Biden rips Bush Admin, says charges are 'On the table'.

[Stuart]

Fun fact: 15% of Democratic voters think Obama is Muslim.
This poll is a bit out of date so that might have been changed, but it's still an eye opener as to the dumber side of the Democratic spectrum.

Yikes that's scary. Without knowing the exact figures, I'd guess that's a greater percentage than the proportion of Republicans who think the same things. Might be wrong on that of course.

As for refusing to prosecute legal breaches committed by political figures, I don't see the reasoning. Bush didn't just break the law; he spat on it. Clinton, for all his flaws, at least showed up for questioning and attempted to answer questions, albeit rather dishonestly, which is why he's still the butt of jokes today. Bush's cronies either stonewalled or simply ignored Congress, and thumbed their noses at the laws they were breaking, almost with a collective smirk. Just how much contempt can an administration show for the law before the law is used against them?

Oh, I agree the administration spat on the law but that doesn't necessarily mean they broke it. This puts a finger on another serious problem which we face and that's the excessive lawyerization of everything. The real problem here is that the Bush administration has an arsenal of lawyers who have judged that what got done fell just this side of legal. And, since they, by those findings, didn't commit any offenses, they don't have to comply with anything. Now, bringing these guys to trial won't solve that problem. If anything it will make it worse because future governments will use even greater battalions of lawyers applying even more contorted legal reasoning to put themselves just this side of legal. They'll also learn to cover their tracks a lot better. There's an even worse possibility - suppose these guys got brought to trial and acquitted It could happen very easily, the government can hire very good lawyers and the loopholes they exploited are likely to be quite defensible. In this case, the proposed legal action would actually serve to legalize every alleged abuse we have seen for the last eight years. And that really is scary.

Even so, we still come back to the question of how much do we have to take before we put these guys in front of a court. Sadly, I'd say there isn't a limit there. If they actually commit provable crimes they can be impeached, if they do gruesome things, they can be voted out after two years for a Congresscritter, four years for the President or six years for a senator. That's the constraint built into the system. If we go the criminalization of party politics route, that constraint will die because we will really see some electoral malfeasance going on (up to and including arresting enough "opposition" congresscritters and senators to reverse the election - and don't kid yourself, there are enough nutcases on either side of the House to do just that. The sheer damage that the proposed legal trials could do far outweighs the transient harm that a corrupt administration can cause.

[Edi]

Stuart, there is more than enough evidence that the Bush administration actions are serious enough to at least be contested in court. A great many of them. So once the courts are through with them, we will have some clearly drawn lines on what can and cannot be done. And you really, really do NOT want the Bush administration activity to be declared aboveboard. Because if it is and some years down the line an unprincipled and crooked Democrat gets the presidency, appoints a bunch of cronies and pulls a repeat of the Bush administration actions with the Republican side as the main target of harassment, he will have a precedent to point to. He'll be able to tell the opposition "That's legal, now fuck off and suck my cock!" and there isn't a fucking thing that can be done about it.

Is that vision enough to give you chills? It should. The only reason all this shit has been allowed to go on because the Congressional Republicans have been good little puppets who have condoned or actively encouraged the sort of shenanigans that have lead to things and actively resisted any attempts at enforcing accountability. If all that is enshrined in law, there will come a time when they will be made to eat it and the machine of the executive branch turned on them and when that happens, your country will tear itself apart at the seams. Because there is no fucking way the right wing is going to take it as peacefully and with as much restraint as the current left wing has.

[Stuart]

I said at the start that Obama was just a Chicago machine politician. That said, Stuart, consider that having a Black man as President might be worth to destroy many of the fundamental conceptions the Black community has for itself, and force them to Stand Up and be counted in society. We might, for four or eight years of Chicago machine-politics at the top, finally see black people integrated with the broad norms of American society, and wouldn't that quite possibly be worth those years?

It could indeed, but there's another aspect to that. If Barry Obama gets elected and turns out to be the disaster most people my side of the fence anticipate, he could destroy much of the progress that has been made over the two or three decades. I don't object to Barry Obama on racial ground, I object to him because he's a jackass. If Condi Rice was running or if Obama had Rice's intellect and achievements I'd vote for him on the spot, no matter which party he stood for. Likewise Colin Powell. Running Obama is a heck of a risk, because he's never actually done anything except write autobiographies.

That said, I've withdrawn from active participation in political processes permanently, and on reflection won't change that. Though the harsh anti-Russian stance of McCain infuriates me, in the end, to many people end up thinking badly of me in my social circles these days no matter which way I vote, so I'll just abstain from it. Though it does infuriate me that the fools in both the Bush and Clinton administrations have succeeded in so thoroughly alienating Russia as to unnecessarily create another enemy--I thought that in 1999, and now it's coming true.

Beat you by seven years, I said it was a mistake in 1992. I also said that, handled properly, Russian and the US were natural allies. But everything got screwed up - blame for which lies with both parties.

I do however have a question. The fundamental change from me and everyone else on HPCA started back when I realized that continued economic growth and prosperity were not necessarily the moral goals of a society--that stability and support for the citizenry might indeed be preferred in the long term. This view was reflected by much reading on how conservatives in the 18th century regarded themselves, and I would want to know it sometime--it would be an interesting debate to have on HPCA when we get the new board--what the fundamental moral justifications for a growth economy are? Instead of debating over the economic details of a growth economy itself a more relevant topic might be whether or not one is necessary.

That's a very good point indeed. Is a growth economy a good thing or not? It's arguable that as long as economic growth is adequate to keep pace with population increase, distribution is more important than production. However, how do we achieve that without having excessive concentration of power in the state's hands? That's the eternal problem, give a state power and it wants more and more until it crushes any alternative power centers and then we have a serious dictatorial problem. The US gets around that by ensuring that there are several power centers permanently at war with each other. That checks and balances principle works for now but the price paid is the sort of idiocy this thread has concerned (the on-topic bits of it anyway). That's another reason why this idea of criminalizing party politics is a very bad idea; the first party to do the job properly will obliterate the other one and both are bright enough to see that. So the collapse it starts will be very fast indeed.

[Stuart]

Stuart, there is more than enough evidence that the Bush administration actions are serious enough to at least be contested in court. A great many of them. So once the courts are through with them, we will have some clearly drawn lines on what can and cannot be done. And you really, really do NOT want the Bush administration activity to be declared aboveboard. Because if it is and some years down the line an unprincipled and crooked Democrat gets the presidency, appoints a bunch of cronies and pulls a repeat of the Bush administration actions with the Republican side as the main target of harassment, he will have a precedent to point to.

The problem lies in your words "contested in court". That means the outcome is uncertain. Since the rules of a court are, quite properly, loaded in favor of the defense, that means its odds-on for an acquittal. Not taking the thing to court doesn't mean things are declared above board but taking them to court and getting an acquittal means just that. That is a precedent that will be enormously damaging. You see, on the left, there's a presumption that if this goes to court, the prosecution will win. My betting is that they won't and the truth or otherwise of the changes will have nothing to do with the verdict.

Even if the first court doesn't acquit (and say again, the lawyers who advised the Bush administration are good, if they came toa judgment they could get away with it, there's a good set of odds, they;re right) the matter goes to appeal and then to appeal etc etc - and sooner or later another government gets in and the whole matter gets squished.

Is that vision enough to give you chills? It should. The only reason all this shit has been allowed to go on because the Congressional Republicans have been good little puppets who have condoned or actively encouraged the sort of shenanigans that have lead to things and actively resisted any attempts at enforcing accountability. If all that is enshrined in law, there will come a time when they will be made to eat it and the machine of the executive branch turned on them and when that happens, your country will tear itself apart at the seams.

But, getting a court case and seeing an acquittal will be an even greater disaster. For that really is a case of "all of the above was legal after all" and its one nobody can argue with. Now, do you want to go there?

[Darth Wong]

It seems to me that ignoring a summons to testify before Congress without explanation is a pretty clear-cut case of contempt of congress, no matter how good your lawyer is.

[General Zod]

But, getting a court case and seeing an acquittal will be an even greater disaster. For that really is a case of "all of the above was legal after all" and its one nobody can argue with. Now, do you want to go there?

So your solution is to never bring it to trial over some vague fear that it might get ruled in their favor?

[Stuart]

So your solution is to never bring it to trial over some vague fear that it might get ruled in their favor?

It's not a vague fear that it might, it's a soundly-based expectation that it will. Remember, trials are loaded in favor of the defense.

Now, that's not the killer reason why the criminalization of party politics should be resisted but its a good supplementary reason. The primary reason remains the damage this will do the to principle of peaceful transfer of power.

[Edi]

The problem lies in your words "contested in court". That means the outcome is uncertain. Since the rules of a court are, quite properly, loaded in favor of the defense, that means its odds-on for an acquittal. Not taking the thing to court doesn't mean things are declared above board but taking them to court and getting an acquittal means just that. That is a precedent that will be enormously damaging. You see, on the left, there's a presumption that if this goes to court, the prosecution will win. My betting is that they won't and the truth or otherwise of the changes will have nothing to do with the verdict.

I'm well aware of the principle of presumption of innocence. It depends on what they take to court and with what strategy. Obviously some stuff is going to get acquitted, because there is legitimate stuff mixed in with all the dodgy shit. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried.

Even if the first court doesn't acquit (and say again, the lawyers who advised the Bush administration are good, if they came toa judgment they could get away with it, there's a good set of odds, they;re right) the matter goes to appeal and then to appeal etc etc - and sooner or later another government gets in and the whole matter gets squished.

If it is brought to court after an investigation and pursued, that's a good recipe to completely wreck any attempts at cooperation between the parties. Remember that we are not talking about putting the whole Republican party on trial here, but just the Bush administration and a fairly specific set of actions. A future Republican administration would hardly be responsible for the actions of the Bush administration, but if they did squash the investigation and court proceedings, it would very much look like they embraced all of those actions and tried to make sure they never get investigated. It would look really goddamn bad for them. The backlash would be absolutely staggering.

But, getting a court case and seeing an acquittal will be an even greater disaster. For that really is a case of "all of the above was legal after all" and its one nobody can argue with. Now, do you want to go there?

With the record of the past eight years, I'd be willing to give it a shot. If I don't like the ultimate outcome, that'd be tough cookies to me, but I could live with it. Especially since I don't live in the US. But at least the matter would be resolved. There is the matter that as long as it's not resolved, there's nothing preventing all of that same shit being turned full bore on your side of it anyway and then you would be in the position to try to force it to be tested in court and you'd be on the prosecution side. That would be an even worse place to be, no?

[General Zod]

It's not a vague fear that it might, it's a soundly-based expectation that it will. Remember, trials are loaded in favor of the defense.

Only if you consider "innocent until proven guilty" to be "loaded in favor of the defense". The vast majority of the time things are loaded in favor of whoever has the most money. In cases like this where it balances out it will actually depend on evidence rather than being able to drown out the opposing side with endless litigation.

Now, that's not the killer reason why the criminalization of party politics should be resisted but its a good supplementary reason. The primary reason remains the damage this will do the to principle of peaceful transfer of power.

What damage? There's been a number of impeachments brought up for Presidents in the past towards the end of their term, in all cases the transfer of power remained peaceful. Quite frankly not being willing to call someone on their bullshit when they're taking illegal action is precisely why the Bush administration has been allowed to go unchecked and do as much damage as it has for so long. I think the message "You will be put on trial if you do something illegal during your term." is just as if not more important than the actual outcome.

[Stuart]

I'm well aware of the principle of presumption of innocence. It depends on what they take to court and with what strategy. Obviously some stuff is going to get acquitted, because there is legitimate stuff mixed in with all the dodgy shit. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried.

It does if the potential damage done by an acquittal far outweighs the benefits of a conviction and that's avoiding the matter of damage done by a conviction. Refusing to go ahead with a prosecution on grounds that the case is weak and the harm done by an acquittal is quite common.

If it is brought to court after an investigation and pursued, that's a good recipe to completely wreck any attempts at cooperation between the parties.

What makes you think there is any now? Bipartisanship went out of teh window years and years ago and that's something else that needs fixing

Remember that we are not talking about putting the whole Republican party on trial here, but just the Bush administration and a fairly specific set of actions. A future Republican administration would hardly be responsible for the actions of the Bush administration, but if they did squash the investigation and court proceedings, it would very much look like they embraced all of those actions and tried to make sure they never get investigated. It would look really goddamn bad for them. The backlash would be absolutely staggering.

Ya think? I don't. My guess is the whole thing would be so tangled up in legal nightmares that the reacton would be simply "thank God that's gone."

With the record of the past eight years, I'd be willing to give it a shot. If I don't like the ultimate outcome, that'd be tough cookies to me, but I could live with it. Especially since I don't live in the US.

Precisely, you can strike any poses you like, you don't like here. I do. So my concerns are an immediate thing to me.

But at least the matter would be resolved. There is the matter that as long as it's not resolved, there's nothing preventing all of that same shit being turned full bore on your side of it anyway and then you would be in the position to try to force it to be tested in court and you'd be on the prosecution side. That would be an even worse place to be, no?

No. The criminalization of party politics would be a disaster quite independent of any effects of acquittal/conviction. Beside that impending disaster, arguments over who did what, where and to whom are inconsequential. The very principle of bringing criminal cases into party politics is what is so deeply flawed.

[Darth Wong]

Only if you consider "innocent until proven guilty" to be "loaded in favor of the defense".

That is exactly what "innocent until proven guilty" means, young man. That is, in fact, its explicit purpose: to bias the trial in favour of the defense.

[Stuart]

It seems to me that ignoring a summons to testify before Congress without explanation is a pretty clear-cut case of contempt of congress, no matter how good your lawyer is.

The question is, does the House have the jurisdiction to issue that subpoena? That's what the legal kerfuffle is all about. If the House had no authority to issue a subpoena, then ignoring it is perfectly legal. The only way around that is to send it to the senate (sending something from the House to thr Senate is rather like sending it from the animal to the vegetable kingdoms) nad turning it into formal impeachment and the Senators know that won't fly.

[General Zod]

Only if you consider "innocent until proven guilty" to be "loaded in favor of the defense".

That is exactly what "innocent until proven guilty" means, young man. That is, in fact, its explicit purpose: to bias the trial in favour of the defense.

Point. I'm just not seeing that it's necessarily a bad thing as Stuart is making it out to be simply by virtue of all the bad shit that would happen without that presumption. I probably should have worded that better.

[Stuart]

What damage? There's been a number of impeachments brought up for Presidents in the past towards the end of their term, in all cases the transfer of power remained peaceful.

No there haven't. There have been two, neither of which succeeded.

Quite frankly not being willing to call someone on their bullshit when they're taking illegal action is precisely why the Bush administration has been allowed to go unchecked and do as much damage as it has for so long. I think the message "You will be put on trial if you do something illegal during your term." is just as if not more important than the actual outcome.

That's not the message. The message is. "If you do something we think is illegal, you will be put on trial." and you can rest assured that will mean that every party will hit the other with criminal prosecutions as soon as it gets power. Trumped up or otherwise. It won't be long before each party knows that the only way of avoiding trumped up show trials will be to ensure the other party doesn't get into power. Hello, Zimbabwe.

[Edi]

The criminalization of party politics would be a disaster quite independent of any effects of acquittal/conviction. Beside that impending disaster, arguments over who did what, where and to whom are inconsequential. The very principle of bringing criminal cases into party politics is what is so deeply flawed.

Who says party politics are being criminalized here? There are specific actions that by a reading of current status are already illegal and they should not be investigated or prosecuted just because they were done by an elite clique within one of the two biggest parties? That's essentially what you're saying and it's utter and complete horseshit.

Your own position gives anyone who gets into the executive branch carte blanche to do whatever they want whenever they want and as long as they just keep stonewalling, refusing to answer to Congress and producing memo after memo after memo of whatever tortured semantics-whoring they decide to come up with and nobody can do shit to them. Assuming of course that their own party has enough numbers to keep the government permanently gridlocked and holding ranks together.

That's a far more damaging course of action over the long term. By your own reasoning in this thread, the Watergate investigation should never have happened and Nixon should never have been called to account for his shit.

[Darth Wong]

Isn't that what happened to Clinton? He was impeached with little justification, in a joke trial that ended up focusing on semen stains on a dress. Are you suggesting that the Democrats should take this kind of behaviour but refuse to dish it out in return?

[Stuart]

Point. I'm just not seeing that it's necessarily a bad thing as Stuart is making it out to be simply by virtue of all the bad shit that would happen without that presumption. I probably should have worded that better.

I dodn;t say it was a bad thing, in fact I said it was "quite rightly so". It is a fact of life we have to recognize. And it makes an acquittal very likely. And that will be far worse than letting the matter drop.

Say again - let the matter drop, the question remians open and we can pick it up again

Get an acquittal and all the things in question become unquestionably legal

[General Zod]

That's not the message. The message is. "If you do something we think is illegal, you will be put on trial." and you can rest assured that will mean that every party will hit the other with criminal prosecutions as soon as it gets power. Trumped up or otherwise. It won't be long before each party knows that the only way of avoiding trumped up show trials will be to ensure the other party doesn't get into power. Hello, Zimbabwe.

Only if you have no checks and balances whatsoever. As difficult as impeachments are now, this sounds like nothing but scaremongering. The Republicans were willing to impeach Clinton over lying about getting a blowjob for fuck's sake, so why shouldn't we impeach someone like Bush for all the shit that he's done?

[Edi]

Isn't that what happened to Clinton? He was impeached with little justification, in a joke trial that ended up focusing on semen stains on a dress. Are you suggesting that the Democrats should take this kind of behaviour but refuse to dish it out in return?

Seems that way to me. The Republicans have always closed ranks against outsiders and acted as pretty monolithic block on the national level, while the Democrats haven't. He's assuming that the Democrats would and is essentially projecting Republican behavior of the past 15 years on the Democrats without justification. If the Dems returned the favors, the US would look very different would be even more polarized than it is now.

In many other places, there would already be blood on the streets.

[Stuart]

He was impeached with little justification, in a joke trial that ended up focusing on semen stains on a dress. Are you suggesting that the Democrats should take this kind of behaviour but refuse to dish it out in return?

Clintol was impeached (he was actually charged with perjury) and the trial was indeed a farce. Which really does make my point; the charge was he lied under oath and by any normal understanding he did. He was still acquitted by a substantial, bipartisan majority. Now do you see why acquittal worries me?

[Chardok]

That's not the message. The message is. "If you do something we think is illegal, you will be put on trial." and you can rest assured that will mean that every party will hit the other with criminal prosecutions as soon as it gets power. Trumped up or otherwise. It won't be long before each party knows that the only way of avoiding trumped up show trials will be to ensure the other party doesn't get into power. Hello, Zimbabwe.

Only if you have no checks and balances whatsoever. As difficult as impeachments are now, this sounds like nothing but scaremongering. The Republicans were willing to impeach Clinton over lying about getting a blowjob for fuck's sake, so why shouldn't we impeach someone like Bush for all the shit that he's done?

It's because Clinton Lied under Oath. Bush took the noble route and refused to be questioned under oath period. Also, he started a war by lying. But he wasn't under oath, so it's cool.

[Stuart]

Only if you have no checks and balances whatsoever. As difficult as impeachments are now, this sounds like nothing but scaremongering. The Republicans were willing to impeach Clinton over lying about getting a blowjob for fuck's sake, so why shouldn't we impeach someone like Bush for all the shit that he's done?

Because you can't impeach somebody after they've left office. And the erason why Bush wasn't impeached is because everybody knew the case against him was so shaky it would collapse - as it did with Clinton. The political fall-out from the Clinton acquittal was dire; it came close to losing us the 2000 election.

[General Zod]

Clintol was impeached (he was actually charged with perjury) and the trial was indeed a farce. Which really does make my point; the charge was he lied under oath and by any normal understanding he did. He was still acquitted by a substantial, bipartisan majority. Now do you see why acquittal worries me?

So Clinton was acquitted. . .does that mean that any politician has carte blanche to lie under oath now? Frankly I don't buy the "acquittal means it's okay!1!!!" kneejerking.

[Lord of the Abyss]

It's already ugly and has been for a long time. The Republicans keep playing hardball while the Democrats keep playing softball.

No, you don't get ugly. The GOP hasn't prosecuted someone for the pursuance of the duties of the office that they held.

I've no idea if what you say is true, however unlikely it seems, but I don't care because it doesn't matter. They've consistently gone after people simply because they were Democrats, or simply were inconvenient to them. Remember the antics of Kenneth Starr ? If someone tosses you in jail for political reasons, who cares about the specific charges ?

All that playing nice has gotten the Democrats is constantly beaten up. The Republicans are ruthless, and they will continue to act ruthlessly, regardless of whether the Democrats actually try to punish Bush and friends for what they've done.

Then why hasn't the current congress impeached the current administration?

Because they are spineless cowards.

The fact that tax cuts increased income is a proven fact. Sorry about that.

And when Clinton raised taxes on the rich, the economy got better. Does that count as proof that raising taxes on the rich is good ? Or does correlation mean causality only when it makes Republicans look good ?

Stuart, there is more than enough evidence that the Bush administration actions are serious enough to at least be contested in court. A great many of them. So once the courts are through with them, we will have some clearly drawn lines on what can and cannot be done. And you really, really do NOT want the Bush administration activity to be declared aboveboard. Because if it is and some years down the line an unprincipled and crooked Democrat gets the presidency, appoints a bunch of cronies and pulls a repeat of the Bush administration actions with the Republican side as the main target of harassment, he will have a precedent to point to. He'll be able to tell the opposition "That's legal, now fuck off and suck my cock!" and there isn't a fucking thing that can be done about it.

Is that vision enough to give you chills? It should.

Exactly; or if another Republican does the same thing. If Stuart is so worried about the long term effects of trying to hold the Bush Administration to account, perhaps he should consider the long term effects of turning the President into what amounts to a King by another name. Someone who can order anything, and ignore both the restrictions and punishments of the law.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Everyone does realize that there are a fair number of functional democracies out there where the political leaders have complete immunity from prosecution for actions committed during their term in office, yes? This idea isn't unique and has been written into several constitutions.