Wow. That’s all the way from the left to … the farther left.
John fucking Dean is “left” to you? Chuck Hegel is “left”?
You’re out to lunch. Stick to the law books, buddy.
I’d say center right to farther left. Give it time though. I don’t think the far right will be too keen on the idea of a democratic president exercising such extraordinary powers.
What about Lindsey Graham? You know, the leftist Republican Senator from the far-out liberal state of S. Carolina?
When we get to Dennis Kucinich, that’s when you start to get truly “left.” The Democratic party overall isn’t proposing ANYTHING that will truly change the system as it currently stands in a substantive way (Universal Healthcare, changing our core foreign policy, changing our marijuana or prostitution laws) IMO. They’ll keep it from getting worse maybe, but they aren’t going to do any major changes. That’s an issue for another thread though.
Yes, John Dean is Left. Good God, yes.
What are you basing your purprise on? Dean writes columns for writ.findlaw.com; I read them all. He is certainly fairly described as left-leaning.
Now, you may be picturing John Dean from the Watergate years – but in recent years, he has devoted his time to skewering the Republicans. Maybe he feels betrayed – I dunno. But he’s most certainly not a friend of the right.
Um, you are aware, of course, that Republican =/= “right” and Democratic =/= “left”, aren’t you? Please say you are.
The President has broken the law.
By your definition, every vigerous defense you have raised here is ashes.
The article claims that they were accidentially monitored, but the fact remains that they were monitored, and would have been legal if the proper channels were followed. If you are to claim that that since it’s accidental it doesn’t count, I’m certain several folks in jail for killing innocent bystanders will be very interested in the defense.
sigh
It’s still legal. If it’s accidental.
Now, let’s talk about these folks that are in jail for accidentally killing an innocent bystander.
If your entirely innocent, non-negligent conduct accidentally kills someone, then you are not in jail. Because the law does not punish innocent accidents.
How might you be in jail for killing an innocent bystander? There are two possibilities:
(1) You were trying to kill someone else, and, by accident, killed an innocent bystander. In that case, your felonious intent is transferred to to the innocent person. That is, you started out intending to kill A, and during the attempt accidentally killed B. Sure enough, that will get you in jail… because your existing INTENT is transferred to the victim. But of course, that’s not a valid analogy for what happened here: the original INTENT was entirely legal.
(2) You were doing something reckless or criminally negligent, and, even though you didn’t intend to cause any deaths, you did. That, too, will put you in jail. Because your culpability stems from the reckless or criminally negligent conduct, you see. Again, not a valid analogy here, because the President’s existing program was not reckless or criminally negligent.
You may be under the misapprehension that if you simply have an accident, one that truly isn’t your fault, and someone dies as a result, you can go to prison. That’s not so.
Now, it’s true that I said: *Now, if you have any evidence that US-to-US calls have been monitored, I will absolutely agree that the President has broken the law. Every vigorous defense I have raised here will be ashes if that’s the case.
- And I suppose I need to amend that statement now, to cover a contingency that I thought was implied… but evidently not. My rule as is confesses the President’s criminal guilt even if some NSA guy went off on his own and monitored people wirthout the President’s involvement in any way, and obviously that’s nonsense.
Now, if you have any evidence that US-to-US calls have been purposefully monitored by the US government in accord with the President’s directive, I will absolutely agree that the President has broken the law. Every vigorous defense I have raised here will be ashes if that’s the case.
I hope that covers it.
Is that what you used to tell the jury? That what your client did was simply accidental? :rolleyes: How well did it work?
That’s before we even get to the topic of the reasonability of your claim that it was accidental, and not negligent, things you once again assert as givens in order to reach the result you wish. You know by now how well that shit works here. As in this:
Do you have any evidence that that is so, or is all the burden of proof always on the other guys, in true december tradition?
Those ashes in your mouth must taste something awful for you to want so badly for them to be filet mignon.
You asked for evidence. I supplied it. You then lowered the bar.
I think what is even worse is that this occured while under the guidance of an officer of the court. Gonzales either made the grandious assumption that his opinion would pass the muster of every judge in the land, or knew that it wouldn’t and therefore bypassed the judiciary.
Look, I didn’t lower the bar. I didn’t explain the bar’s original position clearly enough.
Do you think that my intent was to set up a condition for “the bar” under which the president would be personally criminally guilty if some GS-9 at NSA did something without authorization?
I think you are making a mighty big assumption if you believe that the domestic monitoring was the result of a GS-9 doing something without authorization. If it’s anything like Echelon, the domestic monitoring was a product of the program.
Bush and Gonzales were responsible for the environment and the conditions that the program was run. If there were any questions about their legality, they should have sought out judicial oversight or used the existing avenues of FISA. If not when the program originated, at least when it came to light that domestic espionage had occured.
The purely domestic calls that were intercepted have been universally described as a mistake, and contrary to the President’s direct order. No crime can possibly exist under those conditions for an accident unless the original order was reckless or criminally negligent.
You say that they SHOULD HAVE sought out judicial oversight. I agree - that would have been the best, the wisest, thing to do. But proceeding on their own reading of the law does not make their actions criminal.
AGAIN: don’t misread my defense here as a cheer for the program or the President’s actions. They were unquestionably unwise.
JUST NOT CRIMINAL.
Unconstitutional. Violations of citizen’s rights under the 4th Amendment. Executive power grab. Arrogance run rampant. Ignorant of history. Idiotic. End run around the warrant requirement. Completely unnecesary. Despotic. But, to you, not criminal. Good company you keep.
My lawyer informs me that I can kill my neighbor for clipping my rosebuds according to his reading of the law. Even if the majority of legal scholars consider his reading to be an exremely liberal reading, am I free of responsibility when I go ahead and kill that rose clipping bastard?
I know that any grey area of the law can be cleared away if I go to a friendly congress and get a law passed that says I can kill my neighbor for clipping rosebuds. Instead, I sneak around behind congress’ back.
I have the advantage of my latin lawyer studying a new area law known as psychic law. I know that two years after I kill my rosebud killin neighbor, a precedent will be introduced with Hamdi. So even if there is no precedent for my lawyers decision to allow me to kill my neighbor at the time, and even when it does arise, it’s pretty unclear if I really can use it as a precedent, I go ahead and kill my neighbor.
You’re sayin I’m in the clear?
Depends. What’s your last name and to which political party do you belong?
-Joe
May we not, finally, cast off the tedious cloak of criminality that covers the bright shining beacon of impeachability?
. The impeccably conservative legal scholar and former Reagan aide Bruce Fein explained the deep implications of the President’s arrogance:“If President Bush is totally unapologetic and says, ‘I continue to maintain that as a wartime President I can do anything I want—I don’t need to consult any other branches,’ that is an impeachable offense. It’s more dangerous than Clinton’s lying under oath, because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would set a precedent that … would lie around like a loaded gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant.”
http://www.observer.com/opinions_conason-2.asp
disclaimer:duplicates post in the politepeoplessection
Another way to put it is that Bush has broken the law, and vows to continue breaking the law. But due to some legal technicalities (I.E, bending over backwards and jumping through flaming hoops to read the law in ones own preferred way), he will experience no consequences for his actions.
Someone explain to me why the FISA 72 hour provision isn’t sufficient.
Thanks.