Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1. 

   teknosapien, Apr 12th, 2007 @ 6:12pm

   
   

   ok How

   Screwed up is this now

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2. 

   Sanguine Dream, Apr 12th, 2007 @ 8:35pm

   
   

   Ignorance

   That is all.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3. 

   johndm, Apr 12th, 2007 @ 8:39pm

   
   

   I think that it would depend on several things. The criminal being interviewed could throw off the scent by fabricating a story to replace the reality, or withhold information without them knowing, thus creating a possible loophole or unaccounted for methods in the law created using his information. I think that there is no reason for alarm in having him speak, but the Senate should take his information with little weight in how it affects the final law. Ideally they probably will do this, but realistically, every word he will speak will be taken into consideration by the Senate members. Sort of like a witness saying something on the stand, and the jury being told to disregard the comment - you know the jury is tainted now! Likewise, even if they never admit it, whatever this criminal tells them, they will secretly or subconsciously let it have an effect on the laws generated.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4. 

   Joe, Apr 12th, 2007 @ 9:18pm

   
   

   Wha?

   claiming that allowing him to testify would violate laws that don't allow prisoners to have "elevated status"
   
   I didn't know there were such laws.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5. 

   InkChemist, Apr 12th, 2007 @ 9:43pm

   
   

   Re: Wha?

   I don't know if those laws exist or not, but wouldn't testifying before congress be considered a form of punishment rather than providing elevated status?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6. 

   Joshua Herzig-Marx, Apr 12th, 2007 @ 9:59pm

   
   

   Protecting themselves?

   I wonder if it's really about this guy's testimony, or if someone at Justice is concerned that convicted lobbyists or administration staffers could be called to testify. Perhaps it's just the White House being proactive?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7. 

   Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Apr 12th, 2007 @ 10:40pm

   
   

   Trade secrets...

   I get this feeling sometimes that cops/spooks/whatever don't like certain secrets being spilled to the public, even when the bad guys already know them. I mean, such knowledge is already being exploited for nefarious ends; how much worse could it be?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8. 

   Artemis Vindictus, Apr 12th, 2007 @ 10:49pm

   
   

   You're all missing the point

   Testimonies like this poke holes in the big brotheresque initiatives for national ids, and other wheel spinning shenanigans propagated via Patiot Act or various other Constitution shredding programs.
   
   The more holes poked into this false credit eco-system we live in, the better.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9. 

   just me, Apr 13th, 2007 @ 5:39am

   
   

   signing a disclaimer

   They should have the person testifying sign a disclaimer stating he wont make money off of his testimony, or seek fame. Book deals or movies are out. Jobs also. Then put a limit on how long the disclaimer will be in effect. I say give it 10 years, by the time the 10 years is over everyone wont remember the persons name.
   
   They should also make his testimony not public record, in order to protect the public from other wannabe Identity Thieves.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10. 

    WarOtter, Apr 13th, 2007 @ 5:43am

    
    

    Please

    So I just bought a new car... could someone pull a Tyler Durden and erase the debt record?

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11. 

    Ed, Apr 13th, 2007 @ 6:30am

    
    

    No competition...

    The DoJ simply doesn't want criminal competition. They're in the top crime family now and feel they get to decide who gets all the publicity.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

12. 

    Anonymous Coward, Apr 13th, 2007 @ 6:33am

    
    

    Re:

    I agree that they should weigh his testimony carefully but to try and keep him from speaking is almost silly. Cops face the this choice whenever they listen to a snitch, informant, or captured crook. They don't blindly go on their word but they won't totally disregard what they say without at least thinking about it. Misinformation from that crook could cause the cops to walk into an ambush or the info could be legit and lead to a major bust.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

13. 

    AnyMouse, Apr 13th, 2007 @ 10:22am

    
    

    Senate too much credit

    I think you guys are giving the senate too much credit, assuming that they would actually listen and understand anything other than what they have been bribed, I mean 'lobbied' to vote for.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

14. 

    James, Apr 13th, 2007 @ 11:13am

    
    

    Why...

    ....does the govt do anything idiotic?? Because its run by idiots.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

15. 

    wl, Apr 14th, 2007 @ 5:51am

    
    

    Re: Wha?

    maybe the (super) "patriot" act has given the fbi, homeland security, cia, and justice the power to just make up a law to fit their shenanagins whenever they need to. and how about those guys browbeating your library into telling them what you been reading. was in my local library yesterday, there were signs posted all over the place saying something to the effect that the library , under pain of presecution, could not tell you that the "law (?) and order" guys had put you on one of their many lists

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

16. 

    Paul, Apr 25th, 2007 @ 5:33pm

    
    

    Identity thief to Congress ?

    What ? Give them the "how-to" instructions ?
    OUR CONGRESS ?

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment