Thread: Just when you thought Bush couldn't surprise you...

Ok... I'll make an effort...

> too many people are willing to let Mr. Libby fry and rot because they just don't give a care

Naturally you don't match in kind your worry for the Plame's couple. Understandable considering your obvious position on this matter.

> Would you prefer to debate a weak-minded opponent who is unsure of his present position?

Of course! You said so yourself... where is it?... ah! here... "More often than not, I debate to change the mind of the people who are ignorant of the issues but watching said debate."

> You can better tell if your position can withstand scrutiny, when dealing with a knowledgable and able adversary, though I do not claim to be one.

If you don't claim to be one, why the adjectives on your initial post? I'm confused.

> But such is life.

Life is thankfully a lot more, at least to me than debating passionately about some person I don't know in a country not my own. But I'll do you the effort and tell you what I think (dispassionately)

First a disclaimer: I'm not American. I was once called one. Or rather said to look like an American. I did take great offense at the time since I was spending my vacations in a trailer park. I'm an European, Portuguese to be more exact.

And that is my bias. You see... at least over here the system is a lot different. A president or a prime-minister commenting on a judge decision would see him out the door next elections. The separation between the judicial and executive power is very dear to the society in general.

Naturally there are presidential pardons just like over there. But these are a lot more complicated than simply the president deciding this person or that person should be pardoned. It happens once an year, by christmas time if memory serves me right.

It is however impossible for a president to pardon someone from the executive. It's like a contest; everyone can buy the raffles, except for the employees.

So... anyways... Mr Libby faced trial. He had an opportunity to defend himself which he did as you and I (yes, there was coverage over here) know. He was convicted of perjury. And not you, or I or Bush can change that. It's all fine you say there was no crime. But then go the extra mile if you please and condemn not only the left wing but also the entire American judicial system. Oh and Bush too. Since nowhere he says Libby didn't commit perjury. Unless you are saying perjury is not a crime.

And what happens next? The president pushes the judicial system aside and declares he knows better and the sentence was too harsh. Naturally, things can't be that different over there than they are here. And thinks like appeals, higher instance courts and even the Supreme court happen to exist in America, don't they? Don't answer.

So... in the end, a President overpowered the judicial system and took matters on his own hands. On some obscure African country we would call this ... But in America you say he did the right thing.

I hate politics.All polliticians are liers and ..............s.That all from me on this thread.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

So... anyways... Mr Libby faced trial. He had an opportunity to defend himself which he did as you and I (yes, there was coverage over here) know. He was convicted of perjury. And not you, or I or Bush can change that. It's all fine you say there was no crime. But then go the extra mile if you please and condemn not only the left wing but also the entire American judicial system. Oh and Bush too. Since nowhere he says Libby didn't commit perjury. Unless you are saying perjury is not a crime.

Obstructing justice in the prosecution of a non-crime? Lying under oath in testimony related to the prosecution of a non-crime?

Stalin, among others, had show trials too. Those folks had an opportunity to 'defend' themselves.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

Ok... I'll make an effort...

Much obliged.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

> too many people are willing to let Mr. Libby fry and rot because they just don't give a care

Naturally you don't match in kind your worry for the Plame's couple. Understandable considering your obvious position on this matter.

Why should I feel sorry for Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson?

It was Plame that moved to get her husband into Africa, and Wilson that threw his hat into the political arena by writing an article blasting the administration for the trip he took. Everyone wanted to know who the @#$# Joe Wilson was, writing an article for a newspaper blasting the administration for some secret journey he took. Did he seriously not think that eventually people would connect him to his wife?

Originally Posted by Mario F.

> Would you prefer to debate a weak-minded opponent who is unsure of his present position?

Of course! You said so yourself... where is it?... ah! here... "More often than not, I debate to change the mind of the people who are ignorant of the issues but watching said debate."

I think you mistake my meaning. I prefer to have a real debate with people on issues where the folks who are watching the debate, not participating, may learn from it.

So, no, I did not say that.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

> You can better tell if your position can withstand scrutiny, when dealing with a knowledgable and able adversary, though I do not claim to be one.

If you don't claim to be one, why the adjectives on your initial post? I'm confused.

I don't know what you're referring to, but my comment was based upon the idea of how good can come from debating someone who is convinced he's right.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

> But such is life.

Life is thankfully a lot more, at least to me than debating passionately about some person I don't know in a country not my own. But I'll do you the effort and tell you what I think (dispassionately)

First a disclaimer: I'm not American. I was once called one. Or rather said to look like an American. I did take great offense at the time since I was spending my vacations in a trailer park. I'm an European, Portuguese to be more exact.

And that is my bias. You see... at least over here the system is a lot different. A president or a prime-minister commenting on a judge decision would see him out the door next elections. The separation between the judicial and executive power is very dear to the society in general.

Naturally there are presidential pardons just like over there. But these are a lot more complicated than simply the president deciding this person or that person should be pardoned. It happens once an year, by christmas time if memory serves me right.

It is however impossible for a president to pardon someone from the executive. It's like a contest; everyone can buy the raffles, except for the employees.

The US government was designed so each branch could keep an eye on another in some manner. The Legislative keeps a check on the Executive, which keeps a check on the Judicial, which keeps a check on the Legislative. That was the intent and design.

If your only problem with the case is the system of government that the United States has, that's not a major problem, but I hope Mr. Libby does not suffer your good opinion on that dislike alone.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

So... anyways... Mr Libby faced trial. He had an opportunity to defend himself which he did as you and I (yes, there was coverage over here) know. He was convicted of perjury. And not you, or I or Bush can change that. It's all fine you say there was no crime. But then go the extra mile if you please and condemn not only the left wing but also the entire American judicial system. Oh and Bush too. Since nowhere he says Libby didn't commit perjury. Unless you are saying perjury is not a crime.

As I said before, his ability to defend himself was hampered greatly by the judge in the case. He was not allowed to display a real defense. He couldn't even be allowed to mention who Novak's real leak was, if I remember correcting. He wasn't allowed to show that he had no real reason to lie.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

And what happens next? The president pushes the judicial system aside and declares he knows better and the sentence was too harsh. Naturally, things can't be that different over there than they are here. And thinks like appeals, higher instance courts and even the Supreme court happen to exist in America, don't they? Don't answer.

This has been going on for over 200 years. I hope you stated your objections during the other US pardons that have occurred in your lifetime.

In addition, you stated yourself that your own country has a process to receive a pardon, albeit more complicated.

Other countries have the same thing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon

I don't understand why in America the pardon process appears illegal in your eyes, but in other countries, such as your own, it's fine. If I'm misunderstanding you, please help me out.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

So... in the end, a President overpowered the judicial system and took matters on his own hands.

The Constitution of the United States grants this power, hence there is no "overpowering" that was not intended by the writers. The Constitution lays out the rules and allows this explicitly. The Executive Branch of government is supposed to keep an eye on the Judicial Branch. This is why it's the President of the United States that selects and appoints judges, and not Congress. Congress is meant to make sure the President doesn't go out of line, and the Supreme Court is meant to make sure Congress doesn't make any bad, inherently illegal laws.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

On some obscure African country we would call this ... But in America you say he did the right thing.

Please continue. I'd love to hear it.

Edit:

BTW, this is an excellent article on the subject (that actually Dave_Sinkula posted on page 2):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...030801499.html

This particular case is as disgusting to me as the Duke case, and the overeagerness of the prosecutor to find a crime is not too unstrikingly similar.

Originally Posted by Dave_Sinkula

Ron Paul?

The candidate of choice for David Duke AND Scientology! Awesome!

I shudder to ask what the choice of the left might be.

I haven't heard of any major democratic candidates that are endorsed by cults-masquerading-as-religions or major white supremacist leaders

Originally Posted by Govtcheez

I haven't heard of any major democratic candidates that are endorsed by cults-masquerading-as-religions or major white supremacist leaders

Wuss.

Originally Posted by Thantos

Have you been talking to the German government again?

Nope, talking from personal experience here

Originally Posted by anonytmouse

I haven't read all the posts but are you talking about that guy who got into trouble for exposing the super secret military space-plane, and then got pardoned by the president at the last minute? I saw a documentary about it.

Um... no.

I think you meant to say "I haven't read any of the posts or the article in the first post"

Originally Posted by Govtcheez

I haven't heard of any major democratic candidates that are endorsed by cults-masquerading-as-religions or major white supremacist leaders

Too bad Robert Byrd isn't a candidate. He was even anti-war on the grounds he would refuse to fight beside someone black. Tried to scuttle the Civil Rights Act of 1964.... Used the N word in 2001 in poor taste, and only in 1982 decided that parents love their children no matter their race. So apparently before that he didn't think blacks had feelings either, I guess, since apparently we know he didn't have any.

Yup.

Good candidate.

David Duke would be proud.