chucK Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 More and more it seems to be coming out that the United States Department of Justice was being given marching orders by the Republican Party. You can yammer on about how it's totally legal for the president to fire any AG he wants, but you've got to admit that using political affiliations as a determining factor in whether or not to pursue investigations and prosecutions is something that just should not be done. That's banana republic stuff. Using the domestic security apparatus to disrupt opposition political parties. If there's not a law against it, there should be. No wonder Alberto can't get his story straight. He's trying to cover up egregious acts! I don't know if it's because the Bush Administration is particularly unscrupulous or if it's just a product of unquestioning one-party rule. Whatever it is, someone's gotta put a stop to this shit and fire some scoundrels. That's why you see even Republicans getting on the bandwagon. It's the Republicans who are actually more worried about the country and self-respect than protecting the GOP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 (edited) Bush is so power hungry, it is ridiculous. He has stated hypocritical statements so many times it’s pathetic. The Dems need to keep sending the current bill giving him all the funds he needs with a time table back to him over and over and over again until the money runs out and they will have to pull out, just like George Sr. should have. Edited May 4, 2007 by kevbone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 Doctors take a hippocratic oath. I think the word you were after is hypocritical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 Whoops....thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dt_3pin Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 I thought this thread was going to about my new pants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 (edited) THe DOJ is part of the executive branch, (the attorney general is a presidential appiontee), so it's no surprise that the DOJ takes its marching orders from the administration, which, in this case, happens to be republican. Look back in history and you'll see that this has always been the case. Dems and Reps have both played shinanigans with our civil liberties. One of the worst offenders in this regard was FDR; a democrat, who ordered the internment of 110,000 Japanese Americans, citizens included, among many other things. Edited May 4, 2007 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 Politicians are politicians. The less power we have, the more they have. Dem or Repub--it don't matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 Politicians are politicians. The less power we have, the more they have. Dem or Repub--it don't matter. exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted May 4, 2007 Author Share Posted May 4, 2007 Taking orders from the administration does not have to be the same as taking orders from a political party. The primary motivations for prosecutions should NOT be to weaken the opposition party. The primary motives should be justice. I concede "justice" may be in the eye of the beholder. However, from any reasonable person's POV, trumping up charges of voter fraud, or inhibiting prosecutions of well-connected politicians can not be considered part of a quest for justice. Also, a previous controversy linked to a past president from the other party is irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 Taking orders from the administration does not have to be the same as taking orders from a political party. The primary motivations for prosecutions should NOT be to weaken the opposition party. The primary motives should be justice. I concede "justice" may be in the eye of the beholder. However, from any reasonable person's POV, trumping up charges of voter fraud, or inhibiting prosecutions of well-connected politicians can not be considered part of a quest for justice. Also, a previous controversy linked to a past president from the other party is irrelevant. I agree.....seahawks does not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 (edited) Whether or not this is a problem depends on the nature of the political pressure we are talking about. I think it's perfectly acceptable for an administration to direct the prosecutors in the justice department to elevate one set of law enforcement priorities over another so long as this doesn't favor the perogatives of any particular person or party. For example, if the political pressure amounts to "We'd like to see you spend less time prosecuting illegal immigration cases and more time prosecuting contractors who have defrauded the government over the next four years" and a prosecutor continues to allocate most of their office's time towards illegal immigration, then I think that an administration is within it's rights to replace them. If the administration is coercing them into investigating a particular political enemy, abandoning an investigation into a political ally or donor, etc - then this would be a gross abuse of the office. Edited May 4, 2007 by JayB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted May 4, 2007 Author Share Posted May 4, 2007 I agree completely. Of course the motivation for my post is that it is seeming more and more plausible that your gross abuse of office scenario is what has taken place. The email trail seems to imply such considerations. The fact that they just don't seem to be able to get their stories straight indicates either gross stupidity or malfeasance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 (edited) Taking orders from the administration does not have to be the same as taking orders from a political party. The primary motivations for prosecutions should NOT be to weaken the opposition party. The primary motives should be justice. I concede "justice" may be in the eye of the beholder. However, from any reasonable person's POV, trumping up charges of voter fraud, or inhibiting prosecutions of well-connected politicians can not be considered part of a quest for justice. Also, a previous controversy linked to a past president from the other party is irrelevant. An administration is inseperable from its party and their agenda. A president is elected to carry out that political agenda. You've posited that the current abuse of power regarding the DOJ, as you see it, is something new and unique. I presented one of many, many historical examples that reveal that such abus is neither new nor confined to either political party. Hardly irrelevant, in that it torpedos your thesis amidships, but we all filter information in our own way. Edited May 4, 2007 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 Bush is so power hungry, it is ridiculous. He has stated hypocritical statements so many times it’s pathetic. The Dems need to keep sending the current bill giving him all the funds he needs with a time table back to him over and over and over again until the money runs out and they will have to pull out, just like George Sr. should have. I hope they do that. the political backlash will whip there asses. They will fund it. They know better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted May 4, 2007 Author Share Posted May 4, 2007 What, you think FDR imprisoned those Japanese Americans because they were Republicans. You seem to be the one linking it to Dems and Reps. I think abuse like is going on should be called on, regardless of what party is doing it. The fact that another president did what you consider bad shit doesn't mean what's going on now should be tolerated. I made no statement that such abuse is new. Wow! Are you sure that politicians through the ages have abused their power? Such a newsflash! Your comment is tangential and uninteresting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 There was the whole court stacking thing that he tried after the supreme court overturned some of his New Deal initiatives... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 What, you think FDR imprisoned those Japanese Americans because they were Republicans. You seem to be the one linking it to Dems and Reps. I think abuse like is going on should be called on, regardless of what party is doing it. The fact that another president did what you consider bad shit doesn't mean what's going on now should be tolerated. I made no statement that such abuse is new. Wow! Are you sure that politicians through the ages have abused their power? Such a newsflash! Your comment is tangential and uninteresting. You're missing the larger point; that such corruption and abuse has always been a part of our political business-as-usual. It should not be tolerated, and it's pretty bad right now, but my irrelevant point is that perhaps there are aspects of our system, not just the individuals within it, that could be reformed to improve the situation. A reduction in presidential power and voting reform come to mind, among others. It's also useful to note that our existing system is working in many ways. The Bush administration is clearly on the run regarding it's abuses and policies because of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 Well said. The only thing you forgot was the slam on me. Get with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 Err, OK...uh, let's see...you suck. No wait, that's no good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 No good? Well I guess you ought to train her better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 I'll substitute unrepresented third parties for this one: Happy Friday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 Sweet. Cheers to you! or, bottoms up Whatever works for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 I usually hit a martini so fast there's no time to say anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 don't choke on the olive. I love those lemon drop martini things. So yummy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted May 4, 2007 Share Posted May 4, 2007 My basement bar can produce any cocktail on this planet or any other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.