Quite true. But it has been better since Robert's took over.

If you look at recent events the most flagrant case of "political appointees" has been the Bush Administration's manipulation of federal district attorney's to the states and jailing of an ex-governor in the south. This was done by and for the side Scalia represents, that is, the conservatives. The Attorney General ended up resigning because of this. Contempt citations were given to cabinet members.

You mean this Governor?

Siegelman, a Democrat, served as governor of Alabama for one term, from 1999-2003. A jury in 2006 convicted him of bribery, conspiracy to commit mail fraud, mail fraud and obstruction of justice, but acquitted him of other charges, including racketeering and extortion.

Prosecutors alleged Siegelman's mail fraud convictions arose from a "pay-for-play" scheme in which he exchanged official acts and influence for cash, property and services from a businessman and consultant.

He also was accused of taking part in a scheme under which his co-defendant, ex-HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy, allegedly paid Siegelman $500,000 in laundered money to obtain a seat on the state regulatory board governing HealthSouth.

Scrushy was sentenced to six years and 10 months in prison.

Upon his release, the court said, Siegelman will be required to abide by the same conditions governing his earlier release pending sentencing

Judge orders jailed governor's release - CNN.com

You are correct, he did no more than Clinton did....

The President,ALL President's have the authority to hire and fire tose Attorney's at their discretion

It is this very position and sense of untouchable authority from which Scalia got his smug 'tone' on '60 Minutes'. It's the same thing that made him remark contemptuously about torture and give those unsophisticated street-level replies. If anything his calling for Constitutional fidelity is obviously his conscience bothering him or some kind of freudian reaction.

You mean the Waterboarding of three Terrorists that gave up information that saved lives?

WASHINGTON, Feb 5 (Reuters) - The CIA used a widely condemned interrogation technique known as waterboarding on three suspects captured after the Sept. 11 attacks, CIA Director Michael Hayden told Congress on Tuesday.

"Waterboarding has been used on only three detainees," Hayden told the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was the first time a U.S. official publicly specified the number of people subjected to waterboarding and named them.

Congress is considering banning the simulated drowning technique. A Democratic senator and a human rights advocacy group urged a criminal investigation after Hayden made his remarks.

CIA says used waterboarding on three suspects | Reuters

If I blew-off contempt citations I would have federal marshalls in my driveway. Do it as a high government member and nothing happens. That in itself is an abrogation of the Constitution.

You are laughable....you do realize that you are the only that takes you seriously?

Siegelman was railroaded into jail for making arrangements for casino operations. This was considered normal business and was widely done by Republicans, though none were prosecuted for it. I mean you aren't really trying to deny this happened in the same scenario that caused the contempt citations that were ignored as well as Rove's departure, Gonzalez' etc?

To say all presidents have the discretion to replace attorney generals is to ignore that no president ever reworked the positions to such a degree in mid-term, nor did any president take such dishonest action by making false claims of bad performance while the real reason was either failure to prosecute democrats or failure to back-off republicans. Please, you aren't trying to pose Bush a model president as far as ethics?

Of course Bush is going to claim the torture saved lives, but remember this is the same president who claimed there were WMD's posing a serious threat. If you look at the current situation the enemy has killed many many people with their usual means. Government itself admits Qaeda operates on a local basis that is hard to predict. So to claim torture is now necessary is foolish because, in the bigger picture, the lives are being lost anyway. What did they stop? A truck bomb? Suicide bombers? Meanwhile the cost of a few incidences stopped has been the destruction of America's credibility and the establishment of America as a hypocritical police state run by a rogue maniac of a president and his military black guard.

Waterboarding was used on more than 3 detainees. They're lying. These are the same people who said the innocent Canadian we tortured was lying. They are also the same people who destroyed subpoenaed evidence. If I did that I'd get 20 years. Of course, Amazed says no one takes me seriously so that's OK. Amazed isn't a well person. Amazed would be a very capable Nazi.

Let's not forget the captives who were blugeoned to death or suffocated in sleeping bags etc. Or the innocent people who were in Guantanamo with no chance of defense who were tortured. There's a long list.


I appreciate your repsonses Amazed. They are so brutish and callous as well as dishonest and distorted that they serve as a great amplifier and example of what I am saying. You serve as a great example of a right wing nutcase. I also thank you for answering in the ad hominem to my Constitutional point. You've pretty much won the argument when you can get people to do that.

Above is a good example of how the government bullshits around its own hypocrisy and criminality in this country.

Flight 800's shootdown was illegally and criminally covered-up by our government which stood outside and above the omniscient "rule of law" Wilczek so faithfully cites.

So when he said that all people in this country were equal before the rule of law he was saying something that wasn't true or accurate, as his response so clearly illustrates.

“If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble,… “the law is a ass - a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience - by experience.”

- Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist, Chapter 51 (1838)
. . .

I think the above post underscores the difficulty in dealing with the problems of society as a monolithic institution. The law, which defines our rights, does not exist in a vacuum, but only within the framework of established social order. Society is a dynamic structure; but at the same time it represents man’s resistence to change. In this, one must be mindful that the progress of every civilization has been a constant struggle to bring stability to an uncertain world. The invention of banking and credit brought standards of reliance and accountability in trade and commerce; while government and laws based on precedent provided some predictability in applying the rules of social intercourse; and established religion perpetuated the myth of the triumph of good over evil. The law is but one form of social expression that exists as an integrated system; one cannot abstract it from the established social order. It is self-reflective, i.e, it is a reflection of societal values. Is the law always fair, or just? No. Is the law, as Mr. Bumble says in Oliver Twist, “a ass - a idiot” (is it blind to experience that men use it to their own perverse ends)? Yes. But that merely begs the question; for to say that the law is bad is to say that the society it serves is bad, and, ultimately, that man is bad. As with any man-made institution, the law comes cap-a-pie with all the faults and failings of human nature. Would you change things, you must change man; and human nature being what it is, that is not likely to happen.

[quote=Jetblast;401282]Siegelman was railroaded into jail for making arrangements for casino operations. This was considered normal business and was widely done by Republicans, though none were prosecuted for it. I mean you aren't really trying to deny this happened in the same scenario that caused the contempt citations that were ignored as well as Rove's departure, Gonzalez' etc?

What you neglect to say is that are basically non-binding. You have Dem Majority playing politics with their "power"....and you want everyone to believe that what they are doing actually matters.

White House press secretary Dana Perino said the Justice Department would refuse to convene a grand jury if either the full House or the full Senate approved the contempt citations; that would leave Democrats unable to force the question of the limits of executive privilege into the federal courts.

"The constitutional prerogatives of the president would make it a futile effort for Congress to refer contempt citations," Perino said.

Rove, Bolten Found in Contempt of Congress - washingtonpost.com

To say all presidents have the discretion to replace attorney generals is to ignore that no president ever reworked the positions to such a degree in mid-term, nor did any president take such dishonest action by making false claims of bad performance while the real reason was either failure to prosecute democrats or failure to back-off republicans. Please, you aren't trying to pose Bush a model president as far as ethics?

No, to say it is the truth. What difference does it make if nobody else ever did it? It in no way detracts from the truth that it is within the scope of his Authority, which as you can see, you just admitted.

Of course Bush is going to claim the torture saved lives, but remember this is the same president who claimed there were WMD's posing a serious threat. If you look at the current situation the enemy has killed many many people with their usual means. Government itself admits Qaeda operates on a local basis that is hard to predict. So to claim torture is now necessary is foolish because, in the bigger picture, the lives are being lost anyway. What did they stop? A truck bomb? Suicide bombers? Meanwhile the cost of a few incidences stopped has been the destruction of America's credibility and the establishment of America as a hypocritical police state run by a rogue maniac of a president and his military black guard.

As did Bill Clitnon, you do know that don't you?

Kerry....

""[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998 "

Albright....

""Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998"

Wesley Clark, you are fond of quoting him....

""There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002 "

Bill Clinton...

""The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998"

Hillary Clinton....

""In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002"

snopes.com: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes

So you see, your precious Dems were saying it before Bush took Office. This is called "checkmate". You should really get off the WND thjing, you are getting your ass kicked.


Waterboarding was used on more than 3 detainees. They're lying. These are the same people who said the innocent Canadian we tortured was lying. They are also the same people who destroyed subpoenaed evidence. If I did that I'd get 20 years. Of course, Amazed says no one takes me seriously so that's OK. Amazed isn't a well person. Amazed would be a very capable Nazi.

Here is another Liberal attempt to marginalize with "Nazi" comparisons.Now, you need to PROVE it was used on more than 3....Jurisprudence would demand that you prove your accusations Gotta be careful, I have a good memory. Once again, you get cornered and you attack me personally...you marginalize yourself with this tactic.

[B} Let's not forget the captives who were blugeoned to death or suffocated in sleeping bags etc. Or the innocent people who were in Guantanamo with no chance of defense who were tortured. There's a long list.[/b]

Really? Once again, you make references to events that evidently only you know about...a quick Google of your phrase turns up nothing. Which of course makes you a liar. But..I already knew that.


I appreciate your repsonses Amazed. They are so brutish and callous as well as dishonest and distorted that they serve as a great amplifier and example of what I am saying. You serve as a great example of a right wing nutcase. I also thank you for answering in the ad hominem to my Constitutional point. You've pretty much won the argument when you can get people to do that.

Translation:" I am Jet, I am a legend in my own mind".

I find it humorous have to convince themselves how intelligent they believe themselves to be, and they always try it at the expense of someone they dislike....you've yet to win an argument....you have two tactics:

1) Ignore Actual facts
2) Attack Personally.

That's it, that's all you've got.

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

Barack Obama's 2002 Speech (Lessig Blog)

We can add Barack to the list of those who "knew" saddam had weapons...ooooppppsssss.

[quote=Jetblast;401282]

Of course Bush is going to claim the torture saved lives, but remember this is the same president who claimed there were WMD's posing a serious threat. If you look at the current situation the enemy has killed many many people with their usual means. Government itself admits Qaeda operates on a local basis that is hard to predict. So to claim torture is now necessary is foolish because, in the bigger picture, the lives are being lost anyway. What did they stop? A truck bomb? Suicide bombers? Meanwhile the cost of a few incidences stopped has been the destruction of America's credibility and the establishment of America as a hypocritical police state run by a rogue maniac of a president and his military black guard.


Are we the only country that uses torture? You're saying that we should trade American lives for a "Mr. Nice Guy" title. A title no one would bestow upon us anyway, right now.
"In the bigger picture"...can you honestly disagree that more of our troops would have died if it were not for intelligence from torture?
You say it does not make any difference in the long run...well to whom...those families whose men live because of that torture?
War is war and you need to commit totally to win. We have grown soft with thinking like yours.

Again Amazed I thank you for your responses. They are so in contempt of the truth and make such great effort to avoid the point of what is being said that they do nothing else but serve my purpose in great emphasis.

Your problem, that you try to ignore in broad daylight, is that Bush backed off of his attorney general finagling and fired several key administration members because of this scandal. So while you make those egregiously disingenuous excuses you fail to account for Bush's own action in response. If what you said were true Bush would have insisted on his rights and continued. You will probably respond with one of your typical evasive non-answers like "because Bush stopped doesn't prove anything" but you are like the court defendent caught red-handed who still sticks to his excuse even though everyone realizes his pathetic guilt. The court attendees roll their eyes and the bailiff's come an escort the poor man away while he is still insisting on his story.

What else has Bush done with his "Authority"?


Don't you understand that quoting others on the WMD claim is like the juvenile schoolboy making excuses and trying to blame others? Like most of what you write, it isn't working. Bush was the instigator and main agent in the WMD scandal. There are many many quotes from CIA, government, and other officials questioning the WMD claim. There's no doubt Bush lied, hid opposing information, and committed a war crime to act on the Plan For A New American Century with 9-11 as the excuse he was all too happy about. These people LOVE 9-11 because it allowed them to take authoritarian power. Just like the Nazis. But you meticulously avoided the point I was making by diverting to the prescripted WMD excuse. The truth is torture is incredibly destructive to our system of government, wasn't necessary, and is responsible for a drop in world opinion of America as well as the installation and forced acceptance of a new darker, hypocritical government in America. People reading this know why you dodged that.

Only a fool would be drawn into your dishonest form of debate. Your tactic is to try to frame the argument into just exactly how many people were waterboarded in order to reduce the entire issue to that one contrived device. It isn't working Amazed. People should tell you. It might work on Fox News were manipulators control the presentation, but you are out here in reality where you have to account for your own dirty tactics.

You really tripped up badly with the suffocation and bludgeoning challenges of my information. I warned you about doubting my facts. An Iraqi general was tortured and suffocated in a sleeping bag by our freedom-loving troops following their "enhanced interrogation techniques" guidelines. A captive was bludgeoned to death in the head in Afghanistan. It just shows the superficiality of your arguments and methods and how impervious you are to truth. What really exposes you, though, is how you have an outrageous excuse for everything and never admit to any wrongdoing. That's known as "psychopathic" if you would like to Google it...


It's obvious to any honest person that Bush's saying "We needed to remove Saddam anyway and Iraq is better off without him" is the same as saying "We lied about the WMD's". If you want to force lies then reality says you are a bad person and a bad American. It's one of those basic "You can fool some of the people some of the time" things ya know. It's hard to argue with people who are comfortable in a hypocritical fascist police state.

Awesome generalization. You must be very intelligent.