|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 2:31 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Will Bush Pardon Himself?
by Kenneth Roth
On his way out the door, President Bush might be tempted to protect himself and members of his administration by issuing a broad pardon for any crimes committed in the course of fighting terrorism.
The Constitution allows the president to issue such a blanket, pre-emptive pardon. The only real impediment is the admission of guilt that such a pardon would imply. Attorney General Michael Mukasey said recently that there is no need for a pardon because everyone involved thought they were acting lawfully, and Vice President Dick Cheney has claimed that even his authorization of waterboarding was legal. But the president may issue a broad pardon anyway for fear that the Obama administration would reach different conclusions.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-01-18/will-bush-pardon-himself/
Might want to keep this in mind until we know at noon on Tuesday. |
Maybe so. I just think if we wait until 12 or 16 like you suggested alot of the evidence will be lost. Furthermore in any such trial, there will be alot to be placed on witness testimony. Peoples memorys wont be so good after 4-8 years. And so forth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 2:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| NAVFC wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Later as in never? |
Why does 'later' equal 'never'?
While you are right that investigations are a DoJ responsibility while addressing the problems that confront the country belong to the legislative and other parts of the executive branch, you are missing the connection. Obama wants to attack the series of deep problems that need as much consensus as he can muster. If TV screens are filled scenes of members of the previous administration being hauled into court, the Republicans are going to go ballistic and there will be no consensus on the other matters--and that matters very much.
I too am concerned that violators of the law be punished. As Jonathan Turley says, the war crimes become 'ours' if the perpetrators are not punished. Besides, 2012 or 2016 may be a more effective time to go that way. |
By 2012,2016 documents will be lost, witneses could be intimidated, memories could be fuzzy or "fuzzy" all of a sudden, etc.
These investigations need to happen while the evidence is fresh. |
Give it a rest. The Bush Administration is not the Mob. And it will have little power to intimidate witnesses once it is out of office. It is not some shadowy cabal. |
Oh please. Intimidation doesnt have to mean mob like tactics. Bush may be gone but his political apointees among judges and other positions remain so he can still exert some influence on people through them if he wanted..
Listen.. Bush committed crimes. He broke the law. When you break the law your supposed to face legal consequences. I dont know why you, UrbanMyth and others thing that somehow the President is immune from this. He shouldnt be. What does it say to the rest of the world if we dont even at the very least launch a investigation. Its politically uncomofrtable? Woop dee frickin dah! Israel just got done with a war, has an election coming up, yet its Leader, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is going on trial for corruption!
Accountability shouldnt be a factor of the convenience of it. Accountability should be something demanded by law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kotakji
Joined: 23 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NAVFC wrote: |
Accountability shouldnt be a factor of the convenience of it. Accountability should be something demanded by law. |
But were not simply talking about issues of convenience- its not like Obama is delaying an investigation so that he can get popular consensus on tackling the problem of Kudzu growth. Accountability is important but it shouldn't come before the overall welfare of the country. Law is not an absolute and I doubt it would be possible for a president to sit in office for four years without having to break some laws. With that in mind, we must weigh the benefit of investigating and enforcing those laws vs. the benefits in unity gained by moving on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
uberscheisse
Joined: 02 Dec 2003
Location: japan is better than korea.
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 6:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| don't you have to be in office to break a promise? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| BO's promises were broken even before they were made. I have been saying for over a year now here that there is not a dime's worth of difference between Bush and Obama. |
Looks like Obama pwned you.
| Quote: |
Yesterday, President Obama issued a series of Executive Orders:
* Calling for the closure of the Guantanamo detention center within one year
* Creating a Special Task Force to review detainee policy going forward
* Ensuring lawful interrogations by requiring that all interrogations of detainees in armed conflict follow the Army Field Manual interrogation guidelines |
http://www.whitehouse.gov/executive-orders-to-date/
And from the (very) libertarian site The Agitator (the writer worked for Reason Mag and Cato...not exactly a Dem)
http://www.theagitator.com/2009/01/23/holy-crap-4/
| Quote: |
President Obama yesterday eliminated the most controversial tools employed by his predecessor against terrorism suspects. With the stroke of his pen, he effectively declared an end to the �war on terror,� as President George W. Bush had defined it, signaling to the world that the reach of the U.S. government in battling its enemies will not be limitless.
While Obama says he has no plans to diminish counterterrorism operations abroad, the notion that a president can circumvent long-standing U.S. laws simply by declaring war was halted by executive order in the Oval Office.
Key components of the secret structure developed under Bush are being swept away: The military�s Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, facility, where the rights of habeas corpus and due process had been denied detainees, will close, and the CIA is now prohibited from maintaining its own overseas prisons. And in a broad swipe at the Bush administration�s lawyers, Obama nullified every legal order and opinion on interrogations issued by any lawyer in the executive branch after Sept. 11, 2001.
It�s worth emphasizing again here these steps Obama�s taking effectively limit his own power. That�s extraordinary.
I suspect that not everything John Yoo & Co. wrote was flat-out nuts. Some of the legal opinions issued over the last seven-plus years may come back in some form. This move looks like Obama wanting to send a very clear message that the executive branch will be returning to some semblance of the rule of law, and not governance by executive fiat.
In that regard, if I may borrow a phrase: mission accomplished. |
Obama limited his own power, as one of his first acts as President.
Seems more than a "dimes" worth of difference to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| BO's promises were broken even before they were made. I have been saying for over a year now here that there is not a dime's worth of difference between Bush and Obama. |
Looks like Obama pwned you.
| Quote: |
Yesterday, President Obama issued a series of Executive Orders:
* Calling for the closure of the Guantanamo detention center within one year
* Creating a Special Task Force to review detainee policy going forward
* Ensuring lawful interrogations by requiring that all interrogations of detainees in armed conflict follow the Army Field Manual interrogation guidelines |
http://www.whitehouse.gov/executive-orders-to-date/
And from the (very) libertarian site The Agitator (the writer worked for Reason Mag and Cato...not exactly a Dem)
http://www.theagitator.com/2009/01/23/holy-crap-4/
| Quote: |
President Obama yesterday eliminated the most controversial tools employed by his predecessor against terrorism suspects. With the stroke of his pen, he effectively declared an end to the �war on terror,� as President George W. Bush had defined it, signaling to the world that the reach of the U.S. government in battling its enemies will not be limitless.
While Obama says he has no plans to diminish counterterrorism operations abroad, the notion that a president can circumvent long-standing U.S. laws simply by declaring war was halted by executive order in the Oval Office.
Key components of the secret structure developed under Bush are being swept away: The military�s Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, facility, where the rights of habeas corpus and due process had been denied detainees, will close, and the CIA is now prohibited from maintaining its own overseas prisons. And in a broad swipe at the Bush administration�s lawyers, Obama nullified every legal order and opinion on interrogations issued by any lawyer in the executive branch after Sept. 11, 2001.
It�s worth emphasizing again here these steps Obama�s taking effectively limit his own power. That�s extraordinary.
I suspect that not everything John Yoo & Co. wrote was flat-out nuts. Some of the legal opinions issued over the last seven-plus years may come back in some form. This move looks like Obama wanting to send a very clear message that the executive branch will be returning to some semblance of the rule of law, and not governance by executive fiat.
In that regard, if I may borrow a phrase: mission accomplished. |
Obama limited his own power, as one of his first acts as President.
Seems more than a "dimes" worth of difference to me. |
You left out that he put all of Bush's midnight regulations on hold for further review. All that is all a good start, but we must still see how it all plays out.
But look, he has put in his cabinet all the same people from the Bush and Clinton administrations. Just how different can it be?
I didn't say what I did to gloat. I really, really, really hope I am wrong about this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 11:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
How different does it have to be? Does he need to nominate Noam Chomsky of secretary of anarcho-commerce? Ward Churchill as director of keepin ethnics real? Camon?
The Clinton years were very good years. I see little wrong will going back to people who gained expertise during that administration to help this one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
michaelambling
Joined: 31 Dec 2008
Location: Paradise
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| mises wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| BO's promises were broken even before they were made. I have been saying for over a year now here that there is not a dime's worth of difference between Bush and Obama. |
Looks like Obama pwned you.
| Quote: |
Yesterday, President Obama issued a series of Executive Orders:
* Calling for the closure of the Guantanamo detention center within one year
* Creating a Special Task Force to review detainee policy going forward
* Ensuring lawful interrogations by requiring that all interrogations of detainees in armed conflict follow the Army Field Manual interrogation guidelines |
http://www.whitehouse.gov/executive-orders-to-date/
And from the (very) libertarian site The Agitator (the writer worked for Reason Mag and Cato...not exactly a Dem)
http://www.theagitator.com/2009/01/23/holy-crap-4/
| Quote: |
President Obama yesterday eliminated the most controversial tools employed by his predecessor against terrorism suspects. With the stroke of his pen, he effectively declared an end to the �war on terror,� as President George W. Bush had defined it, signaling to the world that the reach of the U.S. government in battling its enemies will not be limitless.
While Obama says he has no plans to diminish counterterrorism operations abroad, the notion that a president can circumvent long-standing U.S. laws simply by declaring war was halted by executive order in the Oval Office.
Key components of the secret structure developed under Bush are being swept away: The military�s Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, facility, where the rights of habeas corpus and due process had been denied detainees, will close, and the CIA is now prohibited from maintaining its own overseas prisons. And in a broad swipe at the Bush administration�s lawyers, Obama nullified every legal order and opinion on interrogations issued by any lawyer in the executive branch after Sept. 11, 2001.
It�s worth emphasizing again here these steps Obama�s taking effectively limit his own power. That�s extraordinary.
I suspect that not everything John Yoo & Co. wrote was flat-out nuts. Some of the legal opinions issued over the last seven-plus years may come back in some form. This move looks like Obama wanting to send a very clear message that the executive branch will be returning to some semblance of the rule of law, and not governance by executive fiat.
In that regard, if I may borrow a phrase: mission accomplished. |
Obama limited his own power, as one of his first acts as President.
Seems more than a "dimes" worth of difference to me. |
You left out that he put all of Bush's midnight regulations on hold for further review. All that is all a good start, but we must still see how it all plays out.
But look, he has put in his cabinet all the same people from the Bush and Clinton administrations. Just how different can it be?
I didn't say what I did to gloat. I really, really, really hope I am wrong about this. |
I really don't understand how anyone can be so gleefully misinformed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
