digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

Bush Admin May Have Violated 26 Statutes, Dems Say.

tpmmuckraker.com — The Bush administration may have broken over two dozen federal laws and regulations -- some of them multiple times -- according to an unreleased report from the House Judiciary Committee Democrats. "The misconduct I have found is not only serious, but widespread," reads a draft summary of the report by Ranking Member John Conyers (D-MI)

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Aidenag, on 10/12/2007, -2/+39*Update* Theve also now posted the report mentioned. here is the link to all 26 pages:
    http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/conyers-report/?resultpage=1&

    Enjoy :)

    • dagonweb, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14Whatever you do in the US, it doesnt concern me. But get rid of this president soon or there will be massive consequences.

      Frankly I don't think you americans have it left. You are reduced an apathic or bicking bunch of consumers, obese and in debt.
    • jayarbee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22Why on earth is there a warning posted stating that the content of the article may not be accurate? Of course it's accurate; it's reporting the fact of the action by the members of Congress making the accusations of Bush's law breaking. As to whether or not their charges are accurate, that is irrelevant as it pertains to the validity of the article. I mean, sure, it should be obvious to anyone who's awake that Bush has repeatedly broken laws, but that's not the point. The point is that these congresspersons did prepare a report stating their belief that the president *may* have broken more than two dozen laws. So what's with the accuracy warning?
    • sinisterkungfu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17@jayarbee
      It's because of these 'red state' neocon asswipes who still for some reason believe that Bush can do no wrong, and anyone who says anything bad about him is a liar, a traitor and supports the terrorists. There seem to be quite a few of them on digg.
    • spacemoose, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@ dagonweb

      See, thing is, what we do in the US DOES affect everyone else, that's why you're reading this.

      As for the rest of your "analysis": go ***** yourself, you generalizing prick.

      Bush is abusing what has been something of an unsaid, and RARELY used power of the executive branch. That is the difference here. For those of you claiming this is inaccurate or these statements are nothing more than an "opinion" go read one of his statements. Please.

      Read how he empowers the executive to re-channel unchannable funds "when necessary", or express that certain parts of bills will simply not be enforced, choose to release information that is expressly defined as open as the executive sees fit. He is absolutely CHANGING the nature of these bills.

      This has been done in the past, but on average, less than 3 times a year. Reserved for use only in instances when the president conviction held that it was of utmost importance, even if they could not convince Congress. Bush has done it roughly 130 times a year. 130.

      130 compared to 3.

      This is WITH the most amenable Congress ANY president has EVER had.

      Are there people who really don't get this?
    • Mworthin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+126? More like 260 violations.
  • joel2600, on 10/12/2007, -3/+58i thought bushed passed all the laws he needed to in order to justify his actions? guess he missed some.
    • Herolint, on 10/12/2007, -24/+2Sorry, wrong place.
    • Arramol, on 10/12/2007, -4/+29Some of his actions can't be legally justified by anything short of an amendment to the Constitution.
    • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+25He lied to Congress and the UN about the "imminent threat" in Iraq. That is enough to impeach him.

      But that's just the beginning. What about the no-bid contracts in Iraq? The corruption within Homeland Security? What about the Anthrax Letters? About the torture being committed by US troops and private military contractors like CACI and Titan Corp?

      The spying he has been doing and the regulations he's broken are the LEAST of the crimes he's committed. What about the billions that have been stolen from US taxpayers? These mass-murdering corporate crooks must face justice!
  • psycobrat, on 10/12/2007, -89/+7mod me down for this.

    and clinton / gore are spotless? what about all the crap they did and no one bitched about it? (oh sorry, rush and shawn.. whoo-hoo)

    and how about all of (dems and reps!) with their sins? i am really sick of all the bush hating crap. everything is bush's fault, hell if you run out of gas it is bush's fault.

    grrrrr. this crap really steams me, and i know knowone will listen nor care and the bush hating will last 20yrs from now. i really hope we get a pure left dem for our next prez and i really hope they fXck us up so bad. it is about time that the corps and dems get their way with us.

    sigh. screw the USA there is no true americans here no more.
    • Dweller99, on 10/12/2007, -7/+67So you basically agree that Bush has been horrible for this country but your defense is "But Clinton did it too!"

      is that about right?

    • patientzero, on 10/12/2007, -25/+4"hell if you run out of gas it is bush's fault."

      Fat chance of that. Is that some sort of joke?
    • berfmurret, on 10/12/2007, -12/+20barack obama for pres '08!!!

      actually he has already said he isnt interested. but he would make one hell of a left candidate.
    • eurocrisp, on 10/12/2007, -21/+13Learning how to type from America On-Line doesn't make you a 'True American'.
    • deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -7/+38Please feel free to post a list of the specific laws and statues you believe Clinton is guilty of breaking.
    • UGM2099, on 10/12/2007, -4/+39"sigh. screw the USA there is no true americans here no more."

      Would a true American not care that the executive branch isn't upholding the constitution? I believe that could be the most American thing there is, even more than exhibiting so-called American values.

    • Anpheus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+73Nobody is _saying_ Clinton had a spotless record. Nobody is saying Gore had a spotless record. Clinton isn't in office right now, so why would we spend time bitching about him? That's a waste of time, don't you think?

      Now, here's a man who is our _current_ President, who has consistently abused his powers to diminish the civil rights of our people, and you defend him making ad hominem attacks on the people who question his integrity. Obviously anyone who says, "It's Bush's fault I am out of gas" is of questionable ethic, so why bother listening to them?

      A democrat may improve our standing with the world, maybe a republican will. I don't bloody care who they are, but if they're a good candidate, you're damn right I'll vote for them, regardless of which party they are in. Now, what you're trying to do is spread FUD, essentially. As I recall, FUD stands for "Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt." Microsoft is well known for spreading FUD about Open Source. You are trying to spread FUD about Democrats.

      Here's the thing though, and I'm going to set you straight: Neither Democrats nor Republicans are the panacea. STOP THE PARTISAN *****. Seriously. Libertarians, Republicans, Green party, Democrats, everyone, just... sit down and look at the way the world is treating us. Look at the way our government is treating its people. Why are you guys spending all your time bitching at eachother, when the real problem is the political atmosphere that has perverted your true beliefs and caused you to spend more time getting angry at the other party than trying to solve problems. Government is about helping the people, it's a social contract (see: Locke,) and people on _both sides_ are spreading the same ***** all around.

      It's time for some change: Stop being a partisan puppet. Learn to think for yourself and stop with the ad hominem attacks. When everyone starts thinking for themselves and reading between the lines, the sound bites, and the talking points, we'll all be better off. Simple truth: People like Bush don't deserve to be in office. That's not partisan, that's the truth. There are Democrats and Republicans I don't like, so stop playing the partisan bias card online. Nobody ***** cares anyways.
    • UGM2099, on 10/12/2007, -33/+2"Please feel free to post a list of the specific laws and statues you believe Clinton is guilty of breaking."

      Well according to some nuts Clinton has killed nearly 200 people. And finger ***** an intern. But who really cares about the constitution anyways....
    • Herolint, on 10/12/2007, -19/+7@deadbaby

      How about Perjury?
    • drowningfish, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25"sigh. screw the USA there is no true americans here no more."

      The Neo-Nationalism brewing in this Country is really starting to scare me.
    • Herolint, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15@UMG2099

      No branch of the government is upholding the constitution. It isn't limited to the executive branch.
    • DrJoe916, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18Your logic is as sloppy as your spelling and your grammar. The question is not what Clinton or Gore did, but what W is (and isn't) doing. If you want to be heard, speak to the issue. If you want people to respect your judgment, write clearly and support your accusations with evidence. (Slurs and rhetorical questions do NOT constitute evidence.) As presented, your position merits little respect, and that's what all the negative diggs reflect.
    • Personatech, on 10/12/2007, -12/+10"The question is not what Clinton or Gore did, but what W is (and isn't) doing."

      Sorry, but I must disagree. The pattern over the last century has been each administration being emboldened by the successes of previous administrations in circumventing the law while reducing our rights. Clinton/Gore was responsible for the FBI's Carnivore project, for heavy-handed assaults at Ruby Ridge and Waco, for seizing a frightened Elian Gonzalez at 4AM in Miami - the list goes on. The Bush administration need only look at its predecessor and decide to raise the bar just a bit more. If the current admin has its wrist slapped, their efforts will at most be set back to the status quo at the end of the Clinton years and the next admin, whether it is Dem or Rep, will inch forward again in its efforts to subjugate the citizenry.
  • KevinJ, on 10/12/2007, -43/+4Ummm....isnt this just biased...IT WAS STATED BY THE OPPOSITION

    THIS ISNT NEWS...or GOOD NEWS
    • xutopia, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24My god!! What's the problem with you? It was stated by the opposition and you know that's their job. The fact that they are doing it *is* news!

      Also real news isn't biased if it is factual and open for debate. They aren't saying "here is what you think" but "here are the facts, make up your own damn mind".
    • omgwut, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20That doesn't make these claims any less valid.
    • Shinta, on 10/12/2007, -21/+3Too bad it didn't actually say how or when he broke these laws, it just says he may have done them. Biased.
    • frostedflakes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11@Shinta

      That is because there are too many violations to list.
  • Alex2, on 10/12/2007, -4/+45I love these political stories:

    Dems: The Republicans broke the law!

    Repubs: Clinton shagged an intern!

    • deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18Come on, don't you know Bill Clinton shot Vince Foster? It's a fact. Rush said so.
    • UGM2099, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14"Come on, don't you know Bill Clinton shot Vince Foster? It's a fact. Rush said so."

      He also had some kids run over by a train. I saw it on VHS.
    • omgwut, on 10/12/2007, -6/+38You mean that blubbering prescription drug addict that passes for a radio pundit?
    • omgwut, on 10/12/2007, -3/+36Hey, you can try and mod me down all you want, whoever's doing it.

      That doesn't change the fact that he's still a lying pill-popper who's show is tuned into by millions of idiots every morning. :)
  • compuXP, on 10/12/2007, -37/+5"Dems say"

    That's enough to bury the story as "Inaccurate".

    :) Of course they would say that... if the republican said that, THEN there'd be some credibility, but what can you believe from the opposing party?
  • pjack91, on 10/12/2007, -3/+40Impeachment!?!
    • eplawless, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17Pwease?
    • Herolint, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Yeah, that's the way politics should work in the US. You conservatives impeached our guy so we're going to do it to you.

      I think the majority of the US would be so much more politically active and informed if we switched from reading, understanding, and voting to a game involving a ball of some kind, some clever beer ads, half-naked girls dancing around, and a timer on the wall.

      People could start typing "FTW" after all their political comments too. Yeah, that would be great. Wait a second...
    • corevette, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Triple Pwease, and a democrat on top
    • Ghiren, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Yes please, but don't take it any further than that. Remember who's next in line if we kick Bush out of office.
    • TheHighChild, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hanging is the most fitting punishment for war crimals.
    • Srezic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What should happen is that at the point a president(and his administration) leaves office a bipartisan review of the administration's actions should be made and charges or fines should be given out as well as possible bans on future political involvement.

      It would be hard to ever get a law passed to do this though, because the congressmen and women themselves would be included in this, and as everyone can see, many of our congressmen and senators are corrupt and not true law abiders. Take William Jefferson, the Louisiana senator investigated for charges of bribery(while he thought it should be dismissed because his office is a safe haven), or Tom DeLay's illegal funding of Republican campaigns in Texas. But something must happen, no matter how long it takes.


      In the end, the biggest problem in this country is lobbying and riders on bills in my opinion. It makes available far too many scenarios which could be deemed corrupt. Fund raising is ok, as long as it is made apparent that there will not be any special deals made if someone donates to a candidate's cause. Right now though, the Senate and Congress is one big game, and it shouldn't be.
  • daldredge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+37It would be nice if both sides in congress cared about the laws when their own side broke them.

    The D's don't care if it is a D breaking the law, only if it's a R
    The R's don't care if it is a R breaking the law, only if it's a D

    Sad.
    • RaistlinMajere, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21You've described one of the serious drawbacks behind a two-party system. Each party is very concerned over its image, thus will downplay negative press and the like.

      That being said, I believe that these allegations are true.
    • thesparrowband, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8so whats the answer? a 3 party system? we can't have too many, because we saw what happened to post WWI germany; when faced with major issues the goverment was weak, the vote too far spread. How can we balance things?
    • Shinta, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Whig Party.
    • Anpheus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Seems like Post-WWII Germany is running fine with multiple parties.

      Besides, enough people are split between seperate parties that an alliance between two parties only lasts long enough to win major elections, then it's back to inspecting everyone. The fact that no single party holds a majority protects everyone. (The fact that Germans tend to care more about their political system than Americans helps too.)

      Thomas Jefferson: A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
    • killerofkiller, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2He said post WWI Germany not WWII...
  • ZigZags, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20Bush's Skull n Bones buddies will pull strings and he will get out of all charges unscathed... he'll be back at the ranch in no time. Well at least we have 2 more years of funny Bush clips to look forward to on The Daily Show.
  • muddo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+37I will not be happy until Bush and co. are indicted on charges of treason.
    • MiloMindrbindr, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22amen to that.
    • Shinta, on 10/12/2007, -12/+3You people don't know what a corrupt US goverment is.
    • MiloMindrbindr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16@Shinta:

      No kidding, this is only the stuff they let us know! Imagine what would happen if we were privy to their secretive practices.
    • decide, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12"You people don't know what a corrupt US goverment is."

      If it isn't what we're living in right now, and what we've possibly been living in for decades, then what exactly _is_ a corrupt US government? What's sad is this feels like just the beginning of what we may be seeing soon in Washington...
    • akhomerun, on 10/12/2007, -13/+9One political party accuses its opponent of illegal activities on an election year. How ***** surprising.

      Whether or not Bush is guilty of anything, this ***** sure is getting old.

      Message to democrats: Bush bashing won't win elections. Get a real platform or just be happy with being #2. It didn't work in 2004, and it defiantly won't work in 2008. Bashing Bush when he's not up for reelection won't help. It will hurt.

      Digg might be a nice place where democrats can feel like they are the majority, but the fact is that they aren't but once I hear democrats make some sort of coherent party platform instead of the platform being "anything but Bush" or "vote for us and we'll change stuff and do superior things because we are smarter since we don't have southern accents".

      If digg liberals wonder why democrats don't get elected, it's because they don't really represent anyone. About half of the liberals I talk do don't want anything to do with the democratic party. Most liberals actually stand for something (even if I don't agree with it) and that's something that democrats aren't willing to do.
    • Shinta, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Do you know anything about the Reconstuction?
    • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9[quote]Whether or not Bush is guilty of anything, this ***** sure is getting old.[/quote]

      And I'm sure as a Republican you wish it would go away.

      Your Fox News talking points don't work here on us. Do you think we give a *****?

      Watch what happens in November. That is, if Diebold doesn't rig the election in key states again.
    • okcomputer1982, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@biggfreddy

      While I agree that the Democrats do not stand up for what they believe in, don't you agree that the regardless of political alignment, regardless of what happened in the past, the rule of law need to be protected. If Bush and company broken the law, let them be investigated. It's not a political issue. Either America is a law abiding place or not. If not, well, I guess it is pretty clear that we are no longer the "best country in the world, huh." Heck, i know I would leave if I could.
    • peritonlogon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@akhomerun

      "Most liberals actually stand for something (even if I don't agree with it) and that's something that democrats aren't willing to do."

      Same thing goes for conservatives and Republicans respectively, unless you count mining the treasury as standing for something. The majorl difference is that the GOP is better at banging on pots and pans.

  • icebrk, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Although knowing the dems have finally found some balls to stand up to the Bush administration (maybe they've they finally pulled their heads out of the sand) and that they're doing something about it is great I'd mod it up twice for making me realize something that should've been obvious. If the dems take the house it's actually possible 12-18 months from now the white house will be Bush free. Vote Democrat! Impeach Bush!
    • Shinta, on 10/12/2007, -12/+1Treason? No, he has the best interest of the country in mind, whether it works or not. Bribery? Not that we know of. Misdemeanor? He sounds stupid, if that's a misdemeanor. High crime? Going to war isn't a crime, whether it's a sensible war or a nonsense war like the Mexican War ***** or French ***** Vietnam. There weren't any WMDs in Iraq like we originally planned but we are aiming more towards creating an island of stability in the middle east now, not that that's working eaither, not looking for bombs obviously. Spying on the public is a high crime, but I don't really see how it is benifitting or hurting Bush, the Goverment or anyone. We are looking for terrorists, not spying in on some liberal banter over the phone.
      "L0l H3y Bu$h suckz w@nna G0 s33 th3 n3w 9/11 m0vi3?"
      "N@w, sry d00d I'm w@tch1ng W1f3 sw@p on my W1nD0w$!!!111"
      "$hhh... D0n'7 7@lk ab0u7 W1fe sw@p, Bu$h is l1$t3n1ng!!!11"

      I think maybe they will impeach Bush, mainly because impeachment has mostly been a tool used to intimidate the president (Johnson and the Radical Republicans; Clinton and Entertainment Tonight)
    • icebrk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Treason? How about betraying your country for Oil interest (foreign and domestic) in the process costing many thousands of lives (American and Foreign)
      Bribery? See reasoning for above, (I really hope he doesn't believe that god wanted him to do this, I I'll take a corrupted leader any day over a fanatical one)
      Misdemeanor? Talking with his mouth full at diplomatic dinner. Giving an uninvited back-rub to Chancellor Merckel at a G8 summit. Talking about pigs instead of a major crisis he's partly responsible for. 5 years of doing his best to take advantage of a inexplicably tragic attack to pass laws and perform atrocities around the world and all around act against American interests (government serves the people, not the other way around, remember?)
      Him and his cabinet outright lying about WMDs, Leaks, Surveillance programs, Katrina, and what I'm sure are 100s of other things they haven't gotten busted on yet.
      Spying on the citizens of the country before and after lying about it repeatedly, passing a series of laws, and creating a culture of fear with the goal of creating a police state and bolstering the Military Industrial Complex.

      Impeaching him will be nice as it'll show to the world that Americans are starting to get the picture on what their government is doing to the world (and themselves) and maybe leave a mark in the books that administrations operated in the secrecy, lack of accountability, and corporate/fanatic sponsored policy should be avoided.

      Personally, I think the message wont be strong enough til he gets outright thrown out of office or is forced to resign. The democrats can pull the 1st one off alone and the 2nd would require the republicans to start being republicans again. Not holding my breath on either happening.
    • icebrk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3*small edit to last paragraph: democrats CAN'T pull off on their own.
      Sorry, been up all night packing for my 3 week visit back to NY. Aww, gonna miss europe.
    • amirjpl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7impeach his ***** ass
    • TheHighChild, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Shinta

      Glad some asshat believes it. You wouldn't believe the money this Admin has spent trying to brainwash this nation. You're a shining example of how low the intellectual threshold really is in this country.

      Be proud! Not many can go day-to-day with little to no capacity for reasoning. AND you can use a computer! Praise Jesus!
  • dtfinch, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7I think it'd take something like 11 impeachments in a row to get a president who's not a Republican.
    • MiloMindrbindr, on 10/12/2007, -9/+9and it would be totally worth it.

      What is the preferred method of execution for acts of treason? Let's start mass producing those in anticipation.
    • icebrk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I don't think they deserve to be executed, I don't believe in executions. What would be some great ironic justice would be getting Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and all the other neo cons / religious fanatics behind this strapped up in some US Army Standard Issue and dropped off in the middle of some Iraqi village along with a bunch of UAVs mounted with high quality & zoom cameras.
      I'm no fan of reality TV but this out on Blu-Ray would be the first good reason I could imagine for buying a PS3.
    • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Jailing them for the rest of their lives would be fine.

      How about in Guantanamo?

      Abu Ghraib?

      Hell?
  • Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11For Bush, it's "violating statutes". For us, it's breaking the law. It's good to be the king!
    • vixiecron, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2For a Democrat it's jaywalking. For a Republican it's a high crime against humanity.
  • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -12/+9"TPMmuckraker.com is a news blog dedicated to chronicling, explaining and reporting on public corruption, political scandal and abuses of the public trust of all sorts."

    but only if you're a Republican.
    • Niffer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18That's a fallacy if I ever heard one. "They are only reporting Republican scandal! Why aren't they reporting the Democrat scandals that no one else is reporting!"

      There isn't much to report on the other side. Kennedy drove drunk, McKinney (I think?) punched a guy. Whoop-de-*****, Bush has undermined every idea that this country was founded on. If you think that's not as important as Kennedy and McKinney they go watch some more Entertainment Tonight, we'll stick to the evening news.
    • vixiecron, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2"Bush has undermined every idea that this country was founded on. "

      Sometimes I think people are conjuring 'ideas that this country was founded on' for Bush to violate just so they can say so. Which ideas from the constitution would these be? Be specific.
    • Niffer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Well, just off the top of my head, checks and balances?

      http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/7/15/91112/2577

      "In December, 2005, the President declared that he had the right to bypass court-mandated warrants to obtain wiretaps on domestic telephone calls." Not to mention on Internet usage through ISPs.

      Maybe you grew up in a different country and didn't take American Government in 3rd grade like the rest of us. There are three branches of government that systematically make sure not one of the branches has too much power, in hopes of avoiding abuses of this power. When you say you take away some freedoms because of terrorism, you are terrorizing your own people, plain and simple. There's always going to be a certain percentage of the population that follow blindly, ala Nazi Germany, but as someone who claims to understand our current situation, you should know better.

      PS - None of that Daily Kos is leftist bullcrap. Yeah, it is, but we're dealing with facts. Facts aren't biased.
    • vixiecron, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4"Well, just off the top of my head, checks and balances?"

      The ones which are still very much intact? One of the Presidents powers enumerated by the constitution is command of the United States military -- including the intelligence community. What he was actually doing in that statement was questioning the right of Congress to curtail his rights to gather foreign intelligence. Congress (and the Judiciary concurring) has established that they want information about what the Executive is doing in order to establish rules for the operation of the United States military and in turn the intelligence community. The writing of the rules is an enumerated right -- the keeping tabs on the information is an implied right. What if Congress's laws demanding information interfere with the Executive's rights to gather intelligence? We have here a *conflict* between two branches of government. We don't have a *violation* of the checks and balances that still exist between them. Is Bush right? Probably not -- at least I don't think so. I personally think the FISA laws are reasonable.

      My point is, this is not Bush violating the ideas and principles that the country was founded on. This is the Executive branch clashing with the Legislative under the new stress of new intelligence requirements. If worse comes to worse and Bush remains stubborn on this issue, he *can't* violate the checks and balances unless Congress *lets* him. They can shut his programs down at will -- they don't have to fund them!

      "Maybe you grew up in a different country and didn't take American Government in 3rd grade like the rest of us."

      Stick to substantive argument, please. I'm well aware of how the United States government works, thank you. Oh, and thanks for mentioning Nazis. That was really relevant.

      "Facts aren't biased."

      Facts themselves by definition aren't biased, but collections of facts can be. Especially if they omit certain key things.

    • Niffer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@vixiecron

      Thanks for your civil argument with me here. I mean it, most people here tend to respond with one line insults. That being said I want to be clear about what I said, as I meant no disrespect.

      What I said about Civics classes and 3rd grade was a bit low of me, I apologize as you are obviously a smart person. But second, I don't know how you can't see the correlation between what we see today and Nazi Germany. That certainly was not meant to be a low blow as I think the similarities are very serious. I say this out of frustration because many views that go against the mainstream here in America today are ridiculed out of the way by a certain hive-mind mentality. It IS important to understand how rhetoric in Nazi Germany won the support of the people, and how those in power performed secret terrorist missions to re-legislate the rights of the people. Now, you may not think such a thing has occured in America, and it's fine if you think that, but certainly someone in Nazi Germany saw threw the lies and was shouted down by their peers. Where such a thing should be open to discussion, it wasn't then and it certainly isn't now, even though history has shown it to be a possibility.

      "The ones which are still very much intact? One of the Presidents powers enumerated by the constitution is command of the United States military -- including the intelligence community. What he was actually doing in that statement was questioning the right of Congress to curtail his rights to gather foreign intelligence. Congress (and the Judiciary concurring) has established that they want information about what the Executive is doing in order to establish rules for the operation of the United States military and in turn the intelligence community. The writing of the rules is an enumerated right -- the keeping tabs on the information is an implied right. What if Congress's laws demanding information interfere with the Executive's rights to gather intelligence? We have here a *conflict* between two branches of government. We don't have a *violation* of the checks and balances that still exist between them. Is Bush right? Probably not -- at least I don't think so. I personally think the FISA laws are reasonable."

      I guess that this whole thing comes down to whether or not you think there is such a massive terrorist threat that gives the president reason to execute these powers. Many would say no, including myself. Bush's right to gather intelligence does not overrule my right to privacy, in my opinion. We certainly are not at war with a definable entity such as a nation state. Sure we are currently in Iraq, but we aren't at war with the Iraqi people or a military that represents them.

      I can't really seem to grasp your understanding of checks and balances. I cannot see how you say they are intact, but that Bush is wrong in what he is doing. Doesn't this mean you think Bush is violating checks and balances? Maybe I missed something, hopefully you can take the time to explain.
    • vixiecron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"I guess that this whole thing comes down to whether or not you think there is such a massive terrorist threat that gives the president reason to execute these powers."

      Terrorism is not the only threat out there. We still have to deal with the rest of all of that good ol' spy stuff. The rest of the world doesn't go on pause when terrorism ramps up. It'd be nice if it did. In other words, there are legitimate reasons for these warrants even without the threat of Islamic terrorism.

      "We certainly are not at war with a definable entity such as a nation state. Sure we are currently in Iraq, but we aren't at war with the Iraqi people or a military that represents them."

      We are now and likely always will be in a battle of wits with the rest of the world. Islamic terrorism doesn't change that, it's just the newest thing on the block so to speak. And it's not all that new...


      "Bush's right to gather intelligence does not overrule my right to privacy, in my opinion."

      4th Amendment:

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      You don't have the right to privacy, per se. You have the right to be secure in your persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The key word is unreasonable. Note that it doesn't say *all*. It's a very subjecting thing what is reasonable to one person as opposed to another. I consider intelligence collection against a foreign person through domestic tapping of a US person's phone line reasonable as long as there is either probably cause and a warrant is secured later, or when the warrant is secured beforehand. I caveat this by saying that all incidental intelligence collected against this or these US persons must be discarded in accordance with current Intelligence Oversight regulations. This is how it should work, though some lazy bureaucrats in the attorney general's office apparently have a problem with a reasonable FISA system for securing warrants. I have a problem with this, because it makes all of us look bad. There are some idiots in every administration...

      "I can't really seem to grasp your understanding of checks and balances. I cannot see how you say they are intact, but that Bush is wrong in what he is doing. Doesn't this mean you think Bush is violating checks and balances? Maybe I missed something, hopefully you can take the time to explain."

      He can try all he wants -- it's not possible short of amending the constitution. He may be wrong in this particular instance and he may be trying to convince Congress to free up some of the FISA rules that he doesn't particularly enjoy, but that doesn't mean he's violating the checks and balances.
    • vixiecron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"It's a very subjecting thing what is reasonable..."

      Wow. Read as "It's a very subjective thing what is reasonable...

      I should proofread more thoroughly.
  • nixfu, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10
    In other news..... The Steelers say the Radiers commited 12 different fouls which the officals did no call.

    • pabster, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6No *****, LOL.

      Who woulda thunk the Democrats would make such accusations, particularly in an election year?
    • Herolint, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16That is exactly the mentality and thought that most people put into politics. This is what televised sports has done to this country.
    • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Sports are the opiate of the masses. Like religion and other forms of entertainment.

      Take away people's entertainment and they might actually start DOING something!

      I'm not saying it's a conspiracy; the entertainers are doing it for the $$$, but they follow the agenda of the ones paying them. Nothing gets out into the mainstream media without approval from the editors and censors.

      That's why the internet is so important. At least they still can't control the flow of information here (yet).
    • vixiecron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@OBKenobi

      I feel I must rise up in defense of fun.

      For shame! Shame!!! Tsk tsk, etc.

      I thought opium was the opiate of the masses.
  • djpnuemo, on 10/12/2007, -14/+3blah blah blah... no different than any other president.
    • MiloMindrbindr, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8Treason, rewriting laws to make their illegal practices legal, starting WW3 for pure profit purposes, blatantly holding back technology to improve our planet, health and livelyhood. Turning on their own people who think otherwise. Implementing social mores reminiscent of Nazi Germany, letting (or more likely planning and executing) the murdrer of thousand of American citizens, both on 9/11 and all the years in Iraq.

      quite different from how it appears to me.
    • djpnuemo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1wow, conspiracy theorist. to think that the USA had a hand in executing the attacks on the US is crazy. honestly, no government is there to HELP all of it's citizens. the US is no different. they couldn't pull off this of that magnitude, with NO ONE coming out with evidence to support it. same with the moon landing, jfk, etc. people need a more illustrious backstory for these events. not the case my friend. our government IS slowly becoming a more controlling governoring body, but it's not JUST this presidents fault. i'm nor republican nor democrat. they're both the same to me with different external agendas. we're all f'ed anyway.
    • MiloMindrbindr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7when only a handful of people know and implement it, perfectly capable. Money is the cause and solution to many, many problems. I have a feeling a *****-ton of money was exchanged, enough to make some people never say a peep.

      All i know is, with all the other ***** this administration has done, physically attacking their own people for personal gain seems very plausable.
    • MiloMindrbindr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7and one more thing. If you know anyone or have been in the military, youre given orders that make absolutely no sense to you because goals are broken up into Departments who know nothing about what anyone else is doing. Makes it very hard to connect dots.
    • HallsOfMandos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That is a terrible argument. Are we to do nothing because this is the way it has always been? What I basically hear (and not just from you, so please do not misconstrue this as a personal attack, it is not) is this: "Politicians have always been corrupt, Democrats and Republicans alike, so why should we stand up against it now when we did not do so in the past?" That attitude will insure that the trend continues. Unfortunately for Republicans, it was their guy in office when public outcry against this trend (yes it has been going on for a very long time) reached critical mass. I, and many others I hope, understand that the situation will not be remedied completely with a shift from Republican to Democrat. Of course, it IS a step in the right direction for the short-term, but a goal for the long term would be to begin the implementation of policies that would shift the power away from the various corporate lobbies in this country and into the hands of the people. Sadly, with the attention span in this country being so short, it will likely need a miracle for such long-term strategy to ever be considered, let alone implemented.

      Just remember in November (and every election): Do not think that you are throwing away your vote if you choose to note vote for a major party. Your vote is your voice, whether or not you side with the winning team.
  • swiftwings88, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3From a poor website, no digg
  • cyborg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8now after this, does anyone believe in the 9/11 conspiracies anymore?......bush and his cabinent shouldn't just be taken down for treason, but for the same charges as saddam was brought down for.
    • h00ligan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4break out the tin foil.
    • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8[quote]now after this, does anyone believe in the 9/11 conspiracies anymore?[/quote]

      I don't believe Bush was behind 9/11. I think negligence and arrogance is responsible for that. But I do believe that someone within the US government IS responsible for the Anthrax letters.

      Probably not Bush himself, but someone with ties to the pharmaceutical companies.

      You know, they made a fortune off selling Anthrax vaccines after the attacks. And "coincidentally," it helped justify the Iraq war and the passing of the Patriot Act.

      If you disagree, tell me, who sent the Anthrax Letters?
  • CanPanther, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Are Americans finally waking up to what the rest of the world has known for years? Funny how it's taken the loss of THEIR OWN FREEDOM to finally demonstrate just what a group of power-hungry, war-mongering meglomaniacs Bush and the Republicians really are. It's sad really. But as long as it was happening elsewhere and not to them, then I guess it was ok for most Americans. Welcome to OUR world, assholes!
    • h00ligan, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4please. Generalize a little more.. please....

      what an idiot. Speaking of hatemongering.....

      be gone troll.
    • vixiecron, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3"Are Americans finally waking up to what the rest of the world has known for years? Funny how it's taken the loss of THEIR OWN FREEDOM to finally demonstrate just what a group of power-hungry, war-mongering meglomaniacs Bush and the Republicians really are. It's sad really. But as long as it was happening elsewhere and not to them, then I guess it was ok for most Americans. Welcome to OUR world, assholes!"

      You forgot one -- Bush lied. Man, you're all slipping if I have to complete your propaganda for you.
    • Niffer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"You forgot one -- Bush lied. Man, you're all slipping if I have to complete your propaganda for you."

      It's not propoganda if it is clearly the truth. He did lie.
    • vixiecron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1He may have made a mistake (as did a large majority of Congress), but he did not lie. He knew Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran and against some select groups of his own people. He knew Saddam had an active nuclear weapons program in the 1980s and intelligence suggested that it was still in some state of activity. Intelligence also suggested the possibility of a biological weapons program. That's one certainty and two speculations based on what he thought was accurate intelligence. He, along with most of Congress at the time, had no reason to believe that the intelligence was faulty.

      To say it's a lie you have to prove some level of mens rea, which clearly in these circumstances you cannot. You cannot claim intent, as he believed his own intelligence information. You cannot claim recklessness, since he believed his own intelligence and had quite a bit of historical precedent regarding the Chem and Nuke issues and could not reasonably foresee being wrong. You cannot claim criminal negligence since you cannot claim that an 'average person' would have seen things differently when presented with the same information, especially since Congress was presented with the same information and believed it to be credible.

      It took this intelligence failure for quite a few of us to realize how awful the information sharing and collaboration abilities of our intelligence community really are. If Bush *lied* as you're claiming, then a huge portion of Congress and the American people lied as well. Apparently, to themselves.
  • cosmicv, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2yawn...lefties condeming righties... no digg
  • darealgreg, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Challenge ! Name one honest truthful caring politician. Any party any country anywhere.

    It can't be done and that is why the world is the way it is and getting worst.
    Bush did this Bush is wrong it doesn't matter... we are there and must see it through or it will only get worst... that region of the world has been in turmoil long before the discovery of America.
  • evilbob333, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2Wow....Bush may have violated the law, say the Democrats, in an election year. I'll concede....nothing. I'll be willing to bet most of this is policy disputes and arguable interpertations of the law, rather than actual violation of the law. And just cause the Democrats say its so, doesn't make it true. We already got elected Democrats planning a slow painful impeachment for Bush should they get the House.

    Digg me down, cause my opinion is not valid in the eyes of the liberals
  • h00ligan, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7i'm sick of seeing the partisan crap on digg as well.

    W is a moron/ass
    Clinton did a LOT more wrong than shag an intern.. it's a pity his complete failure as a president is much less evident given who followed.

    They both rank in the worst 10 presidents of all time, Yes W is worse probably in the big picture.

    I really like what was said above.. move on - find a middle ground.. the thing that is tearing the country apart is the extremes to which EACH side is going. NEITHER side is right, and the more extreme the sides get, the worse it is for our country.

    How about a bipartisan team next time round? Unlikely - yes, would it help, yes.

    The biggest problem we have is the separation. I don't want to war with everyone and have big business run our world... ruining our constitutional rights.

    Similarly, it's not my job to support the world and socialism just DOES NOT WORK, in any capacity. www.vonmises.org for more info on that.
    • Niffer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Well said sir and/or madame.

      Though pure socialism may be a bit off, certainly some aspects of it are for the good of everyone.

      The site you cite (har har) is also a bit of a mess. Is there something in particular on there you recommend to support your views?
    • dextrocardia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Apparently you forget the W is "a uniter, not a divider." /sarcasm
  • danakin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11All this partisan arguing leads to one logical solution:
    Jedi Party in '08!
    • aukxsona, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I concur
    • Ghiren, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2*handwave* You will vote for me...
    • vixiecron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2*handwave* Those are not the droids you're looking for.

      *handwave* They can go about my business.
    • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Jedi do not engage in politics. Jedi do not owe allegiance to any nation or religion. Jedi serve as advisors and executors of justice. The Jedi serve only one law: The Balance of the Force.

      To form a political party would compromise everything the Jedi stand for.
  • aukxsona, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I am so down for a Jedi party! All the smart people in one place...hey the office parties are boring, but at least you know we know what we're talking about. If you can understand it...he he.

    Personally I am not fluent in geekenesse...my husband speaks it fluently and is trying desperately to teach me it. But I promise on my honor to support any Linux, jedi, Enterprise loving weirdo that runs...lol. As long as I can kinda understand that they will do a good job.
  • DreadPirateWes, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Whew...I totally read that wrong. "Bush Admin May Have Violated 26 Statues" Hope you used some lube!
    • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5[quote]Whew...I totally read that wrong. "Bush Admin May Have Violated 26 Statues" Hope you used some lube![/quote]

      John Ashcroft?
    • Niffer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Ha! I'm sure you've heard it if you say that, but have a listen to David Cross' CD "Shut Up You ***** Baby!"

      "Lady liberty, why won't you be my wife... huh? Oh! Just cleaning up, cleaning up."
  • yazuun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1its not a matter of this being an election year.
    dem's hold the minority in the house and senate.
    the majority party gets to be committee chairs, get an additional seat on each committee, they have subpoena power and the ability to perform _real_ investigations.
    the ranking member becomes chairman - conyers, being the ranking member, will get to run the house judiciary committee and thats where (i think) impeachments charges come from.
    so... if the dems can get the house, conyers gets to subpenoa anyone he wants and this list is (hopefully) what we can expect him to start with.
    if nothing else, we can see what 'oversight' looks like.
  • origclubsoda, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Democrats say Bush is the equivalent to Hitler! Who would believe anything those idiots say.
  • flyinbuddha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think that Dems and Reps are the same.
    I see Bush being so blatant that when the Dems prosecute even the Rs will look to the Dems as benevolent saviors. Then they'll have us where they want us - A legally eroded constitution and a population filled with more hope and fear than common sense and education.
    The two party system needs to be broken. That's where we could start
    • vixiecron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Or you could vote for any of the other parties, since they've been there for quite awhile.
    • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3[quote]The two party system needs to be broken. That's where we could start[/quote]

      Where we could start is with impeachment. The Demorats will be next.

      Otherwise, you'll never get a third party elected, the Dems and Reps control everything. Ralph Nader wasn't even allowed to sit in the audience of the presidential debates, that's how bad it is!
  • fluffyturtle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ah political debates, something I never really understood.

    I don't like anyone who is in office, they are just another human like anyone else but with all that power at their fingertips. Bush, Kerry, Clinton (Mr. and possibly Mrs.), FEH. Of course I recognize the need for a president so I say screw it, let other people elect the ***** and I keep my nose out of it.

    However, I love it when someone makes sure the person is doing their job and following the rules. If he committed crimes then I want punishment. Not because he is the president but because we have laws and a constitution for a reason and those need to be upheld regardless of the cause the person who broke them used.

    I just like knowing that eventually things can be corrected and set straight.
  • bryanedds, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The problem is not who's in charge of politics. The problems IS politics.

    http://www.mises.org
  • biggyfred, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The problem isn't Republicans or Democrats or a two party system or democracy or oil or George Bush (per se) or America. The problem is Americans. There is absolutely no accountability in our current political environment. I doubt 1% of the population can name their state and federal representation and let's be honest, even that's probably a higher percentage than the reality.

    The lesson is it's ugliest form is being taught right here in a state election in Texas for my rep. A moderate Republican is representing a very socially moderate constituency and has chosen to vote hard right on virtually every issue (this district went 60% AGAINST a gay marriage ban...IN TEXAS). When pressed for an answer for her voting record, she basically came right out and said that if she votes hard right, she will keep her job. If she represents her constituency, she would have lost badly this November through the backstabbing by her own party.

    And she's right. And this permeates every single level of government. And we have no one to blame but ourselves.

    Prove me wrong: Do *you* know how your state rep voted on the last 5 "important" bills? Do you know your state rep's name? Do you know who is financing your state rep?

    I'm as guilty as everyone else, and now I'm going to rectify the situation. My country needs me to be there for it instead of bitching about it. I suggest the rest of you look into it as a solution.
    • spacemoose, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The sad reality of this is that our lives have become too busy, and the political world has become too complex for people to be able to follow along. And even if you did, where would you get the time to do anything about it?

      There is no real sense of community, and thus, no accountability. If it doesn't affect someone personally, it basically doesn't exist.

      Our government is being abused because of this, we are presented with a polarized and superficial song and dance that is designed to be processed with as little effort as possible, while the foundations of our government are corrupted and twisted.

      I mean, many people vote based on one or two issues that have NO real impact on the vast majority of the population, most often, not even themselves. People support candidates and when asked why can often only say "He seems like a good guy" or some other incandescent assessment.

      Unfortunately, I don't know if our present implementation of democracy can survive, the world does not seem to becoming any more amenable to it.
  • jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Marked inaccurate because....???????
    • Niffer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Because facts have a liberal bias, that's why! John Conyers didn't actually say any of that stuff! All lies!

      [/sarcasm]
    • TheHighChild, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You know how the noobs work, censor and discredit.
    • jwoolson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"And reality has a well-known liberal bias." - S. Colbert

      How does someone (re)mark a story as accurate? Or a better approach, could the "inaccurate" flag contain more specific information detailing HOW the linked item is not accurate?
      I call abuse of the Digg checks and balances.

      The linked story reports on a public statement from an elected office-holder, Rep. John Conyers, Jr. of Michigan's 14th Congressional district, making a statement in his capacity as an elected official. There does not appear to be any misrepresentation of Rep. Conyer's statements in the story.

      Also, on the question of relevance, if homeless-guy-standing-on-the-corner-by-the-deli-with-a-cardboard-sign says something controversial, like "the misconduct I have found is not only serious, but widespread," it is not necessarily news, unless he combines his assertion with self-immolation. In proper journalistic fashion, the linked story correctly frames the charges levied against the President as "alleged wrongs", so that the author of the linked story is not making the assertion of a crime.

      So in what way, EXACTLY might this linked story be "not accurate"?
      and
      How does a story get reinstated as accurate?

      @ Aidenag
      Thank you for the link to the primary source document.
  • Gargamike, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I also love how everything posted about Bush that has any criticism end up being "inaccurate."
  • wonkeythemonkey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0In other news:

    "Superman 'may have' killed 26 puppies on purpose," says Lex Luthor.

    When you're going to accuse your arch-nemesis of something bad, you should really get beyond the point of "may have" before announcing it.
    • spacemoose, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3wonkeythemonkey:

      Right, because, ya know, you're not legally required to say "alleged", "purported" or "may have" until the conclusion of the legal process or anything.

      The news always throws those words in to sound all hoity-toity.

      Idiot.
  • eniack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0pfft. It warns about accuracy because its an UNRELEASED report.

    All you anti-capitalist hogs should go back to your troughs and stop drooling.

    Nothing will come of this. The story will fall apart under the weight of its own BS, just like every other 'big' story that was sure to bring down the administration.

    Go find hapiness in your own life and stop blaming bush because your ass itches.
  • NotaSlick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Left still whining about the lost elections. Ahahhaha! 'eniack';Sean Penn actually blamed the prez for his inability to quit smoking! Again, ahhahhaaa! The left is far-gone and in a different universe. Silly very small people they are.
  • Koosebane, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Wow. Another "the end is nigh for the Bush administration! Impeach Now!" thread.

    I think I've seen one of these at least once a week since the dude was elected.

    And...surprise, surprise....this week's "smoking gun" is yet another in a long line of dismal duds based on dubious information.

    Ah well....anything for an excuse to post angry slogans and pissy catch phrases gleaned from the hippest of partisan websites.

    Politics suck.....and this thread is a prime example of why.
  • joshafina, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0We have a criminal in the white house. ***** great!
  • Ashree321, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ vixiecron
    i know I'm late and don't mean to interrupt but..

    "I consider intelligence collection against a foreign person through domestic tapping of a US person's phone line reasonable as long as there is either probably cause and a warrant is secured later, or when the warrant is secured beforehand."

    Doesn't it worry you that giving this much _power_ to a government now could lead to things that may not be "reasonable." I don't think it's far-fetched to worry that maybe this is just a small step in a very big picture of violation of our rights as free citizens (Which you have already pointed out we really never had a right to privacy) when we've seen patterns of this in history; Especially, like Niffer cited, WWII German and even into the later years of East Germany propaganda. Even during the Cold War the U.S. was using propaganda about communism. The _communists_ was a hidden enemy then as _terrorist are now. The "black list" had reasonable cause then. What if tapping phones is merely a means to a more corrupt end? Do you think it's paranoia or reasonable?

    again sorry to cut-in, but I felt both of you had good points and wanted to contribute to an intelligent conversation for once (not saying I'm intelligent in the least bit)
    • vixiecron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Doesn't it worry you that giving this much _power_ to a government now could lead to things that may not be "reasonable." I don't think it's far-fetched to worry that maybe this is just a small step in a very big picture of violation of our rights as free citizens (Which you have already pointed out we really never had a right to privacy) when we've seen patterns of this in history; Especially, like Niffer cited, WWII German and even into the later years of East Germany propaganda. Even during the Cold War the U.S. was using propaganda about communism. The _communists_ was a hidden enemy then as _terrorist are now. The "black list" had reasonable cause then. "

      Some paranoia is a good thing. We want to keep an eye on government at all times, even when they're authorized to do 'reasonable' things in order to make sure they stay 'reasonable'. One of the biggest responsibilities of the Judicial branch is to hear cases that involve the infringement of constitutional rights which, in a case like this, would involve deciding how reasonable some particular law or act is. As it was intended, this is (usually) a solid check on government abuse of power.

      Government has quite a few powers that can do real damage with if we don't watch them. This fact alone is a very good argument for limited government. However, we *do* want them to do certain things and we have to give them enough power to do so. Not too much, of course, but just enough.

      Eminent domain is a good example of this. We do want local governments to have the ability to use eminent domain to build schools, hospitals, police stations, and other things that are for the 'public good' in reasonable places. We want, for example. hospitals that are not 40 miles out of town so that critical patients won't die on the interstate (quite so much). However, we see some undesirable (and downright corrupt) behavior in some city councils, though, in that some of them are condemning private property (read as 'stealing'), paying the residents less than their property is worth, and selling it to a private developer that they believe will bring in more tax dollars. We want them to build schools and such in the right places, but we don't want them to steal property -- does this mean we should not let them use eminent domain at all? No, absolutely not. We also want the federal government to gather foreign intelligence and keep tabs on terrorist suspects. Wiretaps are but one tool in that job, at home and abroad. There is a possibility that these wiretaps will be used by some people to go on prosecutorial fishing expeditions. Does this mean that we should forbid the federal government from using them or effectively forbid them in certain cases through overly-restrictive processes? Absolutely not. It all comes down to where you draw the line between reasonable and unreasonable (both in execution of the power and in the impediments to use of the power), and how well *we* hold the government to that line.

      The rise of Nazi Germany (let alone the state of affairs in East Germany following the war) is not in any way similar to events in the US today except for the use of propaganda. Of course, *every* political group since the dawn of civilization used propaganda in some form or another. If Bush were the next Hitler, he would have to somehow get Congress to pass the equivalent of the Enabling Act that the Reichstag passed in 1933. I *really* doubt that Congress is ever going to pass a law that allows the Executive branch to pass laws without their involvement and to ignore the constitution entirely. In fact, such a law would be struck down by the Judiciary so fast that it'd make your head spin. We have sufficient checks and balances in our federal government to prevent things like this from happening. Things like that were the whole reason for their inclusion in the constitution! If something like this happened (when hell freezes over), we would have very serious problems. However, we're nowhere close to that and anyone who claims that the current administrations actions make Bush anything close to Hitler are completely and totally out to lunch (in my opinion).

      Oh, about the Hollywood blacklist -- if the ten would have pleaded the fifth amendment in the first place (like others who were so accused), they wouldn't have had problems. Being a member of the communist party then or at any time was not a crime. However, not answering questions in a congressional hearing was. They were held in contempt of congress and some served time. It was the Screen Actors Guild that made their membership take anti-communist pledges and it was private directors, producers, etc. that enforced this blacklist. In other words, it's a more complicated issue than just government abuse of power (not that some of that didn't go on a la McCarthyism).
    • vixiecron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I guess I should answer your first question explicitly...

      I am worried when one branch of government violates the constitution such as doing something I would consider 'unreasonable' wrt. the fourth amendment. However, when I see other branches of government putting the offending branch back in their place and I see 'reasonable' behavior continuing from then on (until the next outrage of the week), then no, I'm not particularly worried then. I see the system of checks and balances and I see it (eventually) working as intended. I see some gray areas between the powers of different branches of government, of course. However, I see these being minimized by more specific legislation. Legislation being part of the system of checks and balances in the first place, I see the system again (eventually) working as intended and so again I'm not particularly worried. Therefore, in not so many words, I'm not worried.

  • DannoJyD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Democrats charged Newt Gingrich with over 300 counts of law breaking activity when he was the Speaker of the House. Newt went to court on several of those charges. He was found guilty of not a thing.

    "The Bush administration may have broken over two dozen federal laws and regulations -- some of them multiple times -- according to an unreleased report from the House Judiciary Committee Democrats." May have?!?! Don't they even know?

    Get it yet?
  • NotaSlick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Ted Kennedy may(?) have committed murder, July 18,1969." Why has this story been buried all this time? More questions exist than answers in all this time but... Far more to the true story than the MSM allows. "Kennedy nephew, Michael Skakel, convicted of murder by golf club (June 2002)." He slaughtered a young girl because she rejected his scuzzy a.s! Wow! Awesome. 'Martha's Vineyard' top-notch (Or, rather, 'Top ONE PERCENT') at it's gentle best behavior hiding the facts as long as they could.[since 1975]) When will 'Slick' ever serve time for committing perjury before a Federal Grand Jury?
    What really happened to Vince Foster? Is Slickery really a woman? Sorry , that was meant to be a (joke?). Get over it lefty trolls. We (Conservatives) have valid claims. You on the other hand have, well, nothing. Enjoy your jihadi buddies and if you really love yourselves (not U.S.A. of course), you better hope they lose, and the U.S.A. is successful in terminating those cancer infested-slugs from the face of earth. If you believe otherwise, then, I could care less what happens to you and your pals.
  • dalel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0John Conyers (D-MI) credible?? look at his record. This guy is as far out in left field as you can get. A real moonbats hero.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Conyers
    On December 20, 2005, Conyers released The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retributions and Cover-ups in the Iraq War, an edited collection of information intending to serve as evidence that the Bush Administration altered intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq.

    Go ahead and hang your hopes on John Conyers, he may be all ya got.
  • Mworthin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sadly and disturbingly, America is leaning towards facism.

    What are YOU going to do about it?
    • vixiecron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If you think so, *vote*. ~half still do not.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.