RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo

RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Politesub53 -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/26/2009 4:45:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 I have no problem with governments discussing breaking the law in the interests of protecting the citizenry they are responsible for provided there is a mechanism in place for their removal if the public disagrees with the logic for their actions. If they break the law and you end up dead, how do you remove them ? How do you repair the damage done to individuals. They all swear to uphold the law/constitution and are duty bound to do so, otherwise why not just do away with the oath ?

Starbuck09 -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/26/2009 4:49:09 PM)
Well if I ended up dead I would hope that the public would listen to the governments justification for their action and if they disagreed vote them out. If they felt the governments reasoning was sound then they would'nt.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/26/2009 4:51:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 I have no problem with governments discussing breaking the law in the interests of protecting the citizenry they are responsible for provided there is a mechanism in place for their removal if the public disagrees with the logic for their actions. You seem to have an extremely strange concept of the role law is supposed to play in a civilized society. According to this logic, a government can do anything they like as long as they don't get caught; or if they do get caught, as long as they have a good explanation for it. The point of a law is, the people who we elect to uphold the law are supposed to follow it, regardless of whether they they think they have a good reason for breaking it. That's kind of the whole point of having laws - to prevent people from doing harm to other people. Not to get them in trouble for it after they've already done the harm.

Politesub53 -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/26/2009 4:56:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 Well if I ended up dead I would hope that the public would listen to the governments justification for their action and if they disagreed vote them out. If they felt the governments reasoning was sound then they would'nt. Thats nonsense and you know it, most labour voters would never vote conservative and vice versa. An election is fought on several issues and allegiences dont usually change. Like i said, why have an oath if they are going to break it ?

Arpig -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/26/2009 4:59:13 PM)
quote: But to call it the "nature of the beast" and to willingly accept it is asking for more of the same and worse in the future. Surely you don't think the US military should not have plans ready made to occupy Canada shgould the need arise....and isn't planning offensive war against an ally somewhat illegal? Governments at the highest level will look at many options (You can be damned sure there are papers being prepared or presented to Obama calling for nuclear strikes in Pakistan should a radical islamist government take power there). And as I pointed out, it would not necessarily be illegal to use federal troops to round up terror suspects. Bush could have declared martial law, he could have arranged for the Governor of NY to request the aid, and I am sure there are other ways he could have done this legally.We don't know exactly what scenario was discussed, so we don't really know that anything illegal was proposed. The fact that the possibility was discussed is not really that important, what is important is 1) What exactly was proposed....as I pointed out there are at least two perfectly legal ways to use federal troops in a law enforcement capacity. 2) How seriously the idea was discussed. If the proposal was in fact to use federal troops without resorting to one of the aforementioned legal methods, then hopefully it was discarded quickly, but if the proposal was to use a legal method, then to have the idea considered would simply be wise policy making. As I, and Starbuck, have pointed out, such discussions are commonplace at the highest levels of government. In 1940 Britain invaded and occupied neutral Iceland, an act of agression which was backed by the US, to the extenrt that in 1941, while still a neutral herself, the US took over the occupation of Iceland in order to release the British troops for duty on other fronts. Roosevelt and Hopkins conspired to find a way to avoid the restrictions of the Neutrality Act in order to aid the UK, Lend Lease was the result. In 1983 reagan carried out the invasion of Garanada, an act of undisguised agression, and a violation of international law. During WW2 both the UK and the US (seperately and together) contemplated invading the Azores (a possesion of Portugal, a friendly neutral). Bay of Pigs, Cambodia, internment of Japanese citizens (in Canda and the US). The list goes on and on, and if these illegal actions were agreed upon, then just imagine what illegal actions were rejected. Now don't get me wrong, I am not condoning these actions, but I am pointing out that at the highest levels lots of dubious shady ideas are tossed around, and especially in the case of an administration like Bush jr's one really needn't focus on a dubious idea that was rejected, there are plenty of dubious ideas that were acted on to bitch about. quote: Presumably the new administration could repeal all these acts that you believe are violations of the constitution and abuses of power could they not? Starbuck raises a very good question here, why has Obama and the Democratic congress not repealed any of these laws? And I reiterate my earlier point, if these actions were so obviously illegal (and I think they were) then why not get some headline hungry local US Attorney to bring charges? If the ACLU believes these actions to be illegal, then surely they would lend some of their formidable legal talent to such an endevour. Why wait for somebody to do it, pick up the phone tomorrow and call your local US Attorney, there is bound to be at least one who will cooperate in exchange for the publicity.

Starbuck09 -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/26/2009 4:59:14 PM)
No not if they don't get caught Panda if they are breaking the law clandestinely then I blieve they should be brought to account at all costs. The point is if the government decides that with all available information the only course of action to protect the citizens it is responsible for is to break the law [for the sake of argument assume that i n this case they chose to use the military] then I believe as long as there is a mechanism to remove that government from power that is fine. Occasionally there will be situations where the law or constitution is not clear or flexible sometimes a government might decide to break the law. I don't have a problem with that provided [and only provided] that we can be rid of them if we believe their logic for doing so was flawed. I also certainly don't have a problem with a government discussing these scenarios that is sadly part and parcel of the job and I think it's health that there is debate rather than simply party line.

Lorr47 -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/26/2009 4:59:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 Presumably the new administration could repeal all these acts that you believe are violations of the constitution and abuses of power could they not? Completed criminal acts are not capable of being undone. Those should be prosecuted. Since you tortured, and in my opinion killed citizens, those are completed acts, and should be charged. The republicans have institutionalized criminal conduct by intertwining it throughout American jurisprudence. People of conscience will be trying to remove the malignancy introduced into the system by the republicans for decades to come. I believe your next question is poised to claim that if anything happens now Obama is to blame. No, men of good conscience can only use their best efforts to remove the malignancy over time. There is no criminal intent; only the desire to remove the malignancies introduced by the republicans. However, as I said it may take a decade to repair the damage the republicans did to the system and a decade to remove the ongoing malignancies from the system. What bothers me are the articles pointing out that Cheney entrenched his boll weevils in the bureaucracy prior to his leaving office. Those insects will continue to be a malignancy for years to come. If the republicans did not want continued liability they should have considered the theory of "foreseeable." Perhaps an argument can be made based on "recklessness and foreseeability" in allowing civil actions against the GOP. I am sure that the present Attorney General will address any concerns you have about the future."We are doing our best trying to fix the system basically destroyed by the republicans. Your best bet in the meantime is to file a civil action against the GOP and its members. But hurry because I hear that Burhnor (sic) and Shelby's mansions go on the block next week trying to satisfy other judgments."

Starbuck09 -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/26/2009 5:03:29 PM)
It's not nonsense polite sub and I think the fact that people won't vote for another party regardless of their owns actions is a damning indictment of our democracy. If for example teh government decided that to protect us from terrorist attack we needed to execute all muslims I would hope that those who usually vote labour would not do so. If they still did then frankly I would see nothing in the country worth protecting or indeed voting for. THe oath is important for a number of reasons largely because it makes goverenment's culpable to the people they rule. however it also doesn't cover every eventuality. Therefore I can understand why it can be occasionally ignored provided that the culpability is still there so we can decide for ourselves the justification for the action.

Starbuck09 -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/26/2009 5:06:45 PM)
No Lorr they cannot be undone but they can be punished. I do not know what the comment about Obama was supposed to mean though? If Obama breaks the law then he should be judged as Bush has been no different.

Lorr47 -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/26/2009 5:14:04 PM)
quote: And I reiterate my earlier point, if these actions were so obviously illegal (and I think they were) then why not get some headline hungry local US Attorney to bring charges? If the ACLU believes these actions to be illegal, then surely they would lend some of their formidable legal talent to such an endevour. Why wait for somebody to do it, pick up the phone tomorrow and call your local US Attorney, there is bound to be at least one who will cooperate in exchange for the publicity. So far Obama has said that no charges will be brought under the mistaken belief that charges against members of the previous administration are a slippery slope.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/26/2009 5:20:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 No not if they don't get caught Panda if they are breaking the law clandestinely then I blieve they should be brought to account at all costs. The point is if the government decides that with all available information the only course of action to protect the citizens it is responsible for is to break the law [for the sake of argument assume that i n this case they chose to use the military] then I believe as long as there is a mechanism to remove that government from power that is fine. Occasionally there will be situations where the law or constitution is not clear or flexible sometimes a government might decide to break the law. I don't have a problem with that provided [and only provided] that we can be rid of them if we believe their logic for doing so was flawed. I also certainly don't have a problem with a government discussing these scenarios that is sadly part and parcel of the job and I think it's health that there is debate rather than simply party line. It sounds like this is where the debate comes down to the balance between personal liberty and personal security. The more security you want, the more liberty you must give up; the more liberty you want, the more security you must be willing to do without. Myself, I'm willing to assume a great deal of risk to my own safety (and that of my loved ones) in order to live in a country in which the laws protecting my liberties are considered supreme and inviolate. Others may prefer to live in a country where the laws that protect their individual liberties are somewhat flexible and conditional, where the government is free to ignore the laws if it feels that this would make people safer. I respect their preference for such a society, but I'm very thankful that the country in which i live was founded on principles more closely aligned with my own. And I continue to be ashamed and appalled that for 8 years, we had a government that believed in the opposite philosophy. And an electorate that was so driven by fear that they supported and enabled that government. My hope for the Obama Administration is that he will have some success in moving the country back toward the principles upon which it was founded; although I'm the first to admit that thus far, I haven't seen much to encourage that hope.

Arpig -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/26/2009 5:23:37 PM)
quote: So far Obama has said that no charges will be brought under the mistaken belief that charges against members of the previous administration are a slippery slope. that smacks of same old, same old to me. You know, as time goes by I am more and more agreeing with those who say Obama's talk of change was just campaign bullshit. besides, isn't the judiciary supposed to be independant of the Executive? Seems to me like we have Obama excercising undue political influence on a supposedly independant judiciary. What say you all?

Lorr47 -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/26/2009 5:27:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 No Lorr they cannot be undone but they can be punished. I do not know what the comment about Obama was supposed to mean though? If Obama breaks the law then he should be judged as Bush has been no different. I feel that there is a big difference. Mens rea is required for most criminal acts. Take Quantico for example. Obama cannot close it down right now. The Bush administration's conduct has him boxed. If he closes it down where will the prisoners go? The only countries saying that they will take the prisoners will execute them on the tarmack. So the prisoners stay at Quantico probably illegally but it is better than sending them to certain death.

Starbuck09 -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/26/2009 5:32:12 PM)
There is a difference between not being able to fully rectify an action you believe to be wrong and simply continuing an action that you feel or perhaps just say is indefensible. Take quantico I don't entirely agree that he si completely hamstrung but I can understand why there hasn't been swiftt change so I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt. What about the patriot act though? I am aware that there are many Americans who thinks this now infringes their liberty to a degree that is unconstitutional. Presumably that could be repealed effective immediately? Has there been any move at all to repeal this?

Lorr47 -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/26/2009 5:33:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig quote: So far Obama has said that no charges will be brought under the mistaken belief that charges against members of the previous administration are a slippery slope. that smacks of same old, same old to me. You know, as time goes by I am more and more agreeing with those who say Obama's talk of change was just campaign bullshit. besides, isn't the judiciary supposed to be independant of the Executive? Seems to me like we have Obama excercising undue political influence on a supposedly independant judiciary. What say you all? Oh, it is a slippery slope. As much as I enjoy antagonizing the right by nagging for trials of the Bush administration, I am not sure of the repercussions. Will they be convicted? Yes. Should they be convicted no matter what it does to the country? I do not remember Obama ever being in favor of trials.

DomKen -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/26/2009 5:35:12 PM)
Quantico is a USMC and federal law enforcement training facility in virginia. Guantanamo is the USN base in Cuba being used as an illegal prison.

Lorr47 -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/26/2009 5:38:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Quantico is a USMC and federal law enforcement training facility in virginia. Guantanamo is the USN base in Cuba being used as an illegal prison. You are right. I have lived in Quantico and felt like it was a prison. My boss' son is a guard in Guantanamo and feels like it is a prison. An old man like me tends to mix things up given the amount of oxycodone and vicodin I am taking for my hand.

DomKen -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/26/2009 5:43:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lorr47 quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig quote: So far Obama has said that no charges will be brought under the mistaken belief that charges against members of the previous administration are a slippery slope. that smacks of same old, same old to me. You know, as time goes by I am more and more agreeing with those who say Obama's talk of change was just campaign bullshit. besides, isn't the judiciary supposed to be independant of the Executive? Seems to me like we have Obama excercising undue political influence on a supposedly independant judiciary. What say you all? Oh, it is a slippery slope. As much as I enjoy antagonizing the right by nagging for trials of the Bush administration, I am not sure of the repercussions. Will they be convicted? Yes. Should they be convicted no matter what it does to the country? I do not remember Obama ever being in favor of trials. Trust me I desperately want to see Bush and Cheney in the dock but if I was President at this time I'm not sure if I would encourage my AG to pursue a criminal investigation. Would the prosecution increase the chances of more far right domestic terrorism? How many innocent lives would it be worth to bring them to justice? Although in the long term maybe the inevitable pain and blood is needed, an argument can be made that Nixon never going to jail underlies a lot of modern day cynicism with US politics.

Lorr47 -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/26/2009 5:54:34 PM)
quote: Trust me I desperately want to see Bush and Cheney in the dock but if I was President at this time I'm not sure if I would encourage my AG to pursue a criminal investigation. Would the prosecution increase the chances of more far right domestic terrorism? How many innocent lives would it be worth to bring them to justice? Although in the long term maybe the inevitable pain and blood is needed, an argument can be made that Nixon never going to jail underlies a lot of modern day cynicism with US politics. It is a slippery slope. I am not certain what is best for the country. Up here Gerald Ford is praised for pardoning Nixon and sparing the country the pain of a trial. Even Kennedy says Ford was right. I met Ford several times because of my father and Ford honestly felt he did the right thing. However, I was not sure then and I am not sure now about members of the Bush administration. I hate to say this but Bush has thus far impressed me since leaving office by steadfastly keeping his mouth shut. Maybe I am becoming jaded but the the Buffalo incident does not ruffle my feathers; no harm no foul.(But do not tell the mule.)

Lorr47 -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/26/2009 6:08:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 There is a difference between not being able to fully rectify an action you believe to be wrong and simply continuing an action that you feel or perhaps just say is indefensible. Take quantico I don't entirely agree that he si completely hamstrung but I can understand why there hasn't been swiftt change so I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt. What about the patriot act though? I am aware that there are many Americans who thinks this now infringes their liberty to a degree that is unconstitutional. Presumably that could be repealed effective immediately? Has there been any move at all to repeal this? I do not know the answer. I guess I have been arguing about health care and feel so strongly about health care that I have ignored the Patriot Act. Implicitly I am assuming that it is just sitting there without the onerous provisions being used which is not a safe assumption given the bureaucracy. I do not think that repealing it will be that easy. I think that the republicans will fight tooth and nail to keep it. As if Obama needs another fight right now.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625