President Bush commuted 'Scooter' Libby's sentence

[Lazy_Perfectionist]

Did you hear? After the appeal process failed, President Bush commuted Libby's sentence to just the fine and probation. No 30 month sentence.

Let me put this in context for you. Paris Hilton is the shining example of Virtue and Justice. She served 45 days, and claims to have read the bible daily, leaving a changed woman.

[Atrocities]

Good for Libby if this is true. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Edi]

So, the criminal president commutes his criminal vice president's criminal assistant's sentence because we can't have anybody in the executive branch actually suffer the consequences of the crimes they've committed.

*puke*

[Gandalf Parker]

On the one hand, it does seem to be another instance of the president showing the holes that exist in the system. Hopefully it will make the need apparent for closing some of those. Its really going to add damage to the worlds view of us.

On the other hand, Bush's popularity is about as low as it can get and he cant run for re-election (2 term limit). He cant really hurt HIMSELF much by any action he takes.

[Edi]

He's already done damage enough to last for decades. He managed to appoint two conservative ideologue ****wits into the Supreme Court who have handed down decisions such as the latest one that overturns 90 years of sensible precedent and allows manufacturer's to set minimum retail prices, and the justification for that was that it supposedly encourages competition when it does the exact opposite. You and everyone else in your country has to live with the consequences of those appointments, in quite a few cases probably for the rest of your lives.

He and his administration are criminals every one, guilty of high treason and other various lesser crimes in addition to the war crimes involved with Guantanamo and other crap that has gone down. From that perspective, this is just par for the course.

[Atrocities]

Edi said:
So, the criminal president commutes his criminal vice president's criminal assistant's sentence because we can't have anybody in the executive branch actually suffer the consequences of the crimes they've committed.

*puke*



Edi has the president been convicted of a crime? If you want to point fingers about a criminal pardoning other criminals then I suggest you review who Bill Clinton, a convicted criminal, pardoned on his last day in office.

[Lazy_Perfectionist]

Disclaimer: I'm 23 years old. That limits my political perspective somewhat. While I've studied history, practically all recent presidents are just that to me. My political interests are fairly recent. I started to pay attention during Bill, but it didn't really start developing until 2000. '04 I actually did research on the canidates. I'm not hugely interested in comparisons with previous presidents, because shamefully enough, those previous presidents were boring talking heads at the time, at most a dirty joke or two.

While listening to talk radio I've heard a lot of opinions on commutation versus pardons, and a lot of misinformation. I haven't figured out what the bare facts of the matter are yet, I'll probably do that tomorrow, and then throw myself fully into the fray with a heavily biased opinion.

Atrocities, it is worth it to point out that Edi hasn't used the word pardon even once yet, though you might find something like that reading between the lines, intended or not, there or not. The reason I point this out that the American populace are used to criminal pardons, and for that fact, commutations on sentences. But we're primarily used that happening on the last day in office, not all the way before an election year, not before the person's served any time, and not for a member of their own administration (I could very well be far off the mark in that very last comment, read disclaimer).

Look at the long list of Clinton's commutations.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardons6b.htm
These people had at least served time, the least of which is one year. Some over a decade. Libby served less than Paris Hilton - even before she got sent back.

Hmmm... this passage shows me I need to do further research.

"How many pardons did President Clinton give during his two terms?

In total, President Clinton issued 456 executive clemency orders - 395 pardons and 61 commutations - between 1993 and January 20, 2001. The vast majority were issued in the last three years of his presidency - 176 (140 pardons, 36 commutations) were issued on his last day in office. "

Anyways, point is, this is an unusually high profile case, and Bush has been pretty light on the pardons to date. 76, most around two decades old, not just fresh off the appeal. Much as I know wikipedia's not a reliable source, I'll link them for quickness' sake.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_George_W._Bush

This is the fourth such commutation he's done. And its quite exceptional to have a sentenced commuted before a day's been served. There have been past scandals around the presidental pardon - and this one might not be that unique (I don't know yet, but I'm looking) - but it still is scandalous.

[Atrocities]

Libby was convicted because he could not remember events that took place years before accurately. I ask you, can you remember what you did last July 1st? Now be specific, who did you talk to, what did you talk about. Now say that I told you that I know someone who said that they talked to you about something specific. You didn't mention that to me, you are therefore guilty of the same crime that Libby was. Mind you that Paris was guilty of a crime which was far more serious than forgetting a conversation that took place a year or two before. Comparing live to her is an absurdity.

I don't need to point out that at least one of the people that Clinton had pardoned was a guy who was under active investigation for ongoing criminal activities. Libby just forgot things and was sent to jail for that. I would rather he pay the 250k fine then server a day in jail for memory loss.

Now if it were up to me, I would have pardoned Libby too, and would have kept the fine in place. Which is what I think Bush did as well. However I would also pardon the two boarder patrol cops that were recently convicted on the testimony of a known drug deal for shooting him in the *** when he was fleeing while shooting at them. Those two should not have ever been convicted. Bush should pardon them, and I would have pardoned them BEFORE ever considering a pardon for Libby.

[Lazy_Perfectionist]

Interesting post, Atrocities. I know which way I lean on this issue, but I want to look into this further before I regretfully agree, or gleefully disagree. I shouldn't have much trouble finding a liberal commentary, given my biases. But would you recommend any well-thought-out conservative pieces most likely to sway my opinion in your favor on the issue of perjury vs. memory loss?

To be fair, I know more disreputable right-wing sources then reputable. But I do know there are some respectable right-wing sources- i've stumbled across them a few times, though this laptop doesn't have any bookmarks and I don't remember their names. If you'd give me a link, I'd read with an open, though left-leaning centrist mind.

Tomorrow, I'll see if I can get any of the facts on the perjury trial, or how much was made available to the public. And by facts, I mean transcripts or excerpts or first hand accounts. I won't comment further tonight on this point until I spend some time informing myself.

Is it true that the judge was a Republican Appointee? And that Fitzgerald was suggested and confirmed by Republicans?
A court of law found him guilty of perjury, and obstruction of justice, not merely mistaken.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p032.htm
"and the person knew at the time the testimony was false."

I'll try to look over the facts of the case, but Perjury isn't merely a matter of being mistaken.

[Atrocities]

I doubt if we will ever know the truth depth of what really went on. I feel that given the weight of what Libby was convicted for against the crime of leaking top secret information in general, Libby's crime is barely a blip on the radar. If they will go after Libby for not remembering accurately, and not go after people who have leaked top secret information to the press because it embarrassed Bush, well then all I can say is that I feel this whole process has been nothing but a huge hypocritical political snow job. And that I cannot abide.

The thing is, if you are asked a question under oath, say for example, where were you on July 1st of last year, and you say that you believe you were at home. Then a few days later you are called back in and told that someone said that you were not at home on July 1st, but were instead seen at the movies. That is perjury and is tentatively similar to what happened to Libby. He remember it one way, but testimony from another source counterdicted his. Therefore he must be lying when in fact he could simply have not remembered. Again, put yourself in his shoes. Having dealt with elderly people on a regular basis I can assure you that there memories are not perfect and even someone as honest as my father could be found guilty of the same thing that Libby was because of memory issues.

[Edi]

Atrocities, your rhetorical question about Bush being convicted of crimes is a red herring. Let's take a look at what Bush and his government have been doing during the past six years:
started illegal war of aggression (Iraq)
illegal wiretapping of American citizens without warrant
illegal detainment of American citizens (Padilla) without due process
illegal detainment of prisoners of war (Guantanamo)
torture of detainees
Just for starters. They've also ignored subpoenas from Congress on a number of matters and the fact that the Justice Department, which is supposed to enforce those and investigate criminal activities including those by the executive branch, has not done it due to being headed by one of the criminals in question, does not make the actions of the administration any less illegal. So, yes, they are criminals. But it's funny how no matter what the Bush White House does, no matter how illegal, there are always people standing up for them and attacking anyone who criticizes them directly and has the balls to tell the truth without sugarcoating it and trying to make it seem less than it was.

Libby was convicted not because he could not remember, but becasue it was determined during the criminal investigation that he had in fact LIED instead of just forgetting, and thus he had perjured himself. What's even more appalling about this commuting of the service is that it's the supposedly tough on crime Republicans who are defending AFTER they themselves passed legislation that toughened penalties on precisely this sort of thing. The President who had no problem signing death warrants for mentally deficient people things that 30 months of prison is "too harsh" for one of his stooges is beyond the pale with the hypocrisy.

Your governmental system is rotten to the core and currently run by criminals. If you have a counterargument to those facts that doesn't hinge on lack of enforcement, I'd really be interested in hearing it.

[capnq]

Lazy_Perfectionist said: While listening to talk radio I've heard a lot of opinions on commutation versus pardons, and a lot of misinformation.

Talk radio is a horrible source for forming an opinion on anything. The signal-to-noise ratio is atrocious.

Libby was a scapegoat, thrown to the wolves to deflect attention from the real culprit.

[Atrocities]

Edi said:
Atrocities, your rhetorical question about Bush being convicted of crimes is a red herring.



So in other words Edi, no, Bush has not been convicted of any crimes.

[Atrocities]

Edi if you hate Bush and America so much that you would side with Terrorist then anything you say should be viewed with great suspicion. Here in the US only extreme left wing liberals want to see these terrorist go free. They want to welcome them with open arms and give them neckless of flowers and defend anything that they do by calling them freedom fighters. However most Americans, the ones that are never polled, believe otherwise.

* started illegal war of aggression (Iraq)
Under the terms of the cease fire of the first Gulf War the US reserved the right to invade Iraq if Saddam violated any of the terms of the cease fire. Which he did on many occasions. In fact the attempted assassination of a former President is an open act of war. Clinton was a pansy arsed weak sister when it came to these kind of things and that embolden terrorist and dick heads like Saddam to poke a stick at the sleeping dragon and they got burned for it. Now why should we America's feel guilty for fighting back?

* illegal wiretapping of American citizens without warrant
For the most part they weren't American citizens that were the subjects of these wire taps. You should get your facts strait before making such comments. Also I don't know if you grasp this or not, but most Americans agreed that this was not a violation of our rights given the fact that the wire tapping was focused upon out bound or in bound calls from known or suspected terrorist or terrorist states. The Liberals tried to make this into a big deal and it didn't work for them either.

* illegal detainment of American citizens (Padilla) without due process
How many American citizens have been illegally detained by terrorists around the world since the religious zealots in Iran invaded and kidnapped our people at the US embassy in Tehran?

* illegal detainment of prisoners of war (Guantanamo)
Your assertion that these innocent victims being illegally detained at Guantanamo are somehow being kept against their will is well, the whole point. They are bad men with bad intentions and for the most part are dedicated to killing innocent people because they are religious zealots bent upon martyring themselves. Clearly these men are not innocent victims of American aggression. And if you believe that they are so innocent and should be set free, then by all mean go down to Cuba and set them free. Take them home and give them all the loving that they need. Hug them, coddle them, and when you wake up in a pool of your own blood just remember that it was you who set them free.

* torture of detainees
I don't know if I should just laugh at this or just laugh at it. These "freedom fighters" that have been so wrongfully misunderstood cut the heads off of the people they kidnap after they burned them, electrocuted them, gouged out eyeballs, cut off fingers, and crushed their groin, and you have the audacity to imply that taking a picture of one of them naked, or denying them access to the Quran is torture?

[Azselendor]

Atrocities, no offense to you, but I'm yet to meet a liberal who wants terrorist to go free. What we want is for America to endure and survive and the laws to be upheld. Saying liberals want to embrace terrorist is fox news talking points and this adminstration's propaganda nonsense.

Repeating a lie enough times doesn't make it true. It just makes it a well known lie.

Bill Clinton may or may not be a criminal, but lying about sex is nothing compared to the corruption and criminal behavior of this administration. make no mistake history will record Bush's administration as the one that brought an end to the American Century through mismanagement, incompetence and arrogance.

I don't know if you read this or not, but before you go any further atrocities, read this column http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19588942/

[Edi]

Atrocities said:
Edi if you hate Bush and America so much that you would side with Terrorist then anything you say should be viewed with great suspicion.


Right. This here is where the gloves come off. You will either immediately provide evidence that I have in any way supported or condoned terrorist acts against the US or its citizens, or you will retract that accusation and apologize. Else you can expect this thread to get VERY unpleasant.

For the record, I do not hate America. I've got a fair few American friends I've gotten to know over the last few years over the net, so I can actually differentiate between the ordinary US citizens and the US government. Your inability to make that same distinction is not my problem, it's yours, and every time you bring it up, I'm going to shove it up your backside.

As far as the American government is concerned, here's how it goes: For the Bush administration, characterizing my opinion as utter contempt is putting it charitably. Congress, they're a bunch of spineless morons for the most part, given the track record from the past few years. They've been largely irrelevant and have generally bent over for the White House in almost every conceivable way in the arena of politics.


Atrocities said:
Here in the US only extreme left wing liberals want to see these terrorist go free. They want to welcome them with open arms and give them neckless of flowers and defend anything that they do by calling them freedom fighters. However most Americans, the ones that are never polled, believe otherwise.


There are so many things wrong with that that it's hard to know where to begin. The problem with the people detained in Guantanamo is that they are not being really accused of anything. They're just being held behind bars without any access to due process, and any information they might have had is so badly outdated by now it's actually worse than useless. The only accusation against them so far that I've heard is that they are "enemy combatants", whatever that means, and Bush's own military commissions had to rule, on the basis of the recent laws, that they do not have jurisdiction. If they were guilty of the things they are accused of, the government should be able to bring charges like conspiracy to commit murder or other similar things against them, put them on trial and lock them away. Yet they refuse to do so. The only logical explanation for that is that they have no case. Ergo, the detainees should be returned to their home countries.

As far as "the majority of Americans who were not polled", your inability to understand statistical methods is again not my problem. A sample size of one or two thousand when selected randomly across the population of the US and accounting for certain factors so that it isn't biased, is actually a viable method and the results reliable. I'm not a statistician myself, but I know people who are and I've seen them rip the kind of laughably ignorant statements like you made here to shreds in excruciating detail.



Atrocities said:
* started illegal war of aggression (Iraq)
Under the terms of the cease fire of the first Gulf War the US reserved the right to invade Iraq if Saddam violated any of the terms of the cease fire. Which he did on many occasions. In fact the attempted assassination of a former President is an open act of war. Clinton was a pansy arsed weak sister when it came to these kind of things and that embolden terrorist and dick heads like Saddam to poke a stick at the sleeping dragon and they got burned for it. Now why should we America's feel guilty for fighting back?


If you actually went back and read the UN resolutions and other relevant documents related to that, you would know that's a load of manure. As far as the assassination attempt on Bush Sr. goes, does the concept of proportionate response mean anything to you? By your logic, if anyone had the means to retaliate for American offenses against their nation, they would be completely justified in wiping your country out to the last man, woman and child. Your personal attack on Clinton is irrelevant, since Clinton actually managed to contain Saddam with minimal bloodshed and reduced him to complete irrelevance except as somebody who was good for a news headline or two when he amped up the bluster.


Atrocities said:
* illegal wiretapping of American citizens without warrant
For the most part they weren't American citizens that were the subjects of these wire taps. You should get your facts strait before making such comments. Also I don't know if you grasp this or not, but most Americans agreed that this was not a violation of our rights given the fact that the wire tapping was focused upon out bound or in bound calls from known or suspected terrorist or terrorist states. The Liberals tried to make this into a big deal and it didn't work for them either.


Actually, you're again repeating flat out lies you've been fed. Nobody in the US media even tried to really investigate the wiretapping issue until it became to big to ignore and even after that it was half-hearted at best so as not to offend the Washington elite and the White House in particular. Your ridiculous statement about "most Americans didn't feel like it was" is completely irrelevant. The law of your land says that if the President wants to wiretap American citizens, he needs a warrant from the courts, even if it happens to be the secret FISA court, which has been very lenient with its requirements for evidence in the past. Yet Bush did not do that and when he was caught, he admitted to it in public and vowed he would continue to ignore the law. His lawbreaking is a matter of established fact, both by evidence and his own admission and your feeble flailing about with apologist justifications is just a lot of hot air.


Atrocities said:
* illegal detainment of American citizens (Padilla) without due process
How many American citizens have been illegally detained by terrorists around the world since the religious zealots in Iran invaded and kidnapped our people at the US embassy in Tehran?


So because your opponents are barbarians, you have carte blanche to be just as bad? Weren't you supposed to have the moral high ground? Here's a hint: When you have to justify your own actions by pointing out the despicable actions of bloody-handed, murderous fanatics, you are well on your way to becoming what you claim to oppose.


Atrocities said:
* illegal detainment of prisoners of war (Guantanamo)
Your assertion that these innocent victims being illegally detained at Guantanamo are somehow being kept against their will is well, the whole point.


You will point out where I said they were automatically innocent or you will retract that strawman argument. What I said was that they have been denied due process, i.e. the opportunity to have the matter of their guilt or innocence established in a court of law. Unless I have been fed lies, your court system should recognize the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". Or is that too onerous a standard of conduct for the US?


Atrocities said:
They are bad men with bad intentions and for the most part are dedicated to killing innocent people because they are religious zealots bent upon martyring themselves. Clearly these men are not innocent victims of American aggression.


Then it should not be too hard to bring them up on criminal charges of murder, conspiracy to commit murder and various other things, hold a trial and put them behind bars nice and proper, right? So why is that not happening? The most logical explanation is that there is no case for what the government is claiming about them even if they have committed lesser crimes than the ones that supposedly justify their current detainment.


Atrocities said:
And if you believe that they are so innocent and should be set free, then by all mean go down to Cuba and set them free. Take them home and give them all the loving that they need. Hug them, coddle them, and when you wake up in a pool of your own blood just remember that it was you who set them free.


You will again point out where I said they were automatically innocent rather than having had their due process rights denied, or you can go jump off a cliff.


Atrocities said:
* torture of detainees
I don't know if I should just laugh at this or just laugh at it. These "freedom fighters" that have been so wrongfully misunderstood cut the heads off of the people they kidnap after they burned them, electrocuted them, gouged out eyeballs, cut off fingers, and crushed their groin, and you have the audacity to imply that taking a picture of one of them naked, or denying them access to the Quran is torture?


So, the pictures of detainees being tortured in Abu Ghraib were not real and none of it happened? The official findings that torture had been committed are all figments of imagination? The actual, officially confirmed homicides of detainees by American soldiers and intelligence personnel did not happen either? You're just sinking lower and lower, and your user name seems to have been well chosen since you seem to support the idea that if your enemy is a murderous fanatic scumbag, anything and everything you do to him is justified. I happen to have higher ethical standards than that. See the point above about becoming what you claim to oppose.

As far as your vice president's defense of "enhanced interrogation methods", up to and including waterboarding and so forth, you should read some of the Nuremberg trial transcripts. The arguments from the Bush administration are almost word for word the same as those used by German soldiers of the Wehrmacht and SS and who were, on the basis of those arguments and their actions, sentenced to prison or death for war crimes. THAT is what you are defending here and it is all a matter of officially recorded, INDISPUTABLE FACT.

Fortunately, I'm not the one who has to live with having a government like that. The current administration has stained your country's reputation for decades to come and there is no way you are going to get it rehabilitated within my lifetime, given the course that is now being pursued.

Your inability to see plain facts because you prefer ready-made soundbites about simultaneously evil and naive, all-powerful but ineffective liberals is not my concern. I deal with facts and observations and the logical conclusions that can be derived from them instead of fantasies, and if you want to continue down the path you took with your last post, I'm game for it. I tend to give far better than I get in this sort of exchanges and I don't even need to convince you, really. All I need to do is show your arguments for what they are and let the spectators draw their own conclusions. Those generally won't be very flattering towards you.

[Atrocities]

Edi you lost the high ground again.

Edi, I made an observation based upon your comments that you seem to feel that the Terrorists are the real victims and that no matter what any one may say, they are all innocent because Bush is a bad man. I did not say nor did I mean to infer in any way that you condone them and what they do. I just made an observation based upon the tone of your comments that you appear to feel that they are being treated unfairly and would rather support the cause of setting them free because it goes against Bush. That is just an observation and my own opinion. If you feel I am wrong in my observation then say so, there really is no need to make threats. If you will recall, we have covered this ground before. It would seem apparent based upon how you worded your response that you are interested in forcing your point of view at all cost rather than debating on the merits of the topic. Instead of opting to debate you chose to attack, ridicule, and threaten. This is often the case with many liberals as they know that they cannot defend the undependable so they more often than not viciously attack any who do not share their opinion or views. This makes discussion and open debate with them somewhat problematic since they often refuse to compromise and often elect to hold true to facts even when they are proven to be inaccurate. When one side refuses to be open to other points of view and opts to attack those who don't share their views, well then that is not debate Edi, that is a one sided narrow view of the topic and issues at hand and it is counter productive to an open and free forum discussion.

I would hate to think that you are attempting to scare away anyone who does not agree with you by threatening them. Without trying to offend you, I must point out that you insult but do not apologize yet threaten if an apology is not given to you when insulted. This weakens you and your position and gives casual readers the impression that you are not an open minded person willing to debate but rather a narrow minded zealot who only wishes to engage in argument, name calling, and threatening behavior. I know that you are a skilled and gifted when it comes to debate and enjoy our little back and forth with much anticipation, but even you must concede that making threats is counter productive and does more harm than good. So which is it going to be Edi, are we going to have an open minded debate, or a flame war? I would prefer you chose debate because it is far more challenging than throwing insults back and forth at each and as a rule, I won't participate in a flame war.

God only knows how much time you spent typing what can only be viewed as a manifesto regarding your point of view on this topic. You make some good arguments and I would enjoy responding to those but am fearful given the threatening nature of your last post.

You lost the high ground Edi when you started to make threats. Making an observation that you are acting as an advocate against the injustices you feel have been visited upon the Terrorists isn't calling you a terrorist. I would never deliberately insult you in that way. I hope that you know this and can take a step back and revisit my comment and take the meaning for which it was meant and not defer from it that I am calling you a terrorist.

Finally, I would rather read your responses without all the implied name calling, threats, and bad language, as I do enjoy very much our debates.

EDIT: Fixed some spelling errors. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

[Atrocities]

Azselendor said:
Repeating a lie enough times doesn't make it true. It just makes it a well known lie.

I don't know if you read this or not, but before you go any further atrocities, read this column http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19588942/



Repeating the lie seems to work well for the liberals. They enjoy calling truth a lie while promoting their own lie as truth. This is politics.

I don't consider msnbc a valid news source given their strong propensity toward unprofessional conduct. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Azselendor]

And twisting words around to zing someone doesn't work either. The sad fact of reality is that Bush did indeed commit crimes and placed himself outside the laws he established. His own sentencing policy has been violated by his own actions http://www.slate.com/id/2169792/

You know, the last time a politician screwed up this badly, their party lost control of the government for 20 years. Seeing how Clinton's screwup only took America 6 years to get over...

[Atrocities]

Azselendor said:
And twisting words around to zing someone doesn't work either. The sad fact of reality is that Bush did indeed commit crimes and placed himself outside the laws he established. His own sentencing policy has been violated by his own actions http://www.slate.com/id/2169792/

You know, the last time a politician screwed up this badly, their party lost control of the government for 20 years. Seeing how Clinton's screwup only took America 6 years to get over...



If he has committed any convictable crimes then he should be charged in a court of law and prosecuted. Let the law deal with him and let the people pass legal judgment based upon true evidence and not just some far left propaganda bent upon character assassination and nothing more.

[Hugh Manatee]

Meh, bush may not be a "criminal" tried in a court of law convicted by a hury of his peers ect, but him, his whole dam party and most of the government are what I'd call "crooks".

[Atrocities]

"Professional lying crooks" should be listed as a definition for Politicians in general.

[Azselendor]

Well, that was the reason why people voted for democrats in 06. To bring some law and justice back, sadly the 2008 elections seemed to kicked off that year too and no body is focused on the law.

All it would have taken is a special prosecutor to be appointed and bush's celebrity justice system would have been dismantled.

[Atrocities]

What makes you think that the Democrats can do better? Right now they have the lowest approval rating in history so obviously the 06 elections didn't fix anything. So why do you believe that the 08 election will change this?

Look I don't like what Bush has done, he has pissed away all the good will and potential that was ours for the taking. While he is committed to what he believes is the right course, the fools around him have used that conviction and twisted it into the mess that we now have. When something is broken and wrong you don't keep using it, you replace it. Well in 2008 he is going to be replaced. The question still remains as to whether or not the person who is placed in that office will be for the better or not.

I don't like the democratic front runners and I really have to say that I am not at all fond of any of the Republicans say for Fred Thompson. So come 08 I feel we will all be losers in the end.

[Atrocities]

Unless I have been fed lies, your court system should recognize the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". Or is that too onerous a standard of conduct for the US?



Unfortunately our court system isn't about innocent until proven guilty it is about how much justice you can afford. Regrettably innocents or guilt have very little to do with it any more. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

[Edi]

Atrocities said:
Edi you lost the high ground again.

Edi, I made an observation based upon your comments that you seem to feel that the Terrorists are the real victims and that no matter what any one may say, they are all innocent because Bush is a bad man.


I don't know what you've been reading into my posts. I've said that the terrorist suspects detained at Guantanamo have been denied their due process rights. Whether or not they are terrorists has not been determined by any competent authority so far. Being accused of something is not proof of guilt, and establishing that guilt is a matter for the courts. Until that happens, statements about their guilt or innocence are premature, but if normal judicial principles are followed, innocence is presumed until guilt is proven. That's the long and short of it.

Bush's character is completely irrelevant to that, but he has shown his character to be worthless, dishonest and untrustworthy by committing the crimes he has while in office.


Atrocities said:
I did not say nor did I mean to infer in any way that you condone them and what they do.


It came across like very thinly veiled an accusation that I'm anti-American and probably a terrorist sympathizer, even if you were not aware of it and did not intend it. I've had similar things thrown in my face in the past with the sole intent to poison the audience against me and all of the people who did it routinely lied about their position, their evidence and even plainly indisputable facts. So I don't generally extend any benefit of the doubt when faced with that kind of passive-aggressive statements. From you, I will accept this explanation and I will chalk it up to a misunderstanding.


Atrocities said:
I just made an observation based upon the tone of your comments that you appear to feel that they are being treated unfairly and would rather support the cause of setting them free because it goes against Bush. That is just an observation and my own opinion. If you feel I am wrong in my observation then say so, there really is no need to make threats.


All I was asking was that those people be given a trial where their guilt or innocence be determined and then dealt with accordingly, instead of being kept in jail without charges indefinitely. As for threats, I did not make threats. I promised that the discussion would turn ugly if I were to be subjected to unfounded accusations. So far we seem to have had a misunderstanding.

And again, Bush is irrelevant to that, if it were Cheney, if it were Gore, Clinton, Pelosi or wheoever else who was in charge and kept denying due process to the detainees, I'd still say that was wrong. With Bush, it's just one of the many violations of law he has committed.


Atrocities said:
If you will recall, we have covered this ground before. It would seem apparent based upon how you worded your response that you are interested in forcing your point of view at all cost rather than debating on the merits of the topic.


If you feel I am not debating on the merits of the topic, you are free to point out where my position is factually wrong. I have not seen anything of the kind yet.


Atrocities said:
Instead of opting to debate you chose to attack, ridicule, and threaten. This is often the case with many liberals as they know that they cannot defend the undependable so they more often than not viciously attack any who do not share their opinion or views.


You began with what, from my point of view and given what I knew then, amounted to an ad hominem character assassination and you lecture me on proper conduct? You also make a sweeping generalization about all liberals when it happens to be an observed fact that anyone who dares criticize the Bush administration by presenting verifiable facts regarding their wrongdoing gets viciously smeared, ridiculed and harassed by his supporters.

You have done a fair amount of that sort of thing with snide, dismissive comments about how liberals and progressives are wrong just because of their political orientation and EVERY TIME, when challenged on those claims, you backpedal, you withdraw a little bit and clarify that you were really only talking about the extreme fringe elements when your original statement made no such distinctions. I know that MO very well, and I do not tolerate it. Do you have any idea of how much patience it takes not to just pull the napalm out immediately, even on people I generally respect, when they do that? It is very much in favor with those who prefer style over substance, i.e. that if an argument is not politely phrased to their satisfaction, they can be ignored regardless of factual content. For people like me, there are few more infuriating tactics.


Atrocities said:
This makes discussion and open debate with them somewhat problematic since they often refuse to compromise and often elect to hold true to facts even when they are proven to be inaccurate. When one side refuses to be open to other points of view and opts to attack those who don't share their views, well then that is not debate Edi, that is a one sided narrow view of the topic and issues at hand and it is counter productive to an open and free forum discussion.


Are you familiar with the Golden Mean fallacy? That's the one where it is assumed that if there are two opposing points of view, the truth must be somewhere in the middle and that both parties are supposed to compromise. Debate does not work that way. Unless you can actually provide enough evidence for your position to have merit, the opponent is under no obligation to compromise anything. I have yet to see ANY evidence at all that any of my arguments are baseless. If you have such evidence, feel free to present it. Such as quotes of the laws that say warrantless wiretapping of citizens is okay, that denying due process does not violate the constitution and so forth.


Atrocities said:
I would hate to think that you are attempting to scare away anyone who does not agree with you by threatening them. Without trying to offend you, I must point out that you insult but do not apologize yet threaten if an apology is not given to you when insulted.


You do have a point here. I do owe you an apology for the fairly vicious attacks on you at the end of my last post. I'd gotten pretty worked up by the time I got to that part. I am sorry about that. I do know better, but it always seems that to get to the actual meat of the matter, we have to hack away at a lot of sweeping generalizations. Coupled with the preface in the post I was replying to, it was a bit much to take.


Atrocities said:
This weakens you and your position and gives casual readers the impression that you are not an open minded person willing to debate but rather a narrow minded zealot who only wishes to engage in argument, name calling, and threatening behavior.


The conclusions the casual reader would draw would probably depend a lot on the personality and leanings of the reader in question. Neither one of us looks very palatable to anyone supportive of his opposing side. The people in the middle would be a tossup, depending on various things such as capacity for rational thinking, personality traits and other things.


Atrocities said:
I know that you are a skilled and gifted when it comes to debate and enjoy our little back and forth with much anticipation, but even you must concede that making threats is counter productive and does more harm than good. So which is it going to be Edi, are we going to have an open minded debate, or a flame war? I would prefer you chose debate because it is far more challenging than throwing insults back and forth at each and as a rule, I won't participate in a flame war.


Debate, rather than flamewar.


Atrocities said:
God only knows how much time you spent typing what can only be viewed as a manifesto regarding your point of view on this topic. You make some good arguments and I would enjoy responding to those but am fearful given the threatening nature of your last post.


Respond away. Typing that took less time than you probably think, since I can type very fast when I put some effort in.


Atrocities said:
You lost the high ground Edi when you started to make threats. Making an observation that you are acting as an advocate against the injustices you feel have been visited upon the Terrorists isn't calling you a terrorist. I would never deliberately insult you in that way. I hope that you know this and can take a step back and revisit my comment and take the meaning for which it was meant and not defer from it that I am calling you a terrorist.


The detainees are only terrorist suspects, not determined to be terrorists yet. Otherwise, so noted.

The problem is that you are almost the single exception I've encountered from your side of the political spectrum who means this. I've been in a lot of debates over the years and I've seen and heard all of the arguments you've put forth before. In the past, without exception, the people who made them were repeatedly caught lying and refused to consider any evidence as well as repeatedly used style over substance and other fallacies. I've seen literally hundreds of such people, and even the worst cases as per above have numbered in the dozens, so it's hard to keep on an even keel about it with you. Much like you have had a lot of bad experiences with fringenut lefties, only my opponents have been closer to the mainstream right wing than the outer fringes.

I have also faced my share of the moonbats on my own side of the fence and I'll admit without any shame that I tend to treat such people far worse than my actual opponents simply because they are good for nothing but wrecking painstakingly accomplished work and setting things back in square one. I may detest the extremists on the other side, but less than those on my own.


Atrocities said:
Finally, I would rather read your responses without all the implied name calling, threats, and bad language, as I do enjoy very much our debates.

EDIT: Fixed some spelling errors. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif


I'll do my best. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Saulot]

Something interesting to consider:
There already have been over 300 releases from the Guantanamo Bay facility of the almost 800 who were ever there.

Two conclusions can be drawn from this:
1. Obviously some people are/were detained for long periods of time who shouldn't be/have been there in the first place.
2. Hope is not lost for any potential innocent there.

[Lazy_Perfectionist]

Atrocities said:

If he has committed any convictable crimes then he should be charged in a court of law and prosecuted. Let the law deal with him and let the people pass legal judgment based upon true evidence and not just some far left propaganda bent upon character assassination and nothing more.



So, you support impeaching President Bush?

On the other side, Libby was dealt with by the law, and had legal judgment based on evidence provided by Patrick Fitgerald, ruled over by a judge (both republican appointed), and a guilty verdict is harder to reach than an innocent or hung jury. I have to think character assassination wasn't part of the deal. By the definition of perjury, its a knowing lie, not just being merely mistaken or forgetful.

[Atrocities]

I would support impeaching Bush or any president who breaks the law. I felt the impeachment of Clinton was a farce though. All Clinton had to say was "ya I banged that chick" and nuff said. But he opted to try and keep his personal life private and that is something that you cannot do holding the office that he held. Clinton should be pardon if Libby was pardoned in my honest opinion. Clinton's only crime was that he didn't just tell people to mind their own business.

I think the fine that Libby was given was adequate to his crime. I think that jail time for his crime was over reaching and not appropriate. However, if Libby was pardoned, then so should Clinton.

[Atrocities]

I fully support compensation be given to any one who was held and then later released after discovering that they were held without cause. How do you make something like that right after taking away a persons freedom and treating them as if they were not human? Somehow an apology just doesn't seem like enough of an apology at times like these.

[Gandalf Parker]

Ive followed the debates between Atrocities and Edi, and altho personally I would like to side with my old friend Atrocities Im afraid that the debate sways me more toward Edi's side.

By the way, some other points Im not sure if I saw....
George W Bush is the first President in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record.
His list of blatantly stupid comments is long enough to fill, and has filled, a number of books.
He shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history after following a president one of the largest deficit reductions.
He has broken more international treaties than any President in U.S. history.
He is the first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission.
He withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law.
He refused to allow inspectors access to U.S. "prisoners of war" detainees and thereby has refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.
He is the first President in U.S. history to order an unprovoked*, pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation. (the provoke thing is at beast highly questionable)
He is the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view his presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.
And he has trashed the National Guard's usefulness by his blatant sidestepping of congress using an emergency clause to start a war.

[Azselendor]

Actually, doesn't the war powers act give him the ability to go to war for no reason for 90 days?

[Atrocities]

If the Europeans feel that the US is the largest threat to world peace then I wonder what they think of Puttman (sp) The ex-kgb hard core communist, opponent assassinating President of Russia?

[Azselendor]

They most likely look at the fact Russian military might is equal to that of Grenada.

[Baron Munchausen]

Gandalf Parker said:
Ive followed the debates between Atrocities and Edi, and altho personally I would like to side with my old friend Atrocities Im afraid that the debate sways me more toward Edi's side.

By the way, some other points Im not sure if I saw....
George W Bush is the first President in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record.
His list of blatantly stupid comments is long enough to fill, and has filled, a number of books.
He shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history after following a president one of the largest deficit reductions.
He has broken more international treaties than any President in U.S. history.
He is the first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission.
He withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law.
He refused to allow inspectors access to U.S. "prisoners of war" detainees and thereby has refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.
He is the first President in U.S. history to order an unprovoked*, pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation. (the provoke thing is at beast highly questionable)
He is the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view his presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.
And he has trashed the National Guard's usefulness by his blatant sidestepping of congress using an emergency clause to start a war.



And nearly half of the US population currently favors his impeachment. More than half favor impeachment of VP Cheney.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070706/pl_afp/uspoliticsbush

[Atrocities]

I don't know, if it weren't for that Haliburton issue, and the screw up with Iraq, Cheney might not be all that bad. You all do know of course that if Bush is impeached Cheney would become President.

[Lazy_Perfectionist]

Even putting aside the issue of Iraq, and policies I oppose, such as the ban on gay marriage, I feel this pair is bad for democracy, our Republic. I'm not saying that relative to any other leaders, simply on their own merits.

If you'd like, I'd explain in some depth a few hours from now, or this evening. But at the moment, I'm off to work.

[Atrocities]

Regarding Gay Marriage, nearly every state that has had a gay marriage initiative on their ballets has failed. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif Everyone agrees that gay couples deserve the same rights as non gay couples and no one would prevent them from obtaining those same rights with the exception of the word "marriage." For some reason at this point in time most people feel that the word "marriage" does not mean man with man, women with women, but man and a women. Eventually this will change and people will go to adopt it as a normal part of life, just as they have with many other controversial issues in the past. Give it time and time will settle this issue.

I have four or five key issues that keep me firmly in the middle zone between the two parties. I value a lot of what both parties stand for but feel that overall "freedom" is the key issue. When a few want to take the rights of the many away I tend to get a bit frustrated and that is what moved me out of the democratic party. With republicans the focus is on big business and they don't care that the little guy gets trampled upon while the big wigs profit and avoid jail. This aspect of the Republican philosophy makes me ill to my core. Both parties have very good merits while on the flip side they both have a huge negative side.

Given a choice between the two parties I have to vote the issue that is most important to me and that determines more than anything, whom I will vote for. I have often voted for both democrats and republicans and generally feel that they work best when they share power.

[Azselendor]

Personally, I always liked the idea the president and vice president should be elected separately to force a bi-partisan government

anyhoo. I think the idea is that if they get rid of dick cheney first or bush and cheney first, then the speaker of the house becomes president.

[Atrocities]

I wonder if we really want 8 more years of Clinton? I mean think about it, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton....? I think its time we look to a new leadership source. Either Obama or Thompson. While I really do like Obama, say for his stance on a few key issues, I think he would be a great VP and even President one day. But I like Fred more than I do any of the other pack runners.

[Gandalf Parker]

Azselendor said:
Actually, doesn't the war powers act give him the ability to go to war for no reason for 90 days?


Yes that is what he used. But he used the National Guard, and if I remember correctly we are still there and the congress has not declared war yet.

As to the gay marriage thing, the initiatives can usually only give "equal rights" that are granted by the states. Thats nice (inheritance, taxes, recognizance, etc) but its not the same as marriage. Some important things still stay out such as hospitals. "Sorry but only family members can see him in ICU" and "we need to find a family member to sign this before we can save his life". There are a hundred ways every day that "only family members" comes up. Memberships, priveleges, rights. It can be very irritating for someone to run into those constantly. Equal partnership is good. Im glad to see those go thru but they are not enough.

[Atrocities]

This is why it is so very important to have a living will.