In much of the mainstream media reporting on the firing of eight U.S.
attorneys, the focus has been on stoking a political controversy from the story, ruminating on Alberto Gonzales's shelf life as attorney general, etc.
Largely left by the wayside in mainstream media reporting have been legitimate deviations the fired attorneys exhibited from Bush Justice Department priorities, such as immigration enforcement -- for instance, San Diego-based attorney Carol Lam's prosecution of immigration cases reportedly bothered the decidedly unconservative Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) -- and pushing for the death penalty in capital cases.
It took a while but at least one major media outlet is reporting that a reluctance to pursue the death penalty might have been a factor in at least three of the firings. [continued...]
Today the Los Angeles Times reported that 3 out of 8 fired U.S. attorneys were reluctant to push for the death penalty in capital cases.
The three prosecutors are among eight U.S. attorneys terminated last year in a housecleaning by the Justice Department. Their hesitation over the death penalty was not cited as a reason for their dismissals, but Washington officials have made it clear they have little patience for prosecutors who are not with the program.
Data from the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, which opposes capital punishment, show that there have been 95 federal death penalty trials in the last six years under Ashcroft and Gonzales, compared with 55 during the eight years under the Clinton administration's Atty. Gen. Janet Reno.
Richard Dieter, executive director of the center, said that when Bush came to Washington in 2001, his administration seemed determined not only to toughen the federal death penalty statute but to seek it across the nation — including in places where state laws forbid it, such as Michigan.
As a result, he said, "you see a lot more [capital] cases going to trial, unlike what was happening before, where U.S. attorneys were given some leeway to settle cases or take plea bargains."
Dieter said: "Bush certainly believes in the death penalty, Ashcroft was a fervent believer, and Gonzales was Bush's advisor in Texas, denying all those clemency requests."
Granted, the Times reporters crafted their story with heavy emphasis on liberal death penalty opponents like Dieter who object to the Bush Justice Department's focus on capital punishment. That doesn't take away from the fact that there is evidence that at least some of the fired U.S. attorneys substantially disappointed the White House on a policy priority.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Comments Policy
This is no doubt the sole rea
March 26, 2007 - 14:11 ET by blarsenThis is no doubt the sole reason for the firings. After all, we know how much Bush likes to kill people.
Blarsen
March 26, 2007 - 14:26 ET by Gary HallI don't know - seems the last president was the only one I've heard of that was credited with actually expressing personal interest in the "killing" thing.
Just for the record - Is it not true that all sitting US presidents have supported capital punishment? The only exception to that, might be that JFK seemed to be waivering - the Democrat party platform in 1963 was opposed to it.
Blarsen:You obviously do not
March 26, 2007 - 16:22 ET by BDBlarsen:
You obviously do not undersatnd the nature of the "Texas Question."
What is the Texas Question??? "Do these varmints NEED to die."
In most cases on review, YEP!!!!!
On the issue of the death pen
March 26, 2007 - 15:42 ET byOn the issue of the death penalty, I part ways from most all of my Conservative friends
There was a time, which the Old Testament speaks of, when death sentences were carried out as per-God’s commands. However, that time was during the day that the world was under “The Law,” God’s law.
We are no longer in the dispensation of “The Law,” but rather we are in the dispensation of Grace --Jesus is the fulfilment of The Law. So, though, murder is still wrong, as are other crimes, penalties for crimes, are not to be killing them now in the day of Grace.
Jesus said to the people who were about to stone a woman for adultery, “Who here is without sin, cast the first stone.” Then He instructed them to forgive her and He told her to “Go and sin no more.”
No, we should not let dangerous people run free, but we are not to issue man’s wrath on them. Even locking them up, is to be for prevention of them hurting others, not man’s wrath. God says that wrath is His.
It is not that God changed; it is that the punishment of the death of man is no longer needed.
God says in His Word, that we are to “Study” to show ourselves approved, “rightly dividing the Word of God.”
Debra...
www.InformingChristians.com
Debra:The grace we are under
March 26, 2007 - 15:54 ET by bassndudeDebra:
The grace we are under is the Grace of Christ, Son of God. Not mans grace. When they brought the woman before Jesus for adultery, it was a trap. A trick because the law said that the MAN and the woman should be brought together before the elders. Not just one or the other. The stoning of this woman would have been aginst the law given to Moses, by God. His reply was in compliance with the law. One could not be stoned without the other party involved in the crime. The punishment of death, as spoken of by Jesus, dosent address the physical death, it is the spritual death. Banishment of one from the presence of God for eternity and eternal damnation in the fires of the pit. The Grace is from Jesus, not man. Man must pay for his crimes here on earth according to the law.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Hi Bassndude,Definetly, the G
March 26, 2007 - 16:39 ET byHi Bassndude,
Definetly, the Grace is that the Grace of Christ, not man's. And man should never make laws that go against God's Word. (This is what I am getting at by my above post.)
Also, the issue of John 8: 1 - 12 is clear.
John 8:1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
So deb, should we free everyo
March 26, 2007 - 16:59 ET by Conservative VoiceSo deb, should we free everyone from prison? should every law suit be thrown out? Should we just let terrorists do their dirty deed and we just take it?
The founding fathers understood the holy scriptures extremely well, and they had no problem with the death penalty, they just didn't think it should be cruel or unusual. Personally I think its cruel and unusual when it takes decades to follow through.
Deb, I think your heart is in
March 26, 2007 - 17:18 ET by bassndudeDeb, I think your heart is in the right place, and I commend you for your belief and how you got there. That said, Jesus said to obey those appointed over us, because their athority comes from God. Jesus also said to obey the laws of the land. The woman you speak of, I explained above. It wasent because of her adultry, but only to trick Jesus. They knew if Jesus said to stone her, it would be aginst the law because the man was not also brought before him. To stone her, alone, would in its self be a sin. Jesus also mentioned here, that it should be as the law sayes. That was the key point there. It was not as the law sayes, so Jesus, in his infinate wisdom, gave the reply, those without sin. And again, they knew they could not carry it out. If a man commits a crime, (sin), here on earth, he must expect to pay the price. If it carries a death sentence, that man should expect to pay with his life. If that man repents, and turns to God in the interm, he is covered by the Grace of Christ. Tho he pays with his mortal life, he enjoys eternal life.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
you are deceived
March 26, 2007 - 16:00 ET by tumbler_2007Dear Debra:
Dispensationalism is false doctrine. Salvation history is not divided into dispensations of Law and Grace -- The Old Testament is not abrogated but fulfilled in Jesus Christ. The new Covenant has no new teaching on subjects of justice before the law. We are told by Saint Paul that our rulers have dominion allowed by Almighty God and we are supposed to obey them. If a penalty is legal and not unjust, there is no correlation to be drawn by scripture at all. The death penalty isn't unjust in certain cases. Naturally, clemency toward the sentenced criminal is a virtue. Not all who reach death row are automatically refused mercy under the law. But neither does the Bible declare capital punishment "no longer needed". It isn't a question of man's WRATH, but of Justice under the law.
P.S. RE: biblical scholarship
March 26, 2007 - 16:19 ET by tumbler_2007You're also misapplying the verse, "Study to show yourself approved." Paul is writing to a spiritual son of his; aspiring to the holy priesthood. You know St Timothy. He was to study for his coming vocation as a "Man of God," it means nothing remotely near your notion of biblical scholarship.
Why? You are separated from the Holy Church of Christ's apostles. Yours is a private sect founded by men. All your blessed ancestors now in heaven were faithful members of the Catholic Church during their lifetimes. They weren't all Bible students suddenly "approved" by scriptural scholars. The only ones who were were those in Catholic seminaries, later deacons or priests. YOUR ancestors, Debra.
The idea that noone but those
March 26, 2007 - 16:35 ET by bassndudeThe idea that noone but those of the catholic church are christian, is ludicous. Jesus the Christ, said we need but to place our faith in Him and belive in Him. He is the Way. The sect that was founded after his death was called "The Way". But the doctrine sayes nowhere you must be a member of The Way. For nobody comes to the Father except through Him. It is He that I palce my faith in, that His grace covers me, and he dident give much other guideance there. Most of the rituial comes from man. To worship God and trust in Christ is the way to salvation. Witness the thief on the cross. When one gives his life over to Christ, one tries to live according to His teachings. We do not exclude those who also belive, but embrace them in their common belief, and witness by our lives and word and deed.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
you're still wrong, bassndude
March 26, 2007 - 17:02 ET by tumbler_2007I realize you're Christian. You are baptized into the Catholic Church; and if you died subsequently without committing a grave sin, you'd go to heaven then.
But those who reject the Catholic FAITH-- the doctrines of the apostles, are no longer within the sheepfold of Christ, which is His own Church. Jesus only founded ONE, and placed Peter in primacy over her and His other apostles. By rejecting her doctrines you cause yourselves a spiritual drought; a wilderness of wandering as lost sheep. You are still HIS sheep, rightfully. He may forgive you your sins; as it pleases him.
But within the Church you are consistently aided by the Holy Spirit and have easy access to GRACE; something a false doctrine cannot impart, no matter how upright a soul you think you are. I surely realize you believe you're following Christ. You're sincere, you fear God. HE LOVES YOU. But to follow Christ you must truly adhere to His complete teaching, and only in His Church is there no error or deficiency in doctrine.
In the last verses of Matthew he commanded His apostles and disciples; "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing souls in the name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit-- and teaching them to observe all that I've commanded you, and behold I am with you all days, even to the end of the world." My friend; you have NOT been taught to observe everything that Jesus commanded us to do ! You aren't in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. You are in a "reformed" Christian Church. HE didn't want His Church reformed; He stated clearly He would be with her all days, --even to the end of the world.
Tumbler...I am not Catholic.
March 26, 2007 - 17:28 ET by bassndudeTumbler...I am not Catholic. I have cousins that are Catholic, but I am not. I am a Christian, by defination, a follower of Christ and his teaching. I was baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost and I trust in my Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ for my salvation. He loves me, as God loves me. This I know because He has watched over me and kept me safe, and when hard times came, he was there to see to it I and my family had what we needed, when we needed it. That includes money. I never will forget one time, I was out of work, and house payment comming up and we had 0 dollars. I went to the mail box and there was a check from the US for money I had comming from military service. And I had been out for 5 years at that time. I had prayed that he would see to it, the money, and he did. Much more than we really needed at the time. Tithes hurt sometimes, but the rewards are endless. You will never convince me it was not a check from God himself.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
bassndude
March 26, 2007 - 17:49 ET by misterbillStand tall in Jesus' grace bass. I AM a Catholic and I believe, unlike another, that He died for all humans. If we accept Him and believe in His road to salvation, we shall all rejoice with Him. His heart is not so small that He refuses to accept those who are not of one particular sect. I give thanks to Jesus, He has made me whole. He has given me to feel that we all have a chance at eternity with Him in His Father's house.
I do not like discussing faith, religion and spirituality on a blog that is intended to monitor truth in journalism, but I wanted you to know that all Catholics do not feel that way. I have been in ICU three times in my life. I have had major cancer surgery. I have approached it without fear because of my trust in Jesus and His love. Why would He reject you and accept me if we both believe and love? I can think of no reason,but I am just a man.
Peace and God's blessing on you!
misterbill, that is not unlik
March 26, 2007 - 17:58 ET by bassndudemisterbill, that is not unlike what my cousin told me time and again. My understanding of the catholic church came from him, and he was a very devout christian. When not at work, or fishing, he was in the chruch. We had a lot of discussions over the years, and we came to the conclusion at a young age, it wasent the chruch or religion. It was Jesus the Christ. Amen.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Maybe you owe God ?
March 26, 2007 - 17:56 ET by tumbler_2007I understand. I myself have a long history I could recount. You'd be amazed. If you doubt me, just give a PM and I'll tell you my story.
Now, this is a free country. You have a right to your own convictions. Nobody can coerce you into faith; it's something God has to give us. Not MONEY, though it's sure sweet.
One of the most honored saints in all Christian history was Saint Francis of Asissi. He was the son of a rich merchant, and lived high while he was a young rake. He changed after a short illness, and began to love Our Lord with all his heart. He tried to give charity to the poor on the roads; selling some of his father's goods. His dad was furious at Francis and disowned him. At which point, Francis removed even the clothes off his back; and gave them back to his materialistic father. He offered all his lifetime of poverty to Jesus, out of deepest love. He ate from table scraps he begged at the doors of others. But he never wanted for anything. His love for God overcame all desires for happiness and possessions during this life. Francis is only ONE out of thousands of holy souls raised in the Catholic faith; and blessed with extraordinary virtues. I could name you scores of them and scores more of them who laid down their lives for their faith; under the impulse of the Holy Spirit. No money compares to our gift of faith in Jesus Christ. Not even life itself. --Yet, we confess that all of us are sinful and unworthy of Jesus.
In our lives there's nothing more important than receiving His forgiveness and His love. No cross is too heavy to bear for Him. No sacrifice is too great, no other love is equal to His love; we trust in Him with unwavering faith. This is just part of the Catholic faith. Catholics are those who first lived The Way; as you'll notice, they all followed the doctrines of Christ's apostles. They are the infant Church spreading His Gospel from Pentecost afterwards. The Gospel has always been spread first & foremost and intact, undistorted in the Catholic Church and no other. You owe it to God if you love Him-- to return to the Church of your blessed ancestors. You'll find HIM there; Emmanuel-- God with us.
Debra, a discussion of whet
March 26, 2007 - 16:41 ET by motherbeltDebra and responders: A discussion of whether the death penalty is right or wrong would make a very interesting thread. However, the issue is the firings; and the President is entitled to have as US Attorneys those who share his view.
Here's something to get every
March 26, 2007 - 17:16 ET by blarsenHere's something to get everyone back on track. From Saturday's Sacramento Bee and I advise reading the entire article:
WASHINGTON -- Under President Bush, the Justice Department has backed laws that narrow minority voting rights and pressed U.S. attorneys to investigate voter fraud -- policies that critics say have been intended to suppress Democratic votes.
Bush, his deputy chief of staff, Karl Rove, and other Republican political advisers have highlighted voting rights issues and what Rove has called the "growing problem" of election fraud by Democrats since Bush took power in the tumultuous election of 2000, a race ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
This is a must read article. This AG scandal is not only about investigating republican scandals ala Duke Cunningham, but voter supression.
blarsoon:
March 26, 2007 - 17:23 ET by tumbler_2007I really wish they'd somehow suppress YOUR vote today.
Just as a dry run ? You vote don't you ? But what about it? You vote for unchristian, bloviating, dishonest career liars. They have no scruples about lying to you. Here, of course, they can't fool anybody. We vote straight Republican.
Why do you think Bush doesn't
March 26, 2007 - 17:33 ET by blarsenWhy do you think Bush doesn't want Rove, Miers or Gonzales under oath? Because if they're under oath they would be forced to tell the truth. If they have nothing to hide they'll testify under oath. My feeling is they have PLENTY to hide and that's why Bush would have them talk to the judiciary commitee ONLY behind closed doors, NOT under oath, and NO transcript.
Besides, it doesn't look good when your attorney general is removed from office because of perjury.
No, dummy
March 26, 2007 - 17:36 ET by RJNo, dummy, it's because of separation of powers. The idiot Democrats want to go on a fishing trip and I hope the Pres tells them to stuff it....as any President should.
Please explain yourself a bit
March 26, 2007 - 18:07 ET by blarsenPlease explain yourself a bit further. How does separation of powers work in this situation and what is the "fishing trip" you're referring to?
its a fishing trip to get Rov
March 26, 2007 - 18:13 ET by Conservative Voiceits a fishing trip to get Rove, to damage Bush. Its separation of powers because the lawyers are under the executive branch. They don't need congressional approval to fire anyone or explain it.
Thanks CV
March 26, 2007 - 18:25 ET by RJThanks, CV. You're right, of course. I wasn't sure I wanted to answer, because it was such a stupid, childish, question that I wasn't sure if he was serious.
With the Patriot Act, Bush es
March 26, 2007 - 18:58 ET by blarsenWith the Patriot Act, Bush essentially changed the Bill of Rights, thanks to Arlen Specter who put in the bit about being able to hire and fire state's attorneys at will. The underlying theory of the Patriot Act is that we should trust government investigators to do whatever they want, whenever they want, without having to justify any of it to a judge. The underlying theory of the Bill of Rights is that such thinking is fatal to a free society. The Bill of Rights is right. The Patriot Act, as it now stands, has got to go.
"state's attorneys"
March 26, 2007 - 19:02 ET by Blonde"state's attorneys" blarsen?
I thought the issue was federal prosecutors.
Um, what were you trying to say?
How does the Patriot Act diff
March 26, 2007 - 19:05 ET by BDHow does the Patriot Act differ from the actions taken during WWII in protecting the nation?
The nation seemed to have survived it in the 1940's, how will it suddenly succomb?
the bit about being able to h
March 26, 2007 - 21:37 ET by dahliatraversthe bit about being able to hire and fire state's attorneys at will.
Interesting. So Bush and Specter acted alone? This law was not voted on by both houses of Congress? I think you may be trying to shield some Democrats, blarsen.
Arlen Spectacle is one of the
March 26, 2007 - 21:51 ET by Conservative VoiceArlen Spectacle is one of the reasons why the Republicans lost power the last election, because Bush supported him over a more conservative republican in the primaries. He is not trustworthy and a disgrace.
The patriot act did in no way challenge the bill of rights, your understanding of the constitution is pathetic as proven multiple times on this thread alone. You are a political hack, looking for power instead of upholding the constitution, so please stop your mock anger at it changing the bill of rights. The stupid thing about your kind, the war in Iraq could of been done long ago if we were as united as we were back on 9-12-01.
Now as far as things that President Bush signed into law that were unconstitutional? Campaign finance reform. Will we ever here that from a lefty? never. Instead they like to make up laws that don't exist. You would have more credability that you weren't just puking talking points if you could express exactly how the patriot act violates the constitution.
Hey CV,Want to teach me some
March 26, 2007 - 21:58 ET by BlondeHey CV,
Want to teach me some higher math?
I am getting sick and tired of the liberal little trollish droppings here.
I'd enjoy something a little more fun than that. Chaos theory?
me too :)here is a good artic
March 26, 2007 - 22:04 ET by Conservative Voiceme too :)
here is a good artical, interesting that it has foundations with computer models dealing with climate....I didn't know that
http://www.imho.com/grae/chaos/chaos.html
Thanks, CV.I didn't realize c
March 26, 2007 - 22:16 ET by BlondeThanks, CV.
I didn't realize chaos theory had its roots in climatology.
Wonder what Professor ManBearPig would have to say about that?
I was thinking about going back to school (yet again) for my MBA.
But I think I might just have to go for a masters in pure Math. I miss it. And I'm not that old that I've forgotten it, either. I really like the theory of it.
Thanks for the link....it was far more interesting than anything the fat donut (or any other lib) might say.
I love pure math....if you do
March 26, 2007 - 22:33 ET by Conservative VoiceI love pure math....if you do get your masters in math, then you will have to teach me :) What did you graduate in?
I had a CEO who didn't have an MBA, but had instead a masters in math. So it is a possibility. I think if I were to do school again I would enjoy Political Science.. I missed college and pushing all the lib professor's buttons, but that is why I went into math. An English professor who was a liberal lesbian knew I was conservative and so gave me a c+ in her class. With math, its either right or its wrong, no politics. Now I don't care about grades, it would be fun just to shake things up in Lolly land called campus.
CV,Majored in Finance, minore
March 26, 2007 - 22:43 ET by BlondeCV,
Majored in Finance, minored in Economics (miss you Milton F!) , but always loved the math...all my electives were always in math (with the exception of a Russian History class...which almost changed my entire perspective...but has kept me reading for all of these years).
I have more practical accounting experience than any team of auditors from any top accounting firm. I hate accounting, auditors, and multiple comma money. It's bloody boring. I've almost entirely excorcised any semblance of accounting from my professional existence...well, almost....two more months and I should be totally done with it (hoping!).
But you hit it....math is either right, or it's wrong.
I really enjoyed the chaos theory link you put up...I was just kind of kidding, but now that I've read it, I may have to rethink a couple of things. Thanks!
When I first started college
March 26, 2007 - 22:54 ET by Conservative VoiceWhen I first started college I thought Accounting is where I wanted to be. But after a few accounting courses, even though I aced it, it was boring, I couldn't bring myself to do it as a career. I did enjoy economics though, but thats probably because its rich in math and politics.
Milton should be required reading of every student. There are 4 R's a student should know...Reading wRiting aRithmetic and fRiedman.
CV,I hate accounting. And I
March 26, 2007 - 23:06 ET by BlondeCV,
I hate accounting. And I (used to be) an accountant. Boring.
But Milton Friedman....
Do you remember during the debates when George Bush was asked who the philospher was who most influenced him was? And he answered "Jesus Christ".
Milton Friedman's book "Free to Choose" was that moment for me....not philosophy exactly....well maybe, an economic and, I suppose a philosophical view of the world. Although my parents were always fairly conservative (and I am far more conservative than they ever even thought about being) Friedman was the big light bulb in my head.
And I suppose my politics evolved from that position.
Math, English, History, and Dr. Friedman!
Hey...that sounds like a good reform platform for our schools...and did you see the piece Tom Bloomer put up this weekend about my alma mater...I am ashamed! UF refused J.E.B. Bush an honorary doctorate....well, the faculty voted it down. Bunch of liberal pansies. No more money from blonde for them!
I think the problem with Amer
March 26, 2007 - 23:33 ET by Conservative VoiceI think the problem with America right now is the rich (now I'm sounding liberal, but hold that thought). At the start of our country the rich understood that capitalism and freedom depend on each other. They also understood their role in society, to use their wealth to defend freedom. Now most CEOs lean left, Hollywood and media lean left, professors lean left, etc. The majority of our rich are left leaning, and are using their resources to bring in socialism, which is a kind word for slavery to the state. The CEOs do this because with bigger government, it means better contracts and less compitition. Hollywood and media are in lala land so they feel it is right, and don't want to be judged for their hanky panky (that is putting it politely). The professors should know better, and so I am left with they do know better but chose to brainwash liberalism anyway, or really don't know what they are talking about (both cases are not good).
The solution is Milton. The media, Big Corporations, Universities all have something in common, little to no competition. Open up the market, and amazing results will take place.
CV,I don't believe for one mi
March 26, 2007 - 23:39 ET by BlondeCV,
I don't believe for one minute that the CEO's are libs.
They're capitalists.
They make "choices" as to whom they'll support in certain "topical" situations....(send me a pm and I'll fill you in further, can't do it in a public forum).
Personally, I find it sickening.
But I don't believe for one minute that the heads of big corporations are for the leftards...any more than they're for unions and all of the other socialistic blather.
They might "pose" as such...but....
Oh, how I long for a country where I can just be myself.
I must disagree with you on t
March 26, 2007 - 23:50 ET by NL207I must disagree with you on this point. There are a great many CEO's, especially of publicly traded corporations who place both themselves and the their political agendae ahead of the interests of their employers, the shareholders. e.g. Look around. How many businesses do you see damaging themselves, their cost basis and their productivity with "diversity" hiring policies? What does anyone's color/gender/ethnicity have to do with their suitability for a position? I can say similar things about the nepotism and political cronyism that is often rampant in the halls of corporate America.
blarsen
March 26, 2007 - 22:01 ET by gfrrmanYou are soooooooo clueless. Bill of Rights? State's attorneys??? LMAO!!!
Hang Ups for 1000 Alec
March 26, 2007 - 22:20 ET by acumenWhat is 'hung up translating from his native Arabic' Alec.
I have heard many times from
March 26, 2007 - 22:18 ET by NL207I have heard many times from an assortment of leftists that the Patriot Act is destroying liberty, that it conflicts with and compromises the freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights.
(1) Show me the passages from the Patriot Act that you think are contrary to the Bill of Rights and identify which of the 10 original Amendments is conradicted.
(2) If the Patriot Act is truly in conflict with the Constitution as you say it is, then will it not be challenged by pro-socialist activists such as the ACLU and be struck down by the courts?
Last, we get to the hypocrisy department. Don't any of you liberals think that the police state measures which have been imposed at Airports and public buildings in order to catch or deter individuals with aims similar to the 9-11 hijackers are both onerous and a violation of the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, most specifically, those of the 4th Amendment protecting against unreasonable search and siezure. Doesn't it make a lot more sense to do LESS of this sort of thing and more of the Patriot Act so as to minimize government intrusion into private life? Why are you lefties silent on this point? I will feature an answer: (a) Because none of you actually have any real idea what the Patriot Act entails; (b) Criticizing obvious public safety measures, no matter how intrusive, will tip off the average guy as to where the left is really coming from; (c) Criticizing the Patriot Act as some great, vague evil carries littel risk that anyone will call your bluff and offers a fine opportunity to portray Bush as an evil would be tyrant.
Since when has the Bill of Ri
March 26, 2007 - 22:24 ET by UnsaneSince when has the Bill of Rights been repealed?
Besides, stop with the crocodile tears. The Bill of Rights OPPRESSES you with the liberty it grants. You see, if the government had 100% complete, direct, total control over your life and the lives of millions of Americans as you so crave, you will be free of thinking for yourself or from having to make decisions about YOUR life. So, freedom oppresses you. Hence, you cannot tolerate freedom anyways.
Leftists like you hate the 2nd Amendment anyways. And the 1st Amendment's freedom of the press clause (especially in the case of harmless news channels like Fox News). And the 1st Amendment's freedom of speeh clause (as applies to the Right). Need I go on?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
CV,This may be a stupid quest
March 26, 2007 - 18:34 ET by BlondeCV,
This may be a stupid question.
But if Harriet Miers is an attorney, doesn't attorney-client privelege prevail?
Is Rove an attorney?
We know Gonazalez is.
How can one be forced to violate that privelege to satisfy the curiousity of a vindicitive Congress?
I'm not a lawyer....anyone?
The bottom line is that we ne
March 26, 2007 - 19:06 ET by blarsenThe bottom line is that we need an AG who is going to uphold the law, not subvert it.
Today we have the spectacle o
March 26, 2007 - 19:25 ET by OttoToday we have the spectacle of one of the most senior lawyers in the DOJ taking the fifth. It is literally unbelievable, no wonder she was sent on indefinite leave. Why has she done this? Simple. If she goes up to Capitol Hill and spins the administration line that all was hunky dory and above board, none of these guys was fired for political reasons or interfering with investigations, and then someone, which is not unlikely, rat's out the entire process, she is toast. It's as simple as that. Given that he is going to be sitting opposite a panel of lawyers on Thursday, I think it it not impossible that Samson might have take the fifth on certain questions. As I predicted three weeks ago when most of the admin apologists on this site were claiming this was nothing, amazingly they still are, this is very serious indeed. Given what's happening here there is obviously something very nasty under some stones, hence the Republican's in congress cowering in the corner. They are terrified of surprises and based on what we've seen, I'm going to bet there will be some. Gonzales btw is gone at some point, why the White House is prolonging the agony is a mystery to me. They must have a death wish.
Otto the Troll dumps and runs again
March 26, 2007 - 21:10 ET by RJI don't know why I bother answering this dump and run Troll, but here's a short response to his dumb kool aid post:
It was not the White House, but Ms. Goodling's personal attorney who told her to plead the fifth. He said he was concerned that the same entrapment that happened to Libby would happen to her.
It is the law of the land -
March 26, 2007 - 22:40 ET by NL207It is the law of the land -- read that Constitional law -- that all federal appointees serve at the pleasure of the President. He may at any time and for any reason, ask them for their resignations, and those crud you call the Democratic leadership in Congress have NOTHING to say about this, even if the action was taken for blatantly political reasons. This action appears to have had its basis in deviations from policy committed by the specific attornies in question. Therefore, they were dismissed for reasons of plotics.
The Constitution DOES grant the SENATE an Advice and Consent role when the President exercises his authority to appoint replacements for any officials he may sack. to. wit.
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."
From Article II section 2 of the US Constitution.
Your entire argument is baseless. The Democrats in Congress are exceeding their constituted authority
blars...I agree, that's why w
March 26, 2007 - 19:34 ET by Clear thinkerblars...
I agree, that's why we should all support our AG Gonzales.
Thank you for your support!
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
Clear Thinker: Gonzales has a
March 26, 2007 - 19:53 ET by OttoClear Thinker: Gonzales has a constituency of one. He's toast one way or the other. I would also suspect btw that Leahy has more than he's letting on. He's a very experienced ex prosecutor. This woman Goodling as far as I can tell is a religious nut who got promoted above her station. How ironic her name is Monica. You have to laugh. The admin is going to be hurting for months over this. I suspect if the WH withhold coop on Karl and doesn't fire Gonzales, there will be a move to start impeachment proceedings against Gonzales. It's all political gamesmanship, and despite what GWB may think he isn't holding very good cards. Not that he'd know anyway. He's a tool in the hands of much cleverer men as he always has been.
Otto, your BDS is showing
March 26, 2007 - 20:19 ET by RJFunny, you pretend to be making a logical post, but by the end your BDS was showing, Otto. You guys just can't hold it in, can you? hahaha
This sleezy business is nothing more than an attempted power grab, fueled by an attempted fishing expedition. My hope is that the president tells the Dems to shove it because of separation of powers....as should the president of any party. Of course you're too blinded by simplistic ideology to see that.
The only reason the Dems have legs on the subject is that Gonzales didn't handle the questions properly...which would have been to say it was the president's perogative to fire the attorneys. I've never liked the way Gonzales handles the AG position anyway, so I don't care if the pres lets him go. Only problem is that will trigger even more sleezy behavior from the loony Dems...
RJ...Otto is just another lib
March 26, 2007 - 23:47 ET by Clear thinkerRJ...
Otto is just another liberal robot. Socialists around the world will be happy to know that Otto is doing their bidding.
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
Absolutely, as well as we nee
March 26, 2007 - 21:31 ET by Conservative VoiceAbsolutely, as well as we need a congress to follow the constitution, as well as a media that isn't so looney and agenda driven. Blarsen, I am sure you are a decent guy, but come on stop being a political hack and a mind numb media bot.
Have we Americans lost sight of what the constitution is? Have we gotten so political lopsided that the constitution is just a relic? If so, then the constitution is truely hanging by a thread. How sad.
Blonde, my understanding is
March 26, 2007 - 19:17 ET by John in CABlonde, my understanding is that the White House Counsel does not fall under attorney-client privelege. The White House Counsel is an advisor, just as any other person the President or White House hires to provide advice and policy recommendations.
I believe Clinton tried that dodge during his occupation of the White House. Tried to claim attorney-client privelege to prevent some from testifying. That's why Bush hired a personal attorney during the 9-11 hearings and at the beginning of the Plame investigation.
The Attorny General is not the President's attorney. Also, the AG is approved by the Senate and can be compelled to testify before Congress. Bush is not trying to prevent Gonzalez from testifying, only advisors. Advisors that are not approved by the Senate.
If the Senate is correct in their belief that they can subpoena WH advisors for this hearing, then the Senate Judiciary Committee could compel the WH Counsel to testify under oath to explain how the President came to the decision to nominate every nominee to the judiciary. They could force an advisor to testify on every single decision the President comes to. IMO, the demos would love that environment - as long as it was a Republican in the WH.
Give a Democrat Party free America a chance!
John,Why would a White House
March 26, 2007 - 19:46 ET by BlondeJohn,
Why would a White House "counsel" not have a-c privelege?
I understand that the AG is not the President's attorney. And is a confirmed member of the government.
But I suspect the issue of sucessfully enforcing a Congressional supoena to coerce testimony from a presidential advisor is an issue that will have to run the gamut all the way to the Supreme Court.
Note they've issued the supoenas....not yet served them (unless I missed something today, which is quite possible).
Thanks for the cogent answer, John.
Blonde, I believe the simpl
March 26, 2007 - 19:56 ET by John in CABlonde, I believe the simple answer to the WH Counser v. attorney-client privilege is, because they just ain't. Although I was fairly certain of my position, went and looked and voila, the miracle of the internets...
White House Counsel and the Attorney Client Privilege
I skimmed the paper, and it seems the short answer is because the WH Counsel is the attorney to an entity (the Office of the President) not a person, (the President).
No, I don't think the Senate has served the subpoenas.
Give a Democrat Party free America a chance!
Thanks, John,For that link.
March 26, 2007 - 20:00 ET by BlondeThanks, John,
For that link. "Federalist" makes me believe, just naturally, a la the Federalist Papers.
It's certainly going to become "interesting" to see if the dems have the stones to actually serve the supoenas. And then the real test of wills begins.
I have to admit, I saw a bit of fight in GWB over this issue. I hope it catches him afire and makes him take it to the enemy... the internal one, not the one of the terr persuasion.
I think this adminisatratio
March 26, 2007 - 20:09 ET by John in CAI think this adminisatration has already fought the Executive Privilege/Advisor battle once in the Cheney Energy Task Force issue, and the Supreme Court sided with the administration.
Ever since Watergate, there has been an erosion of Executive Privelege. All the President's have acquiesced to some degree to keep from being seen in the light of and compared to Nixon. I think one of Dubya's principles when he took office was to preserve and try to take back ground in the area of Executive Privilege. I think for the most part he had done that, successfully. I hope he stands his ground on this one also. Even if it has to go to the SCOTUS.
Give a Democrat Party free America a chance!
Oh, it will go to the SCOTUS.
March 26, 2007 - 20:15 ET by BlondeOh, it will go to the SCOTUS.
Then what?
I'd hate to tell you what I said to four different people last Thursday!
This is such a witch hunt.
this goes against the very co
March 26, 2007 - 18:18 ET by Conservative Voicethis goes against the very core of the constitution. It doesn't matter what your feelings are blarsen...the fact is the government should not require people to be under oath unless they they have charges and proof behind those charges.
the government should not r
March 26, 2007 - 19:20 ET by motherbeltAbsolutely, CV. The "if they have nothing to hide, they won't mind being under oath" dodge is one of the oldest. In the absence of charges, the plan is to ask enough questions until eventually, because of faulty memory or a differing perspective from different people, a couple of answers don't match up. Then .....WHAM! Perjury charge. Or lying to a prosecutor. That's what happened to Libby. No charge; he was just questioned until they had something to hit him with.
Why do you think they want hi
March 26, 2007 - 19:33 ET by blarsenWhy do you think they want him under oath? They already have internal emails that conflict what he has told the press, et al.
Yes? You can back that up, blarsen?
March 26, 2007 - 19:41 ET by RJYes? You can back that up with links? Please do so, blarsen.
You people are so incredibly stupid in your blind ideology. The AG can be required to testify. The president's advisors cannot. Any attempt to alter that is an attempt at a fishing expedition. No matter how much you whine and moan, those are the facts.
Unlike you, I would argue the same way for the opposition because it is the correct position regardless of political party.
RJ
March 26, 2007 - 20:01 ET by mandrake"The AG can be required to testify. The president's advisors cannot. Any attempt to alter that is an attempt at a fishing expedition. "
Uhmm, so Haldemann and Erlichmann were not presidential advisors? I clearly remember they testified under oath (circa 1974)
Am I mistaken?
Now That's a Crime
March 26, 2007 - 21:30 ET by acumenYes, you are mistaken. The president's advisors cannot by required to testify. Required being the key word, unless of course as CV correctly states, they have been charged with a crime. But then that applies to all of us.
Uhmm, Haldemann and Erlichmann were not required to testify under oath. They were soooooo busted. They decided it was best to co-operate with Congress and do 18 months rather than not and do 18+ years.
Once again apples and oranges comparing the two situations. Don't think it's a crime yet to fire people.....but we're getting there fast thanks to big brother Dem's "new direction". Nice try though. Add one apple and one orange, mix thoroughly and you get Watergate Redux.
Why waste time on insta-scandals when you should be focusing on the real scandal - Dems don't want to fight the war on terrorism.....now that's a crime.
so. The president can fire
March 26, 2007 - 21:15 ET by Conservative Voiceso. The president can fire anyone in his staff as he pleases, its his staff. No charges have been made. I for one do not want the senate to have control of the executive branch...as they are separate powers, but you seem to think its ok to ignore the constitution when it doesn't fit your political agenda. The way things are looking up, the President can't pee unless Congress approves.
blars...That is to supress il
March 26, 2007 - 17:30 ET by bassndudeblars...That is to supress illegal democatic votes. Not a citizen? No vote. That cut and dried.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
I never realized you were an
March 26, 2007 - 17:42 ET by blarsenI never realized you were an Indian.
Only one fourth. On my father
March 26, 2007 - 17:51 ET by bassndudeOnly one fourth. On my fathers side, my grandmother was full blood.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Great news, thanks Blars!It's
March 26, 2007 - 17:54 ET by Clear thinkerGreat news, thanks Blars!
It's about time the playing field was leveled a bit.
BTW... In my county the Dems now pay $50 per vote.
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
motherbelt - firings
March 26, 2007 - 17:34 ET by misterbill"However, the issue is the firings; and the President is entitled to have as US Attorneys those who share his view. "
Correct, concise and to the point. Nonetheless , there are those who will continue to argue with you. Some people do not know they have lost a fight until they are unconscious.
I'm still not seeing a proble
March 26, 2007 - 16:01 ET by Airforce_5_OI'm still not seeing a problem here.
Airforce
March 26, 2007 - 16:47 ET by iveseenitallI'm with you, Airforce. Even OReilly, who says he is against the death penalty, slipped on the night he was reporting on the Jessica case. He said Cooey (sp?) "deserved to die".
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Ms. Clinton's comments
March 26, 2007 - 19:30 ET by pbthinkerSomething interesting about Ms. Clinton's comments today. Wow, her husbands administration was more ethical firing all the attorneys and she would do the same.
Will anyone in the media, anyone, ask Senator Clinton if she would believe she had the right to fire attorneys, 2 years after she was elected, if she felt they weren't prosecuting laws she felt important? Did she feel it was alright for the Congress to tie the hands of all Presidents, in this manner, especially if she became President and had a Republican Congress to contend with?
Do the Democrats, in general, feel this fight, should they win it, is worth tieing the hands of future Presidents, even though the only reason they're doing it is because they hate Bush?
Somewhere, along the line, the rational discussion of this has been lost in the politics of it. Somehow, "be careful what you wish for" comes to mind.
pb
March 26, 2007 - 19:44 ET by gfrrmanI agree with you on the point of, "be careful what you wish for". I am reminded of the Republicans' during Bushs' Supreme Court nominations and the desire to change the vote of the Senate to a simple majority. Luckily it didn't come to that, but it would have been disasterous down the road. Still, this whole thing is a fishing expedition on the Democrats' part. Karma is a nasty thing!!!!
what? It use to be just a s
March 26, 2007 - 21:09 ET by Conservative Voicewhat? It use to be just a simple majority to put someone on the bench. Ever since Roe v Wade, the courts have become a political battleground, which should never be the case because it means the courts are now tainted with bias instead of following the law. With a change in senate rules they have overwritten what is in the constitution, which only requires a simple majority.
what? It use to be just a s
March 26, 2007 - 21:09 ET by Conservative Voicewhat? It use to be just a simple majority to put someone on the bench. Ever since Roe v Wade, the courts have become a political battleground, which should never be the case because it means the courts are now tainted with bias instead of following the law. With a change in senate rules they have overwritten what is in the constitution, which only requires a simple majority.
CV
March 26, 2007 - 21:25 ET by gfrrmanAs I recall, the Dems were threatening to fillibuster Bushes nominations to the SC. that would mean 40 beats 60. Bill Frist threatened to change that rule to a simple majority so there could be a vote. Instead the "gang of 14" got together to compromise....so the change of the 40 beats 60 rule of fillibuster died. Did I miss something?
yes, it use to be a filibuste
March 26, 2007 - 21:35 ET by Conservative Voiceyes, it use to be a filibuster required effort, now all is needed is a threat. The filibuster is also a senate rule. So by senate rules, they have changed the constitution, shameful. Bill Frist was trying to reign back the senate and changed the senate rules to where it would follow what the constitution had in stored. Again the judicial appointies should not need a super majority to win.
You sure did gruffman, it mea
March 26, 2007 - 21:40 ET by JABYou sure did gruffman, it meant that there was not enough republicans willing to stand on their beliefs and morals for those that voted them in. Translation; the RHINO cowards caved, one point for you in being able to sipher that one.
In your "Did I miss something" statement, why did you not include the current session of Congress in regard to how much the dimocrats have not accomplished?
Your not bias though, right?!
"To bad Ignorance isn't painful..."
JAB
March 26, 2007 - 21:49 ET by gfrrmanExcuse me for not stating the obvious, JAB. I know that all the nonsense going on is just a witch hunt aimed at Bush. I should have poined out Nanner Pelosi's "first 100 hours" line of BS. Btw, I see that was a total line of BS...what do I expect from lying, deceitful, say anything to get elected and then change their stance Democrats? Silly me...I know they are LIARS. Did I really need to point out the obvious? From where I can see the Democrats haven't done a damn thing since they took over both houses, except BS and efforts to create "scandal" out of nothing!!! They can't help themselves.....that's just who they are!!
gruffman, if your intent was
March 26, 2007 - 22:19 ET by JABgruffman, if your intent was to back my accusation, why the "I'm smarter than thou" rebuttal?
"To bad Ignorance isn't painful..."
JAB
March 26, 2007 - 22:34 ET by gfrrmanDon't know how you came up with that "smarter" rebuttal. Did it piss you off that I agreed with you? Did I say something that you didn't already know? ????????
Gfrrman, nothing more than a
March 26, 2007 - 22:53 ET by JABGfrrman, nothing more than a misread on sarcasm when the switch (/sarc off) was not used (in your original post). I truly thought you were serious and responded as such. My sincerest apologies for the challenge toward the left's intellect when you can not relate to them.
Really though, your response to me was condesending in nature, whether I was on your side or not.
In closing; how embrassing for me, if this were to be the first and last time, I would laugh out loud :-)
"To bad Ignorance isn't painful..."
JAB
March 26, 2007 - 23:01 ET by gfrrmanJAB, point taken...my bad. If it came across that way I apologize. I need to install the "sarc" meter, I guess..... :-)
gfr, no harm done on your pa
March 26, 2007 - 23:12 ET by JABgfr, no harm done on your part. My apologies as well, I hope you can forgive the ignorance on my part, we need all we can get on this side of the fence.
After reading your latter posts, I know where you stand... and I can accept that. :-)
"To bad Ignorance isn't painful..."
I liked this article much b
March 27, 2007 - 03:53 ET by sarcasmoI liked this article much better. For one thing, the news media, like it or not, are gonna need to deal with the fact that some of this story involves porn-hypocrites, period. Radley and Salon are also right that the Fibbies not-videotaping interviews loses them cases and encourages abusive questioning techniques. Heaven forbid letting rightly-suspicious juries see (gasp!) the truth of what goes on in an interrogation, after all... Why does it always take Reason magazine & one reporter to show entities like the LATimes (and three reporters) how to do real journalism?? There's a lot more to this story than the death penalty, and as usual Radley Balko gets it right where the rest of the news media once-again got it wrong.
JMR