On 11/17/2012 10:33 PM, Charlie Coleman wrote:
At 09:07 AM 11/17/2012 -0600, lelandj wrote:
Leland, try to take off your liberal-at-any-cost hat for a moment and
think sincerely about the following:
Petraeus may have done a lot of good things but his resignation is
appropriate. And the revealing of it by the Intelligence Community
is absolutely right and just.
...
Why should one group of Americans be held to a higher standard than
the whole. Why should the government, including the intelligence
community, be allow to meddle into the personal affairs of
Americans? LOL - pun intended. The founding fathers of the USA,
having experienced first hand persecution, torture, alienation, and
other injustice from their governments, put strong privacy
protections into the USA Constitution to protect Americans against an
overreaching government.
...
First, the "why". Why should government officials be held to a higher
standard? Because their office reflects a trust of the citizens. I
hold my trusted friends to a higher standard of conduct with me than,
say, I expect out of total strangers. So to me, if I give you my trust
you should expect that I expect more out of you. I believe our
Founding Fathers saw it this way as well: their correspondence intoned
a public office in our union engendered the utmost responsibility to
those governed. Next, governmental positions have power over others.
So any given action they take has a far greater potential to affect
people than just an average citizen.
I did a Google and found many links regarding, "Federal Employee Code of
Ethics", but it all related to the job. I believe it would be
government overreach to impose standards, Codes of Conduct, or Code of
Ethics on Americans who are off work. When off work, Americans should
be able to live their lives in privacy, free from outside interference,
and the USA Constitution provides Americans such protection.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&ved=0CEkQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pacom.mil%2Fdocuments%2Fpdf%2Fnewcomers-code-of-ethics%5B1%5D.pdf&ei=rUCpUKzVIon02QWqm4CwCw&usg=AFQjCNFuaY-RymdzCj8DTNdrOhhrx3USnQ
or
http://tinyurl.com/banfddo
The above is the general ethical/moral view. But lets talk about
common sense for a moment. Any official that commits illegal,
unethical, or even anything that may be personally embarrassing
becomes a risk to their office. They become a target for blackmail or
bribery. For example, a city councilman has an affair with an underage
girl. A certain shady set of folks get photos and threaten to go
public if the councilman doesn't change his vote on a zoning issue.
The same scenario holds for those with access to classified
information. This is the common sense reason why they must be held to
higher codes of conduct. If you don't want to live by that code, don't
try to get a job with the government.
Again, the Federal Employee Code of Ethics only address conduct while on
the job. For example, If David Petraeus had an affair, it's nobodies
business, including his employer, as long as he keep the affair out of
the public arena by using a little discretion. If his affair became
know by some unsavory operative that coerced sensitive information out
of him, then he has failed in performing his job and would be subject to
discipline, dismissal, and even criminal misconduct. But what actually
happened in David Petraeus' case was the affair was leaked to the press
that splattered it all over kingdom come. David Petraues really had no
choice but to resign, which was the right thing to do.
Regards,
LelandJ
But Leland's thoughts reflect the general sentiment of the country.
Since Clinton got away with lying about his affair the nation has
dropped it's expectations of elected officials dramatically (no it
wasn't "all" Clinton's fault, we have been
...
believe the wealthy has cheated the rest of us and that they should
be forced to give up their money/property to be fair. Adversaries of
the US and democracy in general can rejoice. The Great Experiment is
winding down, proving out once again that man's greed and jealousy
outweigh his intelligence.
Get a life, Charlie. It really is OK. We're not the Taliban here in
the good old USA. LOL
How about you get a brain Leland? The fact that we're NOT the Taliban
means our government officials MUST answer to us. If we were a
dictatorship or socialistic government then sure, the folks in charge
could do whatever they want to whomever they want whenever they want.
Think about that for at least a couple minutes.
But I imagine you would be the first in line to string up an official
that didn't share your liberal bias. You're a walking contradiction to
rational thinking. And like I said, you're not alone. There's a bunch
of other people out there that's let their mind deteriorate to the
point of just repeating the brief snippets they get from their
favorite liberal news outlet or web site.
And for me personally I'm totally at peace that things will be OK. A
thousand years from now this situation will be meaningless to me. But
I do want to provide a good legacy to my kids, grandkids, etc. That's
the main reason I try to get people to think about this stuff. I
realize that may not be understood by those that want everything for
themselves right now. But maybe some aren't too far gone to get the
brain working again.
-Charlie
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message:
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
