PDA

View Full Version : What the rule of law REALLY means in this country



cotts135
10-25-2011, 05:40 PM
This has been a concern of mine for quite some time and I think this issue should concern all of us. A needed dose of what's really going on. Better than I could ever say it I will let a real wordsmith explain (like Coulter....).

Here's the link http://www.salon.com/2011/10/25/book_excerpt_with_liberty_and_justice_for_some/singleton/

Gerry Clinchy
10-25-2011, 08:41 PM
Disagree with the author. I think Ford did the best thing for the country; not to mention saving tens of millions of dollars that a trial of Nixon would have cost.

Nobody doubted that Nixon was guilty, but a trial would have been a circus. I doubt that any President would want to risk Nixon's shame and disgrace, even if they didn't have to do jail time.

Don't think it's fair to use that as the example for "excusing" people like Rangel & other corrupt legislators.

BonMallari
10-25-2011, 08:58 PM
Nixon was crook..but for the author to try and parlay that bridge to Dick Cheney is further proof that the left wants their pound of flesh for the Clinton impeachment

cotts135
10-26-2011, 04:55 AM
Disagree with the author. I think Ford did the best thing for the country; not to mention saving tens of millions of dollars that a trial of Nixon would have cost.

Nobody doubted that Nixon was guilty, but a trial would have been a circus. I doubt that any President would want to risk Nixon's shame and disgrace, even if they didn't have to do jail time.

Don't think it's fair to use that as the example for "excusing" people like Rangel & other corrupt legislators.

Obviously I disagree, but ok. The clear message it sends as mentioned in the article is that these excuses are license in the future to break the law. Plus don't agree with all the excuses made by Ford. As a country I think we would be fine and survive any trial any political leader would have to go through.

Hew
10-26-2011, 05:19 AM
Like the bulk of what Glenn Greenwald writes, that article (and I'm sure his little book that it was excerpted from), is chock full o' mindless, populist pap. If that article represents the gist of his book then it's just a round-about way for him to chase his (and Cotts') white whale, Dick Cheney. :rolleyes:

For starters, from a criminality standpoint, what Nixon (and Clinton) did weren't that, well, criminal. To quote an fsu football playa, "It ain't like they shot the President." While their crimes don't rank high, it doesn't mean I want a criminal as President and think both should have resigned (or been convicted at impeachment and forced out). Nixon was already RUINED at the time he resigned. What more could be taken from the guy? Greenwald/Cotts wanted jail time for trying to cover up some political dirty tricks? Really? There was no useful purpose other than spiteful politics to further persue Nixon.

Secondly, witch-hunting/prosecuting politicians, particularly after-the-fact of their political term is DANGEROUS business, my friend, and is exactly the kind of thing that was done in the old Soviet Union when the new regime would ruthlessly punish enemies from the old regime. Moreover, the "crimes" Greenwald accuses Cheney of are more political than legal; as evidenced by the fact that more than half the country, including the current president you and Greenwald voted for, apparently agree with Cheney.

huntinman
10-26-2011, 07:05 AM
If that's the standard the left want's, they better be careful... they have a weasel in office right now who makes the past president's look like rookies when it comes to political dirty tricks. When the whole story of Fast and Furious... and Solyndra and who knows what else is ever told... it might make Clinton blush.

ErinsEdge
10-26-2011, 07:37 AM
Nixon got caught-Lyndon Johnson did not. That doesn't mean he was innocent.

cotts135
10-26-2011, 07:50 AM
Like the bulk of what Glenn Greenwald writes, that article (and I'm sure his little book that it was excerpted from), is chock full o' mindless, populist pap. If that article represents the gist of his book then it's just a round-about way for him to chase his (and Cotts') white whale, Dick Cheney. :rolleyes:

For starters, from a criminality standpoint, what Nixon (and Clinton) did weren't that, well, criminal. To quote an fsu football playa, "It ain't like they shot the President." While their crimes don't rank high, it doesn't mean I want a criminal as President and think both should have resigned (or been convicted at impeachment and forced out). Nixon was already RUINED at the time he resigned. What more could be taken from the guy? Greenwald/Cotts wanted jail time for trying to cover up some political dirty tricks? Really? There was no useful purpose other than spiteful politics to further persue Nixon.

Secondly, witch-hunting/prosecuting politicians, particularly after-the-fact of their political term is DANGEROUS business, my friend, and is exactly the kind of thing that was done in the old Soviet Union when the new regime would ruthlessly punish enemies from the old regime. Moreover, the "crimes" Greenwald accuses Cheney of are more political than legal; as evidenced by the fact that more than half the country, including the current president you and Greenwald voted for, apparently agree with Cheney.

You know what else was dangerous about the Soviet Union, how the elites lived by a different set of rules than the rest.They were allowed to get away with this persecution of political enemys precisely because the rule of law did not apply to them.This is the slippery slope were on now.
More political than legal? What does that mean? If you broke the law it doesn't matter if your a politician or a pimp. Thinking that the law is a popularity contest................well I don't even know what to think of that.
Your dismissive of what Greenwald says but his facts are solid. My suggestion is that looking at this objectively instead of the lens of Republican or Democrat might make his point a little clearer to you.

dixidawg
10-26-2011, 07:55 AM
More political than legal? What does that mean? If you broke the law it doesn't matter if your a politician or a pimp. Thinking that the law is a popularity contest................well I don't even know what to think of that. .


So I would assume you are equally upset about this (or past) administrations refusing to prosecute say the immigration laws?

Laws were and are being broken. Who is at fault? The politician for not allowing prosecution for breaking the law? Is this more political than legal? There are many other examples....