Originally Posted By Mr X ***Oh... silly me. I forgot. FDR was a democrat. OF COURSE you wouldn't support impeaching him!*** No, silly you for making a silly argument. That was then. What kind of anti-discrimination laws were in effect during the first half of the last century? Is this the only instance of a minority citizen back then being discriminated against, treated unfairly, or locked up without cause? Hardly. This is akin to calling for posthumous impeachments of Washington and Jefferson for owning slaves. Of course we know know that they (and FDR) were dead wrong, you have to consider the times they lived in as well. As EC said, Dem or Repub has nothing to do with it, and if FDR did such a thing today of course it should be looked at.
Originally Posted By Mr X Edit;Of course we now know that they (and FDR) were dead wrong, but you also have to consider the times they lived in as well. Reason for Edit;typo and cleanup.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Please sir, give me a break. We all know that interring American citizens without due process was EVERY BIT AS ILLEGAL then as it is now. Civil Rights laws have nothing to do with it. Oh... that's right. FDR set aside the constitution because we were at war. The same reason Bush did it. I'm not saying either man was right to do it. But don't try to explain away FDR by "the times". It was absolutely unconstitutional then too.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***We all know that interring American citizens without due process was EVERY BIT AS ILLEGAL then as it is now. Civil Rights laws have nothing to do with it.*** I disagree. It may well have been illegal "on the books", but again how were other minorities treated in America at that time. As 100% full fledged citizens? Nope. And civil rights most certainly had a LOT to do with it, RoadTrip. How many German and Italian Americans were imprisoned?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<How many German and Italian Americans were imprisoned?>> 1) Japan attacked the U.S. homeland. Italy and Germany did not. 2) There were few enough Japanese that it was logistically feasible to inter them. Not so with Germans or Italians. Are you saying that FDR's interment did NOT violate due process as guaranteed by the Constitution?
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Are you saying that FDR's interment did NOT violate due process as guaranteed by the Constitution?<< Of course it did. But this is a red herring. FDR is dead. The situation was different and the world was different. If we want to look at a history of Presidential powers and *why* they were used or abused, there's a far cry from Lincoln and FDR to George W. Bush. One of these things is not like the others. We do have precedent, again in Watergate and Teapot Dome for example, for prosecuting members of administrations who break the law. While 2oony's point is well taken that Nixon's men were prosecuted while he was in office, the Democrats this time around didn't have that luxury. Anything they tried to do was blocked or simply ignored. They issued subpoenas and were ignored in the name of national security. The cowards in this administration have hid their crimes in the name of protecting Americans and labeled those who would question that as "not real Americans" and unpatriotic. That alone is terribly disturbing. And to return to Teapot Dome, Warren G. Harding died of a heart attack in 1923; Albert Fall, his Secretary of the Interior, was convicted of bribery in 1929, six years later. Don't get me wrong. I think it's a legitimate conversation to weigh the pros and cons of pursuing this. Not every Presidential infraction may be worth investigating. Perhaps Roosevelt falls in that category. But I think the Bush administration is so blatant, and so damaging to the country, that it's worth looking into.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip What would be gained? Any Congressional investigation would be grandstanding and nothing else. Some of Bush's actions HAVE been challenged in court and found to be legal. Much of what he did involved situations not seen before and for which there was no precedent... being at war with a group not representing a sovereign nation. Many of their actions were right at the edge, but the SOB Cheney was experienced, knowledgeable and crafty enough to make sure they did nothing that was clearly illegal. Besides. It needs to stop somewhere. It is well known that many Republicans considered the impeachment of Clinton "payback" for what was done to Nixon. Do we want to keep this thing going? You have to know that there would be at least as much enthusiasm for going after Obama as there was for going after Clinton. Do we really want to have Obama looking over his shoulder at every turn, worrying that anything the least bit controversial will result it a politically motivated impeachment? Haven't we been through ENOUGH the past eight years? This country needs HEALING more than it needs anything else. Obama is a man that I am convinced could provide that if we let him. Why would you take that opportunity away from him?
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Haven't we been through ENOUGH the past eight years? This country needs HEALING more than it needs anything else. Obama is a man that I am convinced could provide that if we let him. Why would you take that opportunity away from him?<< Sometimes healing is accomplished through moving on, absolutely. Sometimes it's accomplished by bringing those who caused the wound to justice. Would we tell someone who was the victim of a crime, "let it go, don't think twice about the fact that the perpetrator went free?"
Originally Posted By Mr X Speaking of perpetrators going free, did you hear today that the suspected 20th hijacker of 9/11 can't be prosecuted and will probably walk away scot free because we tortured him. Guess we should just move on. Bringing him to justice was never important, I suppose.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> What would be gained? << Accountability. Justice. The integrity of our government. >> Any Congressional investigation would be grandstanding and nothing else. << Not necessarily. The initial investigations could be performed by a special prosecutor - out of the limelight. If and when these investigations produce evidence of illegal actions, hearings would be held. You see it as grandstanding, I see it as accountability. >> Some of Bush's actions HAVE been challenged in court and found to be legal. << That doesn't absolve him and members of the administration from other charges. >> Besides. It needs to stop somewhere. << "It"? Again - you're seeing this as a blatantly partisan attack, perhaps because we've seen that so often from the republicans. Clinton is a perfect example, and not at all comparable with nixon. One was an abuse of presidential power and a corruption of our government, the other was inappropriate private behavior with a consenting adult. How could anyone conflate the two? We were right to investigate nixon - he was involved in the commission of actual crimes, and then involved in the cover-up. What ken starr and the GOP did to clinton was wrong. They were looking under every rock for anything to smear him with, even his personal indiscretions if need be. The investigations into iran contra were the right thing to do. Once again, the white house was abusing the office in pursuit of unconstitional activities. And then they lied to congress about it. Do you see the difference here? Just because the GOP so easily engages in character assassination against their opponents is no reason to not hold them accountable for their actions while in office. >> You have to know that there would be at least as much enthusiasm for going after Obama as there was for going after Clinton. << And you're disappointed with me and my comments! By your reasoning, we're supposed to be intimidated by the GOPs well deserved reputation for gutter politics and vengeful retribution and NOT investigate their actions in office. That's exactly the wrong answer - at least for me. I'm not afraid of bullies.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Sometimes healing is accomplished through moving on, absolutely. Sometimes it's accomplished by bringing those who caused the wound to justice. Would we tell someone who was the victim of a crime, "let it go, don't think twice about the fact that the perpetrator went free?">> You tell me. Was the country healed by Nixon's resignation? I certainly don't think so. The country was in disastrous shape until an optimistic president (Reagan) made us feel good about ourselves again. I think Obama is another one of those rare men who can really change the outlook of this country. I would hate to see his efforts sabotaged. But I know where you are coming from. When I was your age I knew it all too. I also thought that a public hanging would have been too good for Nixon. By the time you are my age you will have discovered that vengeance doesn't accomplish much.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***You tell me. Was the country healed by Nixon's resignation? I certainly don't think so.*** So you think it would've been better if he'd served out his term?
Originally Posted By ecdc >>But I know where you are coming from. When I was your age I knew it all too. I also thought that a public hanging would have been too good for Nixon. By the time you are my age you will have discovered that vengeance doesn't accomplish much.<< For someone touting his age and supposed wisdom, this is a terribly childish response. Of course, it can't just be that we disagree and both have a point. Nope, you're right and others are wrong. Good to know that's what years of wisdom gains you.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Of course, it can't just be that we disagree and both have a point. Nope, you're right and others are wrong.>> Isn't that pretty much the way you have always approached these discussions? I could provide a hundred links showing that is the case, but why should I bother? We both know that is par for the course when it comes to WE discussions.
Originally Posted By Mr X You could attack me and plenty of others with that argument, but definitely not ecdc. His arguments have always been well reasoned and mature, and his point about your comments is completely valid.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<You could attack me and plenty of others with that argument, but definitely not ecdc. His arguments have always been well reasoned and mature>> Come on X... whether his arguments are well reasoned and mature or not is irrelevant to this point. Everyone here argues, no matter how well reasoned, from the point of view that they are right and others are wrong. Nature of the beast.
Originally Posted By gadzuux The difference is that some are arguing for justice and accountability, and you're arguing for allowing criminal acts to slide in the interests of "healing" and "getting along". When it comes to right and wrong, it doesn't get much more clear cut than this one.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<***You tell me. Was the country healed by Nixon's resignation? I certainly don't think so.*** So you think it would've been better if he'd served out his term?>> Nixon resigning was certainly better for the country than if he had put it through the disruption of an impeachment by the House and trial by the Senate like the Republicans did to Clinton. It was probably the most selfless act Nixon ever made. On the other hand, I think it would have been best if legal action had been taken directly against those involved in illegal activities. If that led to Nixon being charged with a crime, I would be OK with that. But to me the whole impeachment process is inherently political and has no reason for being. It seems to assume that the president is above the law and that only the Congress can prosecute him. I disagree with that. The president is subject to the same laws that anyone else is. But it should be up to a Court of LAW, not a kangaroo court of politicians, to make that determination.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<The difference is that some are arguing for justice and accountability, and you're arguing for allowing criminal acts to slide in the interests of "healing" and "getting along".>> If Bush were investigated by a law enforcement agency and criminally charged in a court of law I could live with that. But any investigation undertaken by Congress is inherently politically biased and suspect. A president is certainly not above the law, but at the same time he deserves the full extent of its protection.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***If Bush were investigated by a law enforcement agency and criminally charged in a court of law I could live with that. But any investigation undertaken by Congress is inherently politically biased and suspect.*** I agree with this. It's the function of the Attorney General's office to investigate high crimes, is it not? I never really understood the need for Congressional Investigations, but I'll admit that I know very little about the process. Perhaps there are jurisdiction issues here that I'm not aware of.
