Abuse of power?

[RangerM9 1]

This editorial ran today in my local paper, and it illustrates why i don't much respect our current elected leadership in the country.....to my thinking this is underhanded and damn near criminal behavior.....this is wrong no matter who is doing it, republican, democrat or independent. I fucking hate when they develop legislation under the guise of one thing ( in this case protecting the nation), then turn around and use it for political gain or moral enforcement. Makes you want to take back your votes at times....or, only worsening your situation, never vote again......

 

 

 

Editorial: Stop the Bush purge

The administration is using its new anti-terrorism power to push out some federal prosecutors. Congress must rein this in and investigate the dismissal of the eight U.S. attorneys.

From the Journal Sentinel

Posted: March 4, 2007

 

The Bush administration slipped a provision into the USA Patriot Act that Congress renewed last year allowing the attorney general to appoint interim U.S. attorneys for indefinite periods without congressional approval. Previously, such appointments could last for only 120 days. Lawmakers may have figured that the extra leeway might help in rare emergencies.

Advertisement

 

 

 

Well, surprise, surprise. The Justice Department has so far used this provision eight times - and not for emergencies. In a move unprecedented for its scope, the agency has fired eight U.S. attorneys. And indications are that the dismissed prosecutors were too independent, even though President Bush had appointed them. The administration appears to be replacing them with those more pliable.

 

Congress must stop the purge and reimpose the time limit. Commendably, a House judiciary subcommittee is issuing subpoenas to four of the dismissed prosecutors to appear before it on Tuesday, and the Senate Judiciary Committee is poised to follow suit. Sworn testimony should shed some light on what may be an administration effort to get prosecutors to toe the party line.

 

Among those called on to testify are prosecutors with stellar records.

 

Carol Lam, dismissed as U.S. attorney in San Diego, nailed Rep. Randy Cunningham, a California Republican, for accepting bribes from defense contractors. H.E. "Bud" Cummins III was removed as U.S. attorney in Little Rock, Ark., only to make room for an aide to presidential adviser Karl Rove, a Justice Department official has admitted. And New Mexico's David Iglesias charged that he was let go because he refused a request from two Republican congressmen to speed up a probe of possible Democratic wrongdoing to improve GOP election chances - an allegation the Justice Department vigorously denies.

 

The dispute is all the more reason to set the record straight in hearings.

 

Also, Congress must retract the permission it gave the Justice Department to appoint interim prosecutors indefinitely - permission the administration has abused.

[loki0629 55]

Sometimes this whole checks and balances thing is too inconvenient. Hell they had Congress and the Executive office. Why not the Judicial branch as well?

 

Well, it seems like at least some Congressmen are doing work.

 

I've been keeping tabs on this myself to see what the fallout is going to be.

[Koliadko 207]

I don't see a problem here. This administration, any administration, deserves to have people working for them, not against them. These people can say anything they want about being let go. I could say I was fired from a job because I'm a woman. Would it matter to you if I were really fired because I wasn't doing my job? Would you stand behind me on that? Of the eight let go, I've only heard of two that are saying there was an ulterior motive. What about the other six?

[RangerM9 1]

I don't see a problem here. This administration, any administration, deserves to have people working for them, not against them. These people can say anything they want about being let go. I could say I was fired from a job because I'm a woman. Would it matter to you if I were really fired because I wasn't doing my job? Would you stand behind me on that? Of the eight let go, I've only heard of two that are saying there was an ulterior motive. What about the other six?

RaceGal,

 

True enough, they could have been let go for other reasons, but to have a justice department official admit that one was replaced in oder to give Karl Rove's buddy a job, and to do it under a provision meant for emergncy situations, bypassing congressional approval seems to me to be an abuse of power. IF they were doing such a bad job in the first place that they needed to be replaced, then going through the traditional methods with congress is the correct process, not sneaking in under this Patriot act linked backdoor provision.

 

We already have laws and methods in place to get the job done, we don't need to create new loop holes for our leaders abuse for their gains or for use in rewarding a good buddy.

 

And i respectfully dissagree that the president has sole discretion to have whomever they want working for them. Governemnt officials are elected or appointed, but they work for US the people, not just for Bush, or Clinton or whomever is in power at the time. Leadership has to be held accountable for their actions. We have an approval process for such appoinments to make sure that those who are offered the postion are qualified and capable. Remember "Brownie" in the aftermath of Katrina....another one of Bush's hand picked buddies rewarded with a sweet job at FEMA, who's actual experience with disaster management was pretty much ZERO - Did a heck of a job!

 

Personally i think we need to be more careful in our approval of appointed positions to avoid shit like that from happening again! That is why i don't like this backdoor abuse of power.

 

Has nothing to do with right/left republican or democrate, has only to do with abusing the intent of the law in order to bypass proper procedures. This particular president likes to take short-cuts and thinks that the rules don't apply to him and what he want to do since he is a "war president".....well....that just aint the case......

[Koliadko 207]

I don't see a problem here. This administration, any administration, deserves to have people working for them, not against them. These people can say anything they want about being let go. I could say I was fired from a job because I'm a woman. Would it matter to you if I were really fired because I wasn't doing my job? Would you stand behind me on that? Of the eight let go, I've only heard of two that are saying there was an ulterior motive. What about the other six?

RaceGal,

 

True enough, they could have been let go for other reasons, but to have a justice department official admit that one was replaced in oder to give Karl Rove's buddy a job, and to do it under a provision meant for emergncy situations, bypassing congressional approval seems to me to be an abuse of power. IF they were doing such a bad job in the first place that they needed to be replaced, then going through the traditional methods with congress is the correct process, not sneaking in under this Patriot act linked backdoor provision.

 

Admitted? Couldn't have possibly been a liberal that did that, right? I ussed to have an electrical contracting company with my ex. We had every right to employ people that were working in our best interest.

 

We already have laws and methods in place to get the job done, we don't need to create new loop holes for our leaders abuse for their gains or for use in rewarding a good buddy.

 

Yes, we had laws in place. Are you saying, even though the Constitution allows us to change laws, we shouldn't? Or do you only think liberals like Clinton can do it?

 

And i respectfully dissagree that the president has sole discretion to have whomever they want working for them. Governemnt officials are elected or appointed, but they work for US the people, not just for Bush, or Clinton or whomever is in power at the time. Leadership has to be held accountable for their actions. We have an approval process for such appoinments to make sure that those who are offered the postion are qualified and capable. Remember "Brownie" in the aftermath of Katrina....another one of Bush's hand picked buddies rewarded with a sweet job at FEMA, who's actual experience with disaster management was pretty much ZERO - Did a heck of a job!

 

Agreed, Brown sucked. But so did all the leadership in NO. The leadership in NO sucks and they get exactly what they deserve.

 

Personally i think we need to be more careful in our approval of appointed positions to avoid shit like that from happening again! That is why i don't like this backdoor abuse of power.

 

 

Has nothing to do with right/left republican or democrate, has only to do with abusing the intent of the law in order to bypass proper procedures. This particular president likes to take short-cuts and thinks that the rules don't apply to him and what he want to do since he is a "war president".....well....that just aint the case......

 

 

Yes, it has everything to do with left or right. I know you don't want to believe it, but Bush is just looking out for the best interest of this country.

[RangerM9 1]

I don't see a problem here. This administration, any administration, deserves to have people working for them, not against them. These people can say anything they want about being let go. I could say I was fired from a job because I'm a woman. Would it matter to you if I were really fired because I wasn't doing my job? Would you stand behind me on that? Of the eight let go, I've only heard of two that are saying there was an ulterior motive. What about the other six?

RaceGal,

 

True enough, they could have been let go for other reasons, but to have a justice department official admit that one was replaced in oder to give Karl Rove's buddy a job, and to do it under a provision meant for emergncy situations, bypassing congressional approval seems to me to be an abuse of power. IF they were doing such a bad job in the first place that they needed to be replaced, then going through the traditional methods with congress is the correct process, not sneaking in under this Patriot act linked backdoor provision.

 

Admitted? Couldn't have possibly been a liberal that did that, right? I ussed to have an electrical contracting company with my ex. We had every right to employ people that were working in our best interest.

 

Perhaps, but you were a privately held business, not a public official who already had a means to get who he wanted in there, but he chose to use a back door and bypass congressional approval......that is the point of this discussion...not that he doesn't deserve to have the people who he wants to work with in there......

 

We already have laws and methods in place to get the job done, we don't need to create new loop holes for our leaders abuse for their gains or for use in rewarding a good buddy.

 

Yes, we had laws in place. Are you saying, even though the Constitution allows us to change laws, we shouldn't? Or do you only think liberals like Clinton can do it?

 

I'm not arguing the fact that we changed or created a new law - the point is that the law was created for purposes of emergencies situations.... to replace judges in emergencies!....i have seen no eveidence of an emergency replacement of a judge - i would think such an event would have made the news!....especially after it happened the 3rd, 4th.....8th time!!!

 

And i respectfully dissagree that the president has sole discretion to have whomever they want working for them. Governemnt officials are elected or appointed, but they work for US the people, not just for Bush, or Clinton or whomever is in power at the time. Leadership has to be held accountable for their actions. We have an approval process for such appoinments to make sure that those who are offered the postion are qualified and capable. Remember "Brownie" in the aftermath of Katrina....another one of Bush's hand picked buddies rewarded with a sweet job at FEMA, who's actual experience with disaster management was pretty much ZERO - Did a heck of a job!

 

Agreed, Brown sucked. But so did all the leadership in NO. The leadership in NO sucks and they get exactly what they deserve.

 

That Leadership in NO was elected - not appointed....different situation - not saying I don't agree with you on the level of ineptitude they displayed

 

Personally i think we need to be more careful in our approval of appointed positions to avoid shit like that from happening again! That is why i don't like this backdoor abuse of power.

 

 

Has nothing to do with right/left republican or democrate, has only to do with abusing the intent of the law in order to bypass proper procedures. This particular president likes to take short-cuts and thinks that the rules don't apply to him and what he want to do since he is a "war president".....well....that just aint the case......

 

 

Yes, it has everything to do with left or right. I know you don't want to believe it, but Bush is just looking out for the best interest of this country.

 

So if Clinton (Bill or Hill) were in power at war time and was stacking the courts with liberal appointee's (ready to seize our guns at any second!) without congressional checks and ballances, and said it was all for the protection of the nation, you wouldn't question it?.......I sure as hell would!....I'd want to know why the hell he thought he could bypass the systems we had in place to prevent such abuses of power....

 

Bush may be doing what HE thinks is best for the country (Just as Hillary will be doing what SHE thinks is best for the country if she is elected....would you not question her if she did this in a few years?), but the majority of the country seems to not agree with him....at least according the polls for the last 2 years, and His "my way or the highway" behavior pretty much cost the republicans control of congress....how much more of a backlash do you want?

 

The point of the congressional approval is so that what happens in not just what the president thinks is the best thing to happen, it is what is best for the nation as a whole......

I like it that way....you can like it Bush's way if you wish.....just remember - Bush has openned the door, there will be plenty more presidents to walk though it after him....some liberal, some conservative.....I'd just prefer to shut the door before it gets abused further.

 

Obviously we are going dissagree on the point, but i'm enjoying the discussion......

 

anyone else want to weigh in here?

Edited March 6, 2007 by RangerM9

[loki0629 55]

Yes, it has everything to do with left or right. I know you don't want to believe it, but Bush is just looking out for the best interest of this country.

 

I believe he is looking out for the best interest of this country. I really do. The problem is the schism between his view of how this country should be and the view of a lot of other Americans (perhaps the majority?) of how this country should be. I believe that the Founding Fathers believed in checks and balances precisely because they foresaw that people in power would have a tendency to abuse that power. There was a delineation between the three parts of government because they knew that dissenting voices and differences in opinion were healthy in a government FOR the people. The document that unifies the three parts of government is the Constitution of the United States. A much forgotten piece of legislative art in my opinion.

 

You know what you get when you surround yourself constantly with people who agree with you, think like you, and have the same values as you?

 

Groupthink.

 

And it is damn bad for America.

 

Racegal I agree that he is looking out for the interest of the country but I would ask you to consider that he is not the only one that is doing so...and I mean that in terms of left and right. I propose that you might think of politicians in terms of a meritocracy as opposed to democrat or republican. The merit is to be found in their actions, regardless of their political leanings.

 

So back to the topic of this thread:

Knowing that the Judicial Branch was never intended to be an extension of the Executive Branch....I have to think that the possibility for an abuse of power exists with the way these prosecutors were replaced. However, that will have to be borne out first through a discovery process and then in a court of law if necessary. Any and all persons charged with a crime will have the opportunity to defend themselves, face their accusers, and are considered innocent until proven otherwise because those are rights granted to every American under the Constitution of the United States.

 

Rights by the way, that you now automatically lose should you ever be declared a terrorist or enemy combatant by this administration.

 

Respectfully,

 

GunnyR

[44rdv4rk 0]

meh, who needs checks and balances? the framers of the constitution just put that part in for shits and grins.

[RangerM9 1]

Yes, it has everything to do with left or right. I know you don't want to believe it, but Bush is just looking out for the best interest of this country.

 

I believe he is looking out for the best interest of this country. I really do. The problem is the schism between his view of how this country should be and the view of a lot of other Americans (perhaps the majority?) of how this country should be. I believe that the Founding Fathers believed in checks and balances precisely because they foresaw that people in power would have a tendency to abuse that power. There was a delineation between the three parts of government because they knew that dissenting voices and differences in opinion were healthy in a government FOR the people. The document that unifies the three parts of government is the Constitution of the United States. A much forgotten piece of legislative art in my opinion.

 

You know what you get when you surround yourself constantly with people who agree with you, think like you, and have the same values as you?

 

Groupthink.

 

And it is damn bad for America.

 

Racegal I agree that he is looking out for the interest of the country but I would ask you to consider that he is not the only one that is doing so...and I mean that in terms of left and right. I propose that you might think of politicians in terms of a meritocracy as opposed to democrat or republican. The merit is to be found in their actions, regardless of their political leanings.

 

So back to the topic of this thread:

Knowing that the Judicial Branch was never intended to be an extension of the Executive Branch....I have to think that the possibility for an abuse of power exists with the way these prosecutors were replaced. However, that will have to be borne out first through a discovery process and then in a court of law if necessary. Any and all persons charged with a crime will have the opportunity to defend themselves, face their accusers, and are considered innocent until proven otherwise because those are rights granted to every American under the Constitution of the United States.

 

Rights by the way, that you now automatically lose should you ever be declared a terrorist or enemy combatant by this administration.

 

Respectfully,

 

GunnyR

 

 

"Rights by the way, that you now automatically lose should you ever be declared a terrorist or enemy combatant by this administration."

 

 

now that is scary as hell!......all they have to do to shut you up now is declare you a terrorist....and there you have it....no rights, not even to a defense to clear your name if wrongly accused....

[Cobra 76 two 2,677]

It's refreshing to see ya'll agreeing to disagree and keeping it nice. Always remember opinions are like assholes...lol

 

EVERYBODY's GOT ONE

[Koliadko 207]

You know what you get when you surround yourself constantly with people who agree with you, think like you, and have the same values as you?

 

Groupthink.

 

 

OK, so since everyone I hang with agrees with me, I'm wrong. I tend to hang with like minded people. Does that make me wrong or bad?

 

 

And it is damn bad for America.

 

Racegal I agree that he is looking out for the interest of the country but I would ask you to consider that he is not the only one that is doing so...and I mean that in terms of left and right. I propose that you might think of politicians in terms of a meritocracy as opposed to democrat or republican. The merit is to be found in their actions, regardless of their political leanings.

 

Hillary is a Socialist. How can that be good for this country, that was built on a Democracy?

 

So back to the topic of this thread:

Knowing that the Judicial Branch was never intended to be an extension of the Executive Branch....I have to think that the possibility for an abuse of power exists with the way these prosecutors were replaced. However, that will have to be borne out first through a discovery process and then in a court of law if necessary. Any and all persons charged with a crime will have the opportunity to defend themselves, face their accusers, and are considered innocent until proven otherwise because those are rights granted to every American under the Constitution of the United States.

 

I'm sorry, but Bush will be gone in a year. We'll see who is elected. Maybe it will be someone who isn't like Bush. Someone who thinks you have no right to own a gun. Better, ya think? I don't.

 

Rights by the way, that you now automatically lose should you ever be declared a terrorist or enemy combatant by this administration.

 

Sorry, but I'll never be declared a terrorist. I love this country too much. That's exactly why I'll be at the Vietnam Veterans Memerial on the 17th. And everything I've written is with the utmost respect. I think this country was founded on differing opinions. God bless us all.

 

Respectfully,

 

GunnyR

[Koliadko 207]

It's refreshing to see ya'll agreeing to disagree and keeping it nice. Always remember opinions are like assholes...lol

 

EVERYBODY's GOT ONE

 

 

And most of the time they stink.

[Koliadko 207]

I don't see a problem here. This administration, any administration, deserves to have people working for them, not against them. These people can say anything they want about being let go. I could say I was fired from a job because I'm a woman. Would it matter to you if I were really fired because I wasn't doing my job? Would you stand behind me on that? Of the eight let go, I've only heard of two that are saying there was an ulterior motive. What about the other six?

RaceGal,

 

True enough, they could have been let go for other reasons, but to have a justice department official admit that one was replaced in oder to give Karl Rove's buddy a job, and to do it under a provision meant for emergncy situations, bypassing congressional approval seems to me to be an abuse of power. IF they were doing such a bad job in the first place that they needed to be replaced, then going through the traditional methods with congress is the correct process, not sneaking in under this Patriot act linked backdoor provision.

 

Admitted? Couldn't have possibly been a liberal that did that, right? I ussed to have an electrical contracting company with my ex. We had every right to employ people that were working in our best interest.

 

Perhaps, but you were a privately held business, not a public official who already had a means to get who he wanted in there, but he chose to use a back door and bypass congressional approval......that is the point of this discussion...not that he doesn't deserve to have the people who he wants to work with in there......

 

We already have laws and methods in place to get the job done, we don't need to create new loop holes for our leaders abuse for their gains or for use in rewarding a good buddy.

 

Yes, we had laws in place. Are you saying, even though the Constitution allows us to change laws, we shouldn't? Or do you only think liberals like Clinton can do it?

 

I'm not arguing the fact that we changed or created a new law - the point is that the law was created for purposes of emergencies situations.... to replace judges in emergencies!....i have seen no eveidence of an emergency replacement of a judge - i would think such an event would have made the news!....especially after it happened the 3rd, 4th.....8th time!!!

 

And i respectfully dissagree that the president has sole discretion to have whomever they want working for them. Governemnt officials are elected or appointed, but they work for US the people, not just for Bush, or Clinton or whomever is in power at the time. Leadership has to be held accountable for their actions. We have an approval process for such appoinments to make sure that those who are offered the postion are qualified and capable. Remember "Brownie" in the aftermath of Katrina....another one of Bush's hand picked buddies rewarded with a sweet job at FEMA, who's actual experience with disaster management was pretty much ZERO - Did a heck of a job!

 

Agreed, Brown sucked. But so did all the leadership in NO. The leadership in NO sucks and they get exactly what they deserve.

 

That Leadership in NO was elected - not appointed....different situation - not saying I don't agree with you on the level of ineptitude they displayed

 

Personally i think we need to be more careful in our approval of appointed positions to avoid shit like that from happening again! That is why i don't like this backdoor abuse of power.

 

 

Has nothing to do with right/left republican or democrate, has only to do with abusing the intent of the law in order to bypass proper procedures. This particular president likes to take short-cuts and thinks that the rules don't apply to him and what he want to do since he is a "war president".....well....that just aint the case......

 

 

Yes, it has everything to do with left or right. I know you don't want to believe it, but Bush is just looking out for the best interest of this country.

 

So if Clinton (Bill or Hill) were in power at war time and was stacking the courts with liberal appointee's (ready to seize our guns at any second!) without congressional checks and ballances, and said it was all for the protection of the nation, you wouldn't question it?.......I sure as hell would!....I'd want to know why the hell he thought he could bypass the systems we had in place to prevent such abuses of power....

 

Bush may be doing what HE thinks is best for the country (Just as Hillary will be doing what SHE thinks is best for the country if she is elected....would you not question her if she did this in a few years?), but the majority of the country seems to not agree with him....at least according the polls for the last 2 years, and His "my way or the highway" behavior pretty much cost the republicans control of congress....how much more of a backlash do you want?

 

The point of the congressional approval is so that what happens in not just what the president thinks is the best thing to happen, it is what is best for the nation as a whole......

I like it that way....you can like it Bush's way if you wish.....just remember - Bush has openned the door, there will be plenty more presidents to walk though it after him....some liberal, some conservative.....I'd just prefer to shut the door before it gets abused further.

 

Obviously we are going dissagree on the point, but i'm enjoying the discussion......

 

anyone else want to weigh in here?

 

How about we agree to disagree and leave it at that? Reason being anyone that's ever disagreed with the Clintons ends up dead. I like living. Like my daddy always told me, any day above ground is a good day.

[loki0629 55]

It's refreshing to see ya'll agreeing to disagree and keeping it nice. Always remember opinions are like assholes...lol

 

EVERYBODY's GOT ONE

 

 

And most of the time they stink.

 

It's nice to be reasonable with people with differing opinions. One thing I've noticed about this forum is the amount of respect most of the members have towards one another.

 

I can drag my knuckles with the best of them though...and I have the battle scars to prove it.

[RangerM9 1]

"Reason being anyone that's ever disagreed with the Clintons ends up dead"

 

 

 

That did happen a lot didn't it!???.....i'm sure it was all just coincidence....

 

In all seriousness Racegal, this is not about Bush or Clinton, it is about what i percieve as an abuse of power and the precedent that it sets, diverting more power to the presidency than was intended....I'm no fan of Bush, but it is because he is playing loose with our rights as citizens (warrentless wire taps when it takes less than an hour to get a warrant), and tries to act above the law (he's been chastised repeatedly for doing this during his presidency, especially on Gitmo....and i do think he is looking our for us by trying to do so, but i don't like the violation of due process that this creates). These are the laws and rights that made our country great, and protect us everyday.... and i want to make these attempts to bypass the law or the constitution stop now, not leave the door open to the next incremental step.....be it Hillery or whomever it is that attempts to take that step.

 

Make no mistake Hillery will not be getting my vote. No objection to a women president nor one of color, but no way in hell would i vote for Hillery.....i like my politicians in the middle, not the extremes trying to take one right away while telling me what to do with the others they are (for the moment) leaving me with.....

 

regards,

Edited March 6, 2007 by RangerM9

[loki0629 55]

1. OK, so since everyone I hang with agrees with me, I'm wrong. I tend to hang with like minded people. Does that make me wrong or bad?

 

2. Hillary is a Socialist. How can that be good for this country, that was built on a Democracy?

 

3. I'm sorry, but Bush will be gone in a year. We'll see who is elected. Maybe it will be someone who isn't like Bush. Someone who thinks you have no right to own a gun. Better, ya think? I don't.

 

4.Sorry, but I'll never be declared a terrorist. I love this country too much.

 

Some points I wanted to respond to:

1. It doesn't make you wrong or bad at all. What makes it wrong or bad is when someone tries to force their beliefs onto others with dissenting views. Either by force of arms or by passing back-door legislation to make it happen.

 

2. Hillary was voted into the office that she now holds in accordance with the rules of our democracy. She has a base of supporters that outnumbered the other candidates in her state. Regardless of what she does now, she was elected to her position and the only way to remove her is to put forward another candidate with a bigger support base. The democratic process is not meant to guarantee our freedom (the Nazi party was voted into power also). The Second Amendment was written explicitly for that purpose....which means our freedom is up to us.

 

3. Yes, Mr. Bush will be gone in a year and we will see who is elected. This year, I threw my lot in with the democrats because I considered them the lesser of two evils. That's right, I helped vote in a democratic senator in one of the most anti-gun states in the union because owning guns was secondary to holding the administration accountable for their actions. Believe me, if the republicans insist on the same path that this administration started it will only be a matter of time before they start being rabid anti-gunners as well in order to ensure their survival. But how much longer do I have to keep voting based on who disgusts me the least? The last person I felt good about voting for was Bob Dole and we all know how that election turned out.

 

4. I've fought for this country, I've bled for this country, and I've buried friends for this country. I really hope I will never be considered a terrorist either. But government entities make mistakes. What happens if they make a mistake? How will we ever know? How will we ever make sure it does not happen again? What happens if the "terrorist" or "enemy combatant" label becomes a convenient tool for some future despot that my children or my grandchildren will now have to fight because I was not vigilant during my watch? I can not sit by and be satisfied that it could never happen to me.

 

It was only about 60 years ago where an entire group of American citizens were removed from their homes and confined in camps for the simple fact that they were Japanese. A lot of them had never set foot inside Japan but they were placed in the camps anyway. It can't happen today? Well, ask Joseph Padilla that. Regardless of what you think of the guy, he was and still is an American citizen. So far he has not gone through any of the normal processes that a citizen would have gone through when charged with a crime. This is unconstitutional. I WILL NOT buy into the argument that the U.S. Constitution is irrelevant when it comes to matters of national security. So we have accepted this happening to one individual. Once we accept 1 where do we draw the line? At 2, at 10, 50, 100? No, we should not accept the first one at all.

 

I am responding to these points not to disagree with you but to point out the validity of looking at things from a different perspective. I'm not looking to change your mind, merely to explain mine.

 

Cheers!

[G O B 3,516]

My take is 2 fired for cause ,6 for political reasons -at least 2 of these are indicitable abuses of power.

If you don't know which is which, quit watching AnnCoulter and get some NEWS.

 

The "patriot" act is the worst assault on the bill of rights in American history.

[Juggernaut 11,054]

GOB I don't think watching Ann Coulter is the problem.

it's listening to her!

[RangerM9 1]

-->

QUOTE(G O B @ Mar 6 2007, 06:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The "patriot" act is the worst assault on the bill of rights in American history.

 

 

And how!

 

Did you know that the wonderful HIPAA regulations meant to protect the privacy of your health information is trumped by the Patriot Act.....the government can now access your medical records any time they want to.....so much for privacy!.....enjoy!

 

I'm sure that is a power that will never get abused......

[Koliadko 207]

1. OK, so since everyone I hang with agrees with me, I'm wrong. I tend to hang with like minded people. Does that make me wrong or bad?

 

2. Hillary is a Socialist. How can that be good for this country, that was built on a Democracy?

 

3. I'm sorry, but Bush will be gone in a year. We'll see who is elected. Maybe it will be someone who isn't like Bush. Someone who thinks you have no right to own a gun. Better, ya think? I don't.

 

4.Sorry, but I'll never be declared a terrorist. I love this country too much.

 

Some points I wanted to respond to:

1. It doesn't make you wrong or bad at all. What makes it wrong or bad is when someone tries to force their beliefs onto others with dissenting views. Either by force of arms or by passing back-door legislation to make it happen.

 

 

I'm not trying to force my beliefs on anyone. And I've never stood behind anyone who has.

 

2. Hillary was voted into the office that she now holds in accordance with the rules of our democracy. She has a base of supporters that outnumbered the other candidates in her state. Regardless of what she does now, she was elected to her position and the only way to remove her is to put forward another candidate with a bigger support base. The democratic process is not meant to guarantee our freedom (the Nazi party was voted into power also). The Second Amendment was written explicitly for that purpose....which means our freedom is up to us.

 

 

 

Yes, she was democratically voted into office. They're stuck with what they voted for. So are the people that keep voting Kennedy into office.

 

 

3. Yes, Mr. Bush will be gone in a year and we will see who is elected. This year, I threw my lot in with the democrats because I considered them the lesser of two evils. That's right, I helped vote in a democratic senator in one of the most anti-gun states in the union because owning guns was secondary to holding the administration accountable for their actions. Believe me, if the republicans insist on the same path that this administration started it will only be a matter of time before they start being rabid anti-gunners as well in order to ensure their survival. But how much longer do I have to keep voting based on who disgusts me the least? The last person I felt good about voting for was Bob Dole and we all know how that election turned out.

 

 

This is a gun forum, right? How many Democrats support your right to own a gun?

 

 

4. I've fought for this country, I've bled for this country, and I've buried friends for this country. I really hope I will never be considered a terrorist either. But government entities make mistakes. What happens if they make a mistake? How will we ever know? How will we ever make sure it does not happen again? What happens if the "terrorist" or "enemy combatant" label becomes a convenient tool for some future despot that my children or my grandchildren will now have to fight because I was not vigilant during my watch? I can not sit by and be satisfied that it could never happen to me.

 

If the day ever comes where they suspect middle aged women with brown hair and blue eyes, I guess I'm just gonna have to suck it up. You fought for this country, and for that, you have my undying respect. Unless you're of Arab decent, I can't see the government coming after you.

 

It was only about 60 years ago where an entire group of American citizens were removed from their homes and confined in camps for the simple fact that they were Japanese. A lot of them had never set foot inside Japan but they were placed in the camps anyway. It can't happen today? Well, ask Joseph Padilla that. Regardless of what you think of the guy, he was and still is an American citizen. So far he has not gone through any of the normal processes that a citizen would have gone through when charged with a crime. This is unconstitutional. I WILL NOT buy into the argument that the U.S. Constitution is irrelevant when it comes to matters of national security. So we have accepted this happening to one individual. Once we accept 1 where do we draw the line? At 2, at 10, 50, 100? No, we should not accept the first one at all.

 

Uh, we screwed up there. But that was many years ago. Not now. We're not locking all all Arabs up.

 

I am responding to these points not to disagree with you but to point out the validity of looking at things from a different perspective. I'm not looking to change your mind, merely to explain mine.

 

Then we can agree to disagree.

 

Cheers!

[747mech 1]

So while Scooter has been convicted for lying about and obstructing the investigation into "a closed investigation",

how can he be sentenced to more than a few years and his own radio show?(see Ollie North)

This was clearly Cheney's gig, and he should be tried for outing a covert CIA agent.

 

Clowns the left of me, Jokers to the right,

747

[Koliadko 207]

So while Scooter has been convicted for lying about and obstructing the investigation into "a closed investigation",

how can he be sentenced to more than a few years and his own radio show?(see Ollie North)

This was clearly Cheney's gig, and he should be tried for outing a covert CIA agent.

 

 

Good thing no one was 'outed'.

[RangerM9 1]

So while Scooter has been convicted for lying about and obstructing the investigation into "a closed investigation",

how can he be sentenced to more than a few years and his own radio show?(see Ollie North)

This was clearly Cheney's gig, and he should be tried for outing a covert CIA agent.

 

 

Good thing no one was 'outed'.

 

 

?????????????

 

did i just enter bizzaro world?.......

 

please Google "Valerie Plame"

[Koliadko 207]

?????????????

 

did i just enter bizzaro world?.......

 

please Google "Valerie Plame"

 

 

 

No need to. She drives to Langley every day. If I were a covert agent, I certainly wouldn't drive to CIA headquarters every day. And no one will ever be charged with 'outing' her either. Fitzgerald will never charge Armitige.

[RangerM9 1]

[Koliadko 207]

Racegal,

 

WOW!.....where to begin?

 

 

I work in a hospital and drive to it every week day, does that make me a doctor? by your logic yes!....in actuality...no...

 

There's no logic in that statement at all.

 

Ever heard of hiding in plane sight?....The CIA does employ people other than spies....it may have been known that she worked for the CIA, but not that she was a field agent!......disclosing that info took a highly trained weapon in our intellegence arsenal out of play.......She was outed!

 

If she was, Fitzgerald will charge Armitage. Ain't gonna happen tho. But hanging out in a Federal government building and trying to get info from the terrorists tells me she wasn't too effective. Good thing she didn't drive to Langley every day when she was covert, over five years ago.

 

Here is a list of positions at the CIA (not actually sure if this is every position, or just those with current openings).....direct from the CIA website.....

 

I guess all these job titles actually mean "secret agent".....not just the 8 or so jobs marked "clandestine"[/b]!

 

Like I said, if Fitzgerald charges Armitage, I'll kiss your ass. If not, you owe me.

[Cobra 76 two 2,677]

You go girl!

 

Just be careful...never know which end is the right one sometimes... LOL!

 

Ranger I'm just bustin your chops bro! The shit's getting deep! I'm reachin for my waders.

 

Side bets?????

[RangerM9 1]

Racegal,

 

you stated "good thing no one was outed"

 

 

On the May 1, 2006, Monday evening Chris Matthews' Hardball, "MSNBC correspondent David Shuster confirmed what RAW STORY first reported in February: that outed CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson was working on Iran at the time she was outed" in July 2003 as a CIA covert operative by Robert Novak (see below). [5] See MSNBC video links posted by Crooks and Liars and Brad Blog.

 

"This is not only a possible breach of national security; it is a potential violation of law. Under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, it is a crime for anyone who has access to classified information to disclose intentionally information identifying a covert agent." [2]

 

 

"Intelligence sources say Valerie Wilson was part of an operation three years ago tracking the proliferation of nuclear weapons material into Iran. And the sources allege that when Mrs. Wilson's cover was blown, the Administration's ability to track Iran's nuclear ambitions was damaged as well." [6]

 

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Valerie_Plame

Don't see how i would owe you, nor you me, i never said armatage would be charged, the issue was that she was outed and that Libby was the scapegoat...and of course all they could convict him of was perjury.....he was the sacrifical lamb meant to appease people so the rest of the problem would go away........i fully expect no one beyond him will ever be charged. I don't agree with that, but i'm pretty sure we just had a 2-3 year investigation and and resulting purjury trial that was based on the fact that one of our undercover agents was outed......

 

But looking around at various news sources, no one seems sure who to blame, but it is pretty damn clear everyone but you agrees she was outed!

How can you so strongly support and respect the veterans who served our country and who are memorialized on that wall (and which i deeply repsect and honor as well) and yet excuse the fact that another one of our "soldiers" (this time a covert agent) in the war against terror had their career destroyed after 20 years of loyal service for politcal purposes? You honor the soldiers but essentialy blow off the importance of another human asset, no better or worse than the infantry in the field, This was an operative that can never go back and never again gather the intellegence we need to stay ahead of the enemy....and you act like the outing never happened, that it doesn't matter? Do you think this way because the evidence her husband returned didn't support the reasons for the war, or do you just not feel that our spies are as much of "Heros" as our friends and family in the armed services? She followed orders, did her job just as any marine would, and you demean the imporantance of her role......Your hipocracy is sad!!

[loki0629 55]

Racegal,

 

I don't mean to speak for him but I think Ranger might be getting frustrated that you seem to be blindly loyal to the Republican party and can not admit that they have done something wrong or illegal. I really don't think he's attacking the party as a whole, just pointing out the ones that are abusing power. And I think that he would feel that way regardless of which party was in the Executive office.

 

For myself I have a big problem with the way things are and I readily agree with Ranger that something must be done and the people who are abusing power should be held responsible.

 

You asked me in a previous post how many Democrats support my rights to own guns. At this point in time, I really don't care about that. From my point of view the Democrats are grabbing guns and the Republicans are grabbing American citizens and denying them their Constitutional rights. If you think this can't happen to middle aged Caucasian women you may want to google Lynne Stewart. I don't particularly care for Ms. Stewart but I do care that her rights were violated by the prosecution, which is the US Attorney's office, which is the original topic of this thread.

 

Racegal, I have no problem with you and thank you for being as candid as you have been. I know there are a lot of other people reading this thread that have not bothered to post their opinion and that's fine. I appreciate being able to voice my opinions and concerns because I know that others will make decisions for themselves where they stand on this, just like you have.

[Cobra 76 two 2,677]

<tip toes in and peeks for a sec> OH SHIT! <runs for cover!>

 

Get the popcorn out again. Ya'll try and keep it nice now...

 

It's obvious that all of you have spent many hours researching the "facts" and have much knowlege under your belts. Kudos to both of you for standing strong for what you believe.

 

OK I'm gone...

 

DING DING!