Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 57
  1.    #1  
    I find that this is the other threads are closed and this deserves to be discussed. I am basically on the fence on this issue and would like to know whether other folks think 1) if there is enough evidence to proceed and 2) should we even consider this in light of the prescedent it would set? Thanks in advance to the moderators for not letting your own politics guide what is said here and thanks to the posters in advance for keeping it civil.
  2. #2  
    IMO, no one is above the law, and that should apply to any administration.

    The idea that we should let abuse of power slide (or choose not to investigate) because it might set a precedent is irresponsible and does more harm than good in the long run. It only serves to embolden those in power even more. If no wrongs were done, no one should have anything to worry about.
    Sony Clie --> Tungsten t2 --> iPhone3g --> Palm Pre --> Droid
  3. drizek's Avatar
    Posts
    333 Posts
    Global Posts
    769 Global Posts
    #3  
    Yes, absolutely, and it is important to set a precedent. You can't get away with whatever ou want just because you are the president.

    The US refuses to join international human rights courts because it claims that it is capable of prosecuting criminals on its own without extraditing them to the Netherlands. Obama should either put his money where his mouth is and try the previous administration or he should admit defeat and ship the lot of them off to the Hague.
  4. #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    If no wrongs were done, no one should have anything to worry about.
    If that was true, we wouldn't need the 4th amendment.
  5. #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by VeeDubb65 View Post
    If that was true, we wouldn't need the 4th amendment.
    Even the 4th amendment allows for search and seizure under certain circumstances.

    In any case, I'm going to assume the persons doing the investigating are doing so within the confines of the law.
    Sony Clie --> Tungsten t2 --> iPhone3g --> Palm Pre --> Droid
  6.    #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by drizek View Post
    Yes, absolutely, and it is important to set a precedent. You can't get away with whatever ou want just because you are the president.

    The US refuses to join international human rights courts because it claims that it is capable of prosecuting criminals on its own without extraditing them to the Netherlands. Obama should either put his money where his mouth is and try the previous administration or he should admit defeat and ship the lot of them off to the Hague.
    I did not think of that, using an international court to decide this. I guess when Milosevik was on trial i was all for it, but having our country's dirty laundry being aired in an international court, well call me a hypocrite, but I would not like to see that.
  7. 1thing2add's Avatar
    Posts
    6 Posts
    Global Posts
    8 Global Posts
    #7  
    If any administration is allowed to thumb its nose to the premise that we are a nation of laws, any other administration has license to take full advantage of the precedent.
  8. #8  
    There is a difference between breaking the law and doing what attorneys say is legal based on their understanding of the law. Presidents must be able to rely on their (White House) attorneys. If every administration knows that their every decision will be scrutinized to the point where employees are worried they themselves will be prosecuted, you will not have a very well functioning administration. Who would want to work under those conditions? Now don't give me crazy examples like...."so, if their attorney says it is okay to kill someone, then it is okay to kill that person".

    Not sure why Les is so focused on this issue....I guess the grass doesn't need as much cutting lately, huh? How about get focused on how we are going to pay for all the debt that Obama is building up? Or maybe focused how Social Security and Medicare are going to get fixed. You know, issues that will make a difference to this countries future.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  9.    #9  
    Still cutting the grass. Got a manual reel mover that I sharpen the blades on myself. Ha ha. I am not fixated on this, I just think it's worthwhile discussing. Thanks for your comments Clem.
  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by drizek View Post
    Yes, absolutely, and it is important to set a precedent. You can't get away with whatever ou want just because you are the president.

    The US refuses to join international human rights courts because it claims that it is capable of prosecuting criminals on its own without extraditing them to the Netherlands. Obama should either put his money where his mouth is and try the previous administration or he should admit defeat and ship the lot of them off to the Hague.
    Not sure why you would move this into international law... as you stated, the US states it is more than capable of prosecuting its own criminials. So my guess is if Mr. Holder goes forward, it will not involve the international community.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Not sure why Les is so focused on this issue....I guess the grass doesn't need as much cutting lately, huh? How about get focused on how we are going to pay for all the debt that Obama is building up? Or maybe focused how Social Security and Medicare are going to get fixed. You know, issues that will make a difference to this countries future.
    He seems to be more than capable of working on many different issues at one time.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by E.LesterBrown View Post
    I find that this is the other threads are closed and this deserves to be discussed. I am basically on the fence on this issue and would like to know whether other folks think 1) if there is enough evidence to proceed and 2) should we even consider this in light of the prescedent it would set? Thanks in advance to the moderators for not letting your own politics guide what is said here and thanks to the posters in advance for keeping it civil.
    No one here will know if there is enough evidence to proceed... until the administration states there is or is not. I would guess there is enough evidence simply because of course some law can claim to be broken over an eight year period. Matter of interpretation.

    Your second question is one that is interesting. An internal investigation may be warranted. I think it depends on what is found. If someone grossly violated the law, do we give them a pass? What actions do we take if such violations are uncovered.

    On the other hand, if the investigations are more of an internal fact finding to uncover what needs to be fixed, then fine.

    It is a complicated issue... that is more than likely why the other threads were shut down. Once things get complicated, people don't discuss the issue, but instead go back to their safety net and blame obama.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    There is a difference between breaking the law and doing what attorneys say is legal based on their understanding of the law. Presidents must be able to rely on their (White House) attorneys.
    The proposed investigation will be based precisely on that: who went beyond the attorney's recommendations.

    Top prosecutor orders probe into interrogations; Obama shifts onus - CNN.com

    [Holder] reiterated earlier statements that there would be no prosecutions of CIA personnel "who acted in good faith and within the scope of the legal guidance given by" Bush administration lawyers.....Some of the questionable tactics used in that pursuit were highlighted Monday by the release of a 2004 report from the CIA's inspector general. The report outlines the use of multiple unauthorized detainee interrogation methods.
    I'm of split minds on this. From a political perspective, I'd rather the administration focus on dealing with the host of other issues on their plate. On the other hand, we can't just pick and choose convenient times to uphold our laws and values.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  14. 1thing2add's Avatar
    Posts
    6 Posts
    Global Posts
    8 Global Posts
    #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    Your second question is one that is interesting. An internal investigation may be warranted. I think it depends on what is found. If someone grossly violated the law, do we give them a pass? What actions do we take if such violations are uncovered.

    On the other hand, if the investigations are more of an internal fact finding to uncover what needs to be fixed, then fine.
    If that is to say that until a fact-finding examination of the prior administration is concluded (I would hope and assume an examination would be focused on those areas that have the most gravity), no one can really say one way or the other whether a prosecution can or should go forward, I would agree with you. Some seem to be wrongly assuming that a mere examination is somehow threatening.

    Same logic goes for those who object to sobriety checkpoints. If one is not intoxicated, one has nothing to be concerned about.
  15. #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    The proposed investigation will be based precisely on that: who went beyond the attorney's recommendations.

    Top prosecutor orders probe into interrogations; Obama shifts onus - CNN.com



    I'm of split minds on this. From a political perspective, I'd rather the administration focus on dealing with the host of other issues on their plate. On the other hand, we can't just pick and choose convenient times to uphold our laws and values.
    Thanks....glad they aren't going after the folks who were doing their job.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    He seems to be more than capable of working on many different issues at one time.

    That hasn't been proven yet. Besides, if he gets all his issues through at one time, the debt will be astronomical.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  17. drizek's Avatar
    Posts
    333 Posts
    Global Posts
    769 Global Posts
    #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    Not sure why you would move this into international law... as you stated, the US states it is more than capable of prosecuting its own criminials. So my guess is if Mr. Holder goes forward, it will not involve the international community.
    Yes, but if Holder doesn't go forward, we can no longer say to the world "we are capable of prosecuting our own criminals" with a straight face.
  18. 1thing2add's Avatar
    Posts
    6 Posts
    Global Posts
    8 Global Posts
    #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Thanks....glad they aren't going after the folks who were doing their job.
    That's right. No more Abu Ghraibs! This time, those who developed the policies and authorized them are those to be examined and prosecuted, if warranted. That is simple, blind justice in any civilized society.
  19. #19  
    Seriously, Those lawyers should be disbarred. The whole gang should NEVER practice law in these United States again.
    "When there is no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth"


    PM me your questions, If I cant find an answer, I'll show you who can.
  20. #20  
    Things to think about before giving my answer.

    1. If he were to proceed with going after "W" administration he would be opening things up for the next Rep. administration to go after Obama's admin. This could get very ugly for everybody.

    2. By going forward with this or other investigation(s) is creating a even more divided US. Answer yourself the question does this help us in any way? Remember this has been investigated several times already and people were prosecuted.

    3. Reports are coming out stating members of the CIA are very upset at this current investigation, as they are the target. So are they going to be less willing to do the job they need to so we can remain safe? My fear is yes, they will be risk adverse. On a side note read "The Shadow Factory" if you want to understand how our intelligence community works before before and after Sept. 11, 2001. This is not as open and closed questions as people are thinking and saying in there talking points.

    So my answer is NO this is not going to help the county come back together. Investigate things were new information comes to light. There's nothing new here, it will only hurt our troops by making our people look like evil people. The other side uses this against us to find new members and promote their agenda.
    Corey

    Current Devices: Palm Pre 2, HTC Thunderbolt, Motorola Atrix, Samsung Focus and Apple's iPhone 4
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions