RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo

RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Starbuck09 -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/26/2009 3:27:27 PM)
Presumably the new administration could repeal all these acts that you believe are violations of the constitution and abuses of power could they not?

DomKen -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/26/2009 3:29:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig I'm with Starbuck on this one, more of a positive for Bush than a negative. It is a positive for Bush, as a single good decision, but a huge negative for Cheney etc for even bringing up an idea so clearly illegal. Which since Bush was the boss makes it his responsibility that he hired people who weren't aware of the Posse Comitatus Act and the fact that the underlying sentiment is deeply ingrained in Americans.

Starbuck09 -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/26/2009 3:31:37 PM)
But that's the point Ken bringing up a point for discussion is not abnormal government behaviour. All possibilities will be considered in a situation like this some more outlandish than others but they have to be debated to ensure that every contingency is covered that's all.

Brain -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/26/2009 3:33:42 PM)
If George Bush did seriously consider sending troops into Buffalo it’s only because he never did know what he was doing and was never qualified to become president in the first place. I don’t know if baseball commissioner would have been a more appropriate position. I guess he would not do any worse than Bud Selig.

DomKen -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/26/2009 3:36:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 But that's the point Ken bringing up a point for discussion is not abnormal government behaviour. All possibilities will be considered in a situation like this some more outlandish than others but they have to be debated to ensure that every contingency is covered that's all. Actually technically it was conspiracy to violate the Posse Comitatus Act which is in itself a crime. I do not want my President's advisors trying to find ways to justify breaking laws. If some law needs changing let them make their case to the American people and to Congress. In this case we all know it wouldn't fly because Congress tried relaxing the Posse Comitatus act to allow federal troops to be used in cases of natural disaster and the outrage was such that they repealed it 2 years later.

rulemylife -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/26/2009 3:40:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 I'm not trying to defend anything the fact is that all contingencies in situations like this are brought to the table and discussed, in this case a course of action that would have violated your constitution was debated and decided against it is a non issue. The three items you have listed are seperate and irrelevant to this one. As I said all governemnt regardless of alignment will discuss these things in delicate matters of which this was one. Talking in a patronising tone to me does not reinforce your argument rule it demeans it. I have spoken to you as an adult never anything else extend me the same courteousy. I had no intention of patronizing you, and I'm sorry if it came out that way. I don't often agree with you but you do make good arguments. But the point I am trying to make is I don't expect my government to even have issues on the table for discussion that are, or have the potential to be, violations of the law.

Starbuck09 -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/26/2009 3:40:57 PM)
The president's advisors in every administration will put all options on the table for him to choose the best course of action. If he had chosen to send in troops the american people could have registered their approval or disgust at the ballot box or if the reaction was strong enough have had him impeached. Every president will have had discussions like this about all manner of scenarios I suspect the only reason this was in the papers was because it was a slow news week.

Starbuck09 -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/26/2009 3:44:18 PM)
No worries Rule I interpreted something that wasn't there the apology is mine to make. I understand what you are saying but I think in this case you are being unduly harsh to Bush. Obama will be having precisely the same type of talks in private, there will be options for pre emptive nuclear strikes against beijing and invasions of Pakistan e.t.c. e.t.c. it's not going to happen [probably!] but they will still be discussed as possibilities. The president advisors have a duty to ensure that the president has ALL available couses so he can pick the best one. After all he is going to be judged on the action he authorises.

rulemylife -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/26/2009 3:48:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig quote: All of these things came out of the types of discussions you are trying to defend. Yes they did, and in my opinion in those cases the wrong decision was taken. That however does not change the fact that such discussions do, and always have, take place in every government on the planet through all of history. It is in the nature of the beast, what is important is not only how the issue was decided, but to what degree were they willing to go to justify an illegal action. You can be damn sure that some pretty ify shit is brought up in Obama's strategy sessions. Hell he came up with a way of justifying holding Gitmo detainees indefinately regardless of the outcome of their trials. That is something I believe to be illegal, and Obama is doing it as a matter of policy. Already just 7 months in and Obama is trampling on some of the most cherished freedoms and legal doctrines protecting the individual from state tyranny. makes you wonder what sort of ideas he turned down, if that was deemed OK, doesn't it now? I'm not really happy with those things in the current administration either. But to call it the "nature of the beast" and to willingly accept it is asking for more of the same and worse in the future.

rulemylife -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/26/2009 4:05:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 No worries Rule I interpreted something that wasn't there the apology is mine to make. I understand what you are saying but I think in this case you are being unduly harsh to Bush. Obama will be having precisely the same type of talks in private, there will be options for pre emptive nuclear strikes against beijing and invasions of Pakistan e.t.c. e.t.c. it's not going to happen [probably!] but they will still be discussed as possibilities. The president advisors have a duty to ensure that the president has ALL available couses so he can pick the best one. After all he is going to be judged on the action he authorises. Again, we disagree. I'm not trying to be harsh to Bush. For once the bubblehead made a correct decision (oops, that was being harsh wasn't it?). This was Cheney trying to influence the President, as it seems to have been in many other poorer decisions. Which again brings me back to the point that our government officials take an oath to uphold the law, not find ways to circumvent it, regardless of the circumstances involved.

Starbuck09 -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/26/2009 4:09:39 PM)
Fair enough, my mistake in that case I think you're being unfair to Cheney he has a duty to bring all options [no matter how unpalatable] to the table so the president can make the most informed decision. If Bush had decided to violate the constitution he could have been voted out or impeached. Surely as well for all the other actions that he did decide were neccesary despite the fact that they bent or broke the constitution can simply be repealed by this administration?

Brain -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/26/2009 4:20:01 PM)
This is really good and it applies to both parties. There are significant problems in the Democratic Party also with lobbyists having too much power over the legislators. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: truth about the Bush presidency 1 (BE SURE TO SEE PART 2!) The setting: a forum exploring the Liberalism and Conservatism of the 60s, via reactions to the re-publication of Barry Goldwater's 'Conscience of a Conservative' and JK Ga... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WonM34-OpuY Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: truth about the Bush presidency 2 The setting: a forum exploring the Liberalism and Conservatism of the 60s, via reactions to the re-publication of Barry Goldwater's 'Conscience of a Conservative' and JK Galbraith's 'New Industrial State.' Robert F. Kennedy Jr., now a law professor, makes devastating comments about the current administration while demonstrating that Goldwater's ideas, and true Conservatism, are the antithesis of Bush, his cronies, and the Republican party. Completely extemporaneous - a masterpiece http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz6kG11Ek1w

Politesub53 -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/26/2009 4:20:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 Fair enough, my mistake in that case I think you're being unfair to Cheney he has a duty to bring all options [no matter how unpalatable] to the table so the president can make the most informed decision. If Bush had decided to violate the constitution he could have been voted out or impeached. Surely as well for all the other actions that he did decide were neccesary despite the fact that they bent or broke the constitution can simply be repealed by this administration? Dont forget Cheney took an oath to defend the constitution, therefore he shouldnt have been suggesting doing anything that violated the constitution.

MarsBonfire -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/26/2009 4:23:12 PM)
He had the duty to bring all legal options to the President's attention. (Of course, they had a small cadre of snivelling corporate lawyer yes-men in their employ to write papers to say that they had every right to use the Constitution as toilet paper.) Such is what the Bush Cheany administration felt passed for "restoring dignity to the White House."

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/26/2009 4:25:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 Fair enough, my mistake in that case I think you're being unfair to Cheney he has a duty to bring all options [no matter how unpalatable] to the table so the president can make the most informed decision. If Bush had decided to violate the constitution he could have been voted out or impeached. Surely as well for all the other actions that he did decide were neccesary despite the fact that they bent or broke the constitution can simply be repealed by this administration? How do you repeal an invasion? How do you repeal hundreds of innocent human beings locked in a cage for months, or even years? How do you give them those years back? How do you repeal the torture of who knows how many people? You can not fix the harm that was done by repealing the policies under which the damage was inflicted.

Starbuck09 -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/26/2009 4:28:41 PM)
I understand that you cannot repeal the actions that you disagree with Panda but presumably you can repeal the legislation that authorised them? I know he took the oath polite but all advisors in all administration will discuss all options, that's just how it works.

Politesub53 -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/26/2009 4:29:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda How do you repeal an invasion? How do you repeal hundreds of innocent human beings locked in a cage for months, or even years? How do you give them those years back? How do you repeal the torture of who knows how many people? You can not fix the harm that was done by repealing the policies under which the damage was inflicted. Good point Panda.

Arpig -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/26/2009 4:30:09 PM)
quote: Actually technically it was conspiracy to violate the Posse Comitatus Act which is in itself a crime. This could well be true, I had forgotten about the far reaching conspiracy laws in the US. If nothing else a good case for it could be built. If you really feel this is the case, why not get a lwayer and see if you can get a local DA to lay the charges?

Politesub53 -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/26/2009 4:36:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 I know he took the oath polite but all advisors in all administration will discuss all options, that's just how it works. Firstly, the Vice President isnt elected as an advisor, he is elected incase anything happens to the President. The oath isnt sowrn to the president, its sworn to uphold the office he is elected to. Secondly, are you seriously suggesting its okay for politicians to discuss breaking the law. Are you really happy for them to do that on your behalf, because I am not. If they feel a law needs amending then fine, put it to congress/parliament.

Starbuck09 -> RE: Report: Bush Mulled Sending Troops Into Buffalo (7/26/2009 4:40:09 PM)
I have no problem with governments discussing breaking the law in the interests of protecting the citizenry they are responsible for provided there is a mechanism in place for their removal if the public disagrees with the logic for their actions.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.222656E-02