The American double standard.

[Sallow]

Evidence?

I guess you don’t follow the news vary closely. Here’s some links.
New Documents Uncover Libya, CIA Relationship | News One
Secret documents show Libya, CIA ties - Israel News, Ynetnews
Libya: CIA flight taking dissident back to Tripoli 'refuelled on British island’ in Diego Garcia’ - Telegraph
http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_18823797
Libyan intelligence documents show ties to CIA - Yahoo! News

Just as I thought, no evidence of torture.

Yeah..the fellow at the bottom died of fright.

Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Zagg]

No American President, former or present, is going to be prosecuted for anything. That's if we want to continue on as a multi party democracy.

I would disagree of course, there is no reason a former president can’t be prosecuted. One party might “scream bloody murder” as they say, but that would hardly destroy democracy. If a former president is guilty then let him be held to the same legal and ethical standard as any other citizen, a president is not above the law any more than a king.

Perhaps I should let Sallow speak for himself, but what I think he meant is that practically it would cause such political turmoil that the system would be jeopardized. The Nixon case is the only case I can think of where it might have happened, and of course, Ford intervened to see that it didn't.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I guess you don’t follow the news vary closely. Here’s some links.
New Documents Uncover Libya, CIA Relationship | News One
Secret documents show Libya, CIA ties - Israel News, Ynetnews
Libya: CIA flight taking dissident back to Tripoli 'refuelled on British island’ in Diego Garcia’ - Telegraph
http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_18823797
Libyan intelligence documents show ties to CIA - Yahoo! News

Just as I thought, no evidence of torture.

Yeah..the fellow at the bottom died of fright.

Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And this has what to do with Libya? Focus dumbass!!

 

[signelect]

Clinton lied under oath and committed sexual misconduct in my office. The White House belongs to all of us, not the president and if he wants to go to Motel 6 he can do what he damn well pleases but not in my office. JFK was not entirely clean nor Nixon, Ford and others that is the problem we voters are facing, is anyone in Washington looking out for us, my best answer is NO not one.

 

[Sallow]

Just as I thought, no evidence of torture.

Yeah..the fellow at the bottom died of fright.

Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And this has what to do with Libya? Focus dumbass!!

Oh..Alot..Dumbbutt.

This was behavior that was ongoing in the rest of the world by this country.

That's not something your simple little one neuron firing mind can wrap around.

But I do try.

 

[Zagg]

No American President, former or present, is going to be prosecuted for anything. That's if we want to continue on as a multi party democracy.

I think you're probably right. But what about the Nixon case? What if Ford hadn't pardoned him?

I doubt he would have been prosecuted. But Ford did the right thing.

There would have been intense pressure to prosecute him. At the time, I was appalled by the pardon. In retrospect, I think it was for the best.

 

[Sallow]

Now that we know the C.I.A. under the Bush administration sent prisoners to Libya under its “rendition” program specifically to be tortured, and since we are seeking to prosecute Kaddafi specifically for torturing (among other things). I wonder if the Obama administration will seek prosecution of former president George W. Bush for war crimes. After all there is a specific federal law that allows Americans to be prosecuted for crimes committed overseas, and because he knew suspects would be tortured in Libya and in fact sent them there for that vary reason, George W Bush was in fact complicit in those crimes.
Knowing the stance of the Obama administration I’m guessing we’re not going to see any prosecution. After all, here in America the laws we enforce on the majority of people don’t apply to rich people like George Bush, just like the war crimes prosecutions we seek for foreign leaders shall not be sought to our own, even when our own leaders are complicit in the vary same crimes we’re prosecuting others for.
What an interesting double standard we have.

Other than starting another goofy anti-Bush rant thread... what's your point?

This is behavior you support?

 

[Sallow]

I think you're probably right. But what about the Nixon case? What if Ford hadn't pardoned him?

I doubt he would have been prosecuted. But Ford did the right thing.

There would have been intense pressure to prosecute him. At the time, I was appalled by the pardon. In retrospect, I think it was for the best.

The best we can hope for is legislation that compels impeachment and removal for office for this sort of behavior.

But that's about it.

 

[Nic_Driver]

Clinton lied under oath and committed sexual misconduct in my office. The White House belongs to all of us, not the president and if he wants to go to Motel 6 he can do what he damn well pleases but not in my office. JFK was not entirely clean nor Nixon, Ford and others that is the problem we voters are facing, is anyone in Washington looking out for us, my best answer is NO not one.

Lying under oath is bad, it's perjury.

The list of allegations against the Bush administration pales in comparison and deserves to be vetted out to find the truth.

If Bush is guilty of war crimes he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. That Obama won't pursue charges is simply more proof that he's a Democrat and willing to find a compromise position. I disagree with him on this and I think he should be just as aggressive as were the Republicans in their pursuit of Clinton.

We need to 'Pinochet' Bush and Cheney.

 

[Zagg]

No American President, former or present, is going to be prosecuted for anything. That's if we want to continue on as a multi party democracy.

We have a fascist government, that's why no American president will ever be tried for war crimes. We don't have a democracy, we don't even have multi parties, the dems and the reps are the same, that's why Bush never prosecuted Clinton and why Obama will never prosecute Bush.

Fascist? Come on. As far as there being only one party (the Republicrats) with two wings, I tend to agree.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Yeah..the fellow at the bottom died of fright.

Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And this has what to do with Libya? Focus dumbass!!

Oh..Alot..Dumbbutt.

This was behavior that was ongoing in the rest of the world by this country.

That's not something your simple little one neuron firing mind can wrap around.

But I do try.

The discussion was about the CIA rendering prisoners to Libya for the purpose of torturing them.

Wise up!

 

[Sallow]

And this has what to do with Libya? Focus dumbass!!

Oh..Alot..Dumbbutt.

This was behavior that was ongoing in the rest of the world by this country.

That's not something your simple little one neuron firing mind can wrap around.

But I do try.

The discussion was about the CIA rendering prisoners to Libya for the purpose of torturing them.

Wise up!

And?

The poster provided you with links.

There's been plenty of rendition around the world..no reason to believe Libya wasn't one of the fun filled destinations for torture.

 

[AmericanFirst]

No American President, former or present, is going to be prosecuted for anything. That's if we want to continue on as a multi party democracy.

I would disagree of course, there is no reason a former president can’t be prosecuted. One party might “scream bloody murder” as they say, but that would hardly destroy democracy. If a former president is guilty then let him be held to the same legal and ethical standard as any other citizen, a president is not above the law any more than a king.

As was demonstrated by the right wing's effort to convict President Clinton of high crimes and misdemeanors for private matters. If Bush did what is alleged, such behavior justly deserves a full hearing, after an information is filed making specific allegations.

If such evidence is being withheld by present or former government officials, an obstruction of justice indictment would be appropriate. None of which will happen though, for lady justice has always peeked, and in this century our Justices on the Supreme Court have tossed the scales aside.

Clinton had sex with an intern in the OVAL OFFICE! That is not private, that is the people's office. Clinton violated the office and then lied about it. You can not defend him.

 

[Nic_Driver]

I would disagree of course, there is no reason a former president can’t be prosecuted. One party might “scream bloody murder” as they say, but that would hardly destroy democracy. If a former president is guilty then let him be held to the same legal and ethical standard as any other citizen, a president is not above the law any more than a king.

As was demonstrated by the right wing's effort to convict President Clinton of high crimes and misdemeanors for private matters. If Bush did what is alleged, such behavior justly deserves a full hearing, after an information is filed making specific allegations.

If such evidence is being withheld by present or former government officials, an obstruction of justice indictment would be appropriate. None of which will happen though, for lady justice has always peeked, and in this century our Justices on the Supreme Court have tossed the scales aside.

Clinton had sex with an intern in the OVAL OFFICE! That is not private, that is the people's office. Clinton violated the office and then lied about it. You can not defend him.

Are you actually trying to compare allegations of sex with allegations of torture?

There is no need to defend Clinton any longer. His trial is long over.

The current question is, why are you defending Bush?

BTW, the fact that the sex happened in the Oval Office is not part of the issue, never was. The President is allowed to have sex in his house anywhere he wants, including the Oval Office.

 

[Sallow]

I would disagree of course, there is no reason a former president can’t be prosecuted. One party might “scream bloody murder” as they say, but that would hardly destroy democracy. If a former president is guilty then let him be held to the same legal and ethical standard as any other citizen, a president is not above the law any more than a king.

As was demonstrated by the right wing's effort to convict President Clinton of high crimes and misdemeanors for private matters. If Bush did what is alleged, such behavior justly deserves a full hearing, after an information is filed making specific allegations.

If such evidence is being withheld by present or former government officials, an obstruction of justice indictment would be appropriate. None of which will happen though, for lady justice has always peeked, and in this century our Justices on the Supreme Court have tossed the scales aside.

Clinton had sex with an intern in the OVAL OFFICE! That is not private, that is the people's office. Clinton violated the office and then lied about it. You can not defend him.

He just did.

It was one of the stupiest, most partisan bullshit ever perpetrated in the history of this country.

There was plenty of reason to impeach Ron "Mr. Treason himself" Reagan and George "Lied to get us into Iraq" W. Bush. Those would have been valid.

Nothing, nadda..zip happened to those hacks. And not one conservative ever ever complains about that.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Oh..Alot..Dumbbutt.

This was behavior that was ongoing in the rest of the world by this country.

That's not something your simple little one neuron firing mind can wrap around.

But I do try.

The discussion was about the CIA rendering prisoners to Libya for the purpose of torturing them.

Wise up!

And?

The poster provided you with links.

There's been plenty of rendition around the world..no reason to believe Libya wasn't one of the fun filled destinations for torture.

And the links did not provide any evidence that supported his claim.

Rendidtion is not synonymous with torture.

 

[Nic_Driver]

The discussion was about the CIA rendering prisoners to Libya for the purpose of torturing them.

Wise up!

And?

The poster provided you with links.

There's been plenty of rendition around the world..no reason to believe Libya wasn't one of the fun filled destinations for torture.

And the links did not provide any evidence that supported his claim.

Rendidtion is not synonymous with torture.

Rendition is illegal without torture.

 

[AmericanFirst]

As was demonstrated by the right wing's effort to convict President Clinton of high crimes and misdemeanors for private matters. If Bush did what is alleged, such behavior justly deserves a full hearing, after an information is filed making specific allegations.

If such evidence is being withheld by present or former government officials, an obstruction of justice indictment would be appropriate. None of which will happen though, for lady justice has always peeked, and in this century our Justices on the Supreme Court have tossed the scales aside.

Clinton had sex with an intern in the OVAL OFFICE! That is not private, that is the people's office. Clinton violated the office and then lied about it. You can not defend him.

Are you actually trying to compare allegations of sex with allegations of torture?

There is no need to defend Clinton any longer. His trial is long over.

The current question is, why are you defending Bush?

BTW, the fact that the sex happened in the Oval Office is not part of the issue, never was. The President is allowed to have sex in his house anywhere he wants, including the Oval Office.

Wrong idiot. Bush's decision was not a criminal act. Clinton's was when he lied under oath. The president is not allowed to violate code of conduct in the oval office. You thinking so just proves how stupid you are.

 

[Iridescence]

Now that we know the C.I.A. under the Bush administration sent prisoners to Libya under its “rendition” program specifically to be tortured, and since we are seeking to prosecute Kaddafi specifically for torturing (among other things). I wonder if the Obama administration will seek prosecution of former president George W. Bush for war crimes. After all there is a specific federal law that allows Americans to be prosecuted for crimes committed overseas, and because he knew suspects would be tortured in Libya and in fact sent them there for that vary reason, George W Bush was in fact complicit in those crimes.
Knowing the stance of the Obama administration I’m guessing we’re not going to see any prosecution. After all, here in America the laws we enforce on the majority of people don’t apply to rich people like George Bush, just like the war crimes prosecutions we seek for foreign leaders shall not be sought to our own, even when our own leaders are complicit in the vary same crimes we’re prosecuting others for.
What an interesting double standard we have.

And also the double standard that the US gov't. is perfectly happy to deal with the "bad guys" in public whilst doing business with them in secret.

Too true.
Supporting the Libyan people against Kaddafi was a step in the right direction, but I wonder how many cozy, back-door relationships our government maintains with dictators to this day.

Don't wonder too much or wander too far, you may get those answers. There is much to be said sometimes about the necessary evils in life. If we were to 'know' of all the evils taking place, we would as peons within our country be hurt with the pain of kings of our nation. It isn't something I would necessarily invite.

 

[AmericanFirst]

As was demonstrated by the right wing's effort to convict President Clinton of high crimes and misdemeanors for private matters. If Bush did what is alleged, such behavior justly deserves a full hearing, after an information is filed making specific allegations.

If such evidence is being withheld by present or former government officials, an obstruction of justice indictment would be appropriate. None of which will happen though, for lady justice has always peeked, and in this century our Justices on the Supreme Court have tossed the scales aside.

Clinton had sex with an intern in the OVAL OFFICE! That is not private, that is the people's office. Clinton violated the office and then lied about it. You can not defend him.

He just did.

It was one of the stupiest, most partisan bullshit ever perpetrated in the history of this country.

There was plenty of reason to impeach Ron "Mr. Treason himself" Reagan and George "Lied to get us into Iraq" W. Bush. Those would have been valid.

Nothing, nadda..zip happened to those hacks. And not one conservative ever every complains about that.

Idiot, it was clinton's cia that lied to Bush. Reagan, treason? Give me a break, he was the best potus we have had since lincoln. Obamaturd sucks and clinton is a crook.