The Rule of Law

Main discussion area is here. Reply to a message to continue a discussion thread, or create your own new Topics.
User avatar
fangz1956
Posts: 1124
Joined: 2007 Jul 07 10:16

Re: The Rule of Law

Postby fangz1956 » 2009 Jan 22 13:55

I don't know where you come up with your information Beck, but that is some of the most contrived, fear-based baloney Somebody has tried to serve in a while. Geez Louise!
Beyond the symbolic value of that act, consider what it means in specific, concrete terms. One of the Guantanamo detainees whose military commission has not yet concluded is Mohammed Jawad. Jawad is an Afghan citizen who, in late 2002, was taken into U.S. custody and then shipped from Afghanistan, his home country, to Guantanamo, where he has remained ever since -- more than six full years and counting. Nobody has ever accused Jawad of belonging either to Al Qaeda or the Taliban. Instead, he is accused of throwing a hand grenade at two U.S. soldiers inside his country, seriously injuring both of them. He vehemently denies involvement. At the time of his due-process-less imprisonment in Guantanamo, he was an adolescent: between 15 and 17 years old (because he was born and lived his whole life in an Afghan refugee camp in Pakistan, and is functionally illiterate, his exact date of birth is unknown).

That's some terrorist, now isn't it. A functionally illiterate teenager who has been detained and tortured beyond belief by the oh so great and wonderful America under Bush's reign for 6YEARS The real terrorists are Bush and Rumsfeld......just to name two.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/ ... newsletter

:mad:
Ever looked at someone and thought "the wheel is turning but the hamster is dead"?

resigned

Re: The Rule of Law

Postby resigned » 2009 Jan 22 14:29

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160036,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guant%C3%A1namo_Bay

I also read it on the Drudge Report.

Where will the remaining 250 end up. Maybe in Kansas.http://voices.kansascity.com/node/3404

This is not contrived or fear based, just information I gleaned from other sources of which I imagine most here will decry as not being appropriate. Oh well. What can I say.

User avatar
fangz1956
Posts: 1124
Joined: 2007 Jul 07 10:16

Re: The Rule of Law

Postby fangz1956 » 2009 Jan 24 08:02

Glenn Greenwald, in Salon on 1/24/09 wrote:On an unrelated note: Forbes has a list of what it calls "The 25 Most Influential Liberals in the U.S. Media," and it illustrates quite well why I find these labels far more obfuscating than anything else. Any political term that supposedly encompasses Rachel Maddow, Paul Krugman, Bill Moyers and me (#18) -- along with the likes of Maureen Dowd, Christopher Hitchens, Chris Matthews, Tom Friedman and Fred Hiatt -- is not a term that has any meaning.
In fact, if I had to create my own list of the 25 Most Noxious Media Figures in the U.S., it would include several of the people on that list, including most if not all of the names in between those dashes above (classifying everyone as a "liberal" who isn't Rush Limbaugh is one of the critical tools for maintaining the myth of the Liberal Media). Notably, the Forbes list -- compiled by "canvassing the views of more than 100 academics, politicians and journalists" -- contains numerous individuals primarily known as "bloggers" (in fact, almost 1/3 of the list: 8 of the 25).

This column today is most illuminating. Seems that more than a few in Congress are attempting to continue on with instilling fear (based on falsehoods) in the American people. Seems that inhumane torture is superior to human rights and fair trials in the courts.

Oh brother!

:hammer:
Ever looked at someone and thought "the wheel is turning but the hamster is dead"?

User avatar
Wise One
Posts: 1957
Joined: 2007 Nov 02 09:33

Re: The Rule of Law

Postby Wise One » 2009 Jan 24 16:15

fangz1956 wrote:
Glenn Greenwald, in Salon on 1/24/09 wrote:... classifying everyone as a "liberal" who isn't Rush Limbaugh ...
Brilliant! On this definition, it is absolutely correct that all of the world's problems are caused by liberals!
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like Donald Trump."

User avatar
fangz1956
Posts: 1124
Joined: 2007 Jul 07 10:16

Re: The Rule of Law

Postby fangz1956 » 2009 Mar 01 19:58

On 3/01/09, Glenn Greenwald wrote in Salon:

The Obama DOJ's embrace of Bush's state secrets privilege in the Jeppesen (torture/rendition) case generated substantial outrage, and rightly so. But it's now safe to say that far worse is the Obama DOJ's conduct in the Al-Haramain case -- the only remaining case against the Government with any real chance of resulting in a judicial ruling on the legality of Bush's NSA warrantless eavesdropping program. Here's the first paragraph from the Wired report on Friday's appellate ruling, which refused the Obama DOJ's request to block a federal court from considering key evidence when deciding whether Bush broke the law in how he spied on Americans:

A federal appeals court dealt a blow to the Obama administration Friday when it refused to block a judge from admitting top secret evidence in a lawsuit weighing whether a U.S. president may bypass Congress, as President George W. Bush did, and establish a program of eavesdropping on Americans without warrants.

And here are the two paragraphs from the AP report:

The Obama administration has lost its argument that a potential threat to national security should stop a lawsuit challenging the government's warrantless wiretapping program. . . .

The Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, claimed national security would be compromised if a lawsuit brought by the Oregon chapter of the charity, Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, was allowed to proceed.

Let's just pause for a moment to consider how remarkable those statements are. One of the worst abuses of the Bush administration was its endless reliance on vast claims of secrecy to ensure that no court could ever rule on the legality of the President's actions. They would insist that "secrecy" prevented a judicial ruling even when the President's actions were (a) already publicly disclosed in detail and (b) were blatantly criminal -- as is the case with the NSA warrantless eavesdropping program, which The New York Times described on its front page more than three years ago and which a federal statute explicitly criminalized. Secrecy claims of that sort -- to block judicial review of the President's conduct, i.e., to immunize the President from the rule of law -- provoked endless howls of outrage from Bush critics.



Hmmmmm.......meet the new boss, same as the old boss.


:banghead:
Ever looked at someone and thought "the wheel is turning but the hamster is dead"?

User avatar
Coondog
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2008 Jul 08 15:14

Re: The Rule of Law

Postby Coondog » 2009 Mar 02 13:05

Well....there may be a perfectly good reason for all this. Unfortunately that, too, is probably a secret.

Ever since the first adaptation of Ian Flemming novels into film in the 1960's, the public has been aware on some level that governments sneak around behind the scenes and covertly manipulate events is a spy vs. spy scenario. Seldom has the general public become aware of the specifics because is was top secret national security stuff that we didn't need to know about and shouldn't for our own good and peace of mind. Knowing the details of technically illegal and unconstitutional operations simply enhance our insecurity and general angst over such things that we have to watch movies about three times before we figure out what the heck we've seen.

The Bush Administration has elevated all that with the subtility of a naked man in a display window by operating with impunity directly under everybody's perverbial noses....and bragging about it. The operational stuff is still none of our business. And, that's where the pudding is the thickest!

I'm sure there are vast underground warehouses beneath the White House (litteraly or figuratively) where, along with the Ark of the Covenant, uncounted skeletons are kept that no one finds out about until they become president. We could let them all out. I'd prefer we didn't, though, as that might make us all a bit more unnerved than we already are over detention, torture, wiretapping, domestic spying, v-chips, ufos, etc. Our certainty about being proud to be Americans might well come into question. That would not be helpful!

I suppose the lesson to be learned if we are going to declare war against the rest of the world, and our own citizens, is:
Dont Take Any Prisoners :surrend:

Coondog

or..............If you do it in the light.......do it right!

User avatar
Wise One
Posts: 1957
Joined: 2007 Nov 02 09:33

Re: The Rule of Law

Postby Wise One » 2009 Mar 28 09:23

It looks like the Brits, on this issue, stand the only chance of enforcing the rule of law.

The United States has apparently abandoned it. Bush lawbreakers escaped the consequences while they were in power and, sadly, the current administration lacks the courage to enforce the law, the embodiment of our ideals as a Nation.

:guillot: Maybe the French had the right idea after all.
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like Donald Trump."

User avatar
Uji
Posts: 411
Joined: 2008 Aug 01 10:10

Re: The Rule of Law

Postby Uji » 2009 Mar 28 14:55

This sure is disappointing. Will be interesting (thinking positively) to see how all this plays out. Hard to understand why O would take this line -- one seemingly so distant from the line he took as a candidate. It's too early to become cynical about the guy ... I hope! ... but this is not encouraging.

User avatar
fangz1956
Posts: 1124
Joined: 2007 Jul 07 10:16

Re: The Rule of Law

Postby fangz1956 » 2009 Mar 28 20:22

Why did he take this line? He's a politician......same wolf, different sheep suit. This skeptic has tried hard not to be skeptical. This cynic is trying hard not to be cynical. BUT.........the continually unfolding news makes that task extremely difficult. One could say that the recent press conference put the icing on the proverbial cake. More sacrifice expected from the working class and vitually none for the power elite.......no different than this freakish two-tiered justice system we have have morphed into. He did a fine job of trying to talk down the brewing pitch-fork rebellion. But talk is cheap and what action we have seen still has us hamstrung GW-style.

Change.......what change?

:angry4:
Ever looked at someone and thought "the wheel is turning but the hamster is dead"?

resigned

Re: The Rule of Law

Postby resigned » 2009 Mar 28 22:11

Its no longer GW but BO.

User avatar
Coondog
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2008 Jul 08 15:14

Re: The Rule of Law

Postby Coondog » 2009 Mar 30 10:07

Its no longer GW but BO.


It's a good thing it's not BJ, or GW would be SOL!

:pinocc: :tongue3:

Coondog

our priorities must remain puritanical!

User avatar
Uji
Posts: 411
Joined: 2008 Aug 01 10:10

Re: The Rule of Law

Postby Uji » 2009 Mar 31 12:38

fangz1956 wrote:This skeptic has tried hard not to be skeptical. This cynic is trying hard not to be cynical. BUT.........the continually unfolding news makes that task extremely difficult... Change.......what change?

Fangz, I think you said it just right: We need to cut the guy SOME slack, he's barely been in office for two months. BUT...we are also well within our rights to find it harder and harder to cut any slack when the change promised is not the change delivered.

As to "what change?", I'd say a lot. We are a hell of a lot better served by this bunch than the last -- their similarities notwithstanding.

The issue for me is the degree to which O fails to do what he said he WOULD do.

(If you don't like what he said he was gonna do, and now you find that he's actually doing it: That's a different kettle of fish.)

User avatar
Neck-aint-red
Posts: 354
Joined: 2008 Apr 08 14:08

Re: The Rule of Law

Postby Neck-aint-red » 2009 Apr 19 16:45

It looks like Obama is only half way there, having ordered the release of Bush's official papers ordering torture, themselves using tortured language to say that the law applies to everybody but the evil doers in the Bush administration.

We need to keep Obama's feet to the fire. Criminals need to be investigated, prosecuted and punished if found guilty, regardless of former position. The rule of law is the only thing that separates America from so many lesser countries. Bush goons nearly destroyed it and we need to get it back.

This piece has it all, plus links to the actual memoranda of criminal "lawyers" working merely as corrupt mouthpieces to enable Bush torturers. It is a very clear analysis. Read it, weep, and let's do something about it so that it never happens again.

PS. I see that Obama took a baby step in the right direction of accountability under the law. His a priori declaration that "We want to look forward, not backward," implying that he was stifling prosecutions from the top, was just the kind of illegal political meddiling in what is supposed to be an apolitical Department of Justice that Bush was guilty of. Dianne Feinstein had screamed, as well she should, and Obama had the wisdom to backtrack. Not quite far enough, in my opinion.

:police:

User avatar
Wise One
Posts: 1957
Joined: 2007 Nov 02 09:33

Re: The Rule of Law

Postby Wise One » 2009 Jul 17 10:52

While the US imprisons millions for trivial drug misbehaviors, the really really big criminals usually escape. Below is a profoundly convincing case for probing deep and prosecuting lawbreakers who captured our government for awhile, especially the high ranking ones. We cannot take the pressure off Obama on this ... he needs to be pushed, hard, to do the right thing.
NYT Editorial, on July 17, 2009 wrote:Illegal, and Pointless

We’ve known for years that the Bush administration ignored and broke the law repeatedly in the name of national security. It is now clear that many of those programs could have been conducted just as easily within the law — perhaps more effectively and certainly with far less damage to the justice system and to Americans’ faith in their government.

That is the inescapable conclusion from a devastating report by the inspectors general of the intelligence and law-enforcement community on President George W. Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program. The report shows that the longstanding requirement that the government obtain a warrant was not hindering efforts to gather intelligence on terrorists after the 9/11 attacks. In fact, the argument that the law was an impediment was concocted by White House and Justice Department lawyers after Mr. Bush authorized spying on Americans’ international communications.

We know less, so far, about the Bush administration’s plan to send covert paramilitary teams to assassinate Al Qaeda leaders. But what is overwhelmingly clear is that there was no legal or rational justification for Vice President Dick Cheney’s order to conceal the program from Congress. The plan was never put into effect, apparently because it was unworkable. But it’s hard to imagine Congress balking at killing terrorists.

So why break the law, again and again? Two things seem disturbingly clear. First, President Bush and his top aides panicked after the Sept. 11 attacks. And second, Mr. Cheney and his ideologues, who had long chafed at any legal constraints on executive power, preyed on that panic to advance their agenda.

According to the inspectors general, the legal memo justifying warrantless wiretapping was written by John Yoo, then the deputy head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel and author of other memos that twisted the law to justify torture.

In this case, the report said, he misrepresented both the law and the details of the wiretapping operation to make it seem as if the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was outdated and that Mr. Bush could ignore it. And, according to the report, Mr. Yoo bypassed his bosses at the Justice Department and delivered his reports directly to, you guessed it, Mr. Cheney’s office.

For four years, until The Times revealed the warrantless wiretapping, Mr. Bush reauthorized the eavesdropping every 45 days based on memos from the intelligence community and Justice Department. The report said that when the “scary memos,” as they came to be called, were not sufficiently scary, lawyers under the direction of Alberto Gonzales, White House counsel and later attorney general, revised them or ordered up additional “threat information.” Each ended with a White House-written paragraph asserting that communications were intercepted from terrorists who “possessed the capability and intention” to attack this country.

After Mr. Yoo and his boss, Jay Bybee, left the Justice Department, their replacements concluded that the wiretapping program was illegal. The White House did eventually change parts of the program and then demanded that Congress legalize it, but only after the White House tried to force the Justice Department to ignore its own conclusions and after Robert Mueller, the director of the F.B.I., threatened to resign.

Mr. Cheney has tried to head off a reckoning by claiming that the warrantless wiretapping saved thousands of lives. The report said the C.I.A. could point to little direct benefit. The F.B.I. said most of the leads it produced were false. Others never led to an arrest.

This is not an isolated case. Once the Bush team got into the habit of breaking the law, it became their operating procedure that any means are justified: ordering the nation’s intelligence agents to torture prisoners; sending innocents to be tortured in foreign countries; creating secret prisons where detainees were held illegally without charge.

Americans still don’t have the full story. Even now, most of what the inspectors general found remains classified, including other wiretapping that Mr. Bush authorized. Mr. Yoo’s original memo is also classified.

President Obama has refused to open a full investigation of the many laws that were evaded, twisted or broken — pointlessly and destructively — under Mr. Bush. Mr. Obama should change his mind. A full accounting is the only way to ensure these abuses never happen again.
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like Donald Trump."

User avatar
fangz1956
Posts: 1124
Joined: 2007 Jul 07 10:16

Re: The Rule of Law

Postby fangz1956 » 2009 Oct 18 06:54

Hat's off to the British High Court for having a BACKBONE!


:pompom:
Ever looked at someone and thought "the wheel is turning but the hamster is dead"?

simple1

Re: The Rule of Law

Postby simple1 » 2010 Oct 24 17:47

hey, in northern CA is legal to grow and sell POT!!! :hair:

User avatar
Wise One
Posts: 1957
Joined: 2007 Nov 02 09:33

Re: The Rule of Law

Postby Wise One » 2011 Oct 19 10:33

Here's a fun civics quiz I stumbled upon.

My results were "You answered 32 out of 33 correctly — 96.97 %." Try it and see how you do.
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like Donald Trump."

anonymoose
Posts: 3
Joined: 2017 Jan 04 22:54

Re: The Rule of Law

Postby anonymoose » 2017 Jan 04 23:12

He is worthless, to us rank-and-file. But apparently valuable to those with means to finance their special interests. Short of natural expiration, it will take a mighty-mighty force to unseat him. But in this climate, and if Virginians wake up, he could unseat himself. Agreed, he needs to go.

User avatar
Cannoneer
Posts: 492
Joined: 2012 Dec 02 22:19

Re: The Rule of Law

Postby Cannoneer » 2017 Feb 07 21:47

Would you liberals care to comment on how the rule of law is working around the country? The rioting destructive anti Trump people don't seem to give a damn about law or personal property.

User avatar
Coondog
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2008 Jul 08 15:14

Re: The Rule of Law

Postby Coondog » 2017 Feb 09 16:19

The rioting destructive anti Trump people don't seem to give a damn about law or personal property.


Rioting destructive people don't give a damn about much of anything. Trump people give a damn about even less:


Trump's USDA hides information to protect animal abusers and puppy mills


http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/2/7/1630855/-Trump-s-USDA-hides-information-to-protect-animal-abusers-and-puppy-mills

At one point, there was some consideration to allowing a measure of latitude for a numbskull to adapt to the job of president, but, this is a step too far. This means war. So now it's riot, loot, burn, pillage, resist and up your's Trump you scum sucking, puppy abusing rotten excuse for a hair-do, lying, no good, sidewinding, bushwhacking cricker croaker.

Coondog :hair: