RE: Americans favor probe of 'war on terror' excesses

RE: Americans favor probe of 'war on terror' excesses (Full Version)

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

Message

FirmhandKY -> RE: Americans favor probe of 'war on terror' excesses (2/13/2009 12:21:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen What Bush did that was illegal, uncontested only: Ordered torture Ordered warrantless searches and seizures of US citizens on US soil Ordered detention of persons, citizens and legal residents, without trial and without allowing Writs of Habeus Corpus Allowed party employees to involve themselves in government operations Repeatedly declared his administration to not be bound by laws passed by Congress without such provisions. What he did that might be found to be illegal Defrauding the populace over the rationale for going to war Abuse and corruption of federal contracting Ordering the creation of the gitmo prison camp The initial military tribunal order Criminal negligence in the pre Katrina management of FEMA The Cheney energy task force notes issue Various and sundry other occasions where Bush's administration violated open government laws by denying public access to documents Co-conspirator with Paulson on the TARP bailout laws failings Obstruction of justice, and possible official corruption, in the Siegelman case. All together a case could be made that he was head of a corrupt organization and the RICO act. No, those are just some of the things he was accused of, by political and ideologically opposed people and groups, with axes to grind. I ask again ... if he did all of those things, and they were illegal ... why did the Democrats (Reid, Pelosi as the leadership) not impeach him when they had the reigns of the legislative power in the US? Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: Americans favor probe of 'war on terror' excesses (2/13/2009 12:25:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen All together a case could be made that he was head of a corrupt organization and the RICO act. Ahh, I get it, now! Any organized resistance or defiance to the left's ideology, is, by definition, an organization engaged in a criminal conspiracy! Firm

corysub -> RE: Americans favor probe of 'war on terror' excesses (2/13/2009 3:57:12 AM)
This is a crock of BS. There is NO MANDATE from the "American people" for any criminal investigation. Lets cut on the nonsense guys and do some research rather than passionate expressions full of sound and fury but not much else. http://www.gallup.com/poll/114580/No-Mandate-Criminal-Probes-Bush-Administration.aspx

DomKen -> RE: Americans favor probe of 'war on terror' excesses (2/13/2009 7:26:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen What Bush did that was illegal, uncontested only: Ordered torture Ordered warrantless searches and seizures of US citizens on US soil Ordered detention of persons, citizens and legal residents, without trial and without allowing Writs of Habeus Corpus Allowed party employees to involve themselves in government operations Repeatedly declared his administration to not be bound by laws passed by Congress without such provisions. What he did that might be found to be illegal Defrauding the populace over the rationale for going to war Abuse and corruption of federal contracting Ordering the creation of the gitmo prison camp The initial military tribunal order Criminal negligence in the pre Katrina management of FEMA The Cheney energy task force notes issue Various and sundry other occasions where Bush's administration violated open government laws by denying public access to documents Co-conspirator with Paulson on the TARP bailout laws failings Obstruction of justice, and possible official corruption, in the Siegelman case. All together a case could be made that he was head of a corrupt organization and the RICO act. No, those are just some of the things he was accused of, by political and ideologically opposed people and groups, with axes to grind. I ask again ... if he did all of those things, and they were illegal ... why did the Democrats (Reid, Pelosi as the leadership) not impeach him when they had the reigns of the legislative power in the US? Firm Please, impeaching him with the composition of the Senate would have been an exercise in futility. As for your claim that he was only accused of some of these things that is incorrect. The ones I listed as confirmed are ones he has admitted to. The rest are accusations without public confessions.

rulemylife -> RE: Americans favor probe of 'war on terror' excesses (2/13/2009 7:40:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: corysub This is a crock of BS. There is NO MANDATE from the "American people" for any criminal investigation. Lets cut on the nonsense guys and do some research rather than passionate expressions full of sound and fury but not much else. http://www.gallup.com/poll/114580/No-Mandate-Criminal-Probes-Bush-Administration.aspx Research huh? Didn't the original article quote the same figure? Although your author tries to slant it as 41% favoring criminal prosecution as not being a significant number. Criminal prosecution is not necessarily the point though. The vast majority of Americans recognize that the Bush administration abused and exceeded the powers of the Presidency and there is a need for them to be accountable, if for nothing else, to lessen the chances these things will happen again. And as long as we are talking mandates, would you consider the following, from your own link, to be a mandate? "For each of three controversial actions or policies of the Bush administration, survey respondents were asked whether there should be a criminal investigation by the Justice Department or an investigation by an independent panel that would issue a report of findings but not seek any criminal charges, or whether neither should be done. While no more than 41% of Americans favor a criminal investigation into any of the matters, at least 6 in 10 say there should be either a criminal investigation or an independent probe into all three. This includes 62% who favor some type of investigation into the possible use of torture when interrogating terrorism suspects, 63% who do so with respect to the possible use of telephone wiretaps without obtaining a warrant, and 71% who support investigating possible attempts to use the Justice Department for political purposes."

corysub -> RE: Americans favor probe of 'war on terror' excesses (2/13/2009 9:03:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: corysub This is a crock of BS. There is NO MANDATE from the "American people" for any criminal investigation. Lets cut on the nonsense guys and do some research rather than passionate expressions full of sound and fury but not much else. http://www.gallup.com/poll/114580/No-Mandate-Criminal-Probes-Bush-Administration.aspx Research huh? Didn't the original article quote the same figure? Although your author tries to slant it as 41% favoring criminal prosecution as not being a significant number. Criminal prosecution is not necessarily the point though. The vast majority of Americans recognize that the Bush administration abused and exceeded the powers of the Presidency and there is a need for them to be accountable, if for nothing else, to lessen the chances these things will happen again. And as long as we are talking mandates, would you consider the following, from your own link, to be a mandate? "For each of three controversial actions or policies of the Bush administration, survey respondents were asked whether there should be a criminal investigation by the Justice Department or an investigation by an independent panel that would issue a report of findings but not seek any criminal charges, or whether neither should be done. While no more than 41% of Americans favor a criminal investigation into any of the matters, at least 6 in 10 say there should be either a criminal investigation or an independent probe into all three. This includes 62% who favor some type of investigation into the possible use of torture when interrogating terrorism suspects, 63% who do so with respect to the possible use of telephone wiretaps without obtaining a warrant, and 71% who support investigating possible attempts to use the Justice Department for political purposes." I can understand your confusion. I am showing Gallop Poll commentary...the same Gallop Poll people you cited in your original posting. They are not my comments or some neocon blog! Maybe we should not use the more leftist leaning Gallop Poll but something more "neutral" in perspective.

TreasureKY -> RE: Americans favor probe of 'war on terror' excesses (2/13/2009 9:19:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Offensive maybe but not a tort as she ruled. Therefore the case was frivolous. Frivolous litigation refers to lawsuits that are based on a theory that seems absurd, or where the claim results in damages that greatly exceed what one would expect from reading a brief summary of the case. Your conclusion that, because Judge Wright granted summary judgment to dismiss the case, it was deemed frivolous, is incorrect. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen This was all settled back then. No criminal perjury charge was ever sought and the only time he was so charged, in the impeachment proceeding, he was found not guilty. While the Senate did not agree that Clinton's actions rose to the level required to remove him from office, and while no criminal charges were ever sought, Clinton nonetheless still lied under oath. For his actions, he was suspended from the Arkansas Bar for five years and paid a $25,000 fine, and was subsequently suspended from practicing law before the Supreme Court. Contrary to your tone, he was hardly vindicated.

DomKen -> RE: Americans favor probe of 'war on terror' excesses (2/13/2009 9:30:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Offensive maybe but not a tort as she ruled. Therefore the case was frivolous. Frivolous litigation refers to lawsuits that are based on a theory that seems absurd, or where the claim results in damages that greatly exceed what one would expect from reading a brief summary of the case. Your conclusion that, because Judge Wright granted summary judgment to dismiss the case, it was deemed frivolous, is incorrect. You're attempting to apply the narrow legal definition. I never said it was legally frivolous. It was found to not be a tort. Summary judgement for the defence requires that all the claims of the plaintiff be taken as true and interpreted in the most favorable to the plaintiff way and that there still be no damage. Jone's v. Clinton was so ruled and is clearly frivolous since it was a lawsuit with no underlying tort. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen This was all settled back then. No criminal perjury charge was ever sought and the only time he was so charged, in the impeachment proceeding, he was found not guilty. While the Senate did not agree that Clinton's actions rose to the level required to remove him from office, and while no criminal charges were ever sought, Clinton nonetheless still lied under oath. For his actions, he was suspended from the Arkansas Bar for five years and paid a $25,000 fine, and was subsequently suspended from practicing law before the Supreme Court. Contrary to your tone, he was hardly vindicated. What the Bar association chose to do was not a legal punishment but simply the action of a politically influenced group. $25k paid out of his legal defence fund to put an end to their yapping seems reasonable to me.

TreasureKY -> RE: Americans favor probe of 'war on terror' excesses (2/13/2009 9:37:51 AM)
[8\|]

rulemylife -> RE: Americans favor probe of 'war on terror' excesses (2/13/2009 9:55:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: corysub This is a crock of BS. There is NO MANDATE from the "American people" I can understand your confusion. I am showing Gallop Poll commentary...the same Gallop Poll people you cited in your original posting. They are not my comments or some neocon blog! Maybe we should not use the more leftist leaning Gallop Poll but something more "neutral" in perspective. No, I don't think you do understand my confusion. I understand both our links were the same source, mine dealt in a reporting of fact, while yours dealt in commentary. In commentary, it is not only possible, but expected, that the article is based on the writer's bias. That's why they call it "commentary". Even the writer could not ignore the facts of the poll, as you are, by ignoring the question I asked of you. Would you not consider majorities of 62%, 63%, and 71% favoring the investigations to be a mandate?

MrRodgers -> RE: Americans favor probe of 'war on terror' excesses (2/13/2009 10:02:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse In responce to philosophy...It is amazing to me that a sitting president lied under oath to a federal grand jury and you call it a 'fib'. A fib is exagerating to your wife how many beers you had after work..What he did is a crime and he was disbarred for doing so.. Wrong, it was a civil offense in a civil charge ultimately and rarely if ever results in a disbaring and even if so...a temporary one. The rest...obstruction of justice and abuse of power charges were window dressing to try to make it politically acceptable. Not even a nice try in real court. The whole impeachment of Clinton, was political...not criminal. The case was referred to the Ark Sup. Ct where Clinton settled for a 5 year suspension and eventually resigned the federal bar. Let me see if I got this right ... The "political" persecution of Clinton was abominable ... but ... you are all for the political persecution of Bush? Firm No. Suppose a bill is passed and in signing it into law Obama adds a 'signing statement' that the law does *not* apply to him ?' Suppose Obama sets out...not now but after a few months with a feeling his US Attorneys (appt. by Bush) didnt go after repeublican malfeasence...fires them on political terms. Suppose Obama feels it is too much to go to a judge for a warrant to tap your phone, check your emails and otherwise conduct searches of your life...and does it anyway. Those are not civil...they could easily be construed as legal /criminal violations of federal law. Suppose Obama has a friend or family member of yours arrested and taken to Gitmo without charge, can't read or see the charges even if specified somwhow and you get no attorney to conduct discovery. Suppose that friend spends years in detention and was fingered for bounty....wouldn't you feel these impeachable offenses. I would.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Americans favor probe of 'war on terror' excesses (2/13/2009 12:04:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You're attempting to apply the narrow legal definition. I never said it was legally frivolous. This is a classic example of "quibbling" Firm

DomKen -> RE: Americans favor probe of 'war on terror' excesses (2/13/2009 12:18:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You're attempting to apply the narrow legal definition. I never said it was legally frivolous. This is a classic example of "quibbling" Firm So you're ok with always being held to narrow technical definitions of common terms. I will definitely keep that mind.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Americans favor probe of 'war on terror' excesses (2/13/2009 12:22:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Suppose a bill is passed and in signing it into law Obama adds a 'signing statement' that the law does *not* apply to him ?' Suppose Obama sets out...not now but after a few months with a feeling his US Attorneys (appt. by Bush) didnt go after repeublican malfeasence...fires them on political terms. Suppose Obama feels it is too much to go to a judge for a warrant to tap your phone, check your emails and otherwise conduct searches of your life...and does it anyway. Those are not civil...they could easily be construed as legal /criminal violations of federal law. Suppose Obama has a friend or family member of yours arrested and taken to Gitmo without charge, can't read or see the charges even if specified somwhow and you get no attorney to conduct discovery. Suppose that friend spends years in detention and was fingered for bounty....wouldn't you feel these impeachable offenses. I would. These are all arguments over the political parameters of the executive versus the other two branches of government. The proper place to resolve them is in the political arena and through the political mechanisms laid out in the Constitution and the body of tradition and Constitutional law that has governed this Republic for 200 years. Since all of these questions revolve around the rights, powers and privileges of one of the three branches of our government, they are all inherently political in nature and should have been or should be resolved through the political process. Why do you think Obama is not in favor of these "investigations"? Simple. Now HE is the executive, and he's smart enough to wish to maintain the maximum leeway and power to accomplish his Administration's goals. He recognizes the issues as ones of political power of one branch over another, or of the limitations of the executive branch's power. FYI, I don't necessarily disagree that some or all of the situations and issues you mention (and many others) should lead to limitations or even prohibition on certain aspects of executive power. But I simply see the mechanism that Leahy et al are trying to use are inappropriate, and inherently likely to lead to popular alienation and to fracture the basic political consensus of the US. Bad mojo in other words. Firm edited to add: (missed this the first time): quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers ....wouldn't you feel these impeachable offenses. I would. You are supporting my argument. If they were/are impeachable offenses ... why didn't the Congress impeach, while Bush was President? That would have been entirely appropriate. That's not what they are talking about, with the show trials. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: Americans favor probe of 'war on terror' excesses (2/13/2009 12:32:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen So you're ok with always being held to narrow technical definitions of common terms. I will definitely keep that mind. I like to say what I mean, and mean what I say, not try to thread the needle between two different definitions, using the one which benefits me the most at the particular moment and disallowing it in the next moment. You got caught. You're squirming. Take your licks like a man and move on. Firm

rulemylife -> RE: Americans favor probe of 'war on terror' excesses (2/13/2009 12:52:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterShake69 Going after Clinton was simply payback for all the false charges and investigations of Bush Sr. and Reagan. One of the best examples of these liberal attacks was the October surprise conspiracy theory. What exactly were the "false charges" against Bush Sr. and Reagan? If you are referring to Iran-Contra, I think it is pretty well established there was nothing false about it. Considering that, is it really so far-fetched to believe the rest? And considering that, if you had been previously accused of an act of wrongdoing, and you were in fact innocent, would you then go on to do nearly the identical thing you had previously been accused of? Or is it more likely that they decided if it worked once, why not again?

DomKen -> RE: Americans favor probe of 'war on terror' excesses (2/13/2009 2:20:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Take your licks like a man and move on. If I had known licks from Treasure were involved...[:D]

slvemike4u -> RE: Americans favor probe of 'war on terror' excesses (2/13/2009 2:32:36 PM)
This should be interesting.....

FirmhandKY -> RE: Americans favor probe of 'war on terror' excesses (2/13/2009 2:35:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Take your licks like a man and move on. If I had known licks from Treasure were involved...[:D] They ARE extra-ordinary licks, indeed ...! [8D]

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.100586E-02