U.S. Politics 20

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

I can't believe this is the first I am hearing of this -

CIA providing nuclear material to Al-Qaeda

London, Feb 20(ANI): Double murder-accused US official Raymond Davis has been found in possession of top-secret CIA documents, which point to him or the feared American Task Force 373 (TF373) operating in the region, providing Al-Qaeda terrorists with "nuclear fissile material" and "biological agents," according to a report.

Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) is warning that the situation on the sub-continent has turned "grave" as it appears that open warfare is about to break out between Pakistan and the United States, The European Union Times reports.

The SVR warned in its report that the apprehension of 36-year-old Davis, who shot dead two Pakistani men in Lahore last month, had fuelled this crisis.

According to the report, the combat skills exhibited by Davis, along with documentation taken from him after his arrest, prove that he is a member of US' TF373 black operations unit currently operating in the Afghan War Theatre and Pakistan's tribal areas, the paper said.

While the US insists that Davis is one of their diplomats, and the two men he killed were robbers, Pakistan says that the duo were ISI agents sent to follow him after it was discovered that he had been making contact with al Qaeda, after his cell phone was tracked to the Waziristan tribal area bordering Afghanistan, the paper said.

The most ominous point in this SVR report is "Pakistan's ISI stating that top-secret CIA documents found in Davis's possession point to his, and/or TF373, providing to al Qaeda terrorists "nuclear fissile material" and "biological agents", which they claim are to be used against the United States itself in order to ignite an all-out war in order to re-establish the West's hegemony over a Global economy that is warned is just months away from collapse," the paper added. (ANI)

[TrackerNeil]

But in this context, that's exactly what some folks seem to be demanding. Abortion is no longer a private matter between a woman and her physician, but rather, the government has the right to interfere in that supposedly private relationship by compelling the doctor to do something he doesn't want to do. And once that occurs, there's no longer any logic behind the "privacy" interest because it's not private anymore.

Wait a second...aren't attorneys required to do pro bono work? And aren't both attorneys and doctors, in addition to other professionals, required to take continuing education. Those are things those professionals don't want to do, and yet are required to do. Also, in some states, Good Samaritan laws do not cover individuals with medical training, who are assumed to have greater knowledge and are therefore expected to exercise greater responsibility. Hospitals are required to report gunshot wounds, therapists can report patient disclosures that involve threats to others, and real estate agents must be open about the properties they sell. There are a bunch of ways in which the government "interferes" in relationships between professionals and their clients, and our society has often benefited from it.

[TerraPrime]

Is that source (ANI) reliable?

I'm not saying it's above the U.S. government to be so bloody stupid, but I'd like more evidence than a news source that I'm not familiar with.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tracker,

I'm required to take cases I'm appointed by a Court to take. Ikm not required to draft a will for a random guy on the street who demands I do so for free. I may choose to do this but it doesn't mean I have to.

[TrackerNeil]

Tracker,

I'm required to take cases I'm appointed by a Court to take. Ikm not required to draft a will for a random guy on the street who demands I do so for free. I may choose to do this but it doesn't mean I have to.

You make my point for me. The government cannot take complete control of your professional life, but it can and does place certain demands upon you as a condition of licensure. I don't see a problem.

[Merentha]

Tracker,

I'm required to take cases I'm appointed by a Court to take. Ikm not required to draft a will for a random guy on the street who demands I do so for free. I may choose to do this but it doesn't mean I have to.

What makes MDs different, FLoW?

Also, it was my understanding that a rotation in abortion was essentially a voluntary part of the standard ob/gyn program, and not required for all of them. On the other hand, my understanding of MD certification processes, especially when compared to RN, is a bit off.

[Guest Raids]

And nobody cares that I may not be getting paid after March 4th.

This doesn't look good for the public outrage at a shut down that I was really hoping for.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tracker,

A lawyer can refuse an appointment on moral grouds claiming they would be incappable of properly representing X client for Y reasons. But it's going to be a fight and cause a stink. They can also pay another attorney to do their pro bono appointments for them.

[Tempra]

Pity me too! I might not be getting paid either. Although I doubt a lockout will occur.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Wait a second...aren't attorneys required to do pro bono work? And aren't both attorneys and doctors, in addition to other professionals, required to take continuing education. Those are things those professionals don't want to do, and yet are required to do.

Scot's addressed the pro bono issue. And that's training, not actual performance of specific cases to which a moral or professional objection might be had.

Also, in some states, Good Samaritan laws do not cover individuals with medical training, who are assumed to have greater knowledge and are therefore expected to exercise greater responsibility.

How is that relevant? Good Samaritan laws don't require doctors to administer medical treatment. It means that if they elect to do so voluntarily, they will be held to a higher standard of care. Which, paradoxically, makes it less likely they will choose to intervene.

Hospitals are required to report gunshot wounds, therapists can report patient disclosures that involve threats to others, and real estate agents must be open about the properties they sell. There are a bunch of ways in which the government "interferes" in relationships between professionals and their clients, and our society has often benefited from it.

Regulating relationships entered into voluntarily is different from compelling someone to enter into a relationship without their consent in the first place. Again, the entire legal basis of Roe was that the government does not have the right to intervene in the private relationship between a doctor and patient regarding the decision to have an abortion. The idea that the government can interfere in that relationship by compelling doctors to perform an abortion makes it no longer private. It stands the reasoning in that case right on its head.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Is that source (ANI) reliable?

I'm not saying it's above the U.S. government to be so bloody stupid, but I'd like more evidence than a news source that I'm not familiar with.

The real source of the story isn't ANI. According to the article, they're just relaying a "report" issued by a different organization -- Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR). And I suppose one could argue that the SVR may not necessarily have the purest of motives when it comes to reporting alleged U.S, transgressions.

[Tempra]

Posted about that yesterday. Makes the tally 3-2 in favor of the law being constitutional. There will be another decision in a few months in Oklahoma. It is interesting that the cases involving states have found the law unconstitutional. I believe I read that more states are challenging this law any other law in history.

From what little I read, it seems like the judge believes not buying insurance is economic activity. Dubious logic for reasons already explained.

[Guest Raids]

Okay, on this lawyer/doctor duty stuff, I have a clarification: no, it is not written down in code somewhere that a Doctor would be forced to perform a life-saving abortion. It is law that a person who has a duty and breaches it is negligent. It could be argued that the Doctor had a duty. Hippocratic Oath, etc. This is in addition to what the licensing Board says. Plus, I also think that the Doctor would be violating the part of COBRA that prevents doctors from hustling off patients who can't pay to other hospitals.

It's not the same as a regular person, who has no duty to help until they undertake it. Whoever said that is just wrong.

Anyway, though, it would be a jury issue. And you'd go to trial. Whether or not you'd be convicted is arguable. There is no cut and dry answer. If I were advising a client - which I am not - I would advise them against it.

Same with legal duties - you might take on a criminal defense case and find out that your client is a loathesome person that you cannot stand to be in a room with. Too bad, you're defending him unless he told you he was guilty when he's pleading innocent or something like that, or you come up with some other reason or he agrees to let you out of your agreement. With the will scenario I drew up, I really don't know. That one is for the ethics committee.

ETA: Tempra - Either the Democrats agree to cuts, or no continuing resolution is getting passed. People in my office are already taking loans against their TSP accounts. For my part, my husband gets his bonus right about then, so I'll be okay. And unlike '93, I doubt they will be paying us back this time, either. You lose the contributions and matching contribitions to your TSP also, which really sucks.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Raidne,

Since you work for the US government do you ever get appointed cases? Laura didn't when she worked for Judges.

[Shryke]

And nobody cares that I may not be getting paid after March 4th.

This doesn't look good for the public outrage at a shut down that I was really hoping for.

At least you'll get the missing pay all back when it's over.

And yeah, don't expect the media to notice the shutdown till it happens and don't expect the rage over the shutdown to start till like SS checks stop getting mailed out or the like.

[Dinsdale!]

A doctor is not obligated to perform an abortion. And a doctor who does not perform abortions would be legally and morally suspect if he performed one out of the blue. No doctor would do that. Because if you don't practice a procedure, you'll screw it up and than the malpractice lawyers will descend like sharks.

He is obligated, if the patient's life is at risk, to provide an abortion referral.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Okay, on this lawyer/doctor duty stuff, I have a clarification: no, it is not written down in code somewhere that a Doctor would be forced to perform a life-saving abortion. It is law that a person who has a duty and breaches it is negligent. It could be argued that the Doctor had a duty. Hippocratic Oath, etc.

The duty must be owed to the person alleging the breach. A generalized moral duty arising out of the Hippocratic Oath wouldn't be enough because it is not owed to specific members of the public, and is not a legal obligation in any event. I'd give citations but I don't want to take the time. But generally, the duty is owed only to patients the doctor has accepted.

It's not the same as a regular person, who has no duty to help until they undertake it. Whoever said that is just wrong.

You're right, but it doesn't go all that far. A doctor still has the legal right to walk right past an accident victim and do nothing. EMTALA might present a different issue if they were husling them off for lack of ability to pay.

Anyway, though, it would be a jury issue. And you'd go to trial.

Now on that particular point, I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Generally, the existence of a duty is a legal issue for the court. It can be a mixed question of law/fact if there is dispute as to whether or not a physician/patient relationship was established with the patient, but that's not the issue here. The issue here is a legal one -- does a duty exist to perform an abortion? And that's not the type of questions juries decide. That's the type of question decided for them in the jury instructions. The jury then decides if there is a breach of that duty.

Whether or not you'd be convicted is arguable. There is no cut and dry answer. If I were advising a client - which I am not - I would advise them against it.

If we're talking duty and breach, it's a negligence suit so conviction isn't an issue anyway.

Same with legal duties - you might take on a criminal defense case and find out that your client is a loathesome person that you cannot stand to be in a room with. Too bad, you're defending him unless he told you he was guilty when he's pleading innocent or something like that, or you come up with some other reason or he agrees to let you out of your agreement. With the will scenario I drew up, I really don't know. That one is for the ethics committee.

That's true, but the key distinction here is whether you have voluntarily agreed to accept that person as a client in the first place.

[Guest Raids]

Since you work for the US government do you ever get appointed cases? Laura didn't when she worked for Judges.

Scot, I never see the inside of a Courtroom. Ever.

At least you'll get the missing pay all back when it's over.

Not likely. We did before, but that's because they ultimately wrote it into the bill.

Seeing as there is a bill pending to furlough employees for two weeks without pay, I think chances are good they won't give it back to us this time around.

Naturally, they all still get paid. Even worse would be the "essential" personnel - medical, defense, etc. - who have to show up to work still but won't receive their checks on time.

A doctor is not obligated to perform an abortion. And a doctor who does not perform abortions would be legally and morally suspect if he performed one out of the blue. No doctor would do that. Because if you don't practice a procedure, you'll screw it up and than the malpractice lawyers will descend like sharks.

He is obligated, if the patient's life is at risk, to provide an abortion referral.

Let's make it easier on you. Let's swap out "hospital" for "doctor."

ETA: FLOW, whether a duty exists is a matter of law. However, I'll just quote the Restatement:

Whether or not a particular relationship supports a duty of care is a question of law for the court. If disputed historical facts bear on whether the relationship exists, as with a dispute over whether a plaintiff was a paying guest in a hotel or was a trespasser, the factfinder should resolve the factual dispute with appropriate alternative instructions.

Whether doctors have special relationships with members of the public who are in peril but are not their patients varies from state to state. However, even if there is no duty, there is always a duty of reasonable care, taking into account the specific circumstances. Seeing as that will go to a jury, it's going to a jury.

[Shryke]

Not likely. We did before, but that's because they ultimately wrote it into the bill.

Seeing as there is a bill pending to furlough employees for two weeks without pay, I think chances are good they won't give it back to us this time around.

Naturally, they all still get paid. Even worse would be the "essential" personnel - medical, defense, etc. - who have to show up to work still but won't receive their checks on time.

Pending where though?

There's tons of insane shit pending in the House because the GOP is going mad with power down there. That's why there's this stalemate in the first place.

As for your back pay, I'm rooting for ya. I think it's not as bad as you may think, as fucking over that many workers that badly and that obviously will, hopefully, force the democrats to demand it be included.

Of course, given American's mind-bogglingly stupid disdain for public employees, maybe you are right....

[awesome possum]

This whole "can a doctor refuse to perform an abortion" debate is sort of stupid. Sorry everyone. Why would a doctor know how to perform an abortion unless they specifically received that training? I wouldn't go to my wife's OB-GYN for a prostate exam or for a bad case of athlete's foot, and I wouldn't go to my general practitioner for a tummy-tuck. If you're going to get an abortion, you'll probably want to go to a doctor who specializes in that.

A doctor refusing to give a referral is a whole other barrel of fish.