A step in the direction of justice for post-9/11 abuses

[Sgt Toomey]

You got it. Not satire as in "satyr" ... that was just one of Toomey's puns.

I note I made a mistake in my previous post. Ashcroft did not claim "diplomatic immunity" but two kinds of immunity? Absolute and qualified immunity?

I suspect that those are legal terms, and don't just mean "because I can, and because it was my job."

Interestingly enough, the immunities are intended to protect officials in their capacity to do their job, so they aren't paralyzed by fear of reprisal.

"Because I can, and because it was my job" isn't necessarily all that far from what Ashcroft would like to claim.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

Are you not even a patriot?

No patriot would defend the actions of the last administration in regards to domestic policy. While invading Iraq is debatable (in another thread), Bush and his cronies used the Constitution as toilet paper at every possible chance.

I hope this gets pushed all the way. I hope it extends all the way up and all the way through the Bush administration. I wan't to see Cheney in an orange jumpsuit.

[Tekania]

Idiocy.

Hopefully the Supreme Court will take the opportunity once again to punch the 9th Circuit in the face.

Hands off our intelligence agents and agencies! No persecutions of Bush administration members!

http://www.iwillnotconvict.com

Absolutely. Some people are just above the law, and people who act in secret should be first among them.

The oath to protect the Constitution doesn't mean you have to always abide by every little thing it says.

Well, they had to take away peoples rights, because their goal was to protect rights... And if you keep all the rights locked up in nice little boxes, it keeps the low-life citizenry from damaging them through being handled... :nods:

[EternalNight]

If you want to crucify the Bush admin people, then go ahead. Nothing will probably stop that at this time. All I say is the field agents at the intel agencies should not be prosecuted.

Do people want intelligence agents having to think "Will I get crucified for political or moral reasons 4+ years down the pipe, for doing something t hat is currently legal?"

[OMGeverynameistaken]

If you want to crucify the Bush admin people, then go ahead. Nothing will probably stop that at this time. All I say is the field agents at the intel agencies should not be prosecuted.

Do people want intelligence agents having to think "Will I get crucified for political or moral reasons 4+ years down the pipe, for doing something t hat is currently legal?"

Except much of it wasn't legal, or was of debatable legality.

Maybe more government employees should think "Will I get crucified +4 years down the road for doing something immoral and possibly illegal?" I imagine we'd live in a better world.

[EternalNight]

If you want to crucify the Bush admin people, then go ahead. Nothing will probably stop that at this time. All I say is the field agents at the intel agencies should not be prosecuted.

Do people want intelligence agents having to think "Will I get crucified for political or moral reasons 4+ years down the pipe, for doing something t hat is currently legal?"

Except much of it wasn't legal, or was of debatable legality.

Maybe more government employees should think "Will I get crucified +4 years down the road for doing something immoral and possibly illegal?" I imagine we'd live in a better world.

Maybe a morally better world, but might also result in more civilian casualties on our side.

[Tekania]

If you want to crucify the Bush admin people, then go ahead. Nothing will probably stop that at this time. All I say is the field agents at the intel agencies should not be prosecuted.

Do people want intelligence agents having to think "Will I get crucified for political or moral reasons 4+ years down the pipe, for doing something t hat is currently legal?"

Legal isn't as simple as that's what the State Department told me to....

[EternalNight]

If you want to crucify the Bush admin people, then go ahead. Nothing will probably stop that at this time. All I say is the field agents at the intel agencies should not be prosecuted.

Do people want intelligence agents having to think "Will I get crucified for political or moral reasons 4+ years down the pipe, for doing something t hat is currently legal?"

Legal isn't as simple as that's what the State Department told me to....

Fine then, every single decision should then be analyzed as to the precise legal and moral implications and consequences. Fair enough.

[Tekania]

If you want to crucify the Bush admin people, then go ahead. Nothing will probably stop that at this time. All I say is the field agents at the intel agencies should not be prosecuted.

Do people want intelligence agents having to think "Will I get crucified for political or moral reasons 4+ years down the pipe, for doing something t hat is currently legal?"

Legal isn't as simple as that's what the State Department told me to....

Fine then, every single decision should then be analyzed as to the precise legal and moral implications and consequences. Fair enough.

Yep... Sounds correct. Anything less would be a violation of oath.

[EternalNight]

If you want to crucify the Bush admin people, then go ahead. Nothing will probably stop that at this time. All I say is the field agents at the intel agencies should not be prosecuted.

Do people want intelligence agents having to think "Will I get crucified for political or moral reasons 4+ years down the pipe, for doing something t hat is currently legal?"

Legal isn't as simple as that's what the State Department told me to....

Fine then, every single decision should then be analyzed as to the precise legal and moral implications and consequences. Fair enough.

Yep... Sounds correct. Anything less would be a violation of oath.

I just hope we do not pay too high a price in blood for taking that moral high ground.

[Tekania]

I just hope we do not pay too high a price in blood for taking that moral high ground.

And anything less would be far more destructive to our country than the actions of any foreign terrorist.

[The Tofu Islands]

I just hope we do not pay too high a price in blood for taking that moral high ground.

I would count becoming indistinguishable from the "monsters we fight" to be a pretty high price to pay. But that's just me...

[EternalNight]

I just hope we do not pay too high a price in blood for taking that moral high ground.

And anything less would be far more destructive to our country than the actions of any foreign terrorist.

Would that also include having a city vaporized by a nuke? I'm just curious as to what level you take your beliefs.

[Tekania]

Would that also include having a city vaporized by a nuke? I'm just curious as to what level you take your beliefs.

Yes, if a country cannot stand by its principles... The country was dead before the nuke detonated. So what is there to "protect"?

Our nations citizens have rights; some of which are clearly outlined in the first 10 amendments of our constitution... There is no excuse for any officer/agent of the government to act in such a way as to deprive someone of those rights, short of the passage of another amendment.

[EternalNight]

Would that also include having a city vaporized by a nuke? I'm just curious as to what level you take your beliefs.

Yes, if a country cannot stand by its principles... The country was dead before the nuke detonated. So what is there to "protect"?

Our nations citizens have rights; some of which are clearly outlined in the first 10 amendments of our constitution... There is no excuse for any officer/agent of the government to act in such a way as to deprive someone of those rights, short of the passage of another amendment.

On citizens I agree with you 100%. On non-citizens does the Constitution legally apply to them as well? I am not sure, but only a lawyer dealing in COnstitutional Law could really answer that I suppose.

Well, I do not take it to the same level as you do vis a vis the hypothetical nuke, but I do salute and respect you for your convictions.

[Fotonia]

From what I gather, Ashcroft, Cheney, and Bush should be forced into hard labor for exceeding their rights in the interest of protecting their country.

So when Bill Clinton issued a finding for the CIA to hunt down and kill Osama bin Laden, as Clinton himself admitted to on national television, in direct violation of US law, that was OK?

Just wondering what Amendment covers Double Standard.

[EternalNight]

From what I gather, Ashcroft, Cheney, and Bush should be forced into hard labor for exceeding their rights in the interest of protecting their country.

So when Bill Clinton issued a finding for the CIA to hunt down and kill Osama bin Laden, as Clinton himself admitted to on national television, in direct violation of US law, that was OK?

Just wondering what Amendment covers Double Standard.

Are you refering to the "no assassinating heads of state" law? Because well, he's not a head of state. Or that this was before the attacks, and so there was no legal reason to target him? If the latter I would tend to agree.

Post attack though, they should have assassinated bin laden, rather then go through this endless series of wars without end.

[Fotonia]

Considering the attacks took place after Clinton left office...

"I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since."
-- William Jefferson Clinton, Sept. 24, 2006


- Executive Order 11905, signed Feb. 18, 1976, by President Gerald Ford in response to the Church Committee. Section 5(g) of that order states "no employee of the United States government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination."

- Section 2-305 of Executive Order 12036, signed by President Jimmy Carter on Jan. 24, 1978, broadens the prohibition from "political assassination" to "assassination" generally.

- Executive Order 12333 -- signed by President Ronald Reagan on Dec. 4, 1981, specifies that assassination is against the law and contrary to U.S. policy.

- Section 2.11 of the order, labeled, "Prohibition on Assassination" says "no person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination." The next section (Section 2.12) states "no agency of the intelligence community shall participate in or request any person to undertake activities forbidden by this order."

[EternalNight]

Considering the attacks took place after Clinton left office...

"I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since."
-- William Jefferson Clinton, Sept. 24, 2006


- Executive Order 11905, signed Feb. 18, 1976, by President Gerald Ford in response to the Church Committee. Section 5(g) of that order states "no employee of the United States government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination."

- Section 2-305 of Executive Order 12036, signed by President Jimmy Carter on Jan. 24, 1978, broadens the prohibition from "political assassination" to "assassination" generally.

- Executive Order 12333 -- signed by President Ronald Reagan on Dec. 4, 1981, specifies that assassination is against the law and contrary to U.S. policy.

- Section 2.11 of the order, labeled, "Prohibition on Assassination" says "no person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination." The next section (Section 2.12) states "no agency of the intelligence community shall participate in or request any person to undertake activities forbidden by this order."

In that case Clinton should also be prosecuted, Of course I think we both know how likely that will be to happen. The double standard is alive and well in the USA, and so often seems to be partisan in nature. And I doubt any amendment could ever solve that problem.

[Fotonia]

How about this:

We put Slick Willie in an orange jumpsuit.
We put Dick Cheney in an orange jumpsuit.
We throw them into a cage and let them duke it out on Pay-Per-View.
Proceeds from PPV go towards the National Debt, which goes into the black for the first time since before the country was founded.

Everybody wins.

[Ashmoria]

In the case of Al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that former Attorney General John Ashcroft may be held liable for people who were wrongfully detained as material witnesses after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. In a harshly worded 91-page ruling handed down Friday, the 9th Circuit found that a man who was detained as a witness in a federal terrorism case can sue Ashcroft for allegedly violating his constitutional rights.

what are the chances that the supreme court will agree?

[Muravyets]

If you want to crucify the Bush admin people, then go ahead. Nothing will probably stop that at this time. All I say is the field agents at the intel agencies should not be prosecuted.

Do people want intelligence agents having to think "Will I get crucified for political or moral reasons 4+ years down the pipe, for doing something t hat is currently legal?"

Sorry, but even among the mob, the guy who ordered the hit gets the heaviest sentence, but the guy who pulled the trigger still goes to jail, too. And since these people acted not very differently from the mob, that rule of thumb applies.

I think what we want is for intelligence agents to not be psychopaths. I think what we would like them to be thinking is "I'll do the things that will get the most useful intel in the most efficient manner, not the things that would give John Wayne Gacy a hard-on but nothing else."

[Muravyets]

If you want to crucify the Bush admin people, then go ahead. Nothing will probably stop that at this time. All I say is the field agents at the intel agencies should not be prosecuted.

Do people want intelligence agents having to think "Will I get crucified for political or moral reasons 4+ years down the pipe, for doing something t hat is currently legal?"

Except much of it wasn't legal, or was of debatable legality.

Maybe more government employees should think "Will I get crucified +4 years down the road for doing something immoral and possibly illegal?" I imagine we'd live in a better world.

Or in other words, "Do I really want to commit this crime? I might get caught, you know."

[Muravyets]

I just hope we do not pay too high a price in blood for taking that moral high ground.

People who believe the law is a hindrance to life and society, not a protection of it, as you apparently do, are people who I want nowhere near my government, or my nation's military, or any other position of power, or, frankly, anywhere near me, physically. Because people like that are dangerous, and tend to be twitchy.

In other words, it is the attitude that you express that makes us less safe.

[Muravyets]

I just hope we do not pay too high a price in blood for taking that moral high ground.

And anything less would be far more destructive to our country than the actions of any foreign terrorist.

Would that also include having a city vaporized by a nuke? I'm just curious as to what level you take your beliefs.

You should try watching less "24".

See, this is what makes me say that people who think as you do are the greatest and most immediate threat the US (and just about any other country) faces today. YOU would disappear people off the streets out of fear of a fantasy. YOU would torture and maim people for years on end out of fear of a fantasy. People like you would (and did) prosecute wars, killing and maiming uncounted thousands of innocent civilians as well as over-using our military to the point of crippling it and putting the nation into what may turn out to be an endless debt, all out of fear of a fantasy. And YOU are right here among us, now. The terrorists you are so afraid of are few and far, but YOU are way too close for my comfort.