NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/04/AR2007060400683.html?hpid=topnews

Federal authorities accused Rep. William J. Jefferson yesterday of using his congressional office and staff to enrich himself and his family, charging the Louisiana Democrat with offering and accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes to support business ventures in the United States and several West African nations.

The 16-count indictment also accused Jefferson, a former co-chairman of congressional caucuses on Nigeria and African trade, of racketeering, money laundering and obstruction of justice. The indictment was handed up by a federal grand jury and capped a long and tumultuous FBI investigation.

With this indictment, House democratic leaders are looking at stripping him of his committee seat. Some in Congress want him expelled.

This is good and hopefully this guy will rot for the rest of his life (over 200 years if convicted on all counts)

He can share a cell with Randy Cunningham.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/04/AR2007060400683.html?hpid=topnews



With this indictment, House democratic leaders are looking at stripping him of his committee seat. Some in Congress want him expelled.

This is good and hopefully this guy will rot for the rest of his life (over 200 years if convicted on all counts)
I guess we see the standard that the leadership is willing to apply for ethical behavior. If a misdeed results in indictment, then it's unethical. If not, then it must be okay.

Jefferson should have been censured right after the feds found the stash of cold cash.

Yay for smiting corrupt politicians!

I bet 5 zilamian shekels that this will end up with some one saying "Look at the corrupt dems!" and then a myriad of replies including "Well the republicans are worse -cites bad republicans-", "Oh a corrupt politician. Who'd have thought of that?:rolleyes:" or "You're a fucking idiot!"


Yes, that is what my 7th sense tells me.

I guess we see the standard that the leadership is willing to apply for ethical behavior. If a misdeed results in indictment, then it's unethical. If not, then it must be okay.

Jefferson should have been censured right after the feds found the stash of cold cash.
He lost his chairmanship and any power he had inside the caucus after that, which is a fuckload more than what happened to any of the multiple Republicans under investigation. That party changed their internal rules toilet Delay stay Majority Leader while under indictment and only changed them back because of the public outcry raised by a minority of their own party in Congress. So fuck your bullshit comparisons.

I bet 5 zilamian shekels that this will end up with some one saying "Look at the corrupt dems!" and then a myriad of replies including "Well the republicans are worse -cites bad republicans-", "Oh a corrupt politician. Who'd have thought of that?:rolleyes:" or "You're a fucking idiot!"


Yes, that is what my 7th sense tells me.

You didn't read my first post in the thread, did you?

Go read it, and you'll see the name of a Republican who is in prison.

And read my suggestion that they should share a cell.

You didn't read my first post in the thread, did you?

Go read it, and you'll see the name of a Republican who is in prison.

And read my suggestion that they should share a cell.

You just watch and see how the thread ends. I have seen this happen so many times its not even funny.

You just watch and see how the thread ends. I have seen this happen so many times its not even funny.

I'm kind of surprised that one of the apologists hasn't jumped in already.

Congratulations are in order I believe! *Pops cork*

To non-corrupt government!

Congratulations are in order I believe! *Pops cork*

To non-corrupt government!

But you know that there are 534 others that are probably guilty of some sort of malfeasance, or misfeasance at the very least. And few of them will ever be held accountable.

But you know that there are 534 others that are probably guilty of some sort of malfeasance, or misfeasance at the very least. And few of them will ever be held accountable.

Unfortunately that is the political reality, and so you must cherish every victory, and hope for a better and brighter future.

But you know that there are 534 others that are probably guilty of some sort of malfeasance, or misfeasance at the very least. And few of them will ever be held accountable.

It's the old 11th Commandment.

I'm kind of surprised that one of the apologists hasn't jumped in already.

You won't find an apologist for Jefferson, because the party had already taken action against him prior to the indictment. It's one of the things Pelosi took a lot of heat for in her early days as Speaker because there were people saying "don't do anything until it's official." Her reply was, in effect, "we're not Republicans. We're taking action at the appearance of impropriety." And they did, which is a lot more than you can say for the Republican party of recent years.

You won't find an apologist for Jefferson, because the party had already taken action against him prior to the indictment. It's one of the things Pelosi took a lot of heat for in her early days as Speaker because there were people saying "don't do anything until it's official." Her reply was, in effect, "we're not Republicans. We're taking action at the appearance of impropriety." And they did, which is a lot more than you can say for the Republican party of recent years.

And funny that no action was taken on Murtha when he violated ethics rules. Now hopefully, this will get the action it deserves and he will be expelled.

Note* Murtha did nothing that was worthy of expulsion but censoring is another story.

You won't find an apologist for Jefferson, because the party had already taken action against him prior to the indictment. It's one of the things Pelosi took a lot of heat for in her early days as Speaker because there were people saying "don't do anything until it's official." Her reply was, in effect, "we're not Republicans. We're taking action at the appearance of impropriety." And they did, which is a lot more than you can say for the Republican party of recent years.

I have to say that Nazz makes a great point. Looking at the differences in the way the Republican party and the Democratic Party handled these issues says a lot. The Republicans did vote to change the ethics rules in order to allow Delay to remain in power even after indictment. Pelosi took action and took heat from members of her own party. This is precisely why the Republicans lost the majority in both houses as of the last elections. The corruption on the part of Republicans was bad enough, but bending over backwards to try and hold onto power is what did them in. Huzzah for the prosecution of corrupt politicians from all parties.

And funny that no action was taken on Murtha when he violated ethics rules. Now hopefully, this will get the action it deserves and he will be expelled.

Note* Murtha did nothing that was worthy of expulsion but censoring is another story.

Murtha was not indicted and was found to not be worthy of bringing charges. So get off Murtha unless you can peg something that has been proven on him. Show me an indictment and a guilty charge or back of this disabled Veteran who served with distinction.

Murtha did nothing that was worthy of expulsion but censoring is another story.
So, Murtha's face is now being pixelated on TV? ;)

Murtha was not indicted and was found to not be worthy of bringing charges. So get off Murtha unless you can peg something that has been proven on him. Show me an indictment and a guilty charge or back of this disabled Veteran who served with distinction.

I was not talking about criminal charges. One does not have to be indicted to face ethics violation charges.

On the floor of the House of Representatives Thursday, Rogers alleges, Murtha — upset by Rogers' aggressive attempts the week before to kill the project in Murtha's home district — said something along the lines of "I hope you don't have any earmarks in the defense appropriation bill because they are gone and you will not get any earmarks now and forever."

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3187575&page=1

The thing in question:

The House code of official conduct states that a congressman "may not condition the inclusion of language to provide funding for a congressional earmark … on any vote cast by another member."

Thank you. As I said. Ethics.

Congratulations are in order I believe! *Pops cork*

To non-corrupt government!

To marginally less corrupt government! They should of indicted his ass when they learned about it and kicked him out.

Na Na Na Na
Na Na Na Na
Hey Hey Hey

To marginally less corrupt government! They should of indicted his ass when they learned about it and kicked him out.

Hopefully, they kick him out now.

To marginally less corrupt government! They should of indicted his ass when they learned about it and kicked him out.

Indictments take time. I think it's pretty clear that the US Attorney's office wasn't dicking around on this case, especially since there was a question about the evidence that had to be settled first--the whole "can a search warrant cover a Congressman's office" question.

Hopefully, they kick him out now.

Hopefully, he resigns now. I want to be clear on something--there is a significant difference between an indictment and a conviction. Indictments are comparatively easy to get. I wouldn't have suggested that DeLay be kicked out of office based on an indictment either, but I thought he should have resigned, and that's how I feel about Jefferson. (I actually thought that Louisiana voters should have sent his primary opponent to the Congress instead, but that's another story.) But the most recent person to be kicked out of Congress (I believe) was Jim Traficant, and he was removed only after his conviction, not his indictment.

Hopefully, he resigns now. I want to be clear on something--there is a significant difference between an indictment and a conviction. Indictments are comparatively easy to get.

No, not "comparatively" easy. Just easy, period. The rules for a grand jury make an indictment a significantly easier task than a conviction.

There is an old legal maxim that states that a good prosecutor can get an indictment against a ham sandwich.

No, not "comparatively" easy. Just easy, period. The rules for a grand jury make an indictment a significantly easier task than a conviction.

There is an old legal maxim that states that a good prosecutor can get an indictment against a ham sandwich.

Yeah, I've heard the line a bajillion times on Law & Order.

Na Na Na Na
Na Na Na Na
Hey Hey Hey

Good Bye! :D

About time somebody go busted.

There is an old legal maxim that states that a good prosecutor can get an indictment against a ham sandwich.

Hahaha!

He can share a cell with Randy Cunningham.

And 'Scooter' Libby ;)

And 'Scooter' Libby ;)

30 months and a $250,000 fine. He got off light.

And 'Scooter' Libby ;)

Yep since he was sentenced to 30 months and a $25,000 fine for his crimes.

30 months and a $250,000 fine. He got off light.

Unfortunately.

30 months and a $250,000 fine. He got off light.

What is the range of punishment?

If he was given the equiv of community service.....then I'd say he was let off lightly...of course the book deals might offset that :mad:

You know why they hate William Jefferson?

Well, let's think of another democrat republicans didn't like with "William Jefferson" in his name.

You know why they hate William Jefferson?

Well, let's think of another democrat republicans didn't like with "William Jefferson" in his name.

:headbang:

:headbang:

I'm kidding, calm down.

You know why they hate William Jefferson?

Well, let's think of another democrat republicans didn't like with "William Jefferson" in his name.

No no no. Don't compare "Dollar" Bill Jefferson with Bill Clinton. I grew up just outside New Orleans when "Dollar Bill" was a local pol just getting his beak wet. He's been dirty a long time and has gotten away with it, largely because in Louisiana politics, dirty is just for novices. The ones who are good at it raise it to a level of artistry worthy of third world banana republics. Dollar Bill was fair to middling at it--no Edwin Edwards, but not a chump either.

Compared to Dollar Bill, Clinton was pure as the driven snow. He was administering the sacrament to Lewinsky by comparison.

Compared to Dollar Bill, Clinton was pure as the driven snow. He was administering the sacrament to Lewinsky by comparison.

The sacrament to Lewinsky! Now that is funny! :D

He lost his chairmanship and any power he had inside the caucus after that, which is a fuckload more than what happened to any of the multiple Republicans under investigation. That party changed their internal rules toilet Delay stay Majority Leader while under indictment and only changed them back because of the public outcry raised by a minority of their own party in Congress. So fuck your bullshit comparisons.

I don't believe the Republican party ever had a Majority Leader that promised anything near the empty promise of intending "to lead the most honest, the most open and the most ethical Congress in history." that Nancy Pelosi made. The Democrats are always promising new standards in ethics and all we ever get is the same old crap. They don't embrace ethical standards any more than the party across the aisle. It's just a load of demagoguery that's calculated to get votes.

I don't believe the Republican party ever had a Majority Leader that promised anything near the empty promise of intending "to lead the most honest, the most open and the most ethical Congress in history." that Nancy Pelosi made. The Democrats are always promising new standards in ethics and all we ever get is the same old crap. They don't embrace ethical standards any more than the party across the aisle. It's just a load of demagoguery that's calculated to get votes.

Okay, I'll bite.

If you can find a source that proves democrats are just as or more likely to be arrested for ethical charges, I will concede that "It's just a load of demagoguery that's calculated to get votes".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/04/AR2007060400683.html?hpid=topnews



With this indictment, House democratic leaders are looking at stripping him of his committee seat. Some in Congress want him expelled.

This is good and hopefully this guy will rot for the rest of his life (over 200 years if convicted on all counts)

I got a wacky idea: Let's convict him first. :p

On the other hand, can he effectively do his job under these circumstances? Is it fair to his constituents?

On the other, other hand, is it fair to him to have to step down to answer charges that he hasn't even been convicted of yet?

Of course, if he's found guilty, I hope he rots. :)

I don't believe the Republican party ever had a Majority Leader that promised anything near the empty promise of intending "to lead the most honest, the most open and the most ethical Congress in history." that Nancy Pelosi made. The Democrats are always promising new standards in ethics and all we ever get is the same old crap. They don't embrace ethical standards any more than the party across the aisle. It's just a load of demagoguery that's calculated to get votes.

Indeed.

Indeed.

Well, don't go sucking him off yet - wait till he provides the requested source. Lol

Okay, I'll bite.

If you can find a source that proves democrats are just as or more likely to be arrested for ethical charges, I will concede that "It's just a load of demagoguery that's calculated to get votes".

It's not even that. They didn't profess to have mind control, that they can somehow vouch for every single one of them, but rather deal with corruption when it happens no matter what the initial is at the end of the name. It isn't so much 'Democrats will do no wrong' but rather not circling the wagons and closing up to protect those who did wrong, like with Delay, or the page didler guy, or the on and on.

And the proof is already in this story. He gets investigated and loses his power in the caucus, he gets indicted and they already want him to resign instead of flooding the Sunday talk shows lashing out at the accusers, changing rules to protect him, etc. That's the difference, and it's obvious.

I expect to see corrupt people on both sides, and I don't hold the whole responsible for a couple of dicks. It's when the whole gathers around to protect the dicks instead of letting them reap what they sow, that has been the problem.

30 months and a $250,000 fine. He got off light.

He should have gotten that simply for going by "Scooter" alone.

Okay, I'll bite.

If you can find a source that proves democrats are just as or more likely to be arrested for ethical charges, I will concede that "It's just a load of demagoguery that's calculated to get votes".
No, they're just more likely to promise ethical behavior and continue with the same old misfeasance and malfeasance that they campaigned against.

No, they're just more likely to promise ethical behavior and continue with the same old misfeasance and malfeasance that they campaigned against.

Hmmm. In the last 10 years or so, we've seen major scandals from the Republican side of the aisle in the House. Tom DeLay. Bob Ney. Duke Cunningham. Dennis Hastert, John Doolittle and Jerry Lewis under investigation. And that's not even getting into the seedy stuff like Mark Foley--this is just your garden variety graft. And when these people were under investigation, not one of them had any sanctions leveled against them by their own party. Doolittle and Lewis are ranking members on their committees to this day, and as I mentioned before, the caucus changed the rules to allow DeLay to stay majority leader until the stink got too much even for them.

In the last ten years, the Democrats have had Jim Traficant--who was expelled from the body in a bipartisan vote (420-1) and who had been previously stripped of all his committee assignments, and now "Dollar" Bill Jefferson, who was stripped of all power in a majority Congress before he was even indicted.

So where's the misfeasance and malfeasance? I want to see it.


Edit: Let me add that, if the Democrats stay in power for the next ten years or more, you'll probably see a number of scandals. There's nothing inherently good or incorruptible about Democrats. It's just that, at this point in time, there's no proof to back up what you're saying about this Congress.

Hmmm. In the last 10 years or so, we've seen major scandals from the Republican side of the aisle in the House. Tom DeLay. Bob Ney. Duke Cunningham. Dennis Hastert, John Doolittle and Jerry Lewis under investigation. And that's not even getting into the seedy stuff like Mark Foley--this is just your garden variety graft. And when these people were under investigation, not one of them had any sanctions leveled against them by their own party. Doolittle and Lewis are ranking members on their committees to this day, and as I mentioned before, the caucus changed the rules to allow DeLay to stay majority leader until the stink got too much even for them.

In the last ten years, the Democrats have had Jim Traficant--who was expelled from the body in a bipartisan vote (420-1) and who had been previously stripped of all his committee assignments, and now "Dollar" Bill Jefferson, who was stripped of all power in a majority Congress before he was even indicted.

So where's the misfeasance and malfeasance? I want to see it.


Edit: Let me add that, if the Democrats stay in power for the next ten years or more, you'll probably see a number of scandals. There's nothing inherently good or incorruptible about Democrats. It's just that, at this point in time, there's no proof to back up what you're saying about this Congress.

And that's basically all I wanted. Proof.

I don't believe the Republican party ever had a Majority Leader that promised anything near the empty promise of intending "to lead the most honest, the most open and the most ethical Congress in history." that Nancy Pelosi made. The Democrats are always promising new standards in ethics and all we ever get is the same old crap. They don't embrace ethical standards any more than the party across the aisle. It's just a load of demagoguery that's calculated to get votes.

As The Nazz has already pointed out, bullshit.

The republican party attempted to change its rules to allow DeLay to keep his status after he was indicted.

Jefferson was removed from his comittee even BEFORE he was indicted.

I say the party that acts preemptively to punish alleged wrongdoing embraces a great deal more ethical standards than the one that tries to change its own rules to accomodate alleged wrongdoing.

30 months and a $250,000 fine. He got off light.
While we're bringing up the differences between the Dems and the Repubs, look at how the White House reacted to that verdict: All came out saying how terrible it is and how sorry they feel for him and his family.
Nothing about justice being served or anything.

What is the range of punishment?

If he was given the equiv of community service.....then I'd say he was let off lightly...of course the book deals might offset that :mad:
maximum sentence was 25 years and a fine of $1 mill, so a sentence which is just 10% of that length is pretty light really.
At any rate, he'll be out at the end of GWB's reign no doubt.

maximum sentence was 25 years and a fine of $1 mill, so a sentence which is just 10% of that length is pretty light really.
At any rate, he'll be out at the end of GWB's reign no doubt.

Well, considering he really didn't even do anything, I hope he does. Meanwhile, the investigation on who actually leaked the information has come up with no indictments, and has effectively stopped trying.

This is good and hopefully this guy will rot for the rest of his life (over 200 years if convicted on all counts)

I sure miss the attitude of "innocent until proven guilty" in this country

I sure miss the attitude of "innocent until proven guilty" in this country

Considering the evidence and survailence and everything else I am hearing, this is not going to end well for Jefferson. The only thing I can see going wrong is if the Prosecutor boches the case.

Well, considering he really didn't even do anything, I hope he does.

Actually a jury of his peers determined that he did indeed do something, he obstructed justice, and was proven guilty of obstructing justice in a court of law..

Actually a jury of his peers determined that he did indeed do something, he obstructed justice, and was proven guilty of obstructing justice in a court of law..

Right, but he was doing it under the command of the government itself. Then the government punishes him for doing it. It's fucked up.

Right, but he was doing it under the command of the government itself. Then the government punishes him for doing it. It's fucked up.

Does not matter if it was ordered or not.

Considering the evidence and survailence and everything else I am hearing, this is not going to end well for Jefferson. The only thing I can see going wrong is if the Prosecutor boches the case.

I was not aware that you constituted a "jury of his peers" and therefore had any way to "determine his guilt" before you have seen all the evidence or heard any of the defense.

I was not aware that you constituted a "jury of his peers" and therefore had any way to "determine his guilt" before you have seen all the evidence or heard any of the defense.

I have heard what the attorneys of his has said. I have heard of some of the evidence that the Prosecutors have, including cold hard cash (literally) from his home.

The only hitch I am seeing deals with his office getting searched.

Court records indicate that Jefferson was videotaped taking a $100,000 cash bribe from an FBI informant. Most of that money later turned up in a freezer in Jefferson's home. He had separated the money into $10,000 increments and wrapped the bundles in aluminum foil, federal investigators say.

Caught in the act apparently and with an FBI informant to boot.

And now for the Indictment (http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/060507jefferson.pdf)

You can read it if you like.

Well, considering he really didn't even do anything, I hope he does. Meanwhile, the investigation on who actually leaked the information has come up with no indictments, and has effectively stopped trying.

Well, a big part of the reason they came up with no indictments was because Scooter did a very good job of obstructing justice--which is shy he's going to jail.

The more I think about the whole pardon thing, the more I think it won't happen until Bush is on his way out the door, simply because I think (and I could easily be wrong here) that once Scooter is pardoned, he can be forced to testify against other people. He's in no jeopardy, and so has no 5th Amendment privilege to claim. I'll gladly stand corrected if a lawyer says I'm out of my mind.

These guys are just minor leaguers compared to George W. Bush. The people of America have allowed top level deceit, lies, and corruption from Dear Leader from the get go!!:(

These guys are just minor leaguers compared to George W. Bush. The people of America have allowed top level deceit, lies, and corruption from Dear Leader from the get go!!:(

To bad we do tolerate such things from the President regardless of who is in office.

I have heard what the attorneys of his has said. I have heard of some of the evidence that the Prosecutors have, including cold hard cash (literally) from his home.

The only hitch I am seeing deals with his office getting searched.



Caught in the act apparently and with an FBI informant to boot.

And now for the Indictment (http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/060507jefferson.pdf)

You can read it if you like.

Obviously you cannot have heard everything yet, as there HAS NOT BEEN A TRIAL YET.

We don't declare people guilty because of what little evidence and defense has been presented on the 5 o'clock news.

Why is it that the most corrupt people are from Louisiana?

Well, a big part of the reason they came up with no indictments was because Scooter did a very good job of obstructing justice--which is shy he's going to jail.

The more I think about the whole pardon thing, the more I think it won't happen until Bush is on his way out the door, simply because I think (and I could easily be wrong here) that once Scooter is pardoned, he can be forced to testify against other people. He's in no jeopardy, and so has no 5th Amendment privilege to claim. I'll gladly stand corrected if a lawyer says I'm out of my mind.

not exactly. A pardon is forgiveness of a crime and the punishment associated with it.

It is not exactly immunity. If bush grants libby immunity for the obstruction of justice it would only forgive him for those acts already committed that obstructed justice. A pardon would say he could no longer be punished for acts committed that obstructed justice prior to the pardon. It would not insulate him from obstruction of justice charges for acts comitted AFTER the pardon, nor would it grant him immunity from charges stemming from the leak of plame's name.

a pardon forgives, it does not immunize. It would render him forgiven for bad acts he has already committed, not immune from prosecution for future bad acts.

Does not matter if it was ordered or not.

Dude, that's like putting a soldier on trial for murder while he's being shot at and the general's behind him going "Shoot that mother fucker!".

Dude, that's like putting a soldier on trial for murder while he's being shot at and the general's behind him going "Shoot that mother fucker!".

There is a big difference here. If someone is shooting at me, I have full authority to defend myself and shoot back and kill him.

There is a big difference here. If someone is shooting at me, I have full authority to defend myself and shoot back and kill him.

Oh so snipers should be sent to jail, then. Gotcha.

Oh so snipers should be sent to jail, then. Gotcha.

Are we talking in a combat zone where snipers are picking off enemy troops or are we just talking about snipers outside of a combat zone?

No no no. Don't compare "Dollar" Bill Jefferson with Bill Clinton. I grew up just outside New Orleans when "Dollar Bill" was a local pol just getting his beak wet. He's been dirty a long time and has gotten away with it, largely because in Louisiana politics, dirty is just for novices. The ones who are good at it raise it to a level of artistry worthy of third world banana republics. Dollar Bill was fair to middling at it--no Edwin Edwards, but not a chump either.

Compared to Dollar Bill, Clinton was pure as the driven snow. He was administering the sacrament to Lewinsky by comparison.

I particularly liked the '86 gubernatorial race in Louisiana. Ed Edwards, who I believe had already by that time been indicted for racketeering, vs. David Dukes, former Grand Wizard of the KKK. Now there's a choice.

Are we talking in a combat zone where snipers are picking off enemy troops or are we just talking about snipers outside of a combat zone?

Seriously.

The Nuremberg defense just doesn't hold. If you are ordered to do something illegal, no matter by who, and you comply, you are guilty of the act. There are so many precedents in both internationally and in US that it's not even funny. If the people who ordered you later accuse you of not following orders, the illegality of the orders is a valid defense.

The trick is, killing someone as an act of war is not illegal, at least as long as certain rules are followed. If the general was shouting at you to kill an unarmed child, and you did it, you would be guilty of murder.

PS: this is also why most of the people in Guantanamo are not guilty of anything and holding them there is illegal, both in international and us law. Even if they fought against us, we cannot just say they are murderers, essentially they are no more guilty than the US soldiers who fought against them.

Kindly note the idiots in his home district re-elected him despite knowing about his quaint home banking habits. Yes, I called them idiots. They should have thrown him out on his ass, but that's America for you.

Now let's see how much "hook wiggling" this guy does before he resigns in disgrace before his much overdue stay at the Graybar Hotel. I think Republicans and Democrats should all send him a lovely parting gift.

Soap on a rope.

Are we talking in a combat zone where snipers are picking off enemy troops or are we just talking about snipers outside of a combat zone?

According to you, it doesn't matter. Regardless of if it's their job to do so, regardless of if they've been ordered to by the government itself, they've committed a crime and should be punished.

Fried Tuna;12743416']Seriously.

The Nuremberg defense just doesn't hold. If you are ordered to do something illegal, no matter by who, and you comply, you are guilty of the act. There are so many precedents in both internationally and in US that it's not even funny. If the people who ordered you later accuse you of not following orders, the illegality of the orders is a valid defense.

The trick is, killing someone as an act of war is not illegal, at least as long as certain rules are followed. If the general was shouting at you to kill an unarmed child, and you did it, you would be guilty of murder.

PS: this is also why most of the people in Guantanamo are not guilty of anything and holding them there is illegal, both in international and us law. Even if they fought against us, we cannot just say they are murderers, essentially they are no more guilty than the US soldiers who fought against them.

Then would Cheney and Rove not be accomplices and should therefore also be tried in court?

According to you, it doesn't matter. Regardless of if it's their job to do so, regardless of if they've been ordered to by the government itself, they've committed a crime and should be punished.

Actually, it matters quite alot if you are using troops as an example. If someone is shooting at them, they have full right to shoot back and kill whoever it is that is shooting at them. With snipers, if it is a combat zone, it is legal to pick off whoever it is they want provided they are in uniform or wearing the appropriate uniform as designated by the Geneva Convention.

So now you are trying to move the goalposts and it is not going to work.

Fried Tuna;12743416']Seriously.

The Nuremberg defense just doesn't hold. If you are ordered to do something illegal, no matter by who, and you comply, you are guilty of the act.

You are correct in what you are stating but if you notice the example that he used, the troops are being fired upon and the general orders his troops to kill them. That is a legal order and thus not illegal in the scenerio he was describing.

There are so many precedents in both internationally and in US that it's not even funny. If the people who ordered you later accuse you of not following orders, the illegality of the orders is a valid defense.

Correct.

The trick is, killing someone as an act of war is not illegal, at least as long as certain rules are followed. If the general was shouting at you to kill an unarmed child, and you did it, you would be guilty of murder.

Correct.

PS: this is also why most of the people in Guantanamo are not guilty of anything and holding them there is illegal, both in international and us law. Even if they fought against us, we cannot just say they are murderers, essentially they are no more guilty than the US soldiers who fought against them.

I would tend to agree with you yet again and the military justices agree. So....

Actually, it matters quite alot if you are using troops as an example. If someone is shooting at them, they have full right to shoot back and kill whoever it is that is shooting at them. With snipers, if it is a combat zone, it is legal to pick off whoever it is they want provided they are in uniform or wearing the appropriate uniform as designated by the Geneva Convention.

So now you are trying to move the goalposts and it is not going to work.

So what gives the government the right to tell a sniper "go kill this guy" and not have him be a criminal, but the government can tell Libby "go say this to those guys" and he is a criminal? Not just that, but the government that told him to do it won't get in trouble at all.

Doesn't make sense to me.

I'm sympathetic with the guy, because I understand there's a really good chance he could've been fired or threatened or harmed if he didn't do as told. Rock and a hard place. He's not a criminal, he's a victim.

So what gives the government the right to tell a sniper "go kill this guy" and not have him be a criminal, but the government can tell Libby "go say this to those guys" and he is a criminal? Not just that, but the government that told him to do it won't get in trouble at all.

Assassination is illegal. You are right about that but if it is in a combat zone and the guy killed is in a military uniform (militia included) then no it is not illegal.

Doesn't make sense to me.

It does to me because I know what I am talking about.

I'm sympathetic with the guy, because I understand there's a really good chance he could've been fired or threatened or harmed if he didn't do as told. Rock and a hard place. He's not a criminal, he's a victim.

Which is why a pardon is probably going to happen.

Assassination is illegal. You are right about that but if it is in a combat zone and the guy killed is in a military uniform (militia included) then no it is not illegal.



It does to me because I know what I am talking about.



Which is why a pardon is probably going to happen.

Which is why I said "Good, I hope so", and we're back to where we started.