USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[sputnik monroe 102]

The left will cry and moan but they don't have a leg to stand on. Their boy Bill Clinton commuted over 60 sentences in his 8 years as president. This will be Bush's 6th commuted sentence. Yeah croneyism (<-sp) sucks, however you are either against all cronyism or you are a Biased hypocrite lap dog of the left/right (which ever one you swear fealty to).

 

 Personally I don't care. Democrats and Republicans, I file under the same catergory as Communist, Fascist, Feudalist and Socialist. You all suck, you bitch when the other faction's boy is a criminal but are alright with your boy when he's a criminal. It's not about equal recourse to the law, it's about your guys getting off and the others not.

 I don't like Bush he's a pussy and a retard. However it makes me sick how so many people are against him but were not against Clinton, are against republicans but are not against democrats. At least I'm equal across the board, I hate both sides. Why do you all swear fealty to the socialist or the Feudalist? There are alternatives to the two party system.

 Sheep.

 Good night.

(yes I'm in a bad mood)

[Balschoiw 0]

@Sputnik:

Bush has pardoned 113 people during his term up to now.

The only reason I see for Bush to commute and possibly pardon Libby is that he is afraid that once Libby goes to jail he will speak out about what really happened and who in the White House was behind all that lies and misleading of public in the runup of the iraq war. Thats what I think is the real deal behind all this.

Obviously they are afraid that someone who feels unrewarded by the G.W gang would finally speak fact when finding himself behind bars.

What will be next ?

A G.W. law for preemptive pardon for all of his fellows who were/are a part of his Criminal gang ?

At this point nothing can surprise me anymore.

[billybob2002 0]

Actually, Clinton pardoned 369 individuals and he granted clemency to 61 individuals. Clinton is behind a few presidents for granting pardons and clemencies. He isn't a record holder.

The X-Files theme should be playing now.

[shinRaiden 0]

Libby doesn't have to go to jail, but...

He has to pay a quarter million dollar fine (no big deal) and is branded a felon (no big deal according to Clinton administration standards) and has years of probation (if he get's made a scapegoat again the book gets thrown at him).

All this for saying "I'm not going to say".

Meanwhile, the individual who actually did the leaking, (Libby only confirmed what was previously leaked) Richard Armitige, is free to do whatever he pleases, since the prosecutor gave him immunity since he wasn't a politically suitable target.

The only people that care, and the only people it matters to, are those who shriek in horror at the vast unwashed hinterlands beyond the zombie containment wall known as the DC beltway.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Doesn't matter how many previous presidents pardoned. That just shows how f*cked up the american system is - and always have been. But I guess it's "the land of the free - if you are friends with the president".

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]All this for saying "I'm not going to say".

Actually he lied to a grand jury. That´s a bit different, isn´t it ?

Every US citizen called to be part of a Jury today knows that he should have the right to stay away as it doesn´t matter what they decide.

Quote[/b] ]The only people that care, and the only people it matters to, are those who shriek in horror at the vast unwashed hinterlands beyond the zombie containment wall known as the DC beltway.

Maybe those are aswell the people of the US who still believe in a justice and democracy system that doesn´t get raped by it´s government in regular intervals and who actually think that a sentence handed out in the name of the people of the US is worth more than a penny in the designer trousers of a criminal gang in the White House.

[billybob2002 0]

Doesn't matter how many previous presidents pardoned. That just shows how f*cked up the american system is - and always have been. But I guess it's "the land of the free - if you are friends with the president".

Most people who are granted pardons, commuted sentence, or given clemency are not friends with the President. However, their controversies. For example, Clinton pardoned over 100 people on his last day in office. Some were Puerto Rican terrorists and Marc Rich.

[USMC NEEDER 0]

Removing even the very basic rights of humans in front of a court is nothing that is internationally accepted and it is a shame that such initiatives are coming from a country that does not hesitate to promote it´s way of living as a high value example of

democracy and tries to promote and spread that system among others.

I´m glad that finally the courts returned to some international standards, the White House under Bush has turned away from them so deeply that it´s almost criminal.

Talking about criminal, you might want to add Obama's 15 years of cocaine use.

[Balschoiw 0]

And that has what to do with what I posted ?

Apart from that G.W also has quite a record on drugs, no ?

Quote[/b] ]Obama's 15 years of cocaine use

15 years ? Source pls.

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

Quote[/b] ]All this for saying "I'm not going to say".

Actually he lied to a grand jury. That´s a bit different, isn´t it ?

Every US citizen called to be part of a Jury today knows that he should have the right to stay away as it doesn´t matter what they decide.

Quote[/b] ]The only people that care, and the only people it matters to, are those who shriek in horror at the vast unwashed hinterlands beyond the zombie containment wall known as the DC beltway.

Maybe those are aswell the people of the US who still believe in a justice and democracy system that doesn´t get raped by it´s government in regular intervals and who actually think that a sentence handed out in the name of the people of the US is worth more than a penny in the designer trousers of a criminal gang in the White House.

Let's keep the facts accurate.  He was NOT convicted of "lying" to the grand jury, and he did not state "I do not recall."

In fact, if he had stated "I don't remember," they would have never been able to prosecute him. And he could have played dumb and claimed to forget without punishment. Instead he answered the questions.

His conviction was for "lying" or "giving false information" to an investigator.

Let's be real.  The Special Prosecutor had already established that no punishable crime had taken place in the leak.  So he went after Libby for "lying" about an unpunishable crime.

The reason Libby was convicted was because his testimony conflicted with that of someone in the press.

Libby cliamed he had learned that Plaim was employed by the CIA from a certain member of the press.  That person said he had not informed him of that fact.  The Special Prosecutor convinced the Grand Jury that it was the reporter that was telling the truth, and Libby got the book thrown at him.

In other words Libby was convicted of "lying" about something that could not even be legaly established as a crime, nor was something he could even be implimented as being a part of.

I'm no fan of the Bushy Administration, but such which hunts set a dangerous precedent that continues today with other members of the administration.  It will probably just get worse if we get a president from the other party and retribution is saught.

[Gisen 0]

Just because there are legal loopholes for the cronies of a president does not mean that it's OK to act immorally. Your post makes it seem like any act is OK as long as it isn't illegal. Maybe for you, but ethics shouldn't work that way.

[chops 111]

Sadly, the only man who could've brought order to this den of thieves has passed away...

R.I.P

Saddam Hussein.

[Major Fubar 0]

No offense intended to anyone, but we are getting waaay too many new political threads started here lately.

Please use one of these existing threads wherever possible:

USA Politics thread

European Politics thread

International Politics thread

The Iraq thread 4

War Against Terror thread

Thank you.

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

No need for the "well duh..." comments. I found this interesting more because of who is stating it then just what is being said.

ARTICLE: Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil

[Sertorius 0]

Apart from that G.W also has quite a record on drugs, no ?

Yep, lots of Colombian Bam-Bam (Not to mention that he drank gallons of bourbon). Remember, it's OK when your guy has been a drunken, drug-addled womanizer, but it's not OK when their guy has such a history .

[Jack-UK 0]

Woohoo just found this thread

This will help me in my Politics course for this year (studying US politics and comparative US/UK politics )

[baddo 0]

Uhuhuhuh, Bush says Nelson Mandela is dead?

What is he on?

I think he might have a... how do you say in English... a speaking/thinking disability of some sort, which makes him unable to construct sentences the way he actually means them.

I've seen it happen with some other people (educated people) and maybe GWB has the same problem too.

Either that, or something else...

[Balschoiw 0]

Maybe he got a mistaken radio transmission into his in-ear-guidance system implanted by Cheney ? Or maybe an effect of his cocain abuse ? Or a sideeffect of his alcoholism ? Or maybe he´s just stupid.

Maybe the US are about to finish off Mandela and he tooted the press message just one tad too early.

Other news:

Cheney mulled luring Iran into war with Israel: report

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Vice President Richard Cheney has considered provoking an exchange of military strikes between Iran and Israel in order to give the United States a pretext to attack Iran, Newsweek magazine reported in its Monday issue.

But the weekly said the steady departure of neoconservatives from the administration over the past two years had helped tilt the balance away from war.

One official who pushed a particularly hawkish line on Iran was David Wurmser, who had served since 2003 as Cheney's Middle East adviser, the report said.

A spokeswoman at Cheney's office confirmed to Newsweek that Wurmser left his position last month to "spend more time with his family."

A few months before he quit, Wurmser told a small group of people that Cheney had been mulling the idea of pushing for limited Israeli missile strikes against the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz -- and perhaps other sites -- in order to provoke Tehran into lashing out, the magazine reported, citing two unnamed "knowledgeable sources."

The Iranian reaction would then give Washington a pretext to launch strikes against military and nuclear targets in Iran, Newsweek reported.

When Newsweek attempted to reach Wurmser for comment, his wife, Meyrav, declined to put him on the phone and said the allegations were untrue, the report said.

A spokeswoman at Cheney's office told the weekly the vice president "supports the president's policy on Iran."

Anyone surprised ?

These criminals are more dangerous than anyone else. This is what I call warmongering and state - terrorism at it´s best. They should be held accountable and hung like Saddam. They are not better in any way.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

They should be held accountable and hung like Saddam.

Are there still hangings in the U.S.? I thought there were only poison injections and the electric chair?

[chops 111]

Fucking Nazi scum. Bush, Cheney etc, should be put on a flight to Iraq and left in the middle of Falluja, see how much their work is appreciated.

It makes you wonder exactly who won the second world war? Now Germans just chill out at home, while Yankee Doodle has marched across the globe laying waste to all in it's ignorant path. They seem flat out trying to justify September 11th.

[baddo 0]

It is clear that some people should really be put into a court of law to explain what exactly have they been doing with the political power given to them. It's not for me, but for the American people. They are the ones who eventually suffer the most from what their leaders do, I think. USA is a great country and are they going to let a couple of "rule the whole World" ideologists ruin it all is a question which every American should ask themshelves.

It doesn't take much to say that eventually a total disaster will come to the Americans if they don't start to restrain themshelves from sticking their nose into everything, and pretend like others are always "the bad guys".

I'd rather not see such disasters, it's going to hurt so many people that it would better not go that far. I hope the American people can control their country well-enough to avoid a total disaster coming as a result of their foreign politics. With the foreign politics you have been doing after WW II and especially under GWB administration, you are in my opinion going towards a disaster and I hope for the sake of everyone that you can turn your boat before it's too late.

I said "foreign politics after WW II" because for example you have been building the situation in the Middle East to what it is today for decades now, so it's not just what GWB and his administration have done.

One thing which has crossed my mind. Why this nation goes into a war so eagerly? Is it partly because the big wars have always been far from their homes? It's different in Europe. The big wars were so close to our homes, or even right at them. Many families here can tell stories about how they had to leave their homes, and how they lost everything they had because someone stupid and crazy enough decided to start a war. For an American family a war can mean that they will send a son to fight, and might not see him again. That's what we have here too. But we've had here too the fact that the wars have been fought right here. Doesn't that make humans understand better what a war really is and do you want it. Is it really an appropriate tool to accomplish your political goals. Is the price acceptable.

[billybob2002 0]

So, did anybody actually tried to find the Newsweek article that the AFP news piece mentions? The article deals more with Israel and Iran. In fact, the articles tries to strain the fact that the United States is going for a diplomatic solution more so than going to war.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20920341/site/newsweek/page/0/

[Sertorius 0]

One thing which has crossed my mind. Why this nation goes into a war so eagerly? Is it partly because the big wars have always been far from their homes? It's different in Europe. The big wars were so close to our homes, or even right at them. Many families here can tell stories about how they had to leave their homes, and how they lost everything they had because someone stupid and crazy enough decided to start a war. For an American family a war can mean that they will send a son to fight, and might not see him again. That's what we have here too. But we've had here too the fact that the wars have been fought right here. Doesn't that make humans understand better what a war really is and do you want it. Is it really an appropriate tool to accomplish your political goals. Is the price acceptable.

I'd been thinking the same thing. Really, the Civil War is the only war that's taken place on American soil where the local results could be seen as cataclysmic. Still, even that war did not result in the "lost generations" of the World Wars.

Also, due to our national military power, we can indulge in foreign adventures without fear of being driven back and invaded ourselves. Even if the Iraqi resistance succeeds in driving the US out of Iraq, it's not like they'd then hop on freighters and stage an invasion of New York. We don't have to worry about blowback, so there's none of the fear that our actions will have any consequences worse than national embarrassment.

Quote[/b] ]Are there still hangings in the U.S.? I thought there were only poison injections and the electric chair?

AFAIK, they're only done in a few states and prisoners have the option of more modern execution methods.

Quote[/b] ]Maybe he got a mistaken radio transmission into his in-ear-guidance system implanted by Cheney ? Or maybe an effect of his cocain abuse ? Or a sideeffect of his alcoholism ? Or maybe he´s just stupid.

Maybe the US are about to finish off Mandela and he tooted the press message just one tad too early.

Well, Mandela did participate in guerrilla activities at one point during his life, so that could be enough for Bush to label him a terrorist.

[Akira 0]

I'm really interested to see what mr. Pinapple McPresident is gonna do if the Mynamar junta start gunning down civilians and Buddhist monks who are peacefully demonstrating?

Nothing like every other administration.

[baddo 0]

Quite interesting...

Carter says U.S. tortures prisoners

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/10/carter.torture/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States tortures prisoners in violation of international law, former President Carter said Wednesday.

"I don't think it. I know it," Carter told CNN's Wolf Blitzer.

"Our country for the first time in my life time has abandoned the basic principle of human rights," Carter said. "We've said that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to those people in Abu Ghraib prison and Guantanamo, and we've said we can torture prisoners and deprive them of an accusation of a crime to which they are accused."

Carter also said President Bush creates his own definition of human rights.

Carter's comments come on the heels of an October 4 article in The New York Times disclosing the existence of secret Justice Department memorandums supporting the use of "harsh interrogation techniques." These include "head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures," according to the Times.

The White House last week confirmed the existence of the documents but would not make them public.

Responding to the newspaper report Friday, Bush defended the techniques used, saying, "This government does not torture people."

Asked about Bush's comments, Carter said, "That's not an accurate statement if you use the international norms of torture as has always been honored -- certainly in the last 60 years since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was promulgated.

"But you can make your own definition of human rights and say we don't violate them, and you can make your own definition of torture and say we don't violate them."

After reading a transcript of Carter's remarks, a senior White House official said, "Our position is clear. We don't torture."

The official said, "It's just sad to hear a former president speak like that."

Carter also criticized some of the 2008 Republican presidential candidates, calling former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani "foolish" for his contention the United States should be open to use force on Iran.

"I hope that he doesn't become president and try to impose his conviction that we need to go to war with Iran," Carter said.

CNN was attempting to get a response from the Giuliani campaign.

The former president didn't spare the rest of the GOP field either.

"They all seem to be outdoing each other in who wants to go to war first with Iran, who wants to keep Guantanamo open longer and expand its capacity -- things of that kind," Carter said.

"They're competing with each other to appeal to the ultra-right-wing, war-mongering element in our country, which I think is the minority of our total population."

Carter declined to say which Republican candidate he feared the most.

"If I condemn one of them, it might escalate him to the top position in the Republican ranks," he said.

Democratic Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois also drew Carter's criticism for refusing recently to pledge to withdraw all troops from Iraq by the end of their first terms if they win the presidency in 2008.

"I disagree with their basic premise that we'll still be there; I think the American people want out," Carter said. "If there is an unforeseen development where Iraqi people request American presence over a period of time I think that would possibly be acceptable, but that's not my personal preference."

Related articles:

Bush: 'This government does not torture'

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/05/bush.torture/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Friday defended his administration's methods of interrogating terrorism suspects, insisting, "This government does not torture people."

"When we find somebody who may have information regarding a potential attack on America, you bet we're going to detain them and you bet we're going to question them, because the American people expect us to find out information, actionable intelligence, so we can help them -- help protect them," Bush said.

Bush said his administration sticks to "U.S. law and our international obligations."

He said, "The techniques that we use have been fully disclosed to appropriate members of the United States Congress."

Bush's remarks followed a report Thursday in The New York Times that said a secret Justice Department memo in 2005 amounted to "an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency."

The 2005 legal opinion was issued after then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales took over Justice, the Times reported, and authorized using a combination of techniques such as head slaps, freezing temperatures and simulated drownings, known as waterboarding.

The Times said the memo was strongly opposed by then-departing Deputy Attorney General James Comey, who had repeatedly clashed with the Bush White House over terror-related policies.

The Times said its investigation over three months had included interviews with more than two dozen current and former officials.

On Thursday, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino confirmed the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel wrote a previously undisclosed February 5, 2005 memo, but she insisted the classified document did not undercut or reverse a 2004 memo that rejected torture.

"U.S. policy is not to torture -- and we do not," Perino told reporters. "Regardless of where we are, we do not torture anybody, but getting information from them is critically important to protecting this country."

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse issued a statement declaring the December 2004 anti-torture memo remains binding on the executive branch.

"Neither Attorney General [Alberto] Gonzales nor anyone else within the department modified or withdrew that opinion," Roehrkasse said.

CIA spokesman George Little issued a statement saying all interrogations are conducted "in strict accord with U.S. law."

"The agency's terrorist detention and interrogation program has been conducted lawfully, with great care and close review, including extensive discussion within the executive branch and oversight from Congress," Little said.

On Capitol Hill, Democratic lawmakers sharply criticized the Bush administration.

"It appears that under Attorney General Gonzales, they reversed themselves and reinstated a secret regime by, in essence, reinterpreting the law in secret," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont.

"I suspect that former Deputy Attorney General Comey will again prove to be right in his prediction that the Department of Justice will be ashamed when we learn more about all that they have done," Leahy said.

Leahy, who heads the Senate Judiciary Committee, warned that the "ongoing scandals" at the Justice Department "now encumber" the nomination of retired federal judge Michael Mukasey, selected to replace Gonzales as attorney general.

Debate rages over secret Justice memo on torture

http://edition.cnn.com/2007....ex.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House and Justice Department on Thursday strongly denied a published report that a secret Justice Department opinion in 2005 allowed the torture of terror detainees, months after the government publicly renounced it.

White House press secretary Dana Perino confirmed the existence of a previously undisclosed February 5, 2005, memo by the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel which addressed "specific applications" of the earlier memo.

But Perino insisted the classified document did not undercut or reverse the public December 2004 memo, which rejected the use of torture in prisoner interrogations as "abhorrent."

"U.S. policy is not to torture -- and we do not," Perino told reporters.

"Regardless of where we are, we do not torture anybody, but getting information from them is critically important to protecting this country," she said.

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse issued a statement declaring the December 2004 anti-torture memo remains binding on the executive branch.

"Neither Attorney General [Alberto] Gonzales nor anyone else within the Department modified or withdrew that opinion," Roehrkasse said.

"Any advice that the department would have provided in this area would rely upon and be fully consistent with the legal standards articulated in the December 2004 memorandum," he said.

CIA spokesman George Little issued a statement saying all interrogations are conducted "in strict accord with U.S. law."

"The agency's terrorist detention and interrogation program has been conducted lawfully, with great care and close review, including extensive discussion within the executive branch and oversight from Congress," Little said.

"The CIA does not -- despite all the myth and misinformation out there -- comment on specific interrogation methods. Those serious misimpressions are the costs we pay to deny al Qaeda knowledge of the tactics used so effectively against its operatives," Little said.

The flurry of government statements followed the publication Thursday of a New York Times article which said the 2005 memo amounted to "an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency."

The Times said the memo was strongly opposed by then-departing Deputy Attorney General James Comey, who had repeatedly clashed with the Bush White House over terror-related policies.

The Times said its investigation over three months had included interviews with more than two dozen current and former officials.

On Capitol Hill, Democratic lawmakers seized upon the report to sharply criticize the Bush administration.

"It appears that under Attorney General Gonzales they reversed themselves and reinstated a secret regime by, in essence, reinterpreting the law in secret," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont.

"I suspect that former Deputy Attorney General Comey will again prove to be right in his prediction that the Department of Justice will be ashamed when we learn more about all that they have done," Leahy said.

Leahy, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, warned that the "ongoing scandals" at the Justice Department "now encumber" the nomination of retired federal judge Michael Mukasey, selected to replace Gonzales as attorney general.

I've been thinking about these kinds of things about the USA for a long time. The little bits of information I get through media does not help in believing that the USA represents the values of freedom and democracy. A small group of people controls the nation as they want, and it seems no one can do anything about it. For example, if you have a problem getting some law approved, simply remove the people who are opposing your opinions with the kind of people who favour your opinion, and voila. Democracy?

Worrying is also that some of the new Presidential candidates are singing the same old songs, which, to be honest with you, is not what we need. What the World needs from the USA is a major change in politics, and that is not going to happen by people who want to keep the things started by The Bush Administration going, and even start new disasters on top of the old ones.

As my influence on the US politics is limited to say the least, I hope the people of the USA are paying attention and start caring more about their nation and about the values it has advertized to be its most precious ones.