Originally Posted By Dabob2 Just as prosecuting embezzlement, say, doesn't guarantee no one will ever embezzle again. But if we didn't prosecute it ever, how many more people would be tempted to do it?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <And now, many in congress want a do-over, to pretend they weren't in compliance with a lot of this stuff all along.> Well, to be fair, the guy in the OP calling for it, John Conyers, was one of the few in Congress with the cojones to be calling for this for a long time. He was talking about this stuff AS it was happening, unlike many. But I'll say again that I think a non-congressional investigation is the way to go.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <<It infers that if we do prosecute this admin -somehow that will fix the future - of course it would guarantee zero.> Actually, no. You inferred that, he didn't imply it. His argument is not that if we do prosecute, we guarantee it won't happen again, but rather the opposite: that if we don't prosecute, we guarantee it WILL happen again. That's not the same thing.< sorry,the inference is still there
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It really isn't. YOU read it that way, but read his piece again; he talks about how not prosecuting (and Bush I pardoning) Iran-Contra conspirators paved the way for this. That's an example of non-action leading to more of the same, not action leading to the cessation of what is not desired.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Good points, Dabob. I'm still wrestling with this, but you make good points to think about.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan (Besides, I'm intimidated by the image of the Dalmatians of Justice.)
Originally Posted By ecdc I think Congressional hearings would be a fiasco. I will concede I'd rather have no hearings than Congressional hearings. Dabob's thought of having the justice department quietly do it is the way to go.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Good points, Dabob. I'm still wrestling with this, but you make good points to think about.> Thanks. And though I probably sound awfully certain of myself (and ultimately I DO know I think it would be better to investigate), I wrestled with this too. You and vbdad and others make good points here as well.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>And now, many in congress want a do-over, to pretend they weren't in compliance with a lot of this stuff all along.<< Better late than never. And I mean that quite literally.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip My God. Democrats keep trying to make me be a Republican; I really fricking hate that. I hate it worse that some Democrats seem to be so fricking dumb. Give me a choice between Bush Jr and a dozen liberal LP'ers, and I'll take Bush Jr. any day!
Originally Posted By gadzuux Conyers wrote an op-ed piece in today's new york times, which lays out his reasoning perfectly. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/15/AR2009011503152.html?hpid=opinionsbox1" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/...ionsbox1</a>
Originally Posted By mawnck >>My God. Democrats keep trying to make me be a Republican; I really fricking hate that.<< For saying criminals belong in jail? Yeah, I guess that is kind of a Republican concept. Used to be, anyway.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Fine. I'm glad to see Bush go. At the same time, I would like to see a little rational thought. Please tell me what actions Bush took that you think are unconstitutional, and what portion of the constitution you think they violated. Thank you. You guys are a bunch of foamers... just like those who are convinced that the "Obamination" will bring about the end of the United States as we know it.
Originally Posted By dshyates I'm pretty sure that wiretapping domestic phone calls without going to the FISA Court for warrents is illegal.
Originally Posted By dshyates Oh, the wiretapping thing is in direct violation of the IV Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Torture would fall under Amendment VIII's cruel and unusual punishment thingy. Shall I go on.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Please tell me what actions Bush took that you think are unconstitutional*** I don't "think", I'm sure of it. Warrentless wiretapping and torture, for starters. ***and what portion of the constitution you think they violated.*** What portions, you mean? The fourth and the eighth, for starters. ***Thank you.*** You're welcome. ***You guys are a bunch of foamers...*** Disagree. I want the law to be enforced. What does foaming at the mouth have to do with that? ***just like those who are convinced that the "Obamination" will bring about the end of the United States as we know it*** Hardly. The Obama administration hasn't even begun yet, let alone having been faced with any accusations of impropriety. If anyone is a "foamer", it is you.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Warrentless wiretapping and torture, for starters.>> The 6th Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, but the U.S. courts have determined that the Bush wiretaps were not unreasonable. There is absolutely no mention in the Constitution or Amendments about torture. There is International law against torture, but no real indication as to whether or not it applies to freelance terrorists as opposed to combatants of a legitimate government. I do not like that the Bush administration did either of the above. But not liking is a whole different thing than being unconstitutional or illegal. Just as there are many people who hate Bush, there are many people who hate Obama. I hope that decisions to prosecute presidents would not be based on a popularity contest.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <<Good points, Dabob. I'm still wrestling with this, but you make good points to think about.> Thanks. And though I probably sound awfully certain of myself (and ultimately I DO know I think it would be better to investigate), I wrestled with this too. You and vbdad and others make good points here as well.< I still read it the way I do - but concede good points all around and others could read it differently
