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

[Chardok]

Once again, you're comparing apples and oranges. Clinton lied under oath as his response to a properly-constituted impeachment proceding. That's perjury and its a felony. The subpoenas from the committee were not part of any constituted official inquiry and were a blatant fishing expedition (Pelosi admitted as much). The White House lawyers gave as their opinion that they were invalid and of no legal force. So, no offense was committed.

So, if I'm hearing you right and you're not, in fact, speaking Spathi, then were my, say, brother, for instance, to flip out and kill 9 people and the police found notes written by me that say "9 people have to die" and variations on it, and they found receipts that show that I bought the knife my brother used in the murders, and I was subpoenaed I could just give the court the finger because, clearly, it's just a fishing expedition since it was my brother they caught at the scene of the crime?

Got it.

The classic case is the "Bush started a war by lying" phrase. If you tried to present that in court as a charge, you would be laughed out of the building.

That doesn't excuse the horrific immorality of the situation. of course, I'm talking to a wall here, so I don't expect you'll even try to understand. Maybe I wouldn't be such a hardcore anti-administration UNsupporter if there was some goddamned transparency about how the war started in the first place. as it stands, it certainly seems alot was suppressed BY the administration; so, did they have actual knowledge that what they were saying was lying to the american people to get em all FORED UP for war? I dunno, but I bet a full-on impeachment investigation would yield some new information.

A thought for you, this is the first thread in a very long time here where anybody has really sat down and challenged the orthodox viewpoint. Like most communities, mine included, this one has a very narrow, self-validating focus where the "Bush lied, people died" meme goes unchallenged. Anywhere it doesn't, your reply is 'wipe that crap from your mind - remember." In fact Bush didn't lie and he didn't start the war. You go and visit communites with a wide variety of viewpoints - as I do - and you'll find out why.

Wrong. I said I wasn't reading the remainder of your post because you said "B Hussein Obama" like a cheap, slapstick chain email and are clearly a seekrit muslim meme perpetuator. Your argument that you called "H Norman Schwartzkopf that to his face" bullshit doesn't wash with me either because Barack Obama DOESN'T INTRODUCE HIMSELF as Hussein Obama, Douchey McDoucherson, so cram your lies in the same place your keep your morality meter.

Additionally, I'm perfectly willing to hear all sides of an argument. I shut down when the other party starts tossing about terms like "Democrat Party", "Hussein Obama" and using the word "liberal" as an insult because they are nothing but hateful, amoral mouthpieces for Michael Savage et al. Republitards are only republitards when they're:

1. Republican
and
2. Retarded


And as for "Barry Obama" (Which is what he goes by on the Hill hurr hurr hurr) you're not fooling anyone - you're using that as a show of contempt for the man and nothing more.

That said - why should I pay your posts any more mind than I do Michael Savage or James Dobson, or any other radical right-wing meme-spewing idiot out there? Please, help me understand.

[Edi]

If these actions had been taken under a Democratic administration, I don't think the party as a whole would be as eager to prosecute

And in that one line, you have just admitted that this is a party political prosecution intended purely for political ends. In short, you're aiming at a Stalin purges-style show trial. Why does that not surprise me?

Where the fuck did that come from?

Once more, this time in small enough words that you will perhaps even understand: If it had been Democrats doing the same shit, they would obviously not be as willing to prosecute as they are now. But there would undoubtedly be those among their ranks who would be willing (such as Waxman) because they have displayed a willingness to go after anyone who is dodgy. And in that situation the Republicans would hardly stay silent and they would be right.

All of this is working with the assumption that there is a genuine will and honesty to address serious issues instead of using it as a partisan club to attack the opposition in a Stalin-style system. But perhaps I'm giving you and the rest of the US establishment far more credit than it deserves in making that suggestion. It's looking more and more that way. No fucking surprise given how your entire government has been designed from the ground up to fail. I guess that in that context it is only to be expected that you would ascribe venal, partisan motives to me. But that's just not how it works with me.

Just keep that in mind the next time it crosses your mind to accuse me of wanting to emulate Stalin. I'll let it slide now, this once. But not again.

Then why didn't they prosecute Clinton? All the alleged crimes committed by the Bush administration have their roots in actions carried out by previous administrations, going at least as far back as the First World War. So lets see Biden propsong that Bill Clinton be put on trial as well.

Can you give me any good examples of actions that would be prosecutable? Did Clinton's attorney general refuse to enforce Congressional subpoenas, for example? How is this one relevant?

And I know the Republicans would be screaming blue murder. They'd be right in that case too and I'd support their efforts to prosecute.

Really? I know of no case where an incoming Republican administration has attempted to take legal action against an outgoing Democrat administration - even though the widespread vandalism of the White House in 2000 gave them a perfect opportunity for bringing serious criminal charges against ex-Administration personnel.

I fail to see any problems in prosecuting people who demonstrably committed vandalism. I remember reading about that and thought that it was fucking stupid, so I have no sympathy at all toward the Clinton administration on that particular score.

You have also completely ignored the possibility that there might be people in the Republcian party who would have no problem with stringing the Bush administration or some of its lesser members like Mukasey up for what they have done. Though it's granted that from all indications that would be a small number of people.

The Republican party is a pretty broad church and includes people with its own agenda, that's true. However, this whole prosecution idea is so blatantly a political game that I doubt if more than a tiny number of Republicans would go along with it.

That is how it would be perceived, I suppose. Perhaps I'm being overly idealistic, having grown up in and lived all my life in a country where just 10% of the shit that routinely goes on in the US would topple the government and send people to jail on corruption charges, never mind all the other stuff.

I expect this attitude to last only as long as the Republicans aren't fed any of the same shit they've been dishing out for the past 15 years.

You know I am sick and tired of hearing this "We're all saints and the Republicans are pounding on us" nonsense. In point of fact, the boots on the other foot, we've been playing the Hill game more or less by the rules while putting up with a lot of crap from the Democrats. Want an example? Look up the voting record on Supreme Court Justices. You'll note that picks by Democrat presidents are approved by bipartisan majorities regardless of their political stance (Ruth Baader Ginsburg being a classic example of a pick that should have been booted out) because Senate precedent is that after all the discussion, if the candidate is put to a vote the Senate votes on a bipartisan basis to approve. Now look at picks proposed by Republican candidates; the final approvals are all split down party lines. So don't give me this crap about how the Democrats are angels and never hit back when the eviiiiillllll Republicans put the boot in. Hill politics is nasty, it always has been and both sides do it. I know its nice and comforting to believe otherwise but anybody who says their side are the saints, is simply betraying utter ignorance of what American politics is like.

You're a fool if you think I'm naive enough to believe there is no shit in the Democratic pigsty. I must admit that I am not familiar with the voting procedures back on the previous SCOTUS nominees, but that little bit is not the entire story. The Bush appointees to the SCOTUS where there was such acrimony in the voting process happened to be nominated by fiat without even an attempt at finding compromises. Were the Democratic appointees in the past nominated with such disregard for bipartisan cooperation? This is something I am curious about.

Are you seriously suggesting that you would argue these same things if as comparably corrupt Democratic administration had trampled all over the civil liberties so precious to the right (right to bear arms, etc), locked up people without due process and then told the courts and everyone else to go fuck themselves that you would be singing this same tune?

Obviously you haven't been reading this thread. That's exactly what I've been saying. Right from the start; I've made it clear that criminalizing party politics the way you and your clique are demanding will destroy democracy. By the way, the Clinton regime did try and illegal gun ban and it was shot down by the Supreme Court which is the way things should be done.

You're accusing me of trying to criminalize party politics and I'm starting to get really fucking sick of it. Apparently by your definition anything and everything the government does is party politics and nothing should ever be actionable. Unless they happen to pass laws, which can then be tested in court up to and including SCOTUS. Using the court system, that's fine. But what about when the decisions of the court system are ignored? Nothing wrong with "It's his decision, let him enforce it", eh?

I don't believe you. It's as simple as that.

That's your privilege. I simply believe your political prejudices make your opinion on this matter worthless.

Then you probably don't mind if I return the favor in full measure.

You're assuming that I think this would only benefit one party. I think that an overview of the Bush administration actions and criminal prosecution of those in it who engaged in criminal behavior would benefit both parties and the nation as a whole. In this, we have a difference of opinion and I don't expect that there's anything I can say to convince you otherwise.

Of course it will benefit only one party; that's why the extreme left wing Democrats are trying to pull it off. The Republicans and a big block of teh political center will see this for what it is; a blatantly political attempt by the Democrats to get even for losing two Presidnetial elections on the trot. But, as usual, you're completely missing the point. If the Democrats try this and get away with it, come a future election (2012 or 2016) when teh Republicans get back in (and they will) we can hit back and start throwing our own criminal charges around. And that would be the end of democracy because which party is going to peacefully hand over power when they know that by doing so they are going to be prosecuted on a load of trumped-up charges?

As you wish. See the earlier part of my post for an explanation of my motives on this. But as I said, apparently I am expecting far too much from the political establishment of the US.

Once again with the "Democrats are saints and Republicans" are monsters nonsense. Just take a look at who has been staging large-scale "peace protests" and "ant-globalism" riots. I know it feels nice and warm and fuzzy to believe your people are all forbearing angels but even a quick glance at the news will tell you otherwise. Say again, American politics are nasty and always have been.

Yes, they always have been. As far as anti-globalism riots go, the people who start that shit belong in jail and you'll never hear me say otherwise. The peace protest thing is a different matter. If someone uses that as an excuse to riot and destroy property, fuck them and throw them in jail. If they don't, what's wrong with the protests?

And left wing rhetoric isn't? Take a read of what gets put on Daily Kos and Democratic Underground. If you want inflammatory rhetoric, the garbage that comes out there is far worse than anything the Republican party comes out with.

Go right on pretending that the DU and DK are as mainstream and popular as the various right wing pundits in the mass media, or Rush Limbaugh or any of the massively popular outlets for rightwing propaganda in the US. I'm quite certain that it's possible to find all sorts of leftwing shit up to and including suggestions of total collectivization of all private property etc, but you actually have to dig for that. Relatively hard too, in comparison to what gets plastered all over by far more mainstream outlets. Usually opening one's mouth to express attitudes supportive of any left-of-center issue around Americans gets a response that amounts to accusations of leftwing radicalism. That has been my experience for years now in many varied places online.

I've made my point very clear and I notice that nobody has actually answered the main argument.

I tried to answer your main argument, but it looks like at least part of the way we were talking past each other. I feel a large part of that was your assumption about my motives and the conclusions that led you to draw from what I said, but I'm not saying that's the sole reason. Not worth quoting the rest of your post just to post an "I agree" at the end of it, as that was a fairly accurate summation of things.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Uh, you do realize Edi is a European, right, Stuart? Why would you expect him to have a well-textured domestic impression of American politics?

[General Zod]

Uh, you do realize Edi is a European, right, Stuart? Why would you expect him to have a well-textured domestic impression of American politics?

Obviously, anyone who opposes the Republicans must be a left wing liberal Democrat.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I'll add that Ginsburg really is a fucking shitty justice. There is a cultural wing to the Democratic Party that has used arguably anti-democratic means to declare its desires and aims by fiat and force rather than subtle influence. A lot of ugly Republican tactics and shit is in response to that. That said, Stuart totally full of shit that far-left (whatever that means, I suppose have of these European and other modern states he doesn't mind are actually bulwarks of statist authoritarianism ) propoganda gets as broad a hearing as right-wing. How often do you ever, ever here that religion belongs in private and should not be expressed in government, that we should have fully-subsidized education, a single-payer healthcare system? Things that are routine non-partisan policies throughout the industrialized first world. But these things are so off the table that almost no mainstream politician will endorse them; only those at the farthest edges who we call "the far left" like Bernie Sanders. Yet it is apparently a-okay to call Barack Obama an "uppity boy" and enjoy all kinds of broad support for crypto-racism and bigotry. Alabama couldn't manage to avoid a shamelessly low majority for repealing their anti-miscegenation laws.

The fact is, as far as I can, everyone on HPCA and Stuart included has been bitching for years about the abstract ways that Iraq was worth it, blah blah blah. From where I'm seated, all I know is acquaintances of mine and thousands belonging to other people's families and friends have died, and Bush got up there and sold a bill of bullshit to justify it. In the meantime, I sincerely doubt it would've effected my life or the future life of any children I might have that we went there, but in the meantime the slide toward mediocrity continued. People have to work harder, become more indebted, etc., etc. in order to maintain the same middle class expectations their parents had. There's a palpable feeling we're no longer advancing. And you know what, it looks like if Federal Government decides to arrest me and then goes to a judge and claims I'm a terrorist, none of my rights and guarantees that kept the system even possibly honest exist anymore. So you know what, Stuart? I'll give the government the power to tax me so I know my health coverage is taken care of and to make sure that the environment and society is not so fucked up I have no guarantees for my children. Since we've already cleared the threshold for the government tossing away my legal rights. But we know you're a resource constraint denialist (three hundred years of oil, indeed) and a global warming denialist. And you probably really do believe that Edi lives in a crypto-authoritarian state because he enjoys freedoms from the fear of hunger and not being able to afford an education, but not fear from taxes.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I want to hear your reply to what terrible things will happen in the next several years if Obama is elected, and what great things will happen if McCain is elected. I want to hear you explain why global warming is not real, and why we have three hundred years of oil, so all we need is to continue "Ronaldus Magnus'" philosophies of public policy. This "you're all mean orthodox assholes but I'm going to keep all my opinions and justifications close to my chest and snipe at your from my condescending height" is just bullshit. If anyone but you acted this aloof and shit in N&P, you'd be told to put up or shut up and stay out.

[General Zod]

If anyone but you acted this aloof and shit in N&P, you'd be told to put up or shut up and stay out.

Not only acting aloof, but sniping and running.

At this point, I'm pulling out of this discussion; its taken far too much time already and I have better things to do (like earning a living and writing Armageddon).

Of course, there's no real point in addressing his horseshit if he's not going to bother responding again. (Unless of course he turns out to be like 90% of all trolls and does in fact come back after being called out on his condescending horseshit). It's funny how twats like this always suddenly have better things to do right when they realize they're about to get a new asshole ripped.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Although I sympathize and share your derision for his irritating and condescending behavioral patterns, I also don't need a SDN Certified Internet Tough Guy running commentary to my posts. That shit has pushed away real discussion on this forum. Am I exasperated? Irritated? Sure. But I'm also trying to avoid throwing schoolyard insults at him and being excessively churlish. My last post may have been a little much by my goalposts here. But you know what I really want? I really want Stuart to stay and actually flesh out his opinions for once, because I might learn something.

[Darth Wong]

You may hate him for saying it, but Stuart does have one key point--no jury in the United States will ever convict Bush, so the consequence of bringing the case to trial will be either an acquittal or a hung jury. If you're a foreigner, feel free to hate America over it, and if you're a native, feel free to hate your fellow countrymen, but I'll win the powerball and contact space aliens before a President is committed of crimes commissioned while in office.

I would tend to agree on that point; for a raft of disgusting cultural reasons which have accelerated over the last 20 years and particularly during the last 7, the office of the presidency has assumed much of the reverence that was once accorded to monarchs in England (incredibly ironic, given your country's much-ballyhooed origin story). As a result, Bush is basically treated like royalty. His State of the Union speech is particularly sickening; he might as well stand on a balcony and just wave to the adoring and carefully vetted crowds of well-wishers. Actual criminal proceedings against him would almost certainly fail and end up causing so much harm that any conceivable positive benefit is easily wiped out.

Having said that, I would argue that there is no reason not to go after his cronies, for which the public has no great love. It wouldn't change much on the public stage, but it would be pretty bad to let so many people do so many bad things (like running around hiring and firing people from government jobs without any justification other than "you don't share my religious beliefs about abortion") without any kind of accountability at all. The fact is that the President himself may have set the tone, but the people under him were still responsible for doing things they knew were unethical and illegal. Rather than try to tie Bush to those people, just go after those people.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I would tend to agree on that point; for a raft of disgusting cultural reasons which have accelerated over the last 20 years and particularly during the last 7, the office of the presidency has assumed much of the reverence that was once accorded to monarchs in England (incredibly ironic, given your country's much-ballyhooed origin story). As a result, Bush is basically treated like royalty. His State of the Union speech is particularly sickening; he might as well stand on a balcony and just wave to the adoring and carefully vetted crowds of well-wishers. Actual criminal proceedings against him would almost certainly fail and end up causing so much harm that any conceivable positive benefit is easily wiped out.

Well Alexander Hamilton borrowed extensively in creating the U.S. Federal Government from the contemporary British government. The President of the United States is somewhat of an ersatz king; the State of the Union speech is the President's Speech from the Throne (though not required to open Congress as a constitutional convention like the Queen's Speech and Parliament). His veto and ability to control the executive directly and his ability to appoint judges is all borrowed from a much-watered-down version of the British's king's old powers.

Having said that, I would argue that there is no reason not to go after his cronies, for which the public has no great love. It wouldn't change much on the public stage, but it would be pretty bad to let so many people do so many bad things (like running around hiring and firing people from government jobs without any justification other than "you don't share my religious beliefs about abortion") without any kind of accountability at all.

Well the rot started with Watergate and accelerated with Iran-Contra. The Congress has been consistently sidelined. Its arguable constitutional reform is necessary, but I'll be buggered if I know how it could be done to avoid the problems of the 20th century while preparing the government to deal with them.

[General Zod]

Although I sympathize and share your derision for his irritating and condescending behavioral patterns, I also don't need a SDN Certified Internet Tough Guy running commentary to my posts. That shit has pushed away real discussion on this forum. Am I exasperated? Irritated? Sure. But I'm also trying to avoid throwing schoolyard insults at him and being excessively churlish. My last post may have been a little much by my goalposts here. But you know what I really want? I really want Stuart to stay and actually flesh out his opinions for once, because I might learn something.

If someone can't make their point without strawmanning their opponents or making hilarious false analogies why treat them differently from any other troll? Hell, I don't have any problems being civil with someone until they start blatantly distorting the opposition, which is precisely what Stuart is/was doing and the main thing that's pissing me off. If he'd managed to avoid doing either of those I wouldn't have had any reason to flame him whatsoever.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Although I sympathize and share your derision for his irritating and condescending behavioral patterns, I also don't need a SDN Certified Internet Tough Guy running commentary to my posts. That shit has pushed away real discussion on this forum. Am I exasperated? Irritated? Sure. But I'm also trying to avoid throwing schoolyard insults at him and being excessively churlish. My last post may have been a little much by my goalposts here. But you know what I really want? I really want Stuart to stay and actually flesh out his opinions for once, because I might learn something.

If someone can't make their point without strawmanning their opponents or making hilarious false analogies why treat them differently from any other troll? Hell, I don't have any problems being civil with someone until they start blatantly distorting the opposition, which is precisely what Stuart is/was doing and the main thing that's pissing me off. If he'd managed to avoid doing either of those I wouldn't have had any reason to flame him whatsoever.

Its unnecessary to continue to "+1" or "one up" in reply to my posts which you don't disagree with. Its called dogpiling.

[Edi]

Kindly shut up with the tit-for-tat the both of you. Last I checked, neither one of you was a mod.

[Elfdart]

And in that one line, you have just admitted that this is a party political prosecution intended purely for political ends. In short, you're aiming at a Stalin purges-style show trial. Why does that not surprise me?

Stalin's purges were rigged trials for imaginary crimes. Care to show where anyone has called for the Cheney-Bush Junta to be tried for crimes that never happened? Or in front of kangaroo courts?

Then why didn't they prosecute Clinton? All the alleged crimes committed by the Bush administration have their roots in actions carried out by previous administrations, going at least as far back as the First World War. So lets see Biden propsong that Bill Clinton be put on trial as well.

Tu quoque often?

Really? I know of no case where an incoming Republican administration has attempted to take legal action against an outgoing Democrat administration

The whole Red Scare/McCarthy era was nothing but an attempt to get payback against FDR for the New Deal, labor rights and WW2.

- even though the widespread vandalism of the White House in 2000 gave them a perfect opportunity for bringing serious criminal charges against ex-Administration personnel.

The only person in any kind of legal jeopardy in that case would be a prosecutor who tried to bring such an obviously bogus case.

LINK

During the White House transition in January, one story proved irresistible to many conservative pundits: Departing Clinton staffers had gone on a wild rampage and "trashed" or "vandalized" the White House, even looting Air Force One. Allegations of the Clinton aides' reckless destruction of public property swept through the media. For some, the story symbolized the difference between a morally compromised Clinton presidency and a more dignified, honorable Bush administration.

An official government investigation, however, reveals one major problem with these stories: They apparently never happened. According to statements from the General Services Administration that were reported on May 17, little if anything out of the ordinary occurred during the transition, and "the condition of the real property was consistent with what we would expect to encounter when tenants vacate office space after an extended occupancy."

Ironically, the investigation came in response to a request from Rep. Bob Barr (R.-Ga.), and many conservatives who had assumed that the wild rumors would be confirmed by an official inquiry. That wasn't the case. (The "looting" of Air Force One had also been denied months ago by officials at Andrews Air Force base -- Kansas City Star, 2/9/01).

Bringing such a frivolous case with no merit whatsoever is generally frowned upon by judges.

You know I am sick and tired of hearing this "We're all saints and the Republicans are pounding on us" nonsense.

Truth hurts, doesn't it?

Obviously you haven't been reading this thread. That's exactly what I've been saying. Right from the start; I've made it clear that criminalizing party politics the way you and your clique are demanding will destroy democracy. By the way, the Clinton regime did try and illegal gun ban and it was shot down by the Supreme Court which is the way things should be done.

No one has called for Republicans to be prosecuted for advocating tax cuts for the rich, or giving taxpayer subsidies for the oil companies, etc. That kind of thing can and should be handled at the ballot box. But when members of an administration order kidnapping and torture of innocent people, or illegal wiretaps, or committed numerous war crimes the U.S. government has already tried and imprisoned others for committing, then they have not only broken, but flouted the law and refusing to prosecute them does more damage to a republic than the bruised wittle feewings the criminals' groupies might feel.

All the squealing in terror over having to answer for war crimes is not only moral cowardice, but a confession of guilt. But then, I guess not every thug is as old or yellow-bellied as Pinochet, who feigned senility to avoid trial for murder and torture. This by the way, should debunk the idea of the country being plunged into chaos and disorder as war criminals desperately cling to power. Granting themselves immunity and squealing like little bitches at the prospect of a trial tells me that these little twerps are cowards on the Pinochet/Galtieri level, and that sort of thug can only summon the nerve to use force on people tied to chairs.

Of course it will benefit only one party; that's why the extreme left wing Democrats are trying to pull it off. The Republicans and a big block of teh political center will see this for what it is; a blatantly political attempt by the Democrats to get even for losing two Presidnetial elections on the trot. But, as usual, you're completely missing the point. If the Democrats try this and get away with it, come a future election (2012 or 2016) when teh Republicans get back in (and they will) we can hit back and start throwing our own criminal charges around. And that would be the end of democracy because which party is going to peacefully hand over power when they know that by doing so they are going to be prosecuted on a load of trumped-up charges?

The Republitards have already been using the powers of the state to drag people into court on trumped-up charges. They have already been illegally spying on political opponents. So if the Dems should somehow work up the nerve to finally hold these thugs responsible, the Republitards might, should they regain power...

...go back to the same activities they've been doing all along?

And left wing rhetoric isn't? Take a read of what gets put on Daily Kos and Democratic Underground. If you want inflammatory rhetoric, the garbage that comes out there is far worse than anything the Republican party comes out with.

Apples and oranges: There's a difference between anonymous bloggers on one hand and famous authors, media commentators and members of the government calling their opposition cowards and traitors -the sort of bullshit that egged on Jim Adkisson to walk into a Unitarian church in Tennessee and open fire, killing two and wounding six more.

But that doesn't compare to someone calling Cheney an asshole on a blog somewhere.

[Winston Blake]

At this point, I'm pulling out of this discussion; its taken far too much time already and I have better things to do (like earning a living and writing Armageddon). I've made my point very clear and I notice that nobody has actually answered the main argument.

Since Stuart's gone, I hope someone else can answer me. I'll have to break it down into points because threads like this confuse me. As I understand it, Stuart's main argument here is:

(1) The Bush administration used legal loopholes to abuse the law without clearly breaking it.
(2) If it's prosecuted, then an acquittal is likely, because of (1).
(3) An acquittal for these abuses will set a dire precedents for future administrations.
..... (3)a. First you've got the precedent of putting members of an opposing party on trial after a handover of power, apparently out of partisan spite, since there was no conviction.
..... (3)b. Second, future administrations will feel free to perform the same abuses of power, since they were declared OK.
(4). So the least harmful option is for America to cut its losses and let this episode of dishonesty slide.

-----

For 3(a), the danger is that it appears as if the next administration has trumped up some minor charges. The conviction would appear to have failed because the charges were intrinsically weak - not merely because the abuses were crafty and the fact that trials are stacked in the defense's favour.

So why not have a threshold for what charges are strong enough? Why can't it be proved, for everyone to see, that the charges were not due to partisan spite? Instead of simply saying that 'the false appearance of petty vulturing is too dangerous', why not eliminate that falseness? There should be some mechanism for proving that a trial is justified. This mechanism would identify real abuse while neutralising any attempts at pushing through trumped-up charges in the future.

Does such a mechanism exist? Am I correct in thinking that it should?

------

For (3)b, if future administrations are so self-serving and sly, then why wouldn't they feel free to use these dishonest-but-not-clearly-illegal tactics anyway? The fact that a previous administration got away with it means the same thing as an acquittal - 'it's safe to do now'.

----

For (1), this point brought up by Patrick Degan may actually be 'airtight'. I don't really know anything about the American system - can this point be proven?

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.

The congressional subpoena power has been recognised in U.S. law since 1792. The only "legal kerfuffle" involved is the one being put up by the White House lawyers to attempt to endlessly obsfucate the issues based upon the "making shit up as you go along" principle of law, but they don't really have a legal or constitutional ground to stand upon.

The difference compared to Clinton's perjury is that it's a hell of a lot easier to nail down someone's actions than their words. In the former case, you just have to look at the law. For the latter, the semantics of an individual's statements must be argued.

[irishmick79]

Frankly, I would like to see some cases brought before a court just for the purpose of getting an interpretation on the legality of some of Bush's actions. I don't think that this would have to involve criminal charges, since that would certainly inject an element of partisanship into any kind of proceedings.

I'd rather have a court interpretation be wonktastic for policymakers - basically just saying what kind of actions are beyond the pale or not, and setting the boundaries more firmly. The Bush administration certainly exploited a lot of gaps in the law, and there does need to be some sort of guidance for future administrations.

[Darth Wong]

Using the Bush Administration's standard of truth, how do we know Clinton perjured himself? Perhaps he just "couldn't recall" sticking his penis in Monica Lewinski's mouth. It doesn't seem much more implausible than a Republican being in charge of a high-level meeting and then forgetting that he had ever been there, and no one is even hinting at accusations of perjury for the Bush cronies' countless "I don't remember" and "I was not involved" lies.

[Terralthra]

One wonders if Stuart would have advised Oliver Brown not to sue the School Board of Topeka Kansas, because the Supreme Court might have reaffirmed the precedent set in Plessy v. Ferguson.

[Surlethe]

One wonders if Stuart would have advised Oliver Brown not to sue the School Board of Topeka Kansas, because the Supreme Court might have reaffirmed the precedent set in Plessy v. Ferguson.

That seems like a strawman of his argument. He's giving a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" sort of argument and then picking the lesser (in his mind) of two evils. Your analogy does not take into account his claim of a retributive cycle between the two parties as the pendulum of power oscillates.

[Terralthra]

One wonders if Stuart would have advised Oliver Brown not to sue the School Board of Topeka Kansas, because the Supreme Court might have reaffirmed the precedent set in Plessy v. Ferguson.

That seems like a strawman of his argument. He's giving a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" sort of argument and then picking the lesser (in his mind) of two evils. Your analogy does not take into account his claim of a retributive cycle between the two parties as the pendulum of power oscillates.

I don't take it as a complete analogy to his set of arguments, but one argument he made was that if the Bush administration officials were put on trial for acts of 'questionable legality' and acquitted, it would set a precedent that those acts are legal. I think my example is analogous to that particular plank of his argument.

[Darth Wong]

It's actually a valid argument in the sense that you should launch a potentially precedent-setting case when conditions are favourable for a victory. Doing it when you are almost certain to lose is a "shoot yourself in the foot" scenario no matter how you look at it.