Bush hits a new low
 

Having had some association with the intelligence community I am appalled by the President's pardon of Mr. Libby. When an an agent is outed not only is their life and the lives of their family placed in peril, but more certainly the lives of all their contacts in other countries, their associates, friends and family are threatened as well and often they do not have near the protection of those in the US. Mr. Libby's act was the equivalent of treason and very likely also damaged lines of information that were years in the making with the result being a serious blow to our national security.

When this was first reported, Mr. Bush said that he would pursue the person(s) responsible for the leak and seek the harshest of penalties. There can now be little doubt that this was disingenuious since the trail clearly leads back to the Vice President and no doubt to Bush himself. This administration sees itself as albove the law. Just as important is the fact that this misdeed was done to help to justify lies to support a stupid, costly, bloody, and totally ineffectual war that will in the end leave the middle east and Iraq in particular, in shambles for decades to come.

Well said.

Paying attention? Mr. Libby was guilty of obstruction, not of outing Plame. Nobody was found guilty of outing Plame.

Well perhaps they can hire an independent prosecutor to figure that out. Oh yeah, they did.

Not to throw gas on the fire but..... Libby was not PARDONED! His sentence was coummuted. Shall we post the list of CRIMINALS Clinton Pardoned again to make the point that all politicals are in cut from the same cloth?

OK, so why does the president - regardless of which side of the fence he's on - have this power.

If people aren't happy with the legal system and how these people get convicted, perhaps there's something wrong with it.

Maybe this power should not be there in the first place.

You know I haven't thought about it much. I am not really sure where this power comes from. I am sure it is written somewhere. Lots of things are done around these parts because of some precedent. Neither of the parties which control our government would agree to give it up for fear that when they get back in power they would not have it available to them to abuse. So I don't forsee any significant changes in the near future.

Nor do I. However, if it's a democracy and that's what the people want, it shouldn't have anything to do with what the government wants.

Well technically its is not a "democracy". It is a Republic.

Note here:

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/Am...ts/demrep.html

Basically in a democracy, the majority rules. A republic is designed to protect the rights of the individual and the minority. That is the way it is suppose to work anyway. It ain't perfect.

As Ben Franklin stated:

'Just after the completion and signing of the Constitution, in reply to a woman's inquiry as to the type of government the Founders had created, Benjamin Franklin said, "A Republic, if you can keep it." '

DEMOCRACY:

A government of the masses.
Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.
Results in mobocracy.
Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights.
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
REPUBLIC:

Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.
Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.

Yes I know that.

I think you know what I meant also.

My point is that the majority of the people can't just up and take something away from Presidential power becasuse a majority of the people want it to be that way. The best they can hope for is to put someone in power who will not abuse the power, and so far for the last 30 years or so we have not been very good at it.:cool:

Do you not have referendums in your country?

Not in the sense I think you are thinking. Congress would have to inact some law; the White House would challenge it; they would go back and forth for 10 years or so; the Supreme Court would settle it (narrowly); an new wrinkle would be found and the whole process would start anew IMHO. And the beat goes on...

Because someone was obstructing the investigation...

That was not the finding. Richard Armitage

Referendum is a California attitude not yet shared in most of the country. President can even issue a 'finding', keep it secret, and have it executed even if that finding is in violation of the Constitution. Why? If no one 'blows the whistle', then it is unknown and not unConstitutional. The American president has massive powers traditionally kept in check by more honest presidents.

At one point, even the US Supreme Court made provisions for a remote possibility - its occupation by the US Army under order of Pres Nixon. That president was only kept in check by a large number of courageous Americans who stood up for America rather than for political party loyalty.