241–250 of 493 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hard to even pretend he did something wrong after this ruling. The government was proven to be acting illegally and likely also unconstitutionally, he had a moral imperative to alert the public.
Well, we can't forget that he also took a bunch of information that had nothing to do with this ruling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you prosecute people who were given permission by the relevant authorities? >The call-tracking effort began without court authorization under President George W. Bush following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. So the PotUS gave them the authority. >A similar program was approved by the secretive FISA Court beginning in 2006 and renewed numerous times, but the 9th Circuit panel said those rulings were…
The POTUS does not have any such lawful authority. And they knew he didn't.
>No, they never said that it was illegal. And Jack was always very careful in saying: "We're not saying what the government has done is illegal. We're just saying we can't find any legal basis for this." And there's a difference. There is a difference.
>I did it because I wanted to protect the president. That's why I signed that document. And I felt that there was a legal basis to sign that document. I thought it was necessary to provide that signature.
Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez explaining why he signed his name to an order that had no legal basis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The executive branch. Following orders or implementing a law that violates citizens right should come with criminal consequence. I don't care who found it unconstitutional, there should be criminal punishment after a court rules that a crime was committed. Of course either side can appeal all the way to the supreme court using any laws or precedent. But if the final verdict is that a government official violated a ci…
>Following orders or implementing a law that violates citizens right should come with criminal consequence. But we don't live in a world where things work like you think they should work. In this world, there was no crime, and a court opinion of some aspects of one kind of law does not lead to criminal indictment. That is a better world then the imaginary world that lives in your head. You do realize government is ru…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The executive branch. Following orders or implementing a law that violates citizens right should come with criminal consequence. I don't care who found it unconstitutional, there should be criminal punishment after a court rules that a crime was committed. Of course either side can appeal all the way to the supreme court using any laws or precedent. But if the final verdict is that a government official violated a ci…
Government officials do face charges when they commit crimes such as abuse of public office. A court decision on the interpretation of the Constitution is not a “ruling that a crime was committed.” Drawing on your doctor analogy, it’s more like new evidence showing that a particular treatment is not as safe as previously believed. It doesn’t necessarily follow that the doctor is criminally or civilly liable for provi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A reminder that a CIA officer who oversaw, ordered, and participated in systematic detainee torture, then wrote the order to destroy the evidential tapes of said torture, was not only not punished or prosecuted but promoted to the current Director of the agency. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_CIA_interrogation_videota... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Haspel
What happend with Gen. Keith Alexander?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A reminder that a CIA officer who oversaw, ordered, and participated in systematic detainee torture, then wrote the order to destroy the evidential tapes of said torture, was not only not punished or prosecuted but promoted to the current Director of the agency. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_CIA_interrogation_videota... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Haspel
Yeah but Gina had unanimous support by Democrats, Republicans, and the entire CIA to become the Director of the CIA. Let’s not forget that Obama re-signed the Patriot Act even after campaigning in 2008 to end it. This kind of behavior is a problem that spans generations of government positions. It’s about time something is done about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems to me that just the pardon power by itself is fundamentally incompatible with democracy and the rule of law. It's like saying you're a pacifist... except for Tuesdays when you go on a weekly killing spree. I imagine that if we can survive and progress long enough to have real democracy and rule of law, our present system will be viewed a transitional period that, for all its very real improvements, was still…
There's no choice in a democracy but to have something like the pardon power. The reason is that we need protection also from the power of judicial branch, which is abusable like any branch with power. Not having a pardon power allows bad judges to throw anyone they don't like into jail with no recourse by anyone. In a democracy, all branches are checked by the others, and this is a necessary check on the judicial br…
Not necessarily. IIUC the American President's pardon power is based on the British monarch's pardon power. The role of President was conceived (consciously or unconsciously) as an elected, non-hereditary monarch. He had many of the same powers - veto, commander of the military.
> Not having a pardon power allows bad judges to throw anyone they don't like into jail with no recourse by anyone.
That would require every judge in every court up to the highest court to be bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What happend with Gen. Keith Alexander?
He retired and became an executive at a privet cyber security company last I had heard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now suppose the kid who shot the people in Kenosha gets a pardon (I don't know about jurisdiction). What would be the check on presidential power in that case? I think the pardoning thing is absolutely wrong in the US form, where it is used quite often. I think it's just crazy that you can do something illegal but if you can just talk one guy into it, you are off the hook. The only case I see where it makes sense is…
The kid could always be charged on some other state-level technicality. These charges would be state-level and therefore not subject to Presidential pardon. That said, such a limited abuse would not justify ditching the pardon power. History has shown that not having a pardon power would have been impossible - the civil war would have lasted for decades, there would have been mass charges years after Vietnam, without…
Congress could have passed acts granting blanket pardons to all involved.
> without the option of pardon Nixon may never have resigned, etc.
It might have been better for the rule of law if he had been convicted and removed forcibly, then subject to prosecution.