr. Hoekstra has been a critical ally of the White House on intelligence matters. He has supported the administration's most controversial policies, including its treatment of terrorist suspects, and he has balked at Democratic demands for an investigation of pre-war intelligence on Iraq. He has defended the legality and necessity of the N.S.A. program and the bank monitoring.


Mr. Hoekstra has been one of the strongest advocates in Congress for a crackdown on leaks of classified information to the media, a cause championed by both Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.


But in recent months, Mr. Hoekstra has begun to express some disaffection. In March, he joined the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, Representative Jane Harman of California, in a public critique of Mr. Negroponte's performance. He criticized intelligence officials for initially resisting his demand that thousands of captured Iraqi documents be posted on the Web. Like other House Republicans, he bristled when Porter J. Goss, a former House colleague, was forced out as C.I.A. director in early May.


Most recently, Mr. Hoekstra strongly criticized a news briefing arranged by Mr. Negroponte's office on an Army report that 500 pre-Gulf War chemical shells had been found scattered around Iraq. On June 29, Mr. Hoekstra, who had said the finding established that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, made public an angry letter to Mr. Negroponte calling the briefing inaccurate, incomplete and occasionally misleading and asserting that attempts were made to downplay the significance of relevant facts.


A spokesman for Mr. Negroponte's office said he had not yet replied to the complaint.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/washington/09hoekstra.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5088&en=29084f54639e845b&ex=1310097600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company  








width=1


Morality
While I agree that, unfortunately, abortion is often used a birth control, I still don't feel that I want that choice to be taken away. I do have two children, one teenager, one close to becoming a teenager. So far, they are VERY open with us (sometimes I wish they weren't so open ;-), and we are fortunate. There are many children who have parents who aren't involved at all or who they are scared to death of. I will always vote against parental notification laws with regards to abortion. I know opinions are mixed regarding this, and I hope my children would always come to me, but I still don't feel this should be a legal requirement.

Your point about homosexuality bugs me a bit. Believe it or, people have always been gay throughout time. I am fortunate to have many homosexuals as wonderful friends, both men and women. To know these people, I cannot accept that they would choose to be this way. I feel this is the way they were born, not a choice they made. And, since I believe God made everyone, perfect in their own way, I accept them as children of God and believe that God accepts them as well.

As to whether homosexuality is unchristian, I have never seen a reference to it in Jesus' teachings. There are mentions of homosexuality in the bible, but not spoken of by Jesus. There are far more references to tithing and money, but I don't see the world up in arms because people are not tithing.


Morality.
My problem with homosexuality is more than moral, as I outlined in my post.  It is the pushing of their beliefs on a society, many of whom do not agree with their belief system.  Much as abortion has been hailed as a right, we are now faced with a society that expects special rights for homosexuals, whether we want this or not.  It's funny that while Christians are once again persecuted on a daily basis, the above rights are pushed to the forefront. The thought of a teenager having an abortion without parental involvement is horrific to me.  This demonstrates the chiasm that exists in moral degradation in this country.  I cannot imagine a child of mine making this decision without me.  The fact is, no child of mine would even consider it. We value life and God's blessings above all things.  As far as interpretation of the Bible, we all know that this interpretation is relative.  I will fall back on the addage of love the sinner, hate the sin.  I have homosexual friends, too. 
You said you can't legislate morality....
those were your words, not mine. Yes, it is the fault of the left, no right or wrong, only shades of gray, in the name of free expression we have near porn in prime time, do whatever you want and no one will hold you responsible...those are not conservative morals. Those are liberal morals. If the shoe fits, you gotta wear it. THis permissive society you so wanted is here. Trouble is, we are all sowing what the left reaped.

Yes, equate a baby being sliced and diced in the womb with nowhere to run (how much more innocent can you get) to causalties in war? Where is your sympathy for all the millions Saddam killed? What an oxyMORON. Partial birth abortion? Babies born alive and left to die? YOU might as well advocate torture!

What elitist crap! Go Nascar? You better be really happy those folks are out there, because if we are attacked on our own shore it will be the Nascar folks who save your elitist hind-end. It sure won't be your crowd.

What look down your nose condescending post. You must be so proud.
Is also shows how much you know about ethics and morality....
You appear to be a fool.  An unethical fool.
So tell us: Where is the morality in bombing family
The TRULY morally bankrupt do more evil in this world than everyone or everything else combined, and then then hide behind their 'religious beliefs'. Or their pointed white hoods. Same difference.
Two-way street not so equal?
Just my 2 cents... though it is definitely a 2-way street with both conservative and liberal radio talking heads (and others) make these comments about all kinds of stuff, including assassinations of either Bush or Obama... I do see a difference here - in that there are a large number of folks in this country who think Bush should be in prison, impeached, or at the very least, hasn't done our country a big favor with this war...with popularity at an all-time low... NOT that I'm saying he deserves to be assassinated, I'm not!!

But this talk of Obama being in danger - it is not because he has done something wrong, it is not because he is a hugely unpopular person (quite the contrary), and it is not because of his actions.... it is about the color of his skin. Racism. And, fear.

Thanks for listening to my 2 cents...
On the equal pay thing....
the women on McCain's campaign (and there are more women on his staff than on Obama's) make more money than the men do...and the women on Obama's campaign make less than the men do...would be nice if candidate practiced what he preached. Just sayin.
Equal percentage is right, I think....nm
nm
He just wants everyone equal, whether you work
nm
Thank you and I have equal respect for your decision. s/m
We can all only vote for what we hope (there's that word HOPE again) that we have made the right decision.  I do have FAITH in the American people that all of us will come together and take it in our hands to clean up this country at some point.  Neither candidate nor member of Congress is going to look out for "we the people" until we stand up on our hind legs and DEMAND it.  That is our right under the Constitution of the United States of American and I HOPE we will do it.  We did it on a small scale after 9/11.   I say "small scale" because while everyone came together, it didn't last long and we all went back to business as usual.  If the prediction of us being in such dire straits as we are "warned" about on a daily basis if Obama is elected, I think we ain't seen nothing yet as how the AMERICAN people will band together and DEMAND change.  However, if McCain gets in the White House, as I think he will, we'll continue right on down the garden path just as we have the last 8 years.  AND it won't surprise me if before this election is done  Bush declares martial law and then we are for sure in a fine fix.  Use your noggins for a change instead of just trying to get McCain elected, we ain't rid of George W. Bush YET.
hero does not equal presidential - nm
x
Equal opportunity basher....... sm
I'm an Independent, and have been for years, because I don't uphold the Dem/Pub party process any more. It may have served a real purpose when it was initiated, but those times are long gone. My Daddy was a true-blue Democrat and it wasn't until his later years that he really began looking at the issues and the politicians as a whole rather than through the bipartisan microscope.

My opinion, now that the big event is behind us, is that everyone (at least the ones on this board) voted in their own conscience. Most of the posters here seem to have researched the issues and applied their own opinions as they felt led and I don't think anyone needs to be told "I told you so" or needs to rub in the fact that their man won. As Chele, I believe it was, pointed out, we (collectively speaking) have placed a man in office, and while the future ain't lookin' too rosey right now, we all need to pull together and get through whatever the fallout may be the best we can.

FWIW...I've never been happy with the "solution" to the Kennedy assasination either. I think it was poorly handled yet expertly covered up. Be that as it may, the person(s) that were really behind this have to deal with whatever recompense they have coming.

To paraphrase Hoover, "A crow in every pot and forget about the car!"
However, he did not believe that all citizens are equal under the law. Shame on ...sm
you likening BO to Hitler.
No, because it's still not equal. Human beings should
nm
Equal rights to you people is when
you get YOUR way and to he!! with whatever majority group doesn't like it or doesn't believe in it.  That is your idea of equal rights.
Accusation doesn't equal fact
anybody who has a beef against Bush could come out with this...doesn't make it true.
Equal opportunity for all Americans is not a new vision.
Get with the program.
This country needs more love and equal rights, and
It's just a catch-all name for people who feel they have the right to control other people's freedom to live their lives, even when it's none of their business.
Obama is a CHRISTIAN. He supports equal rights...sm
for all people including gay people. I think that the radical Christian right are the gay haters.
Hate speech is an equal opportunity killer.
neither can you.
Government grant does not equal 10 years on welfare
We are talking about those who make a job out of being on welfare.

Welfare in it's ideology was not a bad thing. It's a great concept. Unfortunately, it gets abused BIG TIME.

The concept for grants is that she will take this grant, go to school, in turn get a good job, pay taxes, and through those taxes the grant will be refunded.

What upsets me are the people who have six kids but refuse to get married because the girlfriend will lose the food stamps. Or the woman who lets her boyfriend and his buddies deal drugs out of their home for a cut of the money and they are living on our tax dollars selling those drugs to our children (well, your children, I don't have any yet, because we can't afford it!)


Eugenics and master plans.are equal opportunity
Its all about the source and what their driving agendas may be. Readers who believe in and promote master plan theories based on racial purity would be WAY gullible to be convinced of other conspiracy theories, no matter how idiotic the are. Those of us grounded in reality, not so much.

Scouring the net on the topics you named (especially govt takeovers) speaks for itself. If you cite sources from the whack world, don't expect to be taken too seriously.
Fair & balanced - they give both sides equal time
They let both sides speak. They have equal guests meaning 2 pubs & 2 crats, or 1 pub and 1 crat. Unlike the other liberal stations who have 5 crats and 1 pub.

They tell the news like it is. There is more to Fox News than O'Reilly and Hannity. I'm watching Shepard Smith and others who are reporting news stories. These are the same news stories I see on other channels. They are fair because they give a chance for the opposing side to explain themselves and they are balanced because they have equal number of people. What liberals don't like is that the conservatives have anything to say at all. The liberals want to control the country (getting one heck of a start too), which would be an economic disaster to the country (thank you Pelosi with your pet pig projects you keep hiding in the stimulus and Reid for slipping in a pig project that does nothing for the rest of the country). The liberals are trying to shut down anyone with opposing viewpoints than theirs, and they are having their lawyers re-write the laws and change to consitution. - Not good for America. The only thing this stimulus plan is good for is to get people re-elected into their position. Congress does not give a hoot about America....

Pelosi: "Hurry fellas lets vote, I'm off to Rome". Hey there Pelosi, have a good trip, while we all wait for our pink slips and food stamps. Have yourself a great time at our expense.
So Christians aren't supposed to political? Or we aren't supposed to let our morality, faith

our conscience guide us politically?


I'm sorry, that is a separation I cannot make.  My faith and religious convictions are part of the whole person that I am.  I vote my conscience.  I want political leaders who reflect my morality.  I also happen to believe there are many Christians out there like me.  There is no "separation" of church and state for me, which by the way was a concept (nowhere specifically mentioned in the constitution) meant to protect the church from the government more so than the government from the church.


There is absolutely nothing wrong with that commercial.  There are condom commercials, "personal" lubricant commercials, and penis and sexual performance enhancing commercials -- why would anyone be offended by a pro-life commercial?  The fact that anyone would be offended is a testament to just how twisted society has become!