President Bush commuted 'Scooter' Libby's sentence

[Atrocities]

Libby was convicted because he could not remember events that took place years before accurately. I ask you, can you remember what you did last July 1st? Now be specific, who did you talk to, what did you talk about. Now say that I told you that I know someone who said that they talked to you about something specific. You didn't mention that to me, you are therefore guilty of the same crime that Libby was. Mind you that Paris was guilty of a crime which was far more serious than forgetting a conversation that took place a year or two before. Comparing live to her is an absurdity.

I don't need to point out that at least one of the people that Clinton had pardoned was a guy who was under active investigation for ongoing criminal activities. Libby just forgot things and was sent to jail for that. I would rather he pay the 250k fine then server a day in jail for memory loss.

Now if it were up to me, I would have pardoned Libby too, and would have kept the fine in place. Which is what I think Bush did as well. However I would also pardon the two boarder patrol cops that were recently convicted on the testimony of a known drug deal for shooting him in the *** when he was fleeing while shooting at them. Those two should not have ever been convicted. Bush should pardon them, and I would have pardoned them BEFORE ever considering a pardon for Libby.

[Lazy_Perfectionist]

Interesting post, Atrocities. I know which way I lean on this issue, but I want to look into this further before I regretfully agree, or gleefully disagree. I shouldn't have much trouble finding a liberal commentary, given my biases. But would you recommend any well-thought-out conservative pieces most likely to sway my opinion in your favor on the issue of perjury vs. memory loss?

To be fair, I know more disreputable right-wing sources then reputable. But I do know there are some respectable right-wing sources- i've stumbled across them a few times, though this laptop doesn't have any bookmarks and I don't remember their names. If you'd give me a link, I'd read with an open, though left-leaning centrist mind.

Tomorrow, I'll see if I can get any of the facts on the perjury trial, or how much was made available to the public. And by facts, I mean transcripts or excerpts or first hand accounts. I won't comment further tonight on this point until I spend some time informing myself.

Is it true that the judge was a Republican Appointee? And that Fitzgerald was suggested and confirmed by Republicans?
A court of law found him guilty of perjury, and obstruction of justice, not merely mistaken.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p032.htm
"and the person knew at the time the testimony was false."

I'll try to look over the facts of the case, but Perjury isn't merely a matter of being mistaken.

[Atrocities]

I doubt if we will ever know the truth depth of what really went on. I feel that given the weight of what Libby was convicted for against the crime of leaking top secret information in general, Libby's crime is barely a blip on the radar. If they will go after Libby for not remembering accurately, and not go after people who have leaked top secret information to the press because it embarrassed Bush, well then all I can say is that I feel this whole process has been nothing but a huge hypocritical political snow job. And that I cannot abide.

The thing is, if you are asked a question under oath, say for example, where were you on July 1st of last year, and you say that you believe you were at home. Then a few days later you are called back in and told that someone said that you were not at home on July 1st, but were instead seen at the movies. That is perjury and is tentatively similar to what happened to Libby. He remember it one way, but testimony from another source counterdicted his. Therefore he must be lying when in fact he could simply have not remembered. Again, put yourself in his shoes. Having dealt with elderly people on a regular basis I can assure you that there memories are not perfect and even someone as honest as my father could be found guilty of the same thing that Libby was because of memory issues.

[Edi]

Atrocities, your rhetorical question about Bush being convicted of crimes is a red herring. Let's take a look at what Bush and his government have been doing during the past six years:

• started illegal war of aggression (Iraq)
• illegal wiretapping of American citizens without warrant
• illegal detainment of American citizens (Padilla) without due process
• illegal detainment of prisoners of war (Guantanamo)
• torture of detainees

Just for starters. They've also ignored subpoenas from Congress on a number of matters and the fact that the Justice Department, which is supposed to enforce those and investigate criminal activities including those by the executive branch, has not done it due to being headed by one of the criminals in question, does not make the actions of the administration any less illegal. So, yes, they are criminals. But it's funny how no matter what the Bush White House does, no matter how illegal, there are always people standing up for them and attacking anyone who criticizes them directly and has the balls to tell the truth without sugarcoating it and trying to make it seem less than it was.

Libby was convicted not because he could not remember, but becasue it was determined during the criminal investigation that he had in fact LIED instead of just forgetting, and thus he had perjured himself. What's even more appalling about this commuting of the service is that it's the supposedly tough on crime Republicans who are defending AFTER they themselves passed legislation that toughened penalties on precisely this sort of thing. The President who had no problem signing death warrants for mentally deficient people things that 30 months of prison is "too harsh" for one of his stooges is beyond the pale with the hypocrisy.

Your governmental system is rotten to the core and currently run by criminals. If you have a counterargument to those facts that doesn't hinge on lack of enforcement, I'd really be interested in hearing it.

[Atrocities]

Edi said:
Atrocities, your rhetorical question about Bush being convicted of crimes is a red herring.

So in other words Edi, no, Bush has not been convicted of any crimes.

[Atrocities]

Edi if you hate Bush and America so much that you would side with Terrorist then anything you say should be viewed with great suspicion. Here in the US only extreme left wing liberals want to see these terrorist go free. They want to welcome them with open arms and give them neckless of flowers and defend anything that they do by calling them freedom fighters. However most Americans, the ones that are never polled, believe otherwise.

* started illegal war of aggression (Iraq)
Under the terms of the cease fire of the first Gulf War the US reserved the right to invade Iraq if Saddam violated any of the terms of the cease fire. Which he did on many occasions. In fact the attempted assassination of a former President is an open act of war. Clinton was a pansy arsed weak sister when it came to these kind of things and that embolden terrorist and dick heads like Saddam to poke a stick at the sleeping dragon and they got burned for it. Now why should we America's feel guilty for fighting back?

* illegal wiretapping of American citizens without warrant
For the most part they weren't American citizens that were the subjects of these wire taps. You should get your facts strait before making such comments. Also I don't know if you grasp this or not, but most Americans agreed that this was not a violation of our rights given the fact that the wire tapping was focused upon out bound or in bound calls from known or suspected terrorist or terrorist states. The Liberals tried to make this into a big deal and it didn't work for them either.

* illegal detainment of American citizens (Padilla) without due process
How many American citizens have been illegally detained by terrorists around the world since the religious zealots in Iran invaded and kidnapped our people at the US embassy in Tehran?

* illegal detainment of prisoners of war (Guantanamo)
Your assertion that these innocent victims being illegally detained at Guantanamo are somehow being kept against their will is well, the whole point. They are bad men with bad intentions and for the most part are dedicated to killing innocent people because they are religious zealots bent upon martyring themselves. Clearly these men are not innocent victims of American aggression. And if you believe that they are so innocent and should be set free, then by all mean go down to Cuba and set them free. Take them home and give them all the loving that they need. Hug them, coddle them, and when you wake up in a pool of your own blood just remember that it was you who set them free.

* torture of detainees
I don't know if I should just laugh at this or just laugh at it. These "freedom fighters" that have been so wrongfully misunderstood cut the heads off of the people they kidnap after they burned them, electrocuted them, gouged out eyeballs, cut off fingers, and crushed their groin, and you have the audacity to imply that taking a picture of one of them naked, or denying them access to the Quran is torture?

[Azselendor]

Atrocities, no offense to you, but I'm yet to meet a liberal who wants terrorist to go free. What we want is for America to endure and survive and the laws to be upheld. Saying liberals want to embrace terrorist is fox news talking points and this adminstration's propaganda nonsense.

Repeating a lie enough times doesn't make it true. It just makes it a well known lie.

Bill Clinton may or may not be a criminal, but lying about sex is nothing compared to the corruption and criminal behavior of this administration. make no mistake history will record Bush's administration as the one that brought an end to the American Century through mismanagement, incompetence and arrogance.

I don't know if you read this or not, but before you go any further atrocities, read this column http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19588942/

[Edi]

Atrocities said:
Edi if you hate Bush and America so much that you would side with Terrorist then anything you say should be viewed with great suspicion.

Right. This here is where the gloves come off. You will either immediately provide evidence that I have in any way supported or condoned terrorist acts against the US or its citizens, or you will retract that accusation and apologize. Else you can expect this thread to get VERY unpleasant.

For the record, I do not hate America. I've got a fair few American friends I've gotten to know over the last few years over the net, so I can actually differentiate between the ordinary US citizens and the US government. Your inability to make that same distinction is not my problem, it's yours, and every time you bring it up, I'm going to shove it up your backside.

As far as the American government is concerned, here's how it goes: For the Bush administration, characterizing my opinion as utter contempt is putting it charitably. Congress, they're a bunch of spineless morons for the most part, given the track record from the past few years. They've been largely irrelevant and have generally bent over for the White House in almost every conceivable way in the arena of politics.

Atrocities said:
Here in the US only extreme left wing liberals want to see these terrorist go free. They want to welcome them with open arms and give them neckless of flowers and defend anything that they do by calling them freedom fighters. However most Americans, the ones that are never polled, believe otherwise.

There are so many things wrong with that that it's hard to know where to begin. The problem with the people detained in Guantanamo is that they are not being really accused of anything. They're just being held behind bars without any access to due process, and any information they might have had is so badly outdated by now it's actually worse than useless. The only accusation against them so far that I've heard is that they are "enemy combatants", whatever that means, and Bush's own military commissions had to rule, on the basis of the recent laws, that they do not have jurisdiction. If they were guilty of the things they are accused of, the government should be able to bring charges like conspiracy to commit murder or other similar things against them, put them on trial and lock them away. Yet they refuse to do so. The only logical explanation for that is that they have no case. Ergo, the detainees should be returned to their home countries.

As far as "the majority of Americans who were not polled", your inability to understand statistical methods is again not my problem. A sample size of one or two thousand when selected randomly across the population of the US and accounting for certain factors so that it isn't biased, is actually a viable method and the results reliable. I'm not a statistician myself, but I know people who are and I've seen them rip the kind of laughably ignorant statements like you made here to shreds in excruciating detail.

Atrocities said:
* started illegal war of aggression (Iraq)
Under the terms of the cease fire of the first Gulf War the US reserved the right to invade Iraq if Saddam violated any of the terms of the cease fire. Which he did on many occasions. In fact the attempted assassination of a former President is an open act of war. Clinton was a pansy arsed weak sister when it came to these kind of things and that embolden terrorist and dick heads like Saddam to poke a stick at the sleeping dragon and they got burned for it. Now why should we America's feel guilty for fighting back?

If you actually went back and read the UN resolutions and other relevant documents related to that, you would know that's a load of manure. As far as the assassination attempt on Bush Sr. goes, does the concept of proportionate response mean anything to you? By your logic, if anyone had the means to retaliate for American offenses against their nation, they would be completely justified in wiping your country out to the last man, woman and child. Your personal attack on Clinton is irrelevant, since Clinton actually managed to contain Saddam with minimal bloodshed and reduced him to complete irrelevance except as somebody who was good for a news headline or two when he amped up the bluster.

Atrocities said:
* illegal wiretapping of American citizens without warrant
For the most part they weren't American citizens that were the subjects of these wire taps. You should get your facts strait before making such comments. Also I don't know if you grasp this or not, but most Americans agreed that this was not a violation of our rights given the fact that the wire tapping was focused upon out bound or in bound calls from known or suspected terrorist or terrorist states. The Liberals tried to make this into a big deal and it didn't work for them either.

Actually, you're again repeating flat out lies you've been fed. Nobody in the US media even tried to really investigate the wiretapping issue until it became to big to ignore and even after that it was half-hearted at best so as not to offend the Washington elite and the White House in particular. Your ridiculous statement about "most Americans didn't feel like it was" is completely irrelevant. The law of your land says that if the President wants to wiretap American citizens, he needs a warrant from the courts, even if it happens to be the secret FISA court, which has been very lenient with its requirements for evidence in the past. Yet Bush did not do that and when he was caught, he admitted to it in public and vowed he would continue to ignore the law. His lawbreaking is a matter of established fact, both by evidence and his own admission and your feeble flailing about with apologist justifications is just a lot of hot air.

Atrocities said:
* illegal detainment of American citizens (Padilla) without due process
How many American citizens have been illegally detained by terrorists around the world since the religious zealots in Iran invaded and kidnapped our people at the US embassy in Tehran?

So because your opponents are barbarians, you have carte blanche to be just as bad? Weren't you supposed to have the moral high ground? Here's a hint: When you have to justify your own actions by pointing out the despicable actions of bloody-handed, murderous fanatics, you are well on your way to becoming what you claim to oppose.

Atrocities said:
* illegal detainment of prisoners of war (Guantanamo)
Your assertion that these innocent victims being illegally detained at Guantanamo are somehow being kept against their will is well, the whole point.

You will point out where I said they were automatically innocent or you will retract that strawman argument. What I said was that they have been denied due process, i.e. the opportunity to have the matter of their guilt or innocence established in a court of law. Unless I have been fed lies, your court system should recognize the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". Or is that too onerous a standard of conduct for the US?

Atrocities said:
They are bad men with bad intentions and for the most part are dedicated to killing innocent people because they are religious zealots bent upon martyring themselves. Clearly these men are not innocent victims of American aggression.

Then it should not be too hard to bring them up on criminal charges of murder, conspiracy to commit murder and various other things, hold a trial and put them behind bars nice and proper, right? So why is that not happening? The most logical explanation is that there is no case for what the government is claiming about them even if they have committed lesser crimes than the ones that supposedly justify their current detainment.

Atrocities said:
And if you believe that they are so innocent and should be set free, then by all mean go down to Cuba and set them free. Take them home and give them all the loving that they need. Hug them, coddle them, and when you wake up in a pool of your own blood just remember that it was you who set them free.

You will again point out where I said they were automatically innocent rather than having had their due process rights denied, or you can go jump off a cliff.

Atrocities said:
* torture of detainees
I don't know if I should just laugh at this or just laugh at it. These "freedom fighters" that have been so wrongfully misunderstood cut the heads off of the people they kidnap after they burned them, electrocuted them, gouged out eyeballs, cut off fingers, and crushed their groin, and you have the audacity to imply that taking a picture of one of them naked, or denying them access to the Quran is torture?

So, the pictures of detainees being tortured in Abu Ghraib were not real and none of it happened? The official findings that torture had been committed are all figments of imagination? The actual, officially confirmed homicides of detainees by American soldiers and intelligence personnel did not happen either? You're just sinking lower and lower, and your user name seems to have been well chosen since you seem to support the idea that if your enemy is a murderous fanatic scumbag, anything and everything you do to him is justified. I happen to have higher ethical standards than that. See the point above about becoming what you claim to oppose.

As far as your vice president's defense of "enhanced interrogation methods", up to and including waterboarding and so forth, you should read some of the Nuremberg trial transcripts. The arguments from the Bush administration are almost word for word the same as those used by German soldiers of the Wehrmacht and SS and who were, on the basis of those arguments and their actions, sentenced to prison or death for war crimes. THAT is what you are defending here and it is all a matter of officially recorded, INDISPUTABLE FACT.

Fortunately, I'm not the one who has to live with having a government like that. The current administration has stained your country's reputation for decades to come and there is no way you are going to get it rehabilitated within my lifetime, given the course that is now being pursued.

Your inability to see plain facts because you prefer ready-made soundbites about simultaneously evil and naive, all-powerful but ineffective liberals is not my concern. I deal with facts and observations and the logical conclusions that can be derived from them instead of fantasies, and if you want to continue down the path you took with your last post, I'm game for it. I tend to give far better than I get in this sort of exchanges and I don't even need to convince you, really. All I need to do is show your arguments for what they are and let the spectators draw their own conclusions. Those generally won't be very flattering towards you.