Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

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


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" - 7/7/2007 7:32:16 PM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		But before I let you sidetrack things farg, you are conceding that you(and everyone demanding Full Due Process for the Unlawfull combatants) are demanding the exposure of many covert agents.  You can feel justified in exposing them, and feel free to make the case, but at least admit that is what you are demanding.  Or would that require too much Integrity and Honor?

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" - 7/7/2007 7:39:03 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		He may speak on his behalf, but not mine, I say that due process is possible with out the outing of the idiots (anymore than just by looking to see who is stoooooooopid and looking around.)

Don't shovel shit and call it icecream.  Your argument is poisonous, one clause does not absolutely include the other.

Complex question is out of bounds. No good canoe.


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" - 7/7/2007 7:46:17 PM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline 		 
Due process is also possible without the outing of undercover agents.

But the judge has to make that determination and include it in his jury instructions that he is satisfied that they are actually agents undercover.

The problem the Bush administration has is they do not want to incriminate their staff members who violate the law.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" - 7/7/2007 7:50:50 PM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		MNnot, It only seems poison because you know I am correct and you are unwilling to admit it.  You are the one shovelling shit.   I guess spouting nonsense works for you, and is a good way to avoid actually answering.  Constitutionally in a criminal case the defendant gets certain rights.  Amendmant IV lists some of them and is the basis of Due Process. 

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public (this is where it becomes public) 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 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, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

The accused either gets all of these or gets less than Full Due Process.  There is no grey area.  Accused child molestors do NOT get Full Due Process, as thier Child accusers are not required to face them in open court.  The accused does get to know who is accussing him.  Unlawfull combatants do not belong in the Civilian Criminal justice system.  They are not committing Crimes under our system of law, they are making War on our system of Law.


(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" - 7/7/2007 7:51:32 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

But before I let you sidetrack things farg, you are conceding that you(and everyone demanding Full Due Process for the Unlawfull combatants) are demanding the exposure of many covert agents.


If that is what the LEGISLATURE has decided, and the JUDICIARY has upheld, to be the standard of Due Process Under the Law, than that is, by definition Due Process under the Law.

If you have any issues with the Laws of the Legislature inadequately protecting Confidential Informants ( a.k.a.: RATS ), then I suggest you take it up with your elected representatives.

But to say that someone HERE gets A, B, and C, and that someone THERE doesn't is neither Equal Protection nor Due Process.

quote:


You can feel justified in exposing them, and feel free to make the case, but at least admit that is what you are demanding. Or would that require too much Integrity and Honor?


Personally, I don't think the testimony of RATS is worthy of consideration. BY DEFINITION, they have no credibility. That aside, again, if you have any issues with THE LAW, take it up with THE LEGISLATURE. If you have standing, take it to Court.



_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" - 7/7/2007 7:53:43 PM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		No sinergy, that is nonsense, please provide an example that illustrates that.

Either you get to face your accusers in open court and challenge the nature of All evidence against you, or you are getting less than Full Due Process.  It really is that simple.  If anyone can diprove it, please do so.

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" - 7/7/2007 7:56:56 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

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.



Actually, I called for the abolishment of the Unconstitutional FCC in it's entirety, which by definition would make the Fairness Doctrine a non-issue. But some who call for Free Market don't REALLY want a FREE MARKET.


quote:


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


For how many years without a Declared State of War? ( No appropriations... ) WEASEL WORDS are not HONORABLE, or demonstrate INTEGRITY, do they?

quote:



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.



Actually, the DECISION of Fact and Law rests, that's right, with the JURY, and we all are competent to serve.

The Constitution is not there for ME to support. It is for our ELECTED BITCHES and the BITCHES THEY HIRE to obey.



_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" - 7/7/2007 8:06:03 PM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		So farg you are now doing a 100%  turn around and saying that anything the legislature passes and the courts aprove is legal.  ROTFLMAO  that goes against every Srtict constituionalist argument you have ever made.

Now please show me where the courts have allowed secret anonomous witnesses in a Civillian Criminal Trial.

I agree that a system to have secret trials needs to be set up.  In fact it is being knocked around currently.  Congress has passed 2 (or was it just one?) so far, that have not passed the courts test. 

But demanding full due process means they get treated just like they robbed a 7-11.  And that means the 4th Amendmant applies, which means the agents will be exposed, as well as the methods of intell gathering.

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" - 7/7/2007 8:11:43 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		admit that only the stupidest of worthless faggots quote the constitution, since it is only honorable, right and decent.  That is a complex statement, I could make it even more complex and more true, in your case...but I think you should just agree simply that you are not only pushing a wide swath of spincter spatter and have done with it. But you must agree with the clauses, by your own devices.

Nah, I will pass, this is in the catagory of stooooooooooooooooooooooopid.





_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" - 7/7/2007 8:15:23 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

So farg you are now doing a 100% turn around and saying that anything the legislature passes and the courts aprove is legal. ROTFLMAO that goes against every Srtict constituionalist argument you have ever made.

Now please show me where the courts have allowed secret anonomous witnesses in a Civillian Criminal Trial.

I agree that a system to have secret trials needs to be set up. In fact it is being knocked around currently. Congress has passed 2 (or was it just one?) so far, that have not passed the courts test.

But demanding full due process means they get treated just like they robbed a 7-11. And that means the 4th Amendmant applies, which means the agents will be exposed, as well as the methods of intell gathering.


Too fucking bad. I don't give a shit.

Get back to me when there's a real threat to me, my family, my friends, my neighbors, or my State.

Or get Congress to declare War. Or get Congress to pass laws, which pass muster with the Courts...

Either way, until you CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION OR THE LAWS, the Government has to just fucking stop whining like a little bitch, and obey the fucking rules.

I'm sick and tired of people who let their SLAVES Top them from the Bottom.





_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" - 7/7/2007 8:56:03 PM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

No sinergy, that is nonsense, please provide an example that illustrates that.



First off:  Title 18, Section 798 of the United States Code specifically states that I may not provide to any unauthorized person any classified information entrusted to my care.  I am not going to say anything to anybody that my clearance office has not stated in writing that I have may say.  I will cite this law to the state judge, and use it to defend myself against a contempt of court ruling.  Unless the state judge can prove he is cleared to the classification level of the information he is asking me for, he is not entitled to it. 

If the Federal judge wants to offer me immunity from prosecution in writing, and my clearance office doesnt object, then I will do so.

However, a Federal Judge is not going to allow me to share classified information in OPEN COURT in front of uncleared and unauthorized persons, and based on laws about classified information, anything recorded about a classified subject immediately becomes classified at the level of classification of the classified subject.

I have been briefed on classified information, farglebargle, I know my responsibilities to safeguard such information.

Here is the law that the Bush administration violated outing Plame.

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/laws/iipa.html

Just me, could be wrong, but there ya go!

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" - 7/8/2007 1:16:16 AM   
Lordandmaster


Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline 		That is hardly hypocrisy.  Valerie Plame was outed for partisan reasons--to get back at her HUSBAND, who was criticizing the administration.  Revealing classified information at a criminal trial is in a completely different category.  Are you really incapable of understanding that?  One is called treason, the other is called convicting criminals according to the rule of law.

Besides, there are and always have been clear rules about how to use classified information in court.  The current administration is trampling on the Constitution because they don't want to have to admit that they don't have anything on all these alleged "terrorists."  Do you know how many terrorists have actually been convicted since 9/11?  Go look it up.

The best writer on these subjects is David Cole, a professor of law at Georgetown.  He's written two relevant books: Enemy Aliens: Double Standards and Constitutional Freedoms in the War on Terrorism and Terrorism and the Constitution: Sacrificing Civil Liberties for National Security.  If you'd ever like to read about how legal scholars view what's going on, instead of just calling anyone who disagrees with you a hypocrite, take a look.

Edited to add: You know, I have to say, it's incredible how you right-wing hacks explain away the misdeeds of your government.  Scooter Libby obstructed justice, and cyberdude has been telling us for three pages now that it really wasn't so terrible because he wasn't the person who outed Valerie Plame (as though some guy named cyberdude on Collarme has special information about how Valerie Plame's cover was blown).  And now you're saying that it wasn't so terrible because those of us who want fair trials for terrorism suspects must want to see intelligence agents be outed in those trials (as though there hadn't ever been trials involving classified information before George W. Bush was elected President).  Are you guys for real?  Something wrong is something wrong, and you make yourselves look ridiculous when you try to excuse it with tortured logic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

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.


< Message edited by Lordandmaster -- 7/8/2007 1:42:45 AM >

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" - 7/8/2007 4:33:53 PM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		LAM(and Sinergy), The issue is not classified information, it is secret wtinesses and evidence.  If you are ok with secret trails with only Gov appointed security clearence lawyers, please send a letter to ML Pelosi asking her to do so.  I think the number of prosecutions is zero so far, as the problems I am citing have not been figured out yet.  It is a very vexing issue. 

But insisting on "Full Due Process" means they get the full 4th amendmant rights.  Do you accept my point on  that at least?  And that we need a Modifyied Due Process system to deal with it? 

LAM, I have every time used the specific construct of people wanting "Full Due Process", never once  have I used the term "fair".  To accuse me of otherwise is not fair or accurate.   Because FDP has a specific meaning.  How do you have any special knowledge of who did what in the Plame affair.  Armitage has admitted he did it on accident.  My opinion is that Bush made a poor choice on this.  If he really felt it he should have full pardoned him, or else the sentance should have stood.  But the President makes the decision and deals with the Fallout.  But Libby did not out Plame (unless you have special knowledge otherwise).


I am struck by the depth of responses I got from Mnotertail.  Calling me the stupidest of worthless faggots, nice, can't really argue with that.  Imagine I qoute the Law in a discussion of the Law, what a faggoty thing to do....And farg "Too fucking bad I don't give a shit".  Hard to agrue with such integrity.



< Message edited by luckydog1 -- 7/8/2007 4:40:12 PM >

(in reply to Lordandmaster)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" - 7/8/2007 4:45:59 PM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		Lam I actually do not think you WANT to expose covert agents (there are some on here who probably do).  I do not think you have fully considered that that would be the effect. 

The trails are Secret or Public.  The witnesses are identified or anaomous.  They physically give testimony or they don't.  The defendant gets a council of his own choosing or he doesn't.   The nature of all evidence is able to be challenged or it isn't. ect ect.

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" - 7/8/2007 5:04:20 PM   
Lordandmaster


Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline 		My point was that NO ONE on this board has special knowledge of who did what in the Plame affair.  You don't even know that Armitage has admitted anything.  Do you have a quote from him?  No, you don't, because no one does.  All you know is what other people have said he told them confidentially.  And we've been over this already.  You don't know that Armitage was the only person who leaked information about her.  If the story were really as simple as "Oh, Armitage did it by accident because he was a dumass," Libby wouldn't have had to lie about what he knew and when he knew it.

Simple as that.  As for the rest, we're going around in circles.  Bye bye.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

How do you have any special knowledge of who did what in the Plame affair.  Armitage has admitted he did it on accident.

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" - 7/8/2007 6:26:27 PM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

But insisting on "Full Due Process" means they get the full 4th amendmant rights.  Do you accept my point on  that at least?  And that we need a Modifyied Due Process system to deal with it? 



I am a little puzzled why you think I am "for" secret trials.

There are a couple of issues here. 

Would an intelligence asset be called as a witness in a court of law in the United States?  I am fairly dubious about this, from what I know about classification practices.  I could look around and see what I can find about it in greater detail, but I imagine there is a workaround.  Otherwise anybody could waltz in to a court of law and use the defense that they have classified information and cannot share it, but it proves their innocence.

It does speak to a bigger question, though.  Why is an intelligence asset operating within US jurisdiction?  My understanding of the CIA and NSA mandates is that they are specifically prevented from "spying" on US citizens, which would violate the 4th and 5th Amendment rights of the US citizen.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" - 7/8/2007 8:47:50 PM   
Lordandmaster


Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline 		Not necessarily, Sinergy.  You can certainly be tried for a terrorist act in the United States even if you plotted it somewhere else.  Many of the prisoners in Guantanamo waiting for a trial were apprehended abroad, after all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

It does speak to a bigger question, though.  Why is an intelligence asset operating within US jurisdiction?  My understanding of the CIA and NSA mandates is that they are specifically prevented from "spying" on US citizens, which would violate the 4th and 5th Amendment rights of the US citizen.

(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" - 7/8/2007 8:54:06 PM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		Nope that is not a valid defense at all, the Government would have to agree that it is classified (so anyone could not just claim it), and as you have pointed out there are workarounds for it when there is legitimate classification issues.  I have yet to see a workaround for All defense Lawyers having High Level security clearance, or anonmous testimony.  If you can show me one, please do and I will eat the crow

It does not speak to a bigger question.  Why do you assume that people picked up in Pakistan, Yemen, or Iraq are US citizen, and that those places are part of US jurisdiction?  The CIA has no mandate to monitor terrorist groups in Pakistan?  Yemen is US jurisdiction?  Which directive covers that?  And since when?  That seems to make no sense to me at all.  I agree that in the Padilla case it does matter, and corespondingly the gov only charged him with the stuff that could be proven without revealing intell assets, so he got off light due to the rules.

What proof except that which comes from intell gathering could be used to show someone was involved with al queda?

(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" - 7/9/2007 1:15:30 AM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
quote:

Not necessarily, Sinergy. You can certainly be tried for a terrorist act in the United States even if you plotted it somewhere else. Many of the prisoners in Guantanamo waiting for a trial were apprehended abroad, after all.


No one in Guantanamo is getting any trials. That's the problem.

If you have to toss out the 4th Amendment to accomplish a task, THE TASK IS WRONG AND SHOULD NOT BE DONE.



_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to Lordandmaster)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" - 7/9/2007 1:17:34 AM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
quote:

I agree that in the Padilla case it does matter, and corespondingly the gov only charged him with the stuff that could be proven without revealing intell assets, so he got off light due to the rules.


If you consider being tortured until your incompetent to participate in your own defense "getting off light", I expect that could be some people's opinion.



_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.125