›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Scooter

HungryJoeHungryJoe
edited March 2007 in News
Pwn3d.
«1

Comments

  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    I'm not sure how I feel about this.

    I support the perjury laws but, I have a problem here because the case he perjured himself on never went anywhere.

    I equate it to going before a judge on a drug possession charge and being put in jail because you lied about the car that never contained any drugs.

    I'm no fan of Scooter but I'm looking at the case rather than the people involved.

    Joe, can you provide some legal insight on this?
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited March 2007

    Joe, can you provide some legal insight on this?
    As much as I might like to, I'm just a street lawyer and not a legal scholar. Besides that, I had an ear infection last week and I'm still pretty sick this week. It's a "trial" (heh, heh) just staying vertical right now. Maybe kilarney and Thaed have some opinions.

    There's more legal insight and analysis at Firedoglake than anyone would ever need.
    I'm not sure how I feel about this.
    I have some weird feelings about it too since I usually root for the Defendant. In this case, however, it would be bad enough if it was just about Scooter and Plame. The problem is that Brewster Jennings was exposed as well, cutting our good intelligence on Iran's nuclear program to nothing. It would be nice to have some Iran nuclear intelligence right about now. . .
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    WTF?!! The arrogance is breathtaking. Truly breathtaking.
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    So.

    Anyone up for a revolution?
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited July 2007
    As in violent overthrow of the government? Looks more and more like an option.

    Seriously, I really don't like to think of myself as alarmist, but if they're willing to do all these shenanigans, how can anyone not be at least a little worried that at some point they're gonna say, "Hey, so-and-so looks like a national emergency. I think it's martial law and president-for-life time."

    I'll admit, with any other administration in history, this idea would be silly, but we've seen what these people will do. (Please read this whole page.) As they do more and more outrageous things, it seems more and more likely than even bigger outrages, like martial law and pres-for-life time, are just around the corner.

    I know you'll all say it's silly, but, to cite a simple example, how many of you thought there would come a day when the Vice President decided that he wasn't part of the executive branch? . . . and then turned around and invoked executive privilege (sources in above link) in order not to release documents that must be released by law?
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • SailSail
    edited July 2007
    Anyone up for a revolution?
    As in violent overthrow of the government? Looks more and more like an option.
    Revolution? I'll get my coat.
    Post edited by Sail on
  • NeitoNeito
    edited July 2007
    What's the difference between having his sentence commuted and being pardoned? Both have an admission of guilt, and a cancellation of jail time, right?
    Post edited by Neito on
  • SalamonSalamon
    What's the difference between having his sentence commuted and being pardoned? Both have an admission of guilt, and a cancellation of jail time, right?
    Sentence commuted = still pays $250,000 fine and is on probation for 2 years
    Pardon = it would be like it never happened and his record would be clean

    I love it when Bush says, "I respect the jury’s verdict, but...”

    salamon
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    edited July 2007
    The thing with Libby is that once the special prosecutor found out who leaked Plame's identity (Armitage) he should have stopped the investigation. Instead he moved forward and it turned into a perjury trap for Scooter.

    The case should never have gone as far as it did. If the leaking was a crime, why had Armitage not done any time? If the Democrats are so mad about Scooter having his sentence commuted why were these same Democrats not mad about "sloppy" Sandy Berger not going to jail for what he did at the national archives?

    If anyone should be in jail over the Plame affair it should be Armitage first!
    Post edited by HMTKSteve on
  • ThaedThaed
    What bugs me is Bush involving himself in the prosecution of someone who is effectively on his team. As to the "pres for life" thing, when I'm feeling paranoid, I think about that too. Ultimately, however, he'd need the support of the military and I don't think he has that (to that degree). Bush makes me long for the Albionic way of doing things where, when the Prime Minister falls out of favor, he or she is out.
  • Our_Time_Is_NowOur_Time_Is_Now
    That is just another thing to add to my 'Why I Hate Bush' list.
  • JasonJason
    As in violent overthrow of the government? Looks more and more like an option.
    You're anti-Second Amendment. You don't have any guns.
  • RymRym
    I'm glad that they went after Scooter as hard as they did.  He chose to play the fall guy, and the court, by throwing the book at him, put substantial pressure on Bush's administration.  I have very little sympathy for the man, as he could easily have been forthright in his testimony.  He was trying to weasel his way out.
    I'm also glad that Bush commuted his sentence.  Complicit as he was, he was still the fall guy.  His crime was little more than a political tool of those above him, and he doesn't deserve to bear the brunt of the reaction.  Also, Bush brought the matter squarely back into the limelight by acting.  He obviously didn't want to, and was hoping that the courts could be influenced more subtly.
    This situation existed solely to force Bush's hand.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    He only acted because the court was going to send Scooter to jail while waiting on his appeal.
  • JasonJason
    Wow, Rym, that is an incredibly insightful response, and one which I did not expect to hear at all. You get +3 Jason Respect Points.
  • JasonJason
    Fuck it, I'm making it +4.
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark

    I'm glad that they went after Scooter as hard as they did. He chose to play the fall guy, and the court, by throwing the book at him, put substantial pressure on Bush's administration. I have very little sympathy for the man, as he could easily have been forthright in his testimony. He was trying to weasel his way out.

    I'm also glad that Bush commuted his sentence. Complicit as he was, he was still the fall guy. His crime was little more than a political tool of those above him, and he doesn't deserve to bear the brunt of the reaction. Also, Bush brought the matter squarely back into the limelight by acting. He obviously didn't want to, and was hoping that the courts could be influenced more subtly.This situation existed solely to force Bush's hand.
    Irrespective, he was still complicit. He might be a fall guy, but that means he should actually take the fall. This is like making a fall guy, and then giving him immunity from the falling damage. Bush just gave Scooter a ring of feather fall.

    I do agree that he doesn't deserve the brunt of the reaction, though, and I would hope that there will be more fallout from this matter. I won't hold my breath, but I can at least hope.

    My take on this is that, regardless of why Bush did it (acting now because the pressure was on, vs. acting in a subtle fashion later to achieve the same effect), he has repeatedly demonstrated a flagrant disregard for the law. If he's willing to be this brazen (or will do it even if unwilling), that presents a very chilling picture of this administration. Couple that with an administration that has no problem openly maintaining a double standard (being ready to crucify Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice, then forgiving those same crimes in one of their own), and you have the archetypical political villain.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve

    Couple that with an administration that has no problem openly maintaining a double standard (being ready to crucify Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice, then forgiving those same crimes in one of their own), and you have the archetypical political villain.
    All politicians do that.
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark

    Couple that with an administration that has no problem openly maintaining a double standard (being ready to crucify Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice, then forgiving those same crimes in one of their own), and you have the archetypical political villain.
    All politicians do that.
    Most people do that too.

    Doesn't mean it's acceptable. They're doing it, so they're in the wrong. If other politicians do it, they're in the wrong too. These guys happen to be in charge and in the wrong, so I put a little more emphasis on it.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve

    Couple that with an administration that has no problem openly maintaining a double standard (being ready to crucify Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice, then forgiving those same crimes in one of their own), and you have the archetypical political villain.
    All politicians do that.
    Most people do that too.

    Doesn't mean it's acceptable. They're doing it, so they're in the wrong. If other politicians do it, they're in the wrong too. These guys happen to be in charge and in the wrong, so I put a little more emphasis on it.
    Yes, but the people (politicians) who are in a position to fix this wrongdoing are themselves guilty of the same wrong doing! We would have to remove every elected official in D.C. to fix this!
  • AndrewAndrew
    Yes, but the people (politicians) who are in a position to fix this wrongdoing are themselves guilty of the same wrong doing! We would have to remove every elected official in D.C. to fix this!
    Pretty much.
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    Yes, but the people (politicians) who are in a position to fix this wrongdoing are themselves guilty of the same wrong doing! We would have to remove every elected official in D.C. to fix this!
    Pretty much.
    Yup.

    Can't fix a broken car with broken tools.

    So, again. Revolution?
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    Yes, but the people (politicians) who are in a position to fix this wrongdoing are themselves guilty of the same wrong doing! We would have to remove every elected official in D.C. to fix this!
    Pretty much.
    Yup.

    Can't fix a broken car with broken tools.

    So, again. Revolution?
    A revolution implies that the framework of the government is broken. I think you are aiming more towards a coup.
  • JasonJason
    WARNING: THIS BOARD NOW UNDER REVIEW BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    Why? What's wrong with putting a chicken coup in DC?
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    Yes, but the people (politicians) who are in a position to fix this wrongdoing are themselves guilty of the same wrong doing! We would have to remove every elected official in D.C. to fix this!
    Pretty much.
    Yup.

    Can't fix a broken car with broken tools.

    So, again. Revolution?
    A revolution implies that the framework of the government is broken. I think you are aiming more towards a coup.
    Installing a new head won't do anything because, yes, I feel the government is too broken to be fixed. I'm fairly certain that the system set up by the founding fathers was not supposed to last this long, and it's being stretched thin. It's akin to what Rym and Scott said about baseball; there was a point when the sport was interesting, but it's been solved.

    The game of politics in this country has been solved, so now we all deal with the consequences of that. Obviously, we need a new game, and when that gets solved, we get yet another new game. I have no idea how to make that actually happen (aside from a total anarchic breakdown and a rebuilding from there), but I don't think we'll solve any problems using a broken system that gets progressively more broken as time goes on.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    The original system is still good, the problem is all the extra stuff that was added to it.

    Back in the day of the founding fathers we didn't have things like "instant news" or "full-time" politicians. Voters had to trust the person local to them to be a good person and do what is right.

    Many things were left out of the Constitution because the founders felt it should not be a part of government. I believe the founders wanted a collection of strong states with a federal government in place to take care of things that are easier done with such a body (think economies of scale). I do not think they wanted to see a country where the power resides with the Feds and the states have little or no power.

    The forcing of the Confederate States to remain in the Union was a big mistake and we are all still paying for it today as it cemented the role of the US government as the power spot when it was once the states. The states should have been allowed to leave.

    The first "extra" law I would add would be term limits.
  • AndrewAndrew
    Just because the current system is pretty good, that doesn't mean we couldn't do better.
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    The original system is still good, the problem is all the extra stuff that was added to it.

    Back in the day of the founding fathers we didn't have things like "instant news" or "full-time" politicians. Voters had to trust the person local to them to be a good person and do what is right.

    Many things were left out of the Constitution because the founders felt it should not be a part of government. I believe the founders wanted a collection of strong states with a federal government in place to take care of things that are easier done with such a body (think economies of scale). I do not think they wanted to see a country where the power resides with the Feds and the states have little or no power.

    The forcing of the Confederate States to remain in the Union was a big mistake and we are all still paying for it today as it cemented the role of the US government as the power spot when it was once the states. The states should have been allowed to leave.

    The first "extra" law I would add would be term limits.
    I'm not so sure that the system set up by the Constitution was intended to be around forever. A lot of things are vague (interstate commerce clause anyone?), so that they've had to be defined arbitrarily in the past and now are still around in the present day. The entire representative democracy thing worked much better when the US was smaller, because each voter knew the candidates on a much deeper level than they do today.

    I agree 100% with your assessment of what they intended (and what I'd like to see, really) and on the secession bit. Really, if it weren't for the human rights issue, I would've been behind the Confederacy in that mess.
  • RymRym
    The problem is simple.  Better is always possible and always good in theory.  But is "better" better enough?
    The cost of changing such a complex system in any meaningful way is massive.  The replacement system must be superior on a grand scale, or else the incremental benefits are entirely consumed by the cost of change.  There are better ways, but thus far there don't appear to be any better ways that are better enough to be worth the cost of changing in the first place.
    Amount of change ^ 2 * size * complexity = difficulty of effecting change
     
Sign In or Register to comment.