Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - search engine

Pages: [1]
Current Law Students / Re: Living Life From A Third Person Perspective
« on: October 17, 2008, 03:33:54 PM »
Definitely the sort of thing that happens to people from time to time. I found out, however, that oftentimes, you switch between the first and third person perspective in how you experience the world.

Current Law Students / Re: poor lawyers
« on: October 17, 2008, 03:28:36 PM »

A common saying is that "money is the root of evil." My people-experience has proven otherwise. Money can't cripple confidence, can't snuff creativity, and can't kill love near as efficiently or quickly as reticence can. If such a money v. reticence race were run, I would place every spare nickel on that "dark horse" and be confident of winning. What's not said destroys more people than money does, I've found.

Hahaha - you're so funny, Savvy! I know what ya mean ;)

many, I guess the question appears to be: what do you do when what's "not said" when being said turns out to destroy way, way more people than money does? ;)

Would would you get if you combined an emotional vagabond, a dyed-in-the-wool non-conformist and a genius? An outspoken employee garbed in the latest fringe fashion... hoot couture they'd call it, who insults the company president on principle and cares not one whit; who keeps the office in stitches with his barbed wit and comedic brilliance; and who could, given the right inspiration and the VP's corner office (and a midi studio), come up with an idea that could place your company on the stock exchange by noon tomorrow. That's the kind of person they're talking about, I guess. He will do things, say things, and wear things others wouldn't, for fear of ridicule or reprisal. His outrageous actions and sensuous being affords others an opportunity to experience uninhibited and unabashed freedom, vicariously.


[...] On occasion, a foreigner is targeted for recruitment; however, it is obvious that this potential agent would never knowingly work for the CIA or cooperate willingly with the US government. This individual, for example, might be vehemently anti-American. For that reason, the CIA might decide on a "false flag" recruitment approach, whereby the agent never knows that he or she is actually being recruited by the United States and the CIA. The CIA officer making the recruitment pitch poses as a representative of the false flag country or organization. It might be the case, for example, that an African official would never work for the Americans but might work for the French. An CIA officer uses a variation on false flag operations when he or she poses as a representative of an international organization, a think-tank, or a commercial firm. The agent might be induced to provide information on that basis, but would never knowingly provide information to the CIA.

I am sure there's an ethical issue here. I don't doubt that there are many of you out there who might think there's not; I was discussing the other day this other scenario with a few people and, to my astonishment, most of them thought there's nothing wrong with it: Here it is:

X serves as a diplomatic officer of the Dominican Republic in Spain. He's being transfered to the US, in New York City to serve as an officer for his country. The CIA and FBI conduct surveillance of his activities while he's in NYC and find out he frequents gay bars and has promiscuous homosexual sex with many men. They take pictures of him to serve as evidence of his homosexuality. He is approached to become an agent for the CIA, otherwise his country authorities would be provided with the above-mentioned proof of his homosexuality. In his country being overtly homosexual is a bar to employment in the diplomatic service. Is it ethical for the CIA to do such a thing? Well, all of the people I was having the discussion said "yes," except for two of us. 

Pages: [1]