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

farglebargle -> RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" (7/9/2007 1:19:06 AM)
Oh, and one more thing. The Constitution LIMITS what the Government may do. The Government MAY NOT DEPRIVE ANYONE OF DUE PROCESS. That means that as long as you don't AMEND THE CONSTITUTION, then Citizens and Non-Citizens MUST BE TREATED THE SAME. Don't like it? Amend the Constitution.

Lordandmaster -> RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" (7/9/2007 2:11:53 AM)
You know, fargle, basically I agree with you about this stuff, but when you make three consecutive posts in the same thread, and also capitalize damned near half of everything you say, it makes people bleep past you and move on to the next thing.

farglebargle -> RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" (7/9/2007 8:02:58 AM)
I get tired of explaining the very same exact points over and over. Using Comicbook Case is probably the best way to reinforce the basic principles.

philosophy -> RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" (7/9/2007 8:34:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 ....... 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? .......i make no claims regarding my integrity or honour, my deeds do that for me. As for your assertion that any trial of the Gitmo prisoners exposes intelligence agents to potential harm, well history teaches us something different. In Ulster many terrorists were tried and convicted (and occasionally acquitted) without putting the intelligence agents at risk. Now if the UK can do it, why can't the US? What i asked for, btw, was 'due process'....you have introduced the term 'full due process' on your own posts. This is, apparently, so you can draw a parallel between someone robbing a 7/11 store and people at Gitmo. Most here agree that intelligence agents need their operational capability preserved, however that does not preclude a form of trial that also encompasses the possibility of innocence on behalf of the accused.

Nosathro -> RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" (7/9/2007 9:40:08 AM)
In a AP report The Chairman of the Houst Judiciary Committe, John Conyers D-Mich, which is investigating the matter on Libby's commuted sentence has speculated that Bush did it to keep Libby from talking. Conyers counter part in the Senate, Democrate Partick Leaby has stated "Libby's silence has been bought and paid for." The White House still sights "excutive privilege" on the upcoming testiomony of Sara Taylor as well as other former White House before the Senate hearing on the firing of US attorneys. However the White House refuse to explain that one as well.

farglebargle -> RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" (7/9/2007 9:53:53 AM)
Given the history of Congressional Contempt charges, it is a foregone conclusion that the White House will capitulate at some point. Stall and Delay. Tony Sopranos' lawyer would have given the exact same advice.

luckydog1 -> RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" (7/9/2007 9:59:08 AM)
Philosphy you are aware that I was using Fargs line of "honor and integrity" back at him, I am curious why you are pretending otherwise. As I have specifically been talking about Full due process in the civilian court system, if you want a limited/modified form of Due Process, we are in agreement, and none of my arguments was directed against your position. Surley you are aware that in the USA we have a 4th amendment which gives criminal defendants certain rights, which include the right to face thier accusers in open court, and to examine the nature of all evidence against them, publically. Meeting the 4th amendment test would expose agents, witnesses, and methods. The unlawfull combatants are not civilian criminals and the 4th does not apply in any way in my opinion. There does need to be a system that can be secret yet has oversight. We do not have one yet.

farglebargle -> RE: "Bush won't rule out full Libby pardon" (7/9/2007 10:17:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Philosphy you are aware that I was using Fargs line of "honor and integrity" back at him, I am curious why you are pretending otherwise. As I have specifically been talking about Full due process in the civilian court system, if you want a limited/modified form of Due Process, we are in agreement, and none of my arguments was directed against your position. Surley you are aware that in the USA we have a 4th amendment which gives criminal defendants certain rights, which include the right to face thier accusers in open court, and to examine the nature of all evidence against them, publically. Meeting the 4th amendment test would expose agents, witnesses, and methods. The unlawfull combatants are not civilian criminals and the 4th does not apply in any way in my opinion. There does need to be a system that can be secret yet has oversight. We do not have one yet. NOT meeting the 4th Amendment test means the US Government is NOT IN COMPLIANCE with the Declaration of Independence or Constitution. Tough Shit for the Feds. They can BEHAVE, AMEND THE CONSTITUTION THEN BEHAVE, or ABDICATE. Stop letting your Governmental slaves top you from the bottom.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.015625