Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Nowhere Man]

Should there be such an investigation?

[Gopher]

[deleted]

[igotthisguitar]

What exactly would constitute "independent" ?

[Nowhere Man]

"Independent" would be a Congress-appointed independent counsel. That may not be your idea of independent, Guitar, but it stands in contrast to the White House appointing someone to investigate itself.

For the record, I created this poll because Gopher's 2 polls are loaded.

The first asks us to make a decision about evidence and ignores the fact that there should be an investigation into exactly what evidence there is. In other words, an independent counsel investigation is needed to provide better access to White House records, which are not at this time being offered up in a way that allows much if any transparency.

The second is a blatantly slanted attempt to put negative spin on independent counsel investigations.

And I am happy to discuss the pros and cons of independent counsel investigations, but not while someone is offering lunch-room poll choices biased toward their own point.

[rapier]

Longer established democracies have multiple heads of state. A judiciary etc that safeguards against a single leader going off the rails. A King, aqueen, a prime minister, etc etc. Not just one big man at the top.

[jaganath69]

[Nowhere Man]

Interesting points.

I really don'y like the word democracy since we don't have it. We have republics.

The pros and cons of congresses, parliaments, premiers, and preseidents should probably be in another thread. That would also be cool, mind you.

But should there be an independent counsel investigation of Bush?

My position is as follows:

One of the most consistent qualities of the Bush administration has been secrecy and obstinacy when faced with inquiries into its internal operations, which are in many cases protected by White House privelege.

However, a country that so proudly espouses freedom and democracy deserves more transparency from its head of state. My opinion is that "national security" is being used as an excuse to hide a veritable smorgasboard of questionable activities.

There are numerous "grey areas" related to this president's decisions and practices related to 9/11 and his subsequent "wars" that suggest misconduct and, again, an unprecedented amount of secrecy/defensiveness/obstinacy in the name of national security that prevents both members of Congress and the public from having a clear perspective on what exactly is or has taken place under this cloak.

National security does need to be protected, but there is too much here to legitimately let pass without question.

Hence, there should be an independent counsel investigation.

That, in essence, is my case.

I don't want to "ramble", so you can stop here. Or, you can read on and I'll address criticisms of such an action.

Criticism 1: Independent counsel investigations tend to be partisan attacks or even witch hunts, so we shouldn't have one against Bush.

In response:

A) According to wikipedia (anyone can go look), there have been about 15 or so independent counsel investigations, starting in the Carter administration. I believe the largest number came up during the Iran-Contra affair. Were these unfair attacks? Look at the list of investigations. How many independent counsel investigations have been partisan witch hunts?

B) That leads naturally to the Starr investigation of Clinton. I'm not here to defend or support that investigation unless it's being used as an excuse for not investigating the current administration. The key differences between the Clinton investigation and a proposed Bush investigation are:

1. The initial Starr charges regarded misconduct many years before the Clinton presidency that could have easily been investigated and prosecuted long before.

2. The final charges that resulted in impeachment were wholly unrelated to the initial one.

3. All of the charges against Bush, foremost lying and abuse of executive power, are related directly to his conduct while in office.

4. Hence, an independent icounsel investigation of Bush would be more akin to investigtions of the Iran-Contra affair as opposed to the prosecution of Clinton.

Disclaimer: By the end of this writing, I think I do pass judgement on this investigation.

C) Overall, I would say that independent counsel investigations have resulted in just outcomes.

Criticism 2: Independent counsel investigations need to be rethought/reworked, so Bush shouldn't be investigated.

A) Perhaps they do. Our whole government is an ongoing work in progress. BUT, the time to rethink/rework is in the interim, not at the the time they are needed.

B) Are White House-appointed investigations of the White House legitimate? Should Clinton have been allowed to investigate himself?

C) Our electoral process needs to be rethought/reworked. That doesn't mean we're not going to have elections.

Criticism 3: The very prospect of an independent counsel investigation is tit-for-tat, partisan politics.

A) I believe I addressed that thoroughly in Criticism 1 above but would like to comment further.

B) In his eponymous collection of essays, Billions and Billions, Carl Sagan suggests that humanity's greatest hope for survival is in limited exchanges. He isn't naive enough to suggest there will be a permanent peace on Earth. Rather, he states that smaller conflicts/exchanges decrease the possibilty of a cataclysmic World War III.

C) Following Sagan's logic, let's consider the past 15 years. Republicans get an impeachment out of what many call a fishing investigation while Democrats sit and watch the Bush administration get greyer and greyer.

Suppose a Democrat gets elected in 2008. Will the GOP be deterred from launching a similar investigation? It didn't get Clinton ousted, but it did do a great deal of damage.

The charges against Bush are far more legitimate than those against Clinton. There NEEDS to be an investigation.

Not only is it just, but it would serve to balance power between our 2 not-included-in-the-Constitution leading political parties.

Disclaimer: My tit-for-tat argument is not inmeant to imply that there is parity between between the Starr investigation and a potential investigation of Bush.

Criticism 4 (For the lawyers out there): The law/statute for independent counsel investigations has expired.

A) This is correct.

B) This is convenient for the Bush administration.

C) A very large reason that Bush isn't being better investigated is that his party still controls Congress.

D) There is an important election coming up.

E) "Expired" doesn't mean that it can't be reinstated.

F) As long as it serves a legitimate purpose, it should be reinstated.

Criticism 5: There just isn't sufficient evidence for an independent counsel investigation of Bush.

A) One can allege. One can dismiss.

B) There are many allegations against Bush. You can dismiss allegations with proof, not an opinion.

C) Lying and abuse of executive power are serious allegations. They need to be addressed. I, for one, wouldn't want a president I voted for to be allowed to govern if they made such violations. If t's all a bunch of BS, let an investigation decide so.

Criticism 6: It's too late to do this.

A) Saddam is out of power. Is it too late to try him?

B) Watergate didn't actually end until Ford pardoned Nixon.

C) Wrongdoing is wrongdoing. Kennedy didn't exactly turn out to be King Arthur. How much time Bush has left in office is fully and completely irrelevant. Truth and justice are more important. They're more patriotic. They're more American.

Criticism 7: Investigating/impeaching distracts the president from his job.

A) Clinton was investigated for 6 out of 8 years of his presidency.

B) Investigating anyone distracts from their day job. Does that mean it shouldn't happen. Can I call a prosecutor and say, "Hey man, your petty theft charges are really interfering with my teaching, so how's about we drop 'em?"

C) The best way to avoid such a distraction is by not making it necessary for such an investigation.

That about sums up my case.

Did I ramble?

I don't think so.

I think I gave a thorough treatment of my take on this issue.

My criticisms are all based on actual ones that I've heard on this board.

No further commentary.

[EFLtrainer]

It's so much faster to say:

He lied, we know he lied, his lies have resulted in thousand, even tens of thousands - if not hundreds of thousands - of deaths; he's broken the law, disregarded the constitution, left the country in greater danger, is creating a economic wasteland to come... this is a no-brainer!

[some waygug-in]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/4/12742/68137

Bush's Violations Of US Laws

--Bush signed spending bill knowing that it violated Constitutional requirement that a bill must pass both chambers of Congress before signed into law. GOP leaders unilaterally certified it to Bush, which excluded Democrats from lawmaking process.

--Bush violated material witness law by using it as preventive detention authority for people who may commit terrorist acts in the future but no probable cause to charge with a crime.

--Federal court ruled that Bush's rules to "loosen emission rules for aging coal-fired power plants" violated "the Clean Air Act and that only Congress could authorize such revisions." In other words, Bush again unilaterally exceeded his legal authority.

--In a legal brief for the US Supreme Court, Bush cited manufactured evidence of a claimed debate by 2 GOP Senators prior to Congressional vote as evidence of Congress' intent to restrict legal rights of Guantanamo prisoners. The debate did not occur before the vote but was quietly slipped into the Congressional Record to give the impression that the remarks were made before Congress voted on the law.

--Bush defines "material support" of terrorists with such surreal distortion as to violate rules of statutory interpretation. Victims of terrorists are defined as terrorists to deny safe harbor to those fleeing persecution. For example, rebels killed a woman's father, beat, gang-raped the woman, held her hostage in her home and forced her to wash their clothes, which constituted "material support" to rebels.

--After public signing ceremony, Bush quietly issued signing statement for revised Patriot Act, declaring he would not comply with all requirements of the law.

--Bush approved ports deal, knowing that Dubai's boycott of Israel was illegal under US law.

--Bush's illegal NSA spying on Americans may include additional illegal surveillance programs not yet disclosed to public.

--White House indicates that same legal theory used to justify illegal NSA spying permits physical searches of terror suspects' homes, businesses and lawyer's office in violation of Constitution. Any evidence collected is admissible in a criminal prosecution because Bush deems the program legal.

--Bush decreased major fines for safety violations by mining companies, did not collect fines in 1/2 of cases, and violated law by not handing delinquent cases to Treasury for collection efforts.

--Cheney's office deleted Plame probe emails and failed to turn over other emails pursuant to Justice Dept. order. Rove provided information to prosecutor of obstruction by Cheney's office.

--Potential obstruction of Congress revealed when White House "discovered" a transcript needed to defend against claims that day that Bush was disengaged at a pre-Katrina briefing that was videotaped. However, White House told Congressional investigators months earlier that the transcript did not exist.

--Bush violated law when approved UAE ports deal without conducting required review of national security implications.

--Bush violates constitutional duty to protect Americans by a "line of big terrorism prosecutions marred by government misconduct."

--Army will now conduct criminal investigation of Tillman's death and Army's conduct after he was killed, which may include cover-up.

--2 senior Democrats demand Bush obey laws by rescinding signing statements of his intent to violate laws enacted by Congress.

--Bush misuses law that was intended to provide energy incentives when low energy prices dried up investment and, applies it today when there are high energy prices in order to provide industry with $7-28 billion in royalties (or theft of taxpayer monies).

--The US quietly used evidence obtained from a US citizen, rendered and tortured in Saudi Arabia, in court for criminal conviction.

Bush's Violation Of Civil Rights

(see the above link for the complete article)

[canuckistan]

Where's Tom Delay when you need him!

[Gopher]

[deleted]

[Nowhere Man]

[canuckistan]

Scooter Libby told a grand jury that Bush and Cheney authorized leaks about l'affair Plame to the NY Times.

Is that enough?

[Gopher]

[deleted]

[Gopher]

[deleted]