What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
80 Comments
- jbhannah, on 10/11/2007, -1/+73Of course, they'll claim that it's a "matter of national security" and because obviously all of Congress are terrorists, having been elected by the people (who are also, all terrorists--why else would the administration be spying on them?), explaining why the documents are being withheld will be "helping the terrorists."
It's all the damn terr--*ahem* good citizens' fault. Clearly.
[/sarcasm] - keyboardduder, on 10/11/2007, -1/+67I just read the patriot act and nearly every congressman and bush himself should be in jail for 15 years. Why do you ask? Coprorations lobbying and handing out money for internal sway. Heres a section in the patriot act that they signed in themselves.
SEC. 329. CRIMINAL PENALTIES.
Any person who is an official or employee of any department, agency, bureau, office, commission, or other entity of the Federal Government, and any other person who is acting for or on behalf of any such entity, who, directly or indirectly, in connection with the administration of this title, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for--
(1) being influenced in the performance of any official act;
(2) being influenced to commit or aid in the committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(3) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person,
shall be fined in an amount not more than 3 times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, or imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or both. A violation of this section shall be subject to chapter 227 of title 18, United States Code, and the provisions of the United States Sentencing Guidelines.
How do they get away with this? (BTW, I'm expecting this new digg comment system to ***** this up) - RunawayElf, on 10/11/2007, -0/+49"I just read the patriot act"
You officially have more knowledge of it than most/all of congress. - roflcawpter, on 10/11/2007, -3/+41Bush = War Crimes
Cheney = War Profiteering
Simple. - scb0825, on 10/11/2007, -0/+38Worst. President. Ever.
- orangester, on 10/11/2007, -2/+387 years down...1 to go. Hard to believe for the better part of a decade our country was run by someone with the mental capacity of a 3 year old.
- ca34ro, on 10/11/2007, -2/+33Bush is out of control and congress is not stopping him. They are selling out the country. It's sickening.
- clickmyface, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16Get the hell out of our white house.
- monkeyrun, on 10/11/2007, -3/+16but terrorists would win if we don't keep everything Bush do a secret.
- overtoke, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14Are you suggesting the people do something? Be careful, or you'll be deemed an enemy combatant.
- kingkilr, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13HOLY BALLS! I have leafed through it before, but how do we go about rounding them up and trying them ....
- ferrell, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13Executive Privilege???
So bush is back in the executive branch again? - Blairisloser, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13Most Americans are ignorant to the fact that in 1934 General Smedley Butler, the most decorated marine in US history, was approached by a group of wealthy industrialists and asked to perform a military coup of President Roosevelt. They wanted to turn the USA into a military-corporate fascist style government. He refused and turned these industrialists in to Congress. However, these same industrialists have performed a slow drawn out coup of America which is now in its final stages.
- keyboardduder, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10LOL considering that many did admit to not reading it.
- overtoke, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11That has nothing to do with the issue. Sure he has the right. He also has the responsibility and duty to justify his actions when asked.
And the thing people keep missing is why the attorneys were fired and what they were investigating when fired. And also, the method the new attorneys were appointed (ie: without congressional approval.) - Lomstradamus, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11Bush should be asked to justify why he sat and continued to read "My pet goat" while planes were slamming into the WTC.
- Nateon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9I've gotten tired of the administration hiding under scare tactics, always pulling the terrorist card. I think the people have started to wise up to that (or at least I hope). If the administration tries to pull that card, hopefully our congress will be wise enough to look through it. The Administration says they work in the best interest and safety of the American people, when clearly they are just smacking us in the face bending our law to fit their own needs.
- oxdeltaxo, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11JFK was assassinated for less.
- smex, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Are you sure about that? He had a bill, with Congressional support, to abolish the Federal Reserve. That was a big no-no.
- overtoke, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8That isn't exactly a spoiler, it's the formula.
- HunterTV, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9Justify his thug.
- drmangrum, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Suddenly, all those whack jobs who barricade themselves on ranches in Wyoming don't seem quite as crazy as they used to.
- chowdah, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6"shall be fined in an amount not more than 3 times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value"
This would totally bankrupt the Bushes and the Cheneys forever. - tbo0, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10Firing federal prosecutors for political reasons is sleazy, but not illegal; they serve at the pleasure of the president, and he can fire them if he feels like it. Furthermore, the Justice Department is part of the executive branch, so an executive privilege claim is actually not that hard to make, unless Congress has some reason to believe there was a crime. Part of the purpose of executive privilege is to prevent Congress from unduly interfering with the Executive Branch. It's being used for evil here, but it's not actually illegal, and Congress likely doesn't have a legal basis to get these documents if Bush does assert executive privilege. It's worth noting that use of executive privilege expanded rapidly under Clinton.
Congress also has similar privileges, and sometimes also abuses them: when Rep. William Jefferson was found with $90,000 in his home freezer as part of a bribery investigation, and the FBI wanted to search his Congressional office, Congress got very angry about the matter and tried to shield him from scrutiny. The legal argument was that the FBI was part of the Executive branch, and that it was a violation of the legislative branch's privilege for it to be subject to such scrutiny by the executive branch. The search ultimately did go ahead, but with very special procedures to shield the privacy of all documents in Jefferson's office that weren't part of the criminal investigation.
In short, both Congress and the Executive branch are locked in a continual power struggle, regardless of who is in office. Each branch wants to enlarge its power at the expense of the other.
Something that a lot of people haven't fully understood is how methodical and careful the Bush administration is about constructing legal cover for all its dubious actions. It will be very hard to catch them "with their pants down", so to speak. I wish people would focus on (1) the most outrageous Bush administration actions, and (2) the actions most easily provable to be criminal. The rest is just a distraction and increases the perception of partisanship. - oxdeltaxo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7@itswestbrook
He was successful because the majority of his country was as dumb as him at some point. They learned their lesson and know better now. - pintomp3, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6only when he's the president. but not when he's the decider or the commander guy.
- pintomp3, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6you're right. he wasn't voted in by a majority vote. he was selected by the supreme court. btw, what do you mean by "correctly voted"? do you work at diebold or something?
- kd1s, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Cheney must so be regretting telling Leahy to go ***** himself.
- Deathfrogg, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Using non-governmental communications systems for official communications is illegal, period. Vetting federal employees party affiliations and hiring/firing them on that basis is illegal, period. Obstructing a congressional investigation is illegal, period. Ordering Federal prosecutors to manufacture evidence against political opponents is illegal, period. Fabrications of foreign intelligence materials is illegal, period.
You dont like it, move to Russia. Such methods were always a major aspect of what we opposed the Communists for, as well as the Nazis. Maybe you would prefer to live in a country that doesn't permit laws to be enforced against powerful people unless it serves other powerful peoples political or financial interests? Perhaps you would prefer lesseiz majestie against anyone holding the executive branch of Government? Does holding the position of President or Vice President justify deliberate violations of laws that have been on the books since 1783? We fought the English precisely because these methods were common under a dictatorial system of government ruled by decree, such as by a King or a dictator. We opposed the Russian communists because they regularly used laws to prevent interferance in their own criminal behaviors and enterprises. this was a major aspect of the propaganda we were fed during the 1950's and 60's. it was THE major reason why we considered the Soviet Union and the German nazis to be dangerous and corrupt empires. their respective political systems were designed to specifically prevent scrutiny of their criminality.
This entire administration is corrupt, it is a criminal enterprise of staggering and unprecedented magnitude, and is tyrannical in its political methodology.
this used to be a free country. Now, the only liberty available is to the Corporations, everyone else serves them. Even our "elected" representitives. - DCBassWiz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4What a secretive little bitch. I want to see an armed overthrow of this present government.
- ladypoetess, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5There is a difference in using executive priviledge in a reasonable manner, and abusing it.
- stepnw1f, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5The fact that we even see articles like this tells me that we already have a psuedo-dictator in the executive. Unitary executive is by definition a dictator.
- InitialDMP5, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4This confused me as well. As President of the United States, I think its ok for him to excuse himself prematurely.
- vandalin7, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4"Why should he justify anything at all?"! He is our president we are the ones who put him there, therefore he has to answer to us we are his employeer... Our tax money pays his presidential salary.
"Its his RIGHT to fire them for any reason he wants." In America people can not be fired for any reason (ex. you can not fire someone because they are a minority or handicapped).
"Why do people even care about this?" It is important to be involved and knowledgeable about the politics of the country we live in. Thats like asking; why do u care about the house you live in? - OrganicDrew, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3infowars.com you dont understand that this is no such thing as liberal or conservative they are both the same party that takes turns .. if you are so dumb or blind not two see it I can forgive you, but the nation will not forgive you if you dont take the time to inform yourself. The media Both medias SPIN the truth into lies through omission, if you do not recognize this you are not paying attention to CSPAN or CSPAN II everytime you see Paris hilton, britany spears, monoka L, on the News .. when there is nothing newsworthy about it.. these people are no diffrent than the average joe down the street except they are popular.. if you see this kind of thing being trumpited like news .. all the time for more than one day in a row.. or for that matter for more than an hour .. they have spent to much time one the subject and they are covering up something by not covering it.. you should then see what kind of unconstiutional bill is being passed through the senate in the house or through some outrageous executive order. the president is not the king and he is our representative, he has no more rights than the average citizen and his is not above any law.. if the people for which he claims to represent by holding executive office demand something from him, he must comply. the presidency is the office of civil servitude as thomas jefferson once said. any he who treat it more than that should be shot on sight for treason ben franklin
our supreme court has ruled 14+ times the patriot act and a number of other executive orders bush signed and passed as unconstitutional and criminally treasonable, but he simply ignored them and because congress even when held by democrats sits upon this knowledge without acting the public may and has become unaware of the dictator that now stands in our highest office. watch your bill of rights sir, for not too long, your inaction "not acting" will cause its downfall - OrganicDrew, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3watch your bill of rights sir, for not too long, your inaction "not acting" will cause its downfall
- kurttrail, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4ROFL! Yeah , the rational people are those that think that Bush will still find massive piles of WMDs in Iraq, yet don't think it is a big deal that Bush will ever find Osama!
- Derrekito, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4He likes to change up every now and then. You know, keep it real and what not.
- oxdeltaxo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Ah the subtleties of the fine print....no one ever reads the fine print. *shakes head* The devil's in the details.
- clickmyface, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Way to back that up with justifications. When a crime is committed and you invoke executive privilege in order to hide information from congress then you just put your ass on the line. Even Clinton revealed things in closed door sessions.
This president closed the door 7 years ago and told everyone in congress to ***** off. He's going to backpedal on this and he's going to do it fast. Congress is polling worse than him and those guys actually have future elections to worry about. If he doesnt make nice now they are going to do the only politically valuable thing left and impeach his ass. People standing next to Bush are already catching on fire. America wants him gone and right now a year is looking like a long time to a lot of us. - chowdah, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Any Republican that backs Bush at this point is committing political suicide.
- empirefalling, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Bush and his supporters are criminals. The World Body can longer tolerate Americas crimes. As seen in London and eleswhere, the people are fighting back against American and British Imperialism. I feel sorry that the American people must suffer under Bush, but they choose him and did nothing to bring the criminal to justice.
- DSGalvin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3MTFS...........
/***** - Latentk, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I love it. So now America as well as Bush are stupid. Nice justification.
- Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4I'm confused. What's is your emphasis with that excerpt? Is it substantially less severe than previous penalties?
- Worridor, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4The only good thing about bush is that he can't be elected for another term.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4This means nothing. The administration will simply refuse, and the congress wont be able to do anything about it. And that will be that.
Congress is completely impotent, it has no power at all to move against the president as the democrats are not in sufficient majority and the republicans will back bush. - lopla, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Bush was "told"??? Who the F$%#!%$! do they think they are? No one tells Bush to do ANYTHING except the Lord God. Anyone has a problem with that then enjoy burning in hell.
- sciant, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2When a President commits acts associated with criminality, there is no such thing as applying the vague concept of Executive Privilege
- obliviousfool, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2*Hiring* US Attorneys based on political affiliation is completely completely completely illegal.
Sources indicate these USAs (which replaced the ones who were fired) were hired based on a list of political criteria, the best indicator being whether they were members of The Federalist Society.
That's illegal.
Sources also indicate the US Attorneys who were fired were pressured to prosecute certain cases and not prosecute other cases. Non-compliance with those barking orders meant a firing.
That's illegal.
Can we stop having this "not illegal" debate yet? -
Show 51 - 80 of 80 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is