On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 21:01:23 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:


"Curly Surmudgeon" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 18:08:09 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 06:26:31 -0800, Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:

It's amazing that the Republican retardos are *still* trying to blame
Bill Clinton for the never-ending incompetencies of the Bush
Administration.

It's all they have, baring the very few, like Colin Powell, who had the
balls to admit they were wrong and duped.

They keep claimng that smart Clinton duped dumb bush & sureshot ...
How dumb a defense is that?

Stupidity is its own reward. If that were the limit of
neocon/Republican failures I'd be fine with the result but collateral
damages have injured the entire nation. I want the movers and shakers
to punish those responsible for all to see, in a very public
environment, humiliate, broken and an icon for "representatives" to
ponder.

And I'd like to see what crimes you'd find to punish. I can't see many,

Treason, lying to Congress, violating their oath of office and corruption
off the top of my head.

except the usual film of corruption, etc., and the top officials are
probably well clear of most of that. The rest is wishful thinking on your
part.

--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now it's time for War Crime Trials at the Hague for Bush/Cheney
------------------------------------------------------------------------------




.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
at http://www.TitanNews.com
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 20:38:11 -0800, Calif Bill wrote:


"Curly Surmudgeon" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 18:08:09 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 06:26:31 -0800, Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:

It's amazing that the Republican retardos are *still* trying to blame
Bill Clinton for the never-ending incompetencies of the Bush
Administration.

It's all they have, baring the very few, like Colin Powell, who had the
balls to admit they were wrong and duped.

They keep claimng that smart Clinton duped dumb bush & sureshot ...
How dumb a defense is that?

Stupidity is its own reward. If that were the limit of
neocon/Republican failures I'd be fine with the result but collateral
damages have injured the entire nation. I want the movers and shakers
to punish those responsible for all to see, in a very public
environment, humiliate, broken and an icon for "representatives" to
ponder.

--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now it's time for War Crime Trials at the Hague for Bush/Cheney
------------------------------------------------------------------------------




.................................................. .............. Posted
via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
at http://www.TitanNews.com
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-


How about all the miscreants? Shummer for starting a bank run,

I believe that Bush himself began that but words are not a crime, not even
thought crime as a "conspiracy." Only actions.

Cris Dodd and Barney Frank for taking bribes from FM&FM.

Don't stop there, nail every politician who took money from a singly
lobbist.

Those Dem's who voted and believed Bill Clinton on the WMD's.

Don't think that will fly, Saddam did have WMD's then, those that Bush41
and Reagan gave him and others the same two perps taught him to make.

There are too many on both sides of the aisle that are guilty to have
any meaningful hearings.

Difficult task to be sure but it's mandatory if we are to ever retake and
stabilize our government.

--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now it's time for War Crime Trials at the Hague for Bush/Cheney
------------------------------------------------------------------------------




.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
at http://www.TitanNews.com
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

"Curly Surmudgeon" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 21:01:23 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:


"Curly Surmudgeon" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 18:08:09 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 06:26:31 -0800, Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:

It's amazing that the Republican retardos are *still* trying to blame
Bill Clinton for the never-ending incompetencies of the Bush
Administration.

It's all they have, baring the very few, like Colin Powell, who had the
balls to admit they were wrong and duped.

They keep claimng that smart Clinton duped dumb bush & sureshot ...
How dumb a defense is that?

Stupidity is its own reward. If that were the limit of
neocon/Republican failures I'd be fine with the result but collateral
damages have injured the entire nation. I want the movers and shakers
to punish those responsible for all to see, in a very public
environment, humiliate, broken and an icon for "representatives" to
ponder.

And I'd like to see what crimes you'd find to punish. I can't see many,

Treason

No chance. Treason requires undermining the government. They *are* the
government, duly elected. All you have there is a disagreement about the
distribution of powers. Debates about that don't win criminal cases; they
lead to Supreme Court cases that establish new precedent.

...lying to Congress

Prove that it wasn't priviledged and withheld information, protected by the
separation of powers. You won't be able to.

...violating their oath of office

Your opinion. You won't have a case.

...and corruption

Not likely, at the top administrative level.

off the top of my head.

And that's where it will stay. You're living a fantasy about how one can
prosecute a case at this level.

We're all angry at them, and it's natural to think they *should* be guilty
of some crime, but I doubt if there is anything prosecutable there.

--
Ed Huntress

"Curly Surmudgeon" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 20:38:11 -0800, Calif Bill wrote:


There are too many on both sides of the aisle that are guilty to have
any meaningful hearings.

Difficult task to be sure but it's mandatory if we are to ever retake and
stabilize our government.

--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now it's time for War Crime Trials at the Hague for Bush/Cheney
------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Is an impossible task when the people doing the trials are also guity of the
same misconduct. They are not going to have a trial, where they may get
gotten in the same net.

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Curly Surmudgeon" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 21:01:23 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:


"Curly Surmudgeon" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 18:08:09 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 06:26:31 -0800, Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:


We're all angry at them, and it's natural to think they *should* be guilty
of some crime, but I doubt if there is anything prosecutable there.

Warrantless spying on American's in America would be a better place to start
Ed.
Torture is also against the law.
I'd also be willing to bet a tidy sum that a Hatch Act case could be pursued
all the way to the White house.

This stuff isn't either imaginary or the result only of anger.
The President of the United States has been on national television admitting
first that certain acts are illegal and a day or so later, admitting that
they had both been undertaken and that such would continue - law or no.

I'll be very interested in the Obama administrations appointments at
Justice.
You should be too. We all should.

I'll allow that there are big issues to be dealt with that overshadow these
things in the minds of most Americans.
Any initiative won't come out of the White House. That doesn't mean the
Congress has to sit on their collective hands breathing a sigh of relief
that we've just dodged a bullet. We really haven't. We've taken a hit and
absorbed the impact. That's different.


JC

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Curly Surmudgeon" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 21:01:23 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:


"Curly Surmudgeon" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 18:08:09 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 06:26:31 -0800, Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:


We're all angry at them, and it's natural to think they *should* be
guilty of some crime, but I doubt if there is anything prosecutable
there.

Warrantless spying on American's in America would be a better place to
start Ed.

And what would be the upshot of that, John? A constitutional debate, settled
by the Supreme Court, in which they tell the executive branch to knock it
off, right? And maybe some civil cases, assuming someone can prove harm, and
even more dubious, that they would be granted standing by the federal
courts. Right?

Where's the criminal act? Whenever Congress tries to tell the executive
branch what they can and can't do, they're on thin constitutional ice. They
may win in the S.C. But that won't be a criminal case. It will be a
constitutional case.

Torture is also against the law.

So the S.C. will settle the issue of what constitutes torture, and tell the
administration that John Yoo's legal arguments are wrong. Again, where's the
crime? You have another constitutional debate, with the executive branch
prosecuting its definition of torture. I don't see who you would prosecute
for a crime. If the Court wants to, it could remand such a case back to a
trial court for prosecution. But would such a case ever see the inside of a
trial court? If it involves a huge constitutional issue -- and this one
does -- it probably would go right to the S.C. for a hearing on the
constitutionality of the issue.

Now, they might think differently at the Hague. But we don't recognize that
court.

I'd also be willing to bet a tidy sum that a Hatch Act case could be
pursued all the way to the White house.

Under the 1993 amendments, it's very unlikely they'd be able to prosecute.
The Hatch Act has been gutted at the federal level.


This stuff isn't either imaginary or the result only of anger.
The President of the United States has been on national television
admitting first that certain acts are illegal and a day or so later,
admitting that they had both been undertaken and that such would
continue - law or no.

When Congress authorized Bush to go to war in Iraq, they opened a Pandorra's
box. Now everything the executive branch does is theoretically under the
cloak of war powers, which are delineated by a mish-mash of Court precedents
and potential constitutional crises that are just lying in wait. Every
president since Lincoln, at least, who has engaged in war has broken the law
under assumed powers and it's rarely been challenged.

Nobody wants to bring these cases because they don't want to raise the
spectre of a constitutional crisis; the authority of the Congress over the
executive is only a gentlemen's agreement to begin with. If the executive
wants to get hard-nosed about it before the Court, they can tell Congress to
go **** up a rope and the Supreme Court, particularly this Court, may agree.
That would serve no one's interests.

The Founders left a lot of loose ends regarding these relationships, not the
least of which was a complete lack of a mechanism for resolving the
constitutionality of laws, and another of which was how the branches were
supposed to get along. It works on tradition and acceptance of precedent.
Nobody wants to push that too far. Prosecuting appointed executive officials
like Scooter Libby is one thing. Prosecuting elected officials is something
else.

The Spiro Agnew case, I think, was telling. Nobody could dispute his
criminality; Nixon didn't put up a fight. But the cases Curly is talking
about are really disagreements between the branches (or potential
disagreements) about what constitutes criminality. I can't think of where
that's been tested against elected officials in a criminal case. I don't
think it has been. Congress's remedy is impeachment, as they threatened
against Nixon, Clinton, etc.


I'll be very interested in the Obama administrations appointments at
Justice.
You should be too. We all should.

I'm more interested in what happens with the Supreme Court. And I don't want
to see a constitutional crisis. We'd all suffer from it.


I'll allow that there are big issues to be dealt with that overshadow
these things in the minds of most Americans.
Any initiative won't come out of the White House. That doesn't mean the
Congress has to sit on their collective hands breathing a sigh of relief
that we've just dodged a bullet. We really haven't. We've taken a hit and
absorbed the impact. That's different.

I'm cautious about your position on prosecuting top elected officials in the
executive branch. I recognize your point about being a nation of laws, but
prosecuting them would raise a bigger issue, which is how the three branches
of government are related in terms of authority. They get along because
Thomas Jefferson, in the Marbury case, decided they had to get along by
reasonable agreement. As it works now we have a uniquely effective balance
of powers. Create a big constitutional dust-up, and that could open the
gates of hell.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 04:33:16 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:


"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Curly Surmudgeon" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 21:01:23 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:


"Curly Surmudgeon" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 18:08:09 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 06:26:31 -0800, Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:


We're all angry at them, and it's natural to think they *should* be
guilty of some crime, but I doubt if there is anything prosecutable
there.

Warrantless spying on American's in America would be a better place to
start Ed.

And what would be the upshot of that, John? A constitutional debate,
settled by the Supreme Court, in which they tell the executive branch to
knock it off, right? And maybe some civil cases, assuming someone can
prove harm, and even more dubious, that they would be granted standing by
the federal courts. Right?

Where's the criminal act? Whenever Congress tries to tell the executive
branch what they can and can't do, they're on thin constitutional ice.
They may win in the S.C. But that won't be a criminal case. It will be a
constitutional case.

Torture is also against the law.

So the S.C. will settle the issue of what constitutes torture, and tell
the administration that John Yoo's legal arguments are wrong. Again,
where's the crime? You have another constitutional debate, with the
executive branch prosecuting its definition of torture. I don't see who
you would prosecute for a crime. If the Court wants to, it could remand
such a case back to a trial court for prosecution. But would such a case
ever see the inside of a trial court? If it involves a huge constitutional
issue -- and this one does -- it probably would go right to the S.C. for a
hearing on the constitutionality of the issue.

Now, they might think differently at the Hague. But we don't recognize
that court.

I'd also be willing to bet a tidy sum that a Hatch Act case could be
pursued all the way to the White house.

Under the 1993 amendments, it's very unlikely they'd be able to prosecute.
The Hatch Act has been gutted at the federal level.


This stuff isn't either imaginary or the result only of anger. The
President of the United States has been on national television admitting
first that certain acts are illegal and a day or so later, admitting
that they had both been undertaken and that such would continue - law or
no.

When Congress authorized Bush to go to war in Iraq, they opened a
Pandorra's box. Now everything the executive branch does is theoretically
under the cloak of war powers, which are delineated by a mish-mash of
Court precedents and potential constitutional crises that are just lying
in wait. Every president since Lincoln, at least, who has engaged in war
has broken the law under assumed powers and it's rarely been challenged.

Nobody wants to bring these cases because they don't want to raise the
spectre of a constitutional crisis; the authority of the Congress over the
executive is only a gentlemen's agreement to begin with. If the executive
wants to get hard-nosed about it before the Court, they can tell Congress
to go **** up a rope and the Supreme Court, particularly this Court, may
agree. That would serve no one's interests.

The Founders left a lot of loose ends regarding these relationships, not
the least of which was a complete lack of a mechanism for resolving the
constitutionality of laws, and another of which was how the branches were
supposed to get along. It works on tradition and acceptance of precedent.
Nobody wants to push that too far. Prosecuting appointed executive
officials like Scooter Libby is one thing. Prosecuting elected officials
is something else.

The Spiro Agnew case, I think, was telling. Nobody could dispute his
criminality; Nixon didn't put up a fight. But the cases Curly is talking
about are really disagreements between the branches (or potential
disagreements) about what constitutes criminality. I can't think of where
that's been tested against elected officials in a criminal case. I don't
think it has been. Congress's remedy is impeachment, as they threatened
against Nixon, Clinton, etc.


I'll be very interested in the Obama administrations appointments at
Justice.
You should be too. We all should.

I'm more interested in what happens with the Supreme Court. And I don't
want to see a constitutional crisis. We'd all suffer from it.


I'll allow that there are big issues to be dealt with that overshadow
these things in the minds of most Americans. Any initiative won't come
out of the White House. That doesn't mean the Congress has to sit on
their collective hands breathing a sigh of relief that we've just dodged
a bullet. We really haven't. We've taken a hit and absorbed the impact.
That's different.

I'm cautious about your position on prosecuting top elected officials in
the executive branch. I recognize your point about being a nation of laws,
but prosecuting them would raise a bigger issue, which is how the three
branches of government are related in terms of authority. They get along
because Thomas Jefferson, in the Marbury case, decided they had to get
along by reasonable agreement. As it works now we have a uniquely
effective balance of powers. Create a big constitutional dust-up, and that
could open the gates of hell.

While I'd hate to see it used, if all else fails we still have the 2nd
Amendment. Let's try the courts first.

--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now it's time for War Crime Trials at the Hague for Bush/Cheney
------------------------------------------------------------------------------




.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
at http://www.TitanNews.com
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 00:19:38 -0800, Calif Bill wrote:


"Curly Surmudgeon" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 20:38:11 -0800, Calif Bill wrote:


There are too many on both sides of the aisle that are guilty to have
any meaningful hearings.

Difficult task to be sure but it's mandatory if we are to ever retake
and stabilize our government.

--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now it's time for War Crime Trials at the Hague for Bush/Cheney
------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Is an impossible task when the people doing the trials are also guity of
the same misconduct. They are not going to have a trial, where they may
get gotten in the same net.

As I said in another branch, this is why the 2nd Amendment was written but
let's first try the courts. I hope you're wrong so We, The People, aren't
forced to do the job our representatives have failed to do.

--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now it's time for War Crime Trials at the Hague for Bush/Cheney
------------------------------------------------------------------------------




.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
at http://www.TitanNews.com
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

"Curly Surmudgeon" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 04:33:16 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:


"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

snip


I'm cautious about your position on prosecuting top elected officials in
the executive branch. I recognize your point about being a nation of
laws,
but prosecuting them would raise a bigger issue, which is how the three
branches of government are related in terms of authority. They get along
because Thomas Jefferson, in the Marbury case, decided they had to get
along by reasonable agreement. As it works now we have a uniquely
effective balance of powers. Create a big constitutional dust-up, and
that
could open the gates of hell.

While I'd hate to see it used, if all else fails we still have the 2nd
Amendment. Let's try the courts first.

--
Regards, Curly

Fine. If you're physically threatened, or if you're actually threatened by
tyrany, go for it. But we're talking here about punishing an administration
that's leaving office. If your idea of the appropriate use of the 2nd is to
act as jury and executioner in a criminal trial after the fact, you'll find
yourself on the muzzle end of the gun barrel.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Curly Surmudgeon" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 21:01:23 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:


"Curly Surmudgeon" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 18:08:09 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 06:26:31 -0800, Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:


We're all angry at them, and it's natural to think they *should* be
guilty of some crime, but I doubt if there is anything prosecutable
there.

Warrantless spying on American's in America would be a better place to
start Ed.

And what would be the upshot of that, John? A constitutional debate,
settled by the Supreme Court, in which they tell the executive branch to
knock it off, right? And maybe some civil cases, assuming someone can
prove harm, and even more dubious, that they would be granted standing by
the federal courts. Right?

I don't think there is a basis for a case that FISA violated the
constitution.
I'm sure that such a contention would end up as part of any defense but so
what?
Alledging a defense isn't an actual defense.
The Justice Department could file the instant Obama takes the oath.
A high profile defendent would be hard to place but there is always Gitmo.

This stuff isn't either imaginary or the result only of anger.
The President of the United States has been on national television
admitting first that certain acts are illegal and a day or so later,
admitting that they had both been undertaken and that such would
continue - law or no.

When Congress authorized Bush to go to war in Iraq, they opened a
Pandorra's box.

Did WHAT?
We aren't at war, in the legal sense, with anyone Ed.
The Bush administration could have asked Congress to declare war but the
fact is that didn't happen.
A resolution authorizing a Presidential use of force is specifically
different on this very point. Bush isn't, and never was, a wartime commander
in chief.
Congressional authorization to use US troops in accordance with our
commitments under NATO didn't confer extradornary powers to Clinton either.

Now everything the executive branch does is theoretically under the cloak
of war powers, which are delineated by a mish-mash of Court precedents and
potential constitutional crises that are just lying in wait. Every
president since Lincoln, at least, who has engaged in war has broken the
law under assumed powers and it's rarely been challenged.

The assumption that special "war powers" were confered is just wrong Ed.
At least in the case of Bush.



I'll be very interested in the Obama administrations appointments at
Justice.
You should be too. We all should.

I'm more interested in what happens with the Supreme Court. And I don't
want to see a constitutional crisis. We'd all suffer from it.

The price of our form of government Ed. Where you see crisis, I see
opportunity. America isn't so fragile you know.
Figuring this one out while we have the luxury of time will prevent having
to resolve this issue at a later date when we might not.
An ammendment to our Constitution might be required and it would be wrong to
start ramming something like that through the States.

Baker and Christopher have worked with a commission to produce a new War
Powers Act.
That's a good place to start talking but the only meaningful solution will
be to ammend the Constitution.



I'll allow that there are big issues to be dealt with that overshadow
these things in the minds of most Americans.
Any initiative won't come out of the White House. That doesn't mean the
Congress has to sit on their collective hands breathing a sigh of relief
that we've just dodged a bullet. We really haven't. We've taken a hit and
absorbed the impact. That's different.

I'm cautious about your position on prosecuting top elected officials in
the executive branch. I recognize your point about being a nation of laws,
but prosecuting them would raise a bigger issue, which is how the three
branches of government are related in terms of authority.

Not really Ed.
This is a simple criminal matter and ought to be dealt with as such. Failing
to do so undermines our system.
FISA was and is well understood.

JC