A Blog For All - Comments - Keep it civil
Isnt the whole point of being a leader is to $^%@$#^ lead???? What a dumb $%^%.
Edited By Siteowner
Go Hawk...props at MM. Now, if you can arrange a meeting with her!!!
For several specific laws and charges, go here: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonl...11/24/17048/
677
If being a leftist means upholding the Constitution expecting government to enforce the laws, then what does that say about those on the right?
Fitzgerald never found anyone to have violated FISA. No one but Armitage leaked the name, and even he wasn't prosecuted.
She was not a covert agent for purposes of FISA.
The only person indicted, let alone convicted for anything even tangentially related to Plame was Libby, who was caught in a perjury trap.
At the time the US went into Iraq, it was based on the best intel available at that time - and in hindsight it turned out to be incorrect. That's a policy problem, not a legal one. Sorry, thanks for playing.
Renditions are a policy began under Clinton, and there's nothing in federal law that prohibits it.
Detention of enemy combatants is not violative of the US Constitution because the Constitution does not apply. It applies to US citizens only.
The posting is nothing but a lame attempt at trying to get the Bush administration on policy differences - not actual violations of the law.
Thanks. If I could indulge you in another round 
Valarie Plames was a covert agent who's name was leaked. I suppose the evidence did not lead anywhere. Somehow Libby had trouble explaining how he learned about Plame's identity. It seems to be commonly believed it was in retaliation Joe Wilson's claims that contradicted the story coming from the White House. And that Libby's "obstruction of justice" has so far been successful.
The best intel at the time turns out to have indicated that war was unnecessary. There is a whole web site devoted to the story, with evidence, that the facts were "fixed" around a previously chosen conclusion. http://www.afterdowningstreet.org
Habeas Corpus exists as a judicial precedent long before the constitution and it applies to everyone. I understand the constitution to say that it still applies. I guess you could take Alberto Gonzales' side on this, but it was interesting watching people at the hearing squirm when he described it.
Renditions may have been done under Bill Clinton, I think I've heard that before and figure it is true. So Bill Clinton might be able to be a witness for why they should be used.
We need to have an impeachment trial now. It needs to be done before the Republicans lose any more seats in the Senate. The Democrats are using these charges to gain power and may be successful.
To me following the Constitution means enforcing it. It means first: telling the whole truth to the Congress. Decisions about going to war need to be made with all of the facts. Second: following the constitution means impeaching anyone in the executive branch that violates the public trust. It does NOT mean sitting on evidence of violations causing the deaths of thousands of our troops.
You continue to have it wrong about Plame. She was not a covert agent within the definition of FISA. Therefore, no law was broken on point. Fitzgerald couldn't find any criminal activity and needed something to justify his ongoing investigation, and Libby's poor recollection of events led to the perjury and obstruction charges and conviction. Had he simply stated he could not recall conversations with Russert and others, he too would have not been charged. As it is, it came down to whether you would believe Russert and other journalists whose own memories were less than perfect or Libby, and the jury found Libby guilty.
The Downing Street stuff revolves around the language of whether the intel was fixed - meaning rigged, as opposed to fixed - as in being determined. I believe it was the latter, and the anti-war types are fixated on the former, despite the fact that all the intel agencies around the world, and the Iraqis themselves were talking about how the Iraqis had WMD and maintained such capabilities.
Sorry, but there are no charges on which impeachment can proceed. Even the Democrats know this, which is why they've spike Kucinich's impeachment moves. The Constitution has not been violated, as much as you protest to the contrary - and habeas is a concept that does not apply to non Americans caught on the battlefield.
If that were the case, then every President who has gone to war is violative of habeas as they've not only captured and held prisoners without trial, but executed same.
In fact, in the current conflict, such prisoners have been entitled to judicial oversight in ways never before intended or provided by the Constitution. Access to the courts for enemy combatants is a troubling precedent that pushes the war into the judiciary, which has no role in warmaking or foreign policy, and yet, that's exactly where this is headed.
If you're truly concerned about Constitutionality, consider the separation of powers argument and that what you're inviting by your argument is nothing less than a two-pronged evisceration of the Executive's power as commander in chief and warfighting powers.
Commenting by HaloScan
