- #1
- 8,142
- 1,760
A commentary that I noticed. Just FYI.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030606.html
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030606.html
Originally posted by russ_watters
It is important to note that the Constitution leaves it up to the House to decide what an impeachable offense is - so ANYTHING can be an impeachable offense, including "this". Hell, they could impeach him for having big ears and a funny looking face if they wanted to.
This is also why Hillary Clinton is wrong about the "right wing conspiracy." Maybe he did get impeached just because the republicans didn't like him. But that's allowed by the Constitution.
Originally posted by Zero
Kyle, let's be realistic...Iraq's 'backpack' is almost completely empty.
By a THIRD?? Try finding three random springs and an unrifled tube. There has been no solid evidence of a WMD program, and certainly not one which justifies a war. Don't worry though...Bush will lie again, and say that he is credible(ha) because the world is safer(HA!)...instead of gaining credibility by the simpler traditional method of TELLING THE TRUTH!Originally posted by kyle_soule
Yea, you are probably right, cut that list of parts in a third, I would still hope they would take his backpack away though.
From below:The ends justify the means?
Originally posted by kyle_soule
Whether their are WMD or not, the people wanted to be free of Saddam, and Bush did the right thing, and if it took lies to do it, so be it, we all lie, it was for the best. And I am not saying he lied, I don't believe he did.
In this case, unequivocably yes.Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
The ends justify the means?
Originally posted by kyle_soule
That's what I said.
If a cop had a hunch that a house was being used to make child porn and went out and broke into the house himself and his hunch was correct, wouldn't you agree the end justify's the means there?
"In the counsels of Government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the Military Industrial Complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together."
---- President Eisenhower - January 1961
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
No. This leads to an even worse kind of lawlessness - oppression by the elite and powerful. This is why we have laws and choose not to live as the wild west. This is why we have a constitution.
Originally posted by kyle_soule
So we ignore what we find because...why? because it was not our original intent?? So if somebody is walking down to the grocery store and finds a dead body, they should ignore it, because they did not intend to find it?
Originally posted by russ_watters
In this case, unequivocably yes.
Originally posted by Zero
And this is the attitude that will ruin this country.
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I am showing my age a bit when I point out that some of the attitudes expressed here by Kyle and Russ, and that I hear from many people these days, [I don't mean to pick Kyle and Russ in particular ] are very familiar: These ideas are what I was taught were typical examples of "Evil Empire", always trust a commie to be a commie, making me see Red, now defunct, Pinko-Soviet values.
Just to be clear, the ideas expressed here and by many people these days are the very kinds of things that we used to claim as the enemies values; the very kinds of things that made the enemy the enemy. The thing that defines the US is the constitution. By definition, our soldiers fight to protect the constitution. By definition, anyone who seeks to undermine the constitution is an enemy of the state.
Originally posted by Zero
Good post...America loses something when we start thinking that if a cause is good, we can do whatever we want. Who gets to decide what is right, and when it is ok to use illegal or immoral means? And, once that door is open, how do we prevent America from becoming a dictatorship?
Sounds pretty cool to me, after all, anarchy results in lots of fun.If you believe what you are doing is right, then it is. Period.
The five tenets? Let's see, what are they...I hate to sound patronizing, but read a WORLD history book. Check out how long these fundamentalist muslim F**ks have been mucking up the line betweeen good and evil. Read the basic tenets of their existence
Where does it say "fly planes into buildings" ?! Mainstream Islam has been around a long time. Believe it or not, it encourages justice, making it a natural enemy of corruption. It opposes the Law of the Jungle that G so eloquently mouthed.The major duties, nevertheless, in the life of a Moslem are to fulfill these Five Pillars. They are: 1. The Statement of Faith (Shahadah) 2. The Establishment of Prayers (Salah) 3. The Giving of Alms (Zakah) 4. Fasting (Sawm), and 5. Pilgrimage to Mecca (Hajj).
Originally posted by Ganshauk
Ahh. You touch it, but cannot grasp it.
What is right? What is immoral? Who is to judge?
America, my friend, loses everything when we start thinking that what we are doing is bad. All nations use immoral means. They always have. Morality means nothing in the world stage. Publicity is all.
If you believe what you are doing is right, then it is. Period. It is up to you to look around you. Do you want your friends and family to prosper or decline?
Can you kill a ten year old who threatens your family with a bomb? Can you subjugate a population who is bent on your destruction? If you are a relative of the 9/11 bombing I bet you can.
Truth is subjective. The stench of dead loved ones is objective.
I hate to sound patronizing, but read a WORLD history book. Check out how long these fundamentalist muslim F**ks have been mucking up the line betweeen good and evil. Read the basic tenets of their existence. No amount of spin can circumvent the single fact that these bastards want to wipe us ALL out. Every since ~600 A.D. these guys have been positioned to destroy the world.
America, like Europe, is soft - like a marshmallow. We let this crap go on. They get stronger - we get softer. All in the name of PC.
With the (even remote) possibility of world destruction, I will never coutenance such a "death-culture" until my vast progeny have been scattered beyond the furthest reach of both ICBM and engineered microbe.
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
No. This has nothing to do with what you said. You made the assertion that we should do away with search warrants. Also, this is hardly a comparison to Iraq. If we were tripping over the WMD this thread would not exist.
By your reasoning, we may as well throw away the constitution and the courts.
Just to be clear, the ideas expressed here and by many people these days are the very kinds of things that we used to claim as the enemies values; the very kinds of things that made the enemy the enemy. The thing that defines the US is the constitution. By definition, our soldiers fight to protect the constitution. By definition, anyone who seeks to undermine the constitution is an enemy of the state.
Good post...America loses something when we start thinking that if a cause is good, we can do whatever we want. Who gets to decide what is right, and when it is ok to use illegal or immoral means? And, once that door is open, how do we prevent America from becoming a dictatorship?
Are you saying that there is *NOT* ever a time when it is unequivocably clear that action is justified? It sounds to me like you are old enough to remember a pretty big one.Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Just to be clear, the ideas expressed here and by many people these days are the very kinds of things that we used to claim as the enemies values; the very kinds of things that made the enemy the enemy.
In this case, the right thing was done for the right reasons and with the right methods. Now I understand you dispute the reasons, though as I have pointed out countless times, there were FOUR right reasons and you seem to only have a beef with one of them.Originally posted by Zero
When the right thing is done for the wrong reasons, and by the wrong methods, it is wrong.
WHEN?? When is action justified? How bad exactly does someone or some situation have to be before we say enough is enough?There are times when action is justified.
Originally posted by russ_watters
And forget for now the "clear and present danger" bit. Thats not always required: Clinton went into Kosovo. Clearly he thought (and I agree) that that situation was bad enough to warrant action. Bush I went into Somalia and I agreed (Clinton disagreed and removed the troops). France is currently fighting a war on the Ivory Coast and I agree there as well.
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
The "clear and present danger" was the constitutional justification used by Bush and his cronies. Other situations don't apply. What matters here is whether or not Bush violated the constitution and committed a high crime in the process. I find it interesting that you wish to dismiss the key legal issue.
Originally posted by kyle_soule
One out of four isn't bad, he was wrong on one, he didn't throw in another reason to trick the American people. Three reasons would have been sufficient.
Isn't it reason enough to not allow weapons inspectors in for years and years to take "real" action? If he didn't have anything to hide he would have no reason to deny access.
Originally posted by kyle_soule
Isn't it reason enough to not allow weapons inspectors in for years and years to take "real" action? If he didn't have anything to hide he would have no reason to deny access.
John Dean: a FindLaw columnist, is a former Counsel to the President of the United States."To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."
-- The Washington PostCIA officials now say they communicated significant doubts to the administration about the evidence backing up charges that Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Africa for nuclear weapons, charges that found their way into President Bush's State of the Union address, a State Department "fact sheet" and public remarks by numerous senior officials.