Outrage after outrage.

General discussions of interest to readers and fans of Harlan Ellison.

Moderator: Moderator

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Postby Moderator » Tue Aug 12, 2008 1:00 pm

Mukasey isn't going to prosecute the Justice Department managers who used political litmus tests to fill open positions.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080812/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/mukasey_lawyers

According Mukasey, laws can be broken without consequences.

"not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime. In this instance, the two joint reports found only violations of the civil service laws."


Yes. This is our Attorney General saying this.

Color me shocked. :roll:
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Postby FrankChurch » Tue Aug 12, 2008 2:10 pm

I kind of wish Bugliosi didn't advocate that Bush get the death penalty, that could be the main reason so many in the media will not touch the book, not even the liberals. He should have just stated his case and that's it.

User avatar
Ezra Lb.
Posts: 4547
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:02 am
Location: Washington, DC

Postby Ezra Lb. » Tue Aug 12, 2008 2:25 pm

Steve what I'm waiting on is the list of people Bush pardons at five minutes to midnight on his last day in office. Should be an interesting group of folks.
“We must not always talk in the marketplace,” Hester Prynne said, “of what happens to us in the forest.”
-Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Postby FrankChurch » Tue Aug 12, 2008 2:27 pm

I hope one will be Charlie Manson. He's so much fun.

User avatar
Chuck Messer
Posts: 2089
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 9:15 pm
Location: Lakewood, Colorado

Postby Chuck Messer » Tue Aug 12, 2008 2:29 pm

Bugliosi does not advocate any specific punishment for Bush in his book. He does list the possible punishments for first versus second degree murder, etc. Keep in mind this book is also a primer for lay people like ourselves whose knowlege of the law and legal procdure comes from television. That includes me.

Ezra wrote:

But Bush didn't personally kill all those people. He had a little help if you recall. Congress. The military. A substantial portion of the American people.


Charles Manson didn't personally commit the Tate/LaBianca murders, either. Bugliosi convicted him of first degree murder anyway, and rightly so.

Duane wrote:

>> This book is a guide, a primer for any prosecutor who wants to indict Bush for first degree murder. He'd do it himself if he were'nt retired.<<

If I was a lawyer, and if I REALLY had something on Bush that could send him up the river with "the Sisters", that would be more than enough to pull me out of retirement. However, publishing a book is easier and more lucrative, and one doesn't have to go through all the hard work of actually prosecuting a case.


I was a bit overzealous when saying he'd do the prosecution himself. Those are *my* words, not his. What his real motivations are, are beyond my ability to tell, since I'm not a mind reader. As far as the man himself, he has a reputation for being an inveterate workaholic. And, I'm not sure what would entail a man of his age, etc returning to work as a prosecutor.

I hope I'm being coherent right now. I just got up (graveyard shift, you know) and I'm still a bit groggy.

And there's not one ounce of snark in the above postings. I think what is in the book is at least debatable and I'd like to see an intelligent discussion of this issue. I can think of no group -- at least an on line, ad hoc informal group like this one -- better qualified to talk intelligently about this.

I posted here, since it is at least debatable that the war in Iraq is an outrage -- the big one. If this is thread hijacking, I can create a separate thread. I am truly interested in what you guys think, including Ezra and Duane.

Chuck
Some people are wedded to their ideology the way nuns are wed to God.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Postby FrankChurch » Tue Aug 12, 2008 4:59 pm

Well, on television he advocated the death penalty.

User avatar
Chuck Messer
Posts: 2089
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 9:15 pm
Location: Lakewood, Colorado

Postby Chuck Messer » Tue Aug 12, 2008 6:46 pm

Interesting. I didn't see that. What show was he on, or was it a news item?
Some people are wedded to their ideology the way nuns are wed to God.

User avatar
Duane
Posts: 1579
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 8:21 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Postby Duane » Tue Aug 12, 2008 10:10 pm

I'll take the time to read it and let you know what I think.

Congrats on the 1000th post, by the way. Are we dedicated, or what?

User avatar
Ezra Lb.
Posts: 4547
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:02 am
Location: Washington, DC

Postby Ezra Lb. » Wed Aug 13, 2008 10:35 am

Charles Manson didn't personally commit the Tate/LaBianca murders, either. Bugliosi convicted him of first degree murder anyway, and rightly so.

Yeah but all Charlie's friends got put away too, right?
“We must not always talk in the marketplace,” Hester Prynne said, “of what happens to us in the forest.”
-Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter

User avatar
Chuck Messer
Posts: 2089
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 9:15 pm
Location: Lakewood, Colorado

Postby Chuck Messer » Wed Aug 13, 2008 5:07 pm

That they did, that they did. I think Bugliosi also would like to see at least Chaney and Rice indicted as well. Anyone in the administration that would be described as a co-conspirator.

Chuck
Some people are wedded to their ideology the way nuns are wed to God.

User avatar
Chuck Messer
Posts: 2089
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 9:15 pm
Location: Lakewood, Colorado

Postby Chuck Messer » Wed Aug 13, 2008 5:08 pm

Not all of Manson's family were put away. Don't forget Squeaky was free to bungle her assassination of Gerald Ford. I think there are others as well.

Chck
Some people are wedded to their ideology the way nuns are wed to God.

Alan Coil
Posts: 538
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:21 pm
Location: Southeast Michigan

Postby Alan Coil » Wed Aug 13, 2008 7:52 pm

Speaking of outrages, it looks like the Republicans have taken to assassinating Democratic leadership, starting in Arkansas.

User avatar
robochrist
Posts: 3426
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 1:30 pm

Postby robochrist » Wed Aug 13, 2008 8:37 pm

The Republicans have always been America's pragmatists.

paul
Posts: 877
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 8:04 pm
Location: ATX
Contact:

Postby paul » Sun Aug 17, 2008 12:19 am

Okay, I give. Someone please tell me what this whole "Sisters" thing is. The only sisterly thing I remember is the Robert McCartney family meeting, and I don't see how that has anything to do with this conversation.

Chuck Messer~ Don't forget Squeaky was free to bungle her assassination of Gerald Ford


What I like about Squeaky, if I can be unchastened for the use of the word, is that she seems to regularly escape from prison and then immediately get caught again. As though she doesn't really want to be free, just wanted to remind people that she was "important too."
------

No hijack there, Chuck. I figure one Bush outrage is just as credible as another. Shit, there's 75,196 websites dedicated to Bush's fuckups, gaffes, misspokes and dyslexic ramadoodles, no reason why this one shouldn't go down in the history of the net as well.

But yeah, we could fill a thread based on the evidence for a criminal trial. I'll get to the book soon. I labor under the same weight as many of you: several at one time, not finishing them fast enough.
The medium is the message.

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Postby Moderator » Sun Aug 17, 2008 8:36 am

Ezra Lb. wrote:Steve what I'm waiting on is the list of people Bush pardons at five minutes to midnight on his last day in office. Should be an interesting group of folks.



I've been cogitatin' about this and have hit upon an interesting point.

In order for the President to issue a pardon, doesn't the person being pardoned have to have been accused and/or convicted of a crime?

If no one, other than Scooter, has been convicted by the time Bush leaves office he cannot pardon them a'la Nixon.

Could THIS be the reason Pelosi and company haven't acted? Get the whole bunch of them by prosecuting after he and Cheney have left office?

Can a President or his cabinet be prosecuted by Congress post-term?

It's an interesting thought, provided they are not diverted by the war he will start with Iran before leaving...
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests