History Repeats Itself - Let's Just Make Sure We Get to the Part Where He Leaves the Whitehouse in Disgrace
posted by Dan at 12/29/2005 10:17:00 PM
Gone Mild
Aging gracefully and dispensing wisdom from Kansas City.
Thursday, December 29, 2005
Previous Posts
- Comfort Food and A Narrative Recipe
- "Little Red Book" Hoax on Front Page of Kos
- The Taum Sauk Flood & Johnson's Shut-Ins
- "A Fine Tune" Just Doesn't Understand
- Can We Talk?
- I Got My Jim Talent Holiday Card Today
- Bolivia in Peril?
- America, 1776 - 2001, R.I.P.
- Ford - Finally Okay Regarding Discrimination
- Kathleen Parker - Damn You, You Gave Us What We So...
Links!
Me on my Good Days - Favorite Posts
99 Bottles of Beer On the Blog (Ranked)
Sunday Poetry
4 Comments:
I'd be all for a special counsel, provided he is an independent one. That's not what you seek, however; you seek vindication.
I have come to the conclusion (subject to further information, of course) that what the president did was not clearly illegal under established precedent and a reasonable application of the UAMF. That's not to say that it was clearly entirely legal, either. There is a rather large gray area here. But it appears not to to be clearly illegal.
The problem, of course, is that you're jumping to a conclusion. You don't want a special counsel, you want an inquisitioner, who proceeds to a known target and simply finds a path there. When courts do that, we criticize them for being "outcome oriented."
I don't know where you come up with some of this stuff, Anonymous Me. Are voices speaking to you, telling me what I do and don't want.
I've looked at what I have read (warrantless wiretaps on americans) and concluded that it violates the law against warrantless wiretaps on americans. The fact that this program is unprecedented doesn't really make my analysis more favorable to King George.
That's why I'm happy with the thought of a special counsel, too. It's not as gray as the Bush apologists claim, as they struggle to find excuses for giving up liberty for security. I only ask that the counsel be competent and aggressive.
It would also be nice if s/he were as broad-minded in following every nuance of a case as Ken Starr was.
I don't need voices (and my voices tell me lots of other things . . that's another story); I read your writing. Where you stand couldn't be clearer - what you want is written all over your statements. The troubling thing is, as a lawyer, you don't seem interested in the law. Just the result.
Well, anonymous, since you know what I want based upon my writings, please find where I have written that I don't want an independent counsel.
I don't hide the fact that I think Bush is an awful president, and probably should be prosecuted for war crimes. But he's entitled to all the procedure that I would insist every other criminal receive.
As for following the law, that's exactly what I want our system to do in investigating the domestic spying scandal, and I wish Bush had shown similar respect for the law.
Post a Comment
<< Home