Island Life: This just in: incumbent President worst in history of the union
132 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
WH,
It is one thing to be declare yourself a conservative, its another thing entirely to declare yourself a Bush Republican. At some point loyalty to the cause has to give way to the weight of the evidence.
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/powell-calls-un-speech-a-blot-on-his/20050908231709990004
-
silver linings perhaps -
Commuting Prison Term Is Implicit Critique of Sentencing Standards
-
Glad to be galling you. Nasty job, someone has to do it.
The US holds itself out to be special and should be judged as such. But to endlessly excoriate the US while ignoring much worse travesties of numerous other countries is selective, inconsistent and hyprocritical. Sorry, it just is.So I guess we ignore those 15,000 odd Iraqis currently held, many for years, without charge, many of whom simply haven't been heard from for years.
The thing is James, we do hold the US to higher standards than those other countries, and yet even when placed next to them it fails....Cuba's human rights record is not good, but in the post Bush era the USA's is far worse, with far more prisoners dying in its custody or disappearing without trace. It tortures or passes prisoners to other nations so that they can torture, It invades other nations and hundreds of thousands die as a result, with millions displaced. To say Castro is worse, and then hide behind it, in face of all this is vile nonsense.
And we didn't discuss Abu Ghraib...you refused to answer my questions about it.
-
Alastair,
My point was that I would rather have seen Libby convicted of the crimes that matter, as I would rather see scum like Cheney go down for his crimes rather than via a circuitous route. But I'm happy to see them go down for either and one would hope that the US system would not fail here, but it has.All of the crimes and the litany of wrongs you attribute to Libby I do not question but he was not convicted of those things in any court of law. If we believe in the rule of law, we can mumble and moan about that but we have to accept it.
He was, however, convicted, by a jury after being prosecuted by a Bush appointee, having listened to voluminous evidence (not the slanted third party hearsay that James relies on}. He was then sentenced for this crime by a Bush appointed Judge.
If Americans are required to accept that Libby could not be convicted for his alleged actual crimes (ie in law he's innocent), then they also have to accept that he was properly convicted and sentenced for his other crimes. However the President doesn't see it this way...which is not surprising..his blatant and arrogant disregard for the rule of law, both domestic and international, is a hallmark of his tenure. As James says, in 2009 there will be a change of hand at the helm, but the damage done to the values and the pillars that the US is built on, will take a hell of a lot longer to resolve.
-
However the President doesn't see it this way...which is not surprising..his blatant and arrogant disregard for the rule of law, both domestic and international, is a hallmark of his tenure.
In this instance, I think you've got the wrong side of the stick Simon. The constitution, which is the highest law in the USA, gives him the power to pardon or reprieve criminals. He's not disregarding the rule of law, he's just over-ruling it.
Not disregarding the law. It's just cronyism and immoral, and truly low.
-
Kyle,
As I see it the constitution did not give the president the power to pardon or reprieve in order to further the cause of cronyism. It was put in the constitution for a purpose. By using the power as he has it shows a blatant disregard for both the constitution and the law it empowers and directs.This is good....
-
I'd also question whether this is cronyism of simply a case of Libby knows far too much to let him go to jail
-
It's funny what we get outraged about. So some fall guy for the cover up gets to stay out of a velvet lined prison, and the perps of the actual crime don't even get charged. Big deal. More actually important things happened as a result of Bush being a wanker between breakfast and coffee this morning. Dozens of people were killed. Hundreds of people are incarcerated without trial and many of them are being tortured. Millions of dollars of taxpayer money were spent on war. Millions of Americans with poor health continued to have no treatment.
And here we are getting outraged because someone that noone had even heard of until he opted to be the fall guy, has managed to get his powerful buddies to keep him out of prison. That's probably even happened in NZ today to fuxors that we might even know. Surely the pamphlets suppressing weeds in my veggie patch count as executive privilege overriding the rule of law too.
At the same time Parliament are getting on with scratching their arses and falling asleep in the privacy that all powerful public servants shouldn't enjoy, whilst simultaneously rubberstamping the removal of a few more of our civil liberties, however disgusting flavoured and weakly ineffective.
But most importantly of all, the Ozzies think they can have a crack at our glorious captain just because he's lost one test. That's what really winds me up.
PS: Did I forget to get outraged about that boat thing? Funny that.
-
Well, there goes the "sentence was inappropriate" excuse ...
Although President Bush said he commuted I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's 30-month prison sentence for perjury and obstruction of justice because it was "severe" and "excessive," several former prosecutors and sentencing law experts told ABC News that Libby's sentence was not unusually harsh.
A 30-month sentence is not far out of line with what several prosecutors said they would expect in a politically charged case that involves a person of Libby's public standing. His sentence was within the range recommended by federal sentencing guidelines.
Though Libby's jail term was tougher than that of several other recent high profile defendants, such as Martha Stewart, his sentence is consistent with other, lesser-known, perjury and obstruction of justice cases, they said.
"It can't be described as excessive or extreme," Terree Bowers, the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles under the Clinton and first Bush administrations, said of Libby's sentence.
Libby's high position of trust in the government and the seriousness of the investigation could account for the differences in sentences, several experts said.
"Perjury and obstruction of justice are very serious crimes that strike at the core of the truth-seeking objective of the criminal justice system," Mary Jo White, the former U.S. attorney in Manhattan, said in an e-mail to the ABC News Law & Justice Unit. "A 30-month sentence is not excessive for the crimes committed."
Of course the preznit and his cult know better ...
-
"Well, there goes the "sentence was inappropriate" excuse ..."
I would have thought all the analysis needed would be "he was sentenced in a competent court after being found guilty in a trial". It's a lot more due process than Bush has given a lot of guys who have copped far worse sentences without any trial at all. Certainly a lot more analysis than anyone I know has ever received for some pretty harsh sentences dealt. He's even allowed an appeal, at which he could be compensated if the lower court's decision was found wanting.
But no, this is a much more cynical move by Bush. It doesn't even risk that the next court might also find Scooter guilty. It simply erases the punishment, and aims to wind the whole sorry affair up without further questions. Questions which no doubt might actually point the finger at the actual perpetrators of the actual crime that this thing was supposed to be about. And not being in prison, Scooter will not be motivated to squeal out, as is no doubt the prosecutors intention in pursuing him.
Which is a mere footnote to the crimes being committed at the time, and still being committed today. That Plamegate is the only thing chasing Bush at the moment is indeed the greatest indictment on the American system all round. Their sorry excuse for an opposition is being punished in the polls for not doing what the electorate wanted, getting the US the fuck out of Iraq.
It's kind of like there's an aura of sacredness that has somehow surrounded these scoundrels, which only the bulk of the American population can see through. But who gives a shit what they think? Bush sure doesn't and it's seems all the rivals don't either.
It's no wonder an American struck up a conversation with me whilst queuing to get into Kelly Tarlton's the other day, so that he could without any prompting at all tell me that he was in no way a supporter of Bush, and never had been. American people seem to feel that their own representatives simply aren't doing the job required to let the world know that American people aren't like the wankers who lead them. Which does a great deal to undermine their claims to being a great democracy.
That he thought that Australians were all in favour of Bush and Iraq and was fearing his time there made me giggle. Seems Australians have exactly the same problem with wankers claiming to speak for them. I told him the safest thing to do would be shut up about the war and splash his dollars around, and he'd be fine. At which he lamented that because of Bush, his dollars weren't what they used to be.
-
I told him the safest thing to do would be shut up about the war and splash his dollars around, and he'd be fine.
That, and claim to be Canadian, eh?
-
That would be too bitter a pill to swallow. It would be like claiming to come from Dunedin. I just couldn't do it.
-
Cuba's human rights record is not good, but in the post Bush era the USA's is far worse,
Honestly Simon, with a load of bollocks, how is it possible for someone to believe such utter crap?
Are Cubans free to speak their minds, form political parties, leave Cuba, abuse the President and government at the top of their voices and generally do any of the things we associate with freedom and that we take for granted? No they are not, they can't do any of those things, each and every Cuban (except Fidel and the handful that are "more equal' than everyone else) are trapped in the equivalent of an open air prison.
What is next Simon, Mugabe is just a misunderstood luvie and Zimbabwe is really a cool place to live?
RE Presidential Pardon Powers
There Presidential pardon powers are absolute, he can pardon anyone for any reason and there is no review oversight or appeal etc. I am not saying it is a good thing or a bad thing, it is just the way that this is the way it is. Right or wrong, Bush was completely within his powers to commute Libby's sentence, as Clinton was within his powers to pardon Marc Rich.RB,
You are correct that the last Repub congress sucked, and as a result they got the bums rush. But rather than being better, the new Dem congress started digging where the Repubs left off, and haven't stopped. I think that after 12 years in Congress, Repubs record for earmarks in a bill was 13,000. After 6 months in office the Dems have gotten to 32,000.There are some Senators and Congressmen on both sides who are trying to fight pork, the most determined seems to be Tom Coburn in the Senate, from Oklahoma. He and Obama co-sponsored a bill to put all earmarks on line, which is just exactly what is needed. I think it is being blocked at this stage, but hopefully eventually it will make it into law. Putting all bills on line before they are voted on would be a great step too.
I love the States, but some aspects of politics over here are just squalid, like corruption and earmarks etc. NZ can certainly hold it head high in this regard, long may it continue.
But when it comes to corruption, the Duke Cunningham’s of this world are the amateurs and the Dems like New Orleans own Dollar Bill Jefferson are the pros. When he was indicted, his family was described as being like a criminal enterprise and another comment was that it was surprising that he had any time to be in Congress as he worked so long and hard on his rackets.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19031423/
Syria
And yes, it was a disgrace that the Repub congressmen visited with Assad as well as Nancypants, but Nancypants is 3rd in line to the Presidency, so her visit carries a lot more clout and significance, and is therefore much worse. Also the Speaker does not have a role in foreign policy, which is the purview of the Executive branch, so she was stepping outside the bounds of the role of Speaker. Any act that gives someone like Assad respect and a boost is a very bad thing. -
Honestly Simon, with a load of bollocks, how is it possible for someone to believe such utter crap?
Well, maybe you can explain how it's possible for someone to believe such utter crap as:
ANSWER et al get their knickers all in a bunch about a few meatheads on the night shift at Abu Graib doing some stupid stuff to some prisoners, during which no one was injured for which the soldiers were punished
There is an argument at least, that US actions, generally but not exclusively outside the US, have had a worse impact on global human rights than Castro could ever dream of. Now where's your argument that no one was injured at Abu Ghraib?
-
There is an argument at least, that US actions, generally but not exclusively outside the US, have had a worse impact on global human rights than Castro could ever dream of.
On the other hand the US has got rid of Milosevic, the Taliban, Saddam, keeps North Korea at bay, has recently pressured the Sudan govt to allow an increased UN force in Darfur.
Sure there's been Abu Ghraib but since the world demands that the US fixes the world’s problems then maybe the international community should come up with some alternatives if it dislikes the US so much.
-
On the other hand the US has got rid of Milosevic, the Taliban, Saddam, keeps North Korea at bay, has recently pressured the Sudan govt to allow an increased UN force in Darfur.
Umm. Go through that list again and highlight the ones that the US got rid of, after helping put them in their positions of power/selling them chemical and conventional weapons/etc.
Personally I think the "who's the worst at pissing into the pool of human rights" argument is a little silly. There's plenty of "left-wing" countries that have let down visions of people on the left, and there's a heap of "right-wing" countries that give "markets" and "capitalism" and "freedom" a really bad name.
Justifying America's actions by saying "Cuba is worse", or vice-versa? A plague on both their houses I say.
-
since the world demands that the US fixes the world’s problems then maybe the international community should come up with some alternatives if it dislikes the US so much.t
Tell that to the non-US forces currently serving in Afghanistan.
Or to the 1089 Chinese UN peacekeepers currently deployed in Africa:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0627/p01s05-woaf.htmVery big of you to concede that 'mistakes were made' at Abu Ghraib. A little further thinking outside of the John Wayne movie model of world affairs might reveal that things are somewhat more complex than good vs. bad guys.
-
Tim,
According to Wikipeadia, which ought to be a reasonable enough source on this subject, one person died at Abu Ghraib during the period when Garner, Lindy England etc were doing their stuff, so I do stand corrected on that point. But from all the noise and fuss you would have thought that half of Baghdad had been slaughtered.Most of screeching about Abu Ghraib was about the photos of prisoners with paper bags over their heads, Lyndie England pointing at a prisoner's wiener, letting dogs bark at prisoners, naked pyramids etc. Most of it was pretty juvenile stuff which looked like a Palmerston North Boys High School prefect's initiation ceremony, more than anything else.
Pretty lame stuff compared with Hussein's favorite tricks, including feeding people into industrial plastic shredding machines in front of their families, feet first and stopping when the machine got to the person's thighs, so the family could hear the person scream and hear them suffer for a longer time, before feeding the rest of them through the machine. Nice for the families to come out of the execution with their clothes covered in the blood of their relative.
Dunking people into a bath of concentrated acid was another favorite party trick, in front of their family too.
And Ted Kennedy, the Admiral of Chappaquiddick would have us believe that Abu Ghraib had simply reopened under new management. What a ridiculous load of crap.
Before the story was broken, the Army had identified the problem and an investigation was under way and the press had actually been briefed on the subject.
Garner is now doing a 10 year stretch and England is inside for 3, if I recall correctly, and some others are doing time as well.
All this is not to say that other captives haven’t been mistreated and died in US custody, but the reality is that Abu Ghraib wasn't nearly as bad as it was made out to be and the Army was on top of it anyway, so pardon me for downplaying the Abu Ghraib "scandal", but I think that perspective is justified.
-
Most of it was pretty juvenile stuff which looked like a Palmerston North Boys High School prefect's initiation ceremony, more than anything else.
Oh sure - only with guns and attack dogs. How very droll.
-
merc,
Glorious moment in US campaign advertising, actual bumper sticker...
At least (republican candidate) never drowned anyone.
-
Pretty lame stuff compared with Hussein's favorite tricks, including feeding people into industrial plastic shredding machines in front of their families, feet first and stopping when the machine got to the person's thighs, so the family could hear the person scream and hear them suffer for a longer time, before feeding the rest of them through the machine. Nice for the families to come out of the execution with their clothes covered in the blood of their relative.
James, I thought we'd established that just because something is a talking point doesn't mean it's true. And the plastic shredder story really does appear to be a fabrication. There was enough bad stuff that it's not necessary to keep repeating that one.
Most of screeching about Abu Ghraib was about the photos of prisoners with paper bags over their heads, Lyndie England pointing at a prisoner's wiener, letting dogs bark at prisoners, naked pyramids etc. Most of it was pretty juvenile stuff which looked like a Palmerston North Boys High School prefect's initiation ceremony, more than anything else.
Fuck off. Which Wikipedia article were you reading? This one?:
Photos and videos revealed by the Pentagon to lawmakers in a private viewing on 12 May 2004, showed dogs snarling at cowering prisoners, Iraqi women forced to expose their breasts, and naked prisoners forced to have sex with each other, the lawmakers revealed.[7] Members of the Senate reviewed photographs supplied by the Defense Department which have not been released to the public. They note that in addition to the abuses mentioned, some of the U.S. military guards had sex in front of the prisoners.
Hersh has made other claims about the abuses at Abu Ghraib. At the July 2004 conference of the ACLU, he stated that there are tapes of American soldiers sodomizing Iraqi boys, and that these tapes are being held by the Bush administration: "The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling, and the worst part is the soundtrack, of the boys shrieking", Notably, Hersh would revise this claim in his book Chain of Command, stating, "An attorney involved in the case told me in July 2004 that one of the witness statements he had read described the rape of a boy by a foreign contract employee who served as an interpreter at Abu Ghraib,” Hersh wrote. “In the statement, which had not been made public, the lawyer told me, a prisoner stated that he was a witness to the rape, and that a woman was taking pictures."[8]
The New York Times, in a report on January 12, 2005,[9] reported testimony suggesting that the following events had taken place at Abu Ghraib:
* Urinating on detainees
* Jumping on detainee's leg (a limb already wounded by gunfire) with such force that it could not thereafter heal properly
* Continuing by pounding detainee's wounded leg with collapsible metal baton
* Pouring phosphoric acid on detainees
* Sodomization of detainees with a baton
* Tying ropes to the detainees' legs or penises and dragging them across the floor.Sergeant Samuel Provance from Alpha Company 302nd Military Intelligence battalion, in interviews with several news agencies, reported the sexual abuse of a 16-year-old girl by two interrogators, as well as a 16-year-old son of an Iraqi general, who was driven through the cold night air on the open back of a truck after he had been showered and besmeared with mud in order to get his father to talk.[10] He also pointed out several techniques used by interrogators that have been identified as being in violation of the Geneva Convention. He spoke to the media, even against direct orders, about what he knew about at the prison (largely from conversations and interactions with the interrogators). He explained that he did so because there was "definitely a cover-up" underway by the Army. He was administratively flagged and had his top secret clearance suspended in retaliation by the Army. A detailed statement by Sergeant Provance concerning these and numerous other abuses at Abu Ghraib and his treatment by the army is available.[11]
In her video diary, a prison guard said that prisoners were shot for minor misbehavior, and claimed to have had venomous snakes bite prisoners, sometimes resulting in their deaths. By her own admission, that guard was "in trouble" for having thrown rocks at the detainees.[12]
Heh. Just a few pranks. Really.
-
Whatever Saddam's crimes - and the plastic shredder/acid bath stuff is obviously an article of faith with those who spend half their time doubled over in self-conratulatory LOL-mode at their own imagined cleverness with such puerile licks as "Nancypants" and "hairy armpit brigade" - they were no obstacle to earning a fat handshake from Rummy back in the day.
-
Honestly Simon, with a load of bollocks, how is it possible for someone to believe such utter crap?
James, if only the rest of us were able to live in the simplistic bubble you inhabit then the world would be a happier place. Sadly we don't. I'm not even going to try to list the human rights abuses of the last few years, they've been documented repeatedly, thousands of times, but include handing unconvicted persons over to third parties for torture, and countless people disappearing into a vast system the likes of which hasn't been seen since the days of Stalin.
The very simple point that eludes you is that Abu Ghraid was indicative. I know you don't get any of it, and probably never will, but the human rights of those people count too. And the thousands dead in Iraq in a bloated ugly unnecessary war.
BTW the shredder was likey an invention...there is absolutely no evidence to support the story....and you managed to get so many details in there too...
What disturbs me about the right,and indeed you is the way you polish up your torture badge and say it's shinier than others....
-
Simon:
If Americans are required to accept that Libby could not be convicted for his alleged actual crimes (ie in law he's innocent), then they also have to accept that he was properly convicted and sentenced for his other crimes.
What does this sentence mean? If you mean to say that because Libby has not been convicted of treason he's innocent of it. If so then that is a very long bow to draw.
-
Alastair,
He was not convicted of the crime of treason, and under American and our law there is a presumption of innocence, and if we are going to respect the law we have to respect that. That's why I said "in law". That does not mean I think he's innocent or otherwise, but I will not presume to convict a person, who has not even been charged with a crime that a judge and jury have not heard. That, I think is drawing a very long bow.It doesn't mean I don't think he's a nasty scumball who probably deserves, as does his boss, to be put away for a long time. And even more so after reading the WaPo Cheney four parter last night.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.