RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon"

RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Lordandmaster -> RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" (7/6/2007 9:22:44 AM)
Libby obstructed justice no matter what ridiculous logic you wish to apply. If the case were really as simple as you suggest, there wouldn't have been any reason for Libby to lie repeatedly about what he knew, would there? There is a reason why obstruction of justice is against the law. I don't know why Armitage wasn't indicted and neither do you. For that matter, you don't know that Armitage was the only person who revealed Valerie Plame's identity. What we do know is what happened in court--which was that Libby was prosecuted and convicted of obstructing justice. Why you keep trying to pretend that didn't happen is beyond me. quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster No, Libby obstructed justice. Why do you keep defending this guy? It's starting to look really weird. I thought this whole investigation was about trying to find out who outed a CIA agent. Right? Well the guy that admits to doing it is was not even indicted! That has nothing to do with Libby obstructing justice. Armitage ADMITS he was the leak. Why isn't he in jail?

farglebargle -> RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" (7/6/2007 12:38:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle If you get INCORRECTLY pulled over for a traffic offense WHICH YOU DID NOT COMMIT, and during the course of issuing the ticket, you get pissed off at the cop and take a swing at him, are you suggesting the crime of assaulting an officer should not be prosecuted because you DID come to a full stop before proceeding? The only way your analogy works is if during a traffic stop another motorist stops and punches the cop. Are you saying the speeding infraction should then not count? My analogy is fine. SUPPOSING that Libby DID NOT out anyone, he was "Pulled Over" for it, and along the way, committed ANOTHER CRIME. In my analogy it's assaulting an officer. In Libby's instance, it's Obstructing Justice and Making False Statements. Libby didn't have to make false statements and obstruct justice. He CHOSE TO.

philosophy -> RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" (7/6/2007 3:37:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Yet many of you demand the outing of most of the Operatives that focus on the mideast and terrorism, as well as thier assistants on the ground. And exposing our intell gathering methods. This after would be the result of Full Due Process trials for the unlawfull combatants....Hmm ......while right alongside the concept of due process for all, i can't remember calling for the outing of any intelligence agents. Can you give me an example of this from these fora?

cyberdude611 -> RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" (7/6/2007 4:46:48 PM)
What almost hysterical is how the Democrats have suddenly started to defend CIA agents. John Kerry said in 1992 that the CIA should be abandoned and the Democrats wanted to cut funding to our intelligence services. They were trying to cut funding throughout the Clinton years until September 11th. Then all of a sudden they started bashing the GOP about faulty intelligence. But.....that's politics. And you are also making assumptions over what Libby is hiding. We have no idea why he lied. And if he stayed in prison for 2 1/2 years, he'll get out and live happily and still not have to answer. It's a failure of the system, yes. But like OJ Simpson.....there isnt anything we can do about it. It's not an impeachable offense to pardon someone. So it ends here.

Lordandmaster -> RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" (7/6/2007 8:32:15 PM)
A. I'm not convinced that it ends here. B. Even if it ends here, we're still allowed to express our opinions about it. I've never understood why right-wing cynics always seem to think it's pointless to talk about injustices of the past. But I've already said this, and you declined to respond. C. Or do you mean we're not supposed to criticize our President? Let's revisit that thought in 2009. quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 But like OJ Simpson.....there isnt anything we can do about it. It's not an impeachable offense to pardon someone. So it ends here.

luckydog1 -> RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" (7/6/2007 9:01:13 PM)
Philosophy, due proces means you get to face and cross examine your accusers. It means the nature of all evidence against the defendant is subject to examination, in open court. What do you think Due Process means. You can't serioulsy expect me to believe that if bush held a secret trial, and you only got to see a heavily redacted transcript along with a verdict, that you would accept it. think about it, So and so is accused of attending a Jihad class with Zarqawi. How do they know this, sattalites, phone tapping a witness? Who exactly are these witnesses, either its secret or its public. And thier families would be subject to retribution. Did a CIA operative in Pakistan see them. That Operative has to attend court and testify, publically, and is exposed. Ect, ect. Full Due Process is not a feelgood word for fair, it has a specific meaning, which if applied would expose many agents, among other really bad conseqeunces.

farglebargle -> RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" (7/6/2007 9:25:16 PM)
How are the identities of Mafia informants protected?

mnottertail -> RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" (7/6/2007 9:26:46 PM)
well, this is somewhat less than the hundreds bandied about by you chicken little.... But hold it now, dawg--- We are a free and open society, since we are cleaning out the terrorists in full view of the globe, it would be tacky to hold our illuminate adjucation under a basket, why not let the world see that we, among all the stars are blameless, or are we little rodshiners with no portfolio.....

Vendaval -> RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" (7/6/2007 11:36:24 PM)
I do not understand this statement here, please clarify. quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Yet many of you demand the outing of most of the Operatives that focus on the mideast and terrorism, as well as thier assistants on the ground.

luckydog1 -> RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" (7/7/2007 2:36:43 AM)
Farg they go into a witness protection program, we could theoretically put the extended families of anyone who supports us in a place like say afghanistan, leaving no one there who supports us. The undercover agents are compromised and pulled out of the field.

luckydog1 -> RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" (7/7/2007 2:41:00 AM)
Vendeval, full due process for unlawfull combatants (or whatever term we want to use), would require the exposing of any agents used in apprehending or identifying the combatants. Full Due process means something. It means an open trial, the right to confront any accusers, and the right to challenge the nature of any evidence. We as a society have decided that Accused Child Molestors do NOT get Full Due process. They do not have the right to confront the child witness against them, for very common sense reasons. What do you think Full Due Process entails?

farglebargle -> RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" (7/7/2007 3:01:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1We as a society have decided that Accused Child Molestors do NOT get Full Due process. They do not have the right to confront the child witness against them, for very common sense reasons. Actually, since alleged child molesters get treated in accordance with the Law as written by the Legislature, and approved by the Judiciary, by definition the have received "Due Process of the Law". Now, when you give the alleged terrorists an arraignment within 72 hours, and access to counsel, etc, you can begin to draw parallels.

farglebargle -> RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" (7/7/2007 3:03:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Farg they go into a witness protection program, we could theoretically put the extended families of anyone who supports us in a place like say afghanistan, leaving no one there who supports us. The undercover agents are compromised and pulled out of the field. Well, there you go. You have perfectly illustrated why the United States has never been granted the Authority by Amendment to the Constitution to conduct Law Enforcement actions within the borders of a Sovereign Nation.

Lordandmaster -> RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" (7/7/2007 9:30:17 AM)
By the same logic, mobsters and drug dealers shouldn't get a fair trial either, because it would force the government to reveal their undercover agents and their crime-fighting techniques. I believe in a legal system where someone accused of a crime has a right to review and dispute the evidence against him. You evidently believe in some other kind of legal system. quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Yet many of you demand the outing of most of the Operatives that focus on the mideast and terrorism, as well as thier assistants on the ground. And exposing our intell gathering methods. This after would be the result of Full Due Process trials for the unlawfull combatants....Hmm

luckydog1 -> RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" (7/7/2007 12:33:00 PM)
Actually Lam, because of that the Government allows many smaller crimes to occur, because they do not want to compromise the agents, untill the full case is made. They do this knowing full well that people will be raped or murdered. The Governemnt does expose thier undercover agents when they prosecute a case. If that is what we decide as a society to do, lets do it. But You are demanding the outing of CIA covert operatives, while at the same time pretending the People are so upset over the outing of Plame. I think people will see through that hypocrasy. This really does go back to the elections. Bush made it clear that he woud be treating these people as a military threat, not as a civilian criminal issue as Kerry wanted to. Farg we are conducting Millitary operations (not civilian criminal operations) in other countries, and that is totally allowed by the constitution. farg read amendmant IV to the constitution...."In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy(this is where you get your 72 hours from) and public(this is where I get the Public and open stuff from) trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause(this is where the Intell gathering method gets exposed) of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses (this is where the covert agents get exposed) against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor(which would indicate we have to take over most of the Mideast to be able to compell witnesses to testify) , and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense." farg what happened to all you Constitional primacy blather. Due process requires a Public trial with all accusers and witnesses being identified. Any thing less is less than full due process. Now farg for me I do not think they belong in the Civilian Criminal system at all. They did not commit a crime under our laws, they are making war on our system of laws If you demand Full Due Process for the illegal combatants you are demanding the outing of hundreds (if not more) covert agents. If you want secret trials with limited due process, you are on the same page as Bush.

farglebargle -> RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" (7/7/2007 4:57:49 PM)
Well, I did point out that the reason the US Government's actions here cannot survive the "Due Process" test, is that the actions themselves in Unconstitutionally assuming World Police powers is fundamentally incompatible with our essential beliefs regarding Freedom and Liberty. The reason that it appears that compliance with the Constitution is incompatible with the actions of the US, here is because THEY ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE CONSTITUTION. You want the US to be Team America, World Police? Amend the Constitution to permit it, and then these fundamental conflicts wouldn't exist. But that's too difficult, isn't it?

mnottertail -> RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" (7/7/2007 5:35:59 PM)
well, the answer is simple, open the doors to these prisons and let me have an american dollars worth of raping them, while the shitheads sort it out. I am sure a quasi-intelligent thought could be thunk by the entire legal system inside 8 or nine years, kinda like Saddam on the cellphone or any number of advanced concepts you can think of. It would seem to me that a 100 mile an hour Prius, and an 85% kerry vote among Political Science professors couln't be any farther out of whack than lettin me cop some jail ass off the towelheads, but do keep us informed, via double secret probation email about the eventual right of the guilty finding by these professional and obviously unquestionably right and infallable intelligence minds that can't quite muster up to whether a crop dusting plane is a WMD or sarin attack.

luckydog1 -> RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" (7/7/2007 7:12:22 PM)
But I do not want to be "team America world police". I do want the Gov to do its mandated duties of protecting us. We are not attempting to issue Jay walking tickets in Afghanistan and elsewhere, we are dealing with groups that want to attack us. So I take it that you are concededing you are demanding the exposure of Covert Agents, while throwing a fit over the outing of an agent that drove to work openly at the CIA everyday.

farglebargle -> RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" (7/7/2007 7:19:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 But I do not want to be "team America world police". I do want the Gov to do its mandated duties of protecting us. We are not attempting to issue Jay walking tickets in Afghanistan and elsewhere, we are dealing with groups that want to attack us. So I take it that you are concededing you are demanding the exposure of Covert Agents, while throwing a fit over the outing of an agent that drove to work openly at the CIA everyday. Well, no. What I am demanding is that the US Government obey the Constitutional limits on its' actions, limited to only those delegated by The People. We are NOT AT WAR, and until we are, the idea of expending money from the Nation's Treasury to equip and maintain an Army seems directly incompatible with the limits on Standing armies, among other issues. The idea of continuing in Iraq, after the clear FELONY of fraud has been proven, to me, beyond a reasonable doubt, seems treasonous. The idea of not holding the perps accountable in a Court of Law seems treasonous. IF the US actually obeyed these limits, discussions such as this would be unnecessary. But that would mean that Bush would need to have Honor and Integrity. And we all know how little of those traits that family has in it's blood.

luckydog1 -> RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" (7/7/2007 7:26:58 PM)
Well, no. What I am demanding is that the US Government obey the Constitutional limits on its' actions, limited to only those delegated by The People. I have asked you before, where are they mandated to set up a fairness board that judges the ideoligcal content of political speech? We both know the answer is nowhere. So you certainly do not demand that they obey thier limits. We are NOT AT WAR, and until we are, the idea of expending money from the Nation's Treasury to equip and maintain an Army seems directly incompatible with the limits on Standing armies, among other issues. Except for the fact that the Gov is constitutionally allowed to maintain an army The idea of continuing in Iraq, after the clear FELONY of fraud has been proven, to me, beyond a reasonable doubt, seems treasonous.Then get yourself appointed a judge and your opinion will matter. the constitution states how judical decisions are made. Yet for some reason you do not want to obey it. The idea of not holding the perps accountable in a Court of Law seems treasonous. IF the US actually obeyed these limits, discussions such as this would be unnecessary. Again you don't get to decide the courts do, at least according to the ocnstitution which you pretend to support. But that would mean that Bush would need to have Honor and Integrity. And we all know how little of those traits that family has in it's blood. Psychologists often say that we hate traits in others that we dislike in ourselves. With the way you pretend to support the constitution (among other things), it is clear you have no honor or integrity either

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875