Article

2004-01-27 Fifth Column

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by badanov 2004-01-27 12:10:56 AM|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 It makes no mention of the much more than $500 million in damages caused by Saudis who already attended school - flight school, to be exact - here.

Nice one.

Might be time to fire off a letter to my friendly US Rep and both Senators. The soddis would love to be able to keep sending their problems here instead of keeping them in riyadh.

Posted by 4thInfVet 2004-1-27 12:21:05 AM|| 2004-1-27 12:21:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 All I have to say about Ms. Harty and her continued antics is @#^&@#%!!

Here's a question for the lawyers in the audience - can a private citizen initiate a Justice Department treason investigation against a government official?

Posted by Jeff 2004-1-27 12:24:05 AM|| 2004-1-27 12:24:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Maura's clearly afraid of losing her Saudi "pension".

Posted by PBMcL 2004-1-27 12:24:41 AM|| 2004-1-27 12:24:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Oh, and by the way, Badanov...DAMN good inspiration filing this under "Fifth Column"!

Posted by Jeff 2004-1-27 12:25:39 AM|| 2004-1-27 12:25:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 all the other foggy bottomers got their saudi 401ks--maura's mommy didn't raise no fool--why isn't powell 86ing the wench/

Posted by SON OF TOLUI 2004-1-27 12:50:45 AM|| 2004-1-27 12:50:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 The appropriate response to "Losses to U.S. Economy from Fewer Saudi Visitors" is a picture of the World Trade Center in flames.

The only real question about the State Department is if they're traitors on purpose or if they're just too damn stupid.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-1-27 7:01:02 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-1-27 7:01:02 AM|| Front Page Top

#7
The real damage is not the billions of dollars in lost revenue, but the long-term chilling effect on the U.S.-Saudi relationship

We haven't been chilling that relationship enough. Our criticism of that society ought to be a lot more explicit.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-1-27 8:17:55 AM|| 2004-1-27 8:17:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 We definately need to remove 'civil service' protection from these clowns so they can be fired.

Didn't State give this treasonous bitch a big bonus a few months ago for the 1st visa express program because it 'worked so well'?

Posted by CrazyFool 2004-1-27 9:44:30 AM|| 2004-1-27 9:44:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Even with civil service protections Powell could do something about the problem. He could transfer troublemakers to be part of the Canadian Bureau. It's not as if we demand visas from there anyway. Eventually when we might get one State Department flunky for each Canadian citizens. Perhaps they might quit out of boredom, or out of required inspections of the Nanuvit territory during the winter. Even if we're still paying their salaries at least they won't be actively damaging national security.

Posted by ruprecht 2004-1-27 10:15:23 AM|| 2004-1-27 10:15:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 Here's a question for the lawyers in the audience - can a private citizen initiate a Justice Department treason investigation against a government official?

Jeff, the answer is (as always) âit depends.â Two main factors would have to be dealt with: 1) standing, and 2) private right of action. The âstandingâ question would be handled by showing that some transaction, occurrence or event related to the target (i.e., the person sought to be sued) resulted in distinct harm to you or your interests. âPrivate right of actionâ is a bit trickier. While any violation of law conceivably supports an action brought under 42 U.S.C. Â§ 1983, the courts have reined that statue in somewhat (when the violation is based on law and not on a constitutional right) by requiring a âclear statementâ from the legislature authorizing a suit. So . . . either find a constitutional right that has been violated, or a law that clearly states that the legislature intends for suit to be brought if the law is broken.

My guess is that whatever suit might be brought would be dismissed because you would not be able to show that your private rights were more greatly harmed than the public rights in general (e.g., taxpayer lawsuits). In other words, the remedy needs to be to put pressure on the respective governmental bodies to get rid of the bad actor. Anyone can file a suit, not many prevail . . .

Posted by cingold 2004-1-27 11:14:59 AM|| 2004-1-27 11:14:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 Cingold, if the answer is maybe, I'm sure we'll Judicial Watch file soon enough.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-1-27 12:51:00 PM|| 2004-1-27 12:51:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 If the Saudis are unhappy with our "chilly" relationship, they should consider what would happen if we should decide to "heat" things up by about 4000 degrees.

Posted by Steve 2004-1-27 3:45:26 PM|| 2004-1-27 3:45:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 ...Powell could do something about the problem.
He did, ruprecht. He gave her a performance bonus of $10,000 -$15,000 and promoted her to Mary Ryan's position in Consular Affairs . Mary Ryan was the originator of the Visa Express program and Harty's mentor. Joel Mowbray's, October 22, 2002, Perverse Incentive article here.
But I don't think that what you had in mind.

Posted by Gasse Katze 2004-1-27 5:45:31 PM|| 2004-1-27 5:45:31 PM|| Front Page Top

08:50 Scooter McGruder
08:31 Raptor
06:10 Mike
02:58 Lu Baihu
01:33 Lucky
01:28 Lucky
01:23 Lucky
01:09 Lucky
00:55 Lucky
00:34 Lucky
00:04 PBMcL
00:02 Mike Sylwester
23:22 Traveller
23:04 OldSpook
23:03 Sorge
22:46 Stephen
22:38 ed
22:28 Vic
22:20 Robert Crawford
22:02 phil_b
22:01 Super Hose
21:34 tu3031
21:33 Super Hose
21:25 Alaska Paul