Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#31
![]()
posted to misc.survivalism,rec.crafts.metalworking,alt.impeach.bush,rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "John R. Carroll" wrote in message ... "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. Ha-ha! Now you're dreaming. Maybe the dreams make you feel better. g I'll bet you could come up with the thinking of top federal lawyers if you looked around. Maybe FindLaw has something on it. As they say, I'm not a lawyer, but my guess is....there's not much there. 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. I'll bet that you won't get that past the Supreme Court. The Act gave Bush the authority to pursue the war, declared or not. Do you know how many wars we've fought without even that much authority from Congress? As of Truman's administration, we sent troops into war 87 times without authorization from Congress. In all of US history, war has been declared only five times. But the S.C. dealt seriously with the question of war powers several times when we were in undeclared wars. The Bush administration could have asked Congress to declare war but the fact is that didn't happen. 'Doesn't matter much anymore. The power of Congress to declare war has been described by legal scholars as "a relic of the 18th century." It's broadly assumed to have been deep-sixed, at least as a requirement, with Lincoln's sending of forces to Fort Sumpter, which the Supreme Court upheld. As for the 1973 War Powers Act, its constitutionality still hasn't been settled. 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. OK, I've pulled something from FindLaw, written by Michael Dorf, Dean of Law at Columbia and one of the top authorities on the subject. He agrees with most of your point but notice what he has to jump through in order to get there. And keep in mind that this is an opinion of a lawyer, not of the Supreme Court, and consider how many top lawyers are on both sides of big issues like this: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20060213.html Take a look at the few sections starting with "Concurrent War Powers..." It is a constitutional debate. All else being equal, I think Congress would come out on top, but I'm not a lawyer and all else is not equal. We have a Court populated by legal scholars who aren't impressed by the arguments of other lawyers. And they're pretty strong on presidential power, as well as by separation of powers. They've already slapped Congress's hands in the Hamdan case, although that was also a slap to Bush. All I'm saying is that there is enough of a constitutional issue here that I doubt if you could get convictions of elected Administration officials. And if I read you and Curly right, that's what you want. First, I'm doubtful that you're right. Second, prosecuting former elected officials for *offical acts*, as opposed to personal corruption, is not likely to fly in any case. Nor should it, unless we want to become a banana republic that imprisons the losers after an election. 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. What's less certain is that it's constitutional. -- Ed Huntress |
#32
![]()
posted to misc.survivalism,rec.crafts.metalworking,alt.impeach.bush,rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "John R. Carroll" wrote in message ... "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: 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. Ha-ha! Now you're dreaming. Maybe the dreams make you feel better. g Well, that last bit was tongue in cheek and I don't expect to see Federal Marshal's escorting Bush from the dias on 01/20. I don't especially think either would be very astute and certainly not productive. A warrant would perhaps, at some point, be appropriate. I'll bet you could come up with the thinking of top federal lawyers if you looked around. Maybe FindLaw has something on it. As they say, I'm not a lawyer, but my guess is....there's not much there. I'll bey I could. I've "looked around" and then some Ed and there is real discomfort in evidence. You can start with the OLC head that back walked an awful lot of Yoo's "legal" opinions written for the WH for starters. There was real gun fighing going on just before the 2004 elections over this stuff. My research has certainly changed my opinion of John Ashcroft. I think Yoo, David Addington and Dick Cheney are the only people on the planet that thought Yoo's work was rigorous or well founded and I'm pretty sure Addington and Cheney didn't care much beyond having the opinion they wanted to see. Scalia has made numerous and rather scathing regarding Yoo's "work". Some people may disagree on Scalia's opinions but anyone that knows him and his body of work/writings will tell you he's deadly serious about good lawyering. That's something that sets him apart from Thomas or Alito. Thomas, in fact, seems adept only at graft and nepotistic behavior. His legal writings are complete garbage. 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. I'll bet that you won't get that past the Supreme Court. The Act gave Bush the authority to pursue the war, declared or not. The Act itself is fairly clear although Bush seemed to prefer his alternate reading, especially in light of developments on the ground in Iraq. The Congressional Record is MORE than clear. Congress provided a tool intended to be used to convey the serious nature of our intentions. I think everyones expectations on both sides of the aisle were that invasion by ground forces would first and foremost be a last resort and second, that such an action would be properly and completely thought through. Who can forget the "exit strategy" mantra Republicans beat Clinton over the head with in the 90's? Given that, it wouldn't have been unreasonable to believe that the administration had something in mind. The truth, apparently, is that they didn't and I believe members of our Congress were apalled by this, even the Republican's. Perhaps them especially. Do you know how many wars we've fought without even that much authority from Congress? As of Truman's administration, we sent troops into war 87 times without authorization from Congress. In all of US history, war has been declared only five times. Well, I guess I know now. You seem to think this is estblishing some precedent. It is if you mean a precedent of getting away unchallenged or unscathed. None of those 87 instances confers legal standing one way or another. But the S.C. dealt seriously with the question of war powers several times when we were in undeclared wars. They have and my impression is that there was over reaching by plantiff's in every case. They compromised their own positions by being over broad. That's stupid as a professional matter. The Bush administration could have asked Congress to declare war but the fact is that didn't happen. 'Doesn't matter much anymore. The power of Congress to declare war has been described by legal scholars as "a relic of the 18th century." It's broadly assumed to have been deep-sixed, at least as a requirement, with Lincoln's sending of forces to Fort Sumpter, which the Supreme Court upheld. As for the 1973 War Powers Act, its constitutionality still hasn't been settled. The WPA cleraly violates he constitution. The question is severability. OK, I've pulled something from FindLaw, written by Michael Dorf, Dean of Law at Columbia and one of the top authorities on the subject. He agrees with most of your point but notice what he has to jump through in order to get there. And keep in mind that this is an opinion of a lawyer, not of the Supreme Court, and consider how many top lawyers are on both sides of big issues like this: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20060213.html Take a look at the few sections starting with "Concurrent War Powers..." I've read this and more Ed. Concurrent powers is clearly at issue. It is a constitutional debate. All else being equal, I think Congress would come out on top, but I'm not a lawyer and all else is not equal. We have a Court populated by legal scholars who aren't impressed by the arguments of other lawyers. And they're pretty strong on presidential power, as well as by separation of powers. They've already slapped Congress's hands in the Hamdan case, although that was also a slap to Bush. There isn't really much to debate. Today's Court may not be impressed with other lawyers but I can't imagine any reading of the Constitution that a constructionalist would find wanting in this regard. As a general matter, the Supremes have said publicly, in their writings, and privately that Congress has the power of the purse as it's primary tool but they haven't had the need beyond that. You mention Hamdan and I'm sure you have read it. All I'm saying is that there is enough of a constitutional issue here that I doubt if you could get convictions of elected Administration officials. And if I read you and Curly right, that's what you want. I don't know what Curly wants and suspect he doesn't either. I care less about the result than I do the attempt. Conviction or no, the shortcomings of our existing process would be fleshed out and the findings of the courts would provide a road map for either legistlation that would be constitutional or an ammendment to the Constitution itself. First, I'm doubtful that you're right. Second, prosecuting former elected officials for *offical acts*, as opposed to personal corruption, is not likely to fly in any case. Nor should it, unless we want to become a banana republic that imprisons the losers after an election. The real hallmark of banana republic's is a lack of respect for the law and the substitution of one mans judgement for it. 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. What's less certain is that it's constitutional. I don't believe so and neither do a lot of legal scholars. The gist of it is that FISA didn't and doesn't limit a President's authority to act timely. I haven't heard any compelling or authoritative argument that even sitting President's are imune from oversight. It's a transparency thing as well Ed. JC |
#33
![]()
posted to misc.survivalism,rec.crafts.metalworking,alt.impeach.bush,rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "John R. Carroll" wrote in message ... snip The gist of it is that FISA didn't and doesn't limit a President's authority to act timely. I haven't heard any compelling or authoritative argument that even sitting President's are imune from oversight. It's a transparency thing as well Ed. Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think it would be good for the country, and I doubt if you could get a conviction. If I understand you accurately, you think it would be good, and you're not as concerned about getting a conviction as you are about having a trial. I see it as divisive, at just the wrong time. And I don't think you'd be able to avoid having it look like political retribution, to many US citizens as well as to the rest of the world. The fine points are not going to be nearly as visible as are the facts that it's a constitutional argument and that we're willing to imprison those with whom we don't agree about constitutional interpretations. It isn't as if they were simply enriching themselves or arresting members of the opposition. If anything, proposing it as "justice" will breed a lot of cynicism and resentment within the US itself. The Constitution has provided for these things while they're occurring, by means of impeachment and trial. Congress had that opportunity but didn't act upon it. Now it's done, and the political process will undo as much of it as possible. To hold criminal trials after the fact is iffy. -- Ed Huntress |
#34
![]()
posted to misc.survivalism,rec.crafts.metalworking,alt.impeach.bush,rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "John R. Carroll" wrote in message ... snip The gist of it is that FISA didn't and doesn't limit a President's authority to act timely. I haven't heard any compelling or authoritative argument that even sitting President's are imune from oversight. It's a transparency thing as well Ed. Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think it would be good for the country, and I doubt if you could get a conviction. If I understand you accurately, you think it would be good, and you're not as concerned about getting a conviction as you are about having a trial. I'd like to insure that future President's excercise better judgement either because that have or or because they fear the consequences. Being able to look back at the outcome of Richard Nixon absent a pardon would have been beneficial. Ford pardoned Nixon for the exact reasons you have stated here Ed. One consequence of that pardon was that Cheney and his fellow travellers concluded that Nixon's mistake was getting caught because he was TO OPEN. They also concluded that there really wasn't significant risk. Ford never anticipated a George W. Bush. The two are as different as night and day both as civil servants and men. I can't help but wonder what a 1970's Ford would have thought of the nomination by his party of the likes of George W. Bush. It's pretty obvious in light of Tuesday's result that America, as a country, has repudiated the Bush years to a large extent. I see it as divisive, at just the wrong time. And I don't think you'd be able to avoid having it look like political retribution, to many US citizens as well as to the rest of the world. The fine points are not going to be nearly as visible as are the facts that it's a constitutional argument and that we're willing to imprison those with whom we don't agree about constitutional interpretations. It isn't as if they were simply enriching themselves or arresting members of the opposition. If anything, proposing it as "justice" will breed a lot of cynicism and resentment within the US itself. The Constitution has provided for these things while they're occurring, by means of impeachment and trial. Congress had that opportunity but didn't act upon it. Now it's done, and the political process will undo as much of it as possible. To hold criminal trials after the fact is iffy. I'm open to alternative solutions Ed and the one thing I know for sure is that I don't really know what's best. I'm only willing to exclude business as usual as an adequate response. You have to draw the line somewhere. JC |
#35
![]()
posted to misc.survivalism,rec.crafts.metalworking,alt.impeach.bush,rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 14:15:20 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message ... snip The gist of it is that FISA didn't and doesn't limit a President's authority to act timely. I haven't heard any compelling or authoritative argument that even sitting President's are imune from oversight. It's a transparency thing as well Ed. Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think it would be good for the country, and I doubt if you could get a conviction. If I understand you accurately, you think it would be good, and you're not as concerned about getting a conviction as you are about having a trial. I see it as divisive, at just the wrong time. And I don't think you'd be able to avoid having it look like political retribution, to many US citizens as well as to the rest of the world. The fine points are not going to be nearly as visible as are the facts that it's a constitutional argument and that we're willing to imprison those with whom we don't agree about constitutional interpretations. It isn't as if they were simply enriching themselves or arresting members of the opposition. If anything, proposing it as "justice" will breed a lot of cynicism and resentment within the US itself. The Constitution has provided for these things while they're occurring, by means of impeachment and trial. Congress had that opportunity but didn't act upon it. Now it's done, and the political process will undo as much of it as possible. To hold criminal trials after the fact is iffy. War Crimes rarely come to light until after a regime has been removed from power. Violation of the Geneva Convention, knowingly and with intent, is a crime under both U.S. and International law. Since Bush pardoned most of the players there is little option other than trying them at the Hague, I'd much rather take care of our own problems internally but this was Bush's choice. Justice must be done. -- 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=- |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Why mcain might win... | General |