NationStates Jolt Archive


Learning from Watergate: It's Happening Again

FreedomAndGlory
30-06-2007, 00:55
Watergate characterized some of the most grievous excesses and wanton abuse of power in the history of this nation. Constitutional guarantees were recklessly discarded as "unreasonable searches and seizures" prevailed. The turmoil cast our country in deep peril as the events drove the nation to the brink of anarchy. Bounds were rashly overstepped; the very fiber of our democratic state hung in the balance as the wisdom of the Founding Fathers was ignored and the all-important doctrine of "separation of powers" was flouted. Why am I bringing this up now, several decades too late? Because the echoes of that horrible catastrophe still reverberate to this day. Lessons learned during that turbulent period still apply today, more than ever.

We presently find ourselves in a similar situation and must take precautions so that the mistakes of the past are not repeated. We must avert the heinous tragedy which befell our nation all those years ago. The dread shadow of the fiasco still looms imposingly over us right now.

As you may recall, power-hungry demagogues who disregarded the Constitution by shamelessly attacking and subduing a critical part of our government: the executive branch. President Nixon suffered at the hands of these fiends, driven by blood-lust, who cared nothing for the Constitution. They curtailed the power of Nixon's lofty office by ordering him to produce confidential tapes which recorded several of his private conversations. He, like any good American, refused to turn them over: to properly execute his duties, the President must be able to seek advice without the prying eyes of ghoulish observers studiously watching his every move and their ears hearing his every word. A fundamental tenet of our system of government is that the president is elected to serve the public good; this is rendered impossible if he is too petrified to consult his advisers, knowing that one false phrase may call upon him a shower of fury. The Supreme Court stepped in to arbitrate the conflict, but it, too, stood against President Nixon. This crisis showed how powerless the executive branch had become, prone to ravenous vultures seeking easy prey. Our democracy cannot survive if the person the people elected is too scared to do his job.

Yet the lessons of the past have not been learned. Again, the Democrats are calling for reams of confidential conversations to be disclosed and are clawing at executive privilege left and right. Members of the administration are ceaselessly interrogated on the roles they play and the judicial branch is forcing them to divulge numerous secrets which should never have seen the light of day. Loyal public servants are brutally thrown in jail as our Constitution is being torn asunder. Without executive privilege to rely on, I fear that the president will be forced to formulate his opinions based on scant information and little advice. Few will risk advocating a more controversial idea for fear that they, too, will be imprisoned or ridiculed for their stance. Inevitably, the fabric of this great nation will be rent apart by this disastrous turn of events as flawed decision after flawed decision will be made on the basis of one man's thoughts alone. In this critical time, we must remember the lessons of the past, and we must heed them. For us to prosper and for our "experiment" in freedom to survive, the executive branch must remain strong and nobody must be too frightened to perform their duty by aiding the president, no matter how unpopular their ideas. The sanctity of the president's privacy must be honored. Everybody in the administration should stand up and tell the president what they devoutly believe in, unafraid of the possibility that time will prove them wrong and they will be hamstrung in the public square.

This nation was founded on brilliant, but radical and revolutionary, new ideas, developed by a group of men working in the utmost secrecy lest news of their thoughts spread: let's keep it that way.
Minaris
30-06-2007, 00:58
Watergate characterized some of the most grievous excesses and wanton abuse of power in the history of this nation. Constitutional guarantees were recklessly discarded as "unreasonable searches and seizures" prevailed. The turmoil cast our country in deep peril as the events drove the nation to the brink of anarchy. Bounds were rashly overstepped; the very fiber of our democratic state hung in the balance as the wisdom of the Founding Fathers was ignored and the all-important doctrine of "separation of powers" was flouted. Why am I bringing this up now, several decades too late? Because the echoes of that horrible catastrophe still reverberate to this day. Lessons learned during that turbulent period still apply today, more than ever.

We presently find ourselves in a similar situation and must take precautions so that the mistakes of the past are not repeated. We must avert the heinous tragedy which befell our nation all those years ago. The dread shadow of the fiasco still looms imposingly over us right now.

As you may recall, power-hungry demagogues who disregarded the Constitution by shamelessly attacking and subduing a critical part of our government: the executive branch. President Nixon suffered at the hands of these fiends, driven by blood-lust, who cared nothing for the Constitution. They curtailed the power of Nixon's lofty office by ordering him to produce confidential tapes which recorded several of his private conversations. He, like any good American, refused to turn them over: to properly execute his duties, the President must be able to seek advice without the prying eyes of ghoulish observers studiously watching his every move and their ears hearing his every word. A fundamental tenet of our system of government is that the president is elected to serve the public good; this is rendered impossible if he is too petrified to consult his advisers, knowing that one false phrase may call upon him a shower of fury. The Supreme Court stepped in to arbitrate the conflict, but it, too, stood against President Nixon. This crisis showed how powerless the executive branch had become, prone to ravenous vultures seeking easy prey. Our democracy cannot survive if the person the people elected is too scared to do his job.

Yet the lessons of the past have not been learned. Again, the Democrats are calling for reams of confidential conversations to be disclosed and are clawing at executive privilege left and right. Members of the administration are ceaselessly interrogated on the roles they play and the judicial branch is forcing them to divulge numerous secrets which should never have seen the light of day. Loyal public servants are brutally thrown in jail as our Constitution is being torn asunder. Without executive privilege to rely on, I fear that the president will be forced to formulate his opinions based on scant information and little advice. Few will risk advocating a more controversial idea for fear that they, too, will be imprisoned or ridiculed for their stance. Inevitably, the fabric of this great nation will be rent apart by this disastrous turn of events as flawed decision after flawed decision will be made on the basis of one man's thoughts alone. In this critical time, we must remember the lessons of the past, and we must heed them. For us to prosper and for our "experiment" in freedom to survive, the executive branch must remain strong and nobody must be too frightened to perform their duty by aiding the president, no matter how unpopular their ideas. The sanctity of the president's privacy must be honored. Everybody in the administration should stand up and tell the president what they devoutly believe in, unafraid of the possibility that time will prove them wrong and they will be hamstrung in the public square.

This nation was founded on brilliant, but radical and revolutionary, new ideas, developed by a group of men working in the utmost secrecy lest news of their thoughts spread: let's keep it that way.

Blame Darth Cheney for his power grabbing, not those who have to clean it up and restore the Constitution.
Desperate Measures
30-06-2007, 01:00
Anyone else feel like they just sipped a slurpee much too quickly?
Ifreann
30-06-2007, 01:01
If Bush has nothing to hide then he has nothing to fear.



Ugh, I feel so dirty now.
Copiosa Scotia
30-06-2007, 01:09
If there any doubt remaining that FAG was a windup, I think it's gone now.
Neo Art
30-06-2007, 01:10
weren't you warned against pulling this shit?
Johnny B Goode
30-06-2007, 01:19
Watergate characterized some of the most grievous excesses and wanton abuse of power in the history of this nation. Constitutional guarantees were recklessly discarded as "unreasonable searches and seizures" prevailed. The turmoil cast our country in deep peril as the events drove the nation to the brink of anarchy. Bounds were rashly overstepped; the very fiber of our democratic state hung in the balance as the wisdom of the Founding Fathers was ignored and the all-important doctrine of "separation of powers" was flouted. Why am I bringing this up now, several decades too late? Because the echoes of that horrible catastrophe still reverberate to this day. Lessons learned during that turbulent period still apply today, more than ever.

We presently find ourselves in a similar situation and must take precautions so that the mistakes of the past are not repeated. We must avert the heinous tragedy which befell our nation all those years ago. The dread shadow of the fiasco still looms imposingly over us right now.

As you may recall, power-hungry demagogues who disregarded the Constitution by shamelessly attacking and subduing a critical part of our government: the executive branch. President Nixon suffered at the hands of these fiends, driven by blood-lust, who cared nothing for the Constitution. They curtailed the power of Nixon's lofty office by ordering him to produce confidential tapes which recorded several of his private conversations. He, like any good American, refused to turn them over: to properly execute his duties, the President must be able to seek advice without the prying eyes of ghoulish observers studiously watching his every move and their ears hearing his every word. A fundamental tenet of our system of government is that the president is elected to serve the public good; this is rendered impossible if he is too petrified to consult his advisers, knowing that one false phrase may call upon him a shower of fury. The Supreme Court stepped in to arbitrate the conflict, but it, too, stood against President Nixon. This crisis showed how powerless the executive branch had become, prone to ravenous vultures seeking easy prey. Our democracy cannot survive if the person the people elected is too scared to do his job.

Yet the lessons of the past have not been learned. Again, the Democrats are calling for reams of confidential conversations to be disclosed and are clawing at executive privilege left and right. Members of the administration are ceaselessly interrogated on the roles they play and the judicial branch is forcing them to divulge numerous secrets which should never have seen the light of day. Loyal public servants are brutally thrown in jail as our Constitution is being torn asunder. Without executive privilege to rely on, I fear that the president will be forced to formulate his opinions based on scant information and little advice. Few will risk advocating a more controversial idea for fear that they, too, will be imprisoned or ridiculed for their stance. Inevitably, the fabric of this great nation will be rent apart by this disastrous turn of events as flawed decision after flawed decision will be made on the basis of one man's thoughts alone. In this critical time, we must remember the lessons of the past, and we must heed them. For us to prosper and for our "experiment" in freedom to survive, the executive branch must remain strong and nobody must be too frightened to perform their duty by aiding the president, no matter how unpopular their ideas. The sanctity of the president's privacy must be honored. Everybody in the administration should stand up and tell the president what they devoutly believe in, unafraid of the possibility that time will prove them wrong and they will be hamstrung in the public square.

This nation was founded on brilliant, but radical and revolutionary, new ideas, developed by a group of men working in the utmost secrecy lest news of their thoughts spread: let's keep it that way.

I'm not gonna answer this one.
FreedomAndGlory
30-06-2007, 01:19
weren't you warned against pulling this shit?

Warned against expressing my point of view instead of being a mindless, left-wing drone? Yes, I was, but I prefer standing up for my opinion even if I'm standing alone.
Greater Trostia
30-06-2007, 01:38
Ah, so "like any good American," Nixon broke the law. Poor guy. We have to support lawbreaking politicians! Unless they're Democrats. Yes.

Nice bit of trolling there FAG. Anytime else you'd like me to WTFPWN your laughable attempts at "honest debate," just let me know.
Sane Outcasts
30-06-2007, 01:48
*OP snip*

Did you purposely ignore the fact that those records are needed to establish abuses of power or do you honestly think the President is incapable of acting illegally?
Desperate Measures
30-06-2007, 01:50
Warned against expressing my point of view instead of being a mindless, left-wing drone? Yes, I was, but I prefer standing up for my opinion even if I'm standing alone.

I'd at least learn to duck, if I were you.
Lord Raug
30-06-2007, 01:53
I understand what Freedom is saying about privacy within the executive branch.

BUT this administration doesn't exactly have the cleanest track record nor has it shown itself to be the most competent when it comes to making decisions. So should it be left to its own devices and let run rampant and possible make more problems? No, but that is just my opinion.
Celaredor
30-06-2007, 01:59
The constitution sat up a government where the exec branch was only one of three powers, all meant to check each other. Also, I believe that when a large amount of people believe something bad happened, it is part of the correct process to investigate.
Pirated Corsairs
30-06-2007, 02:06
http://www.fstdt.com/funnyimages/uploads/577.jpg
OuroborosCobra
30-06-2007, 02:09
http://www.fstdt.com/funnyimages/uploads/577.jpg

You've made this thread worthwhile.
Gartref
30-06-2007, 02:13
If Bush valued his executive privilege, he should not have abused the hell out of it.
Greater Trostia
30-06-2007, 02:20
If Bush valued his executive privilege, he should not have abused the hell out of it.

Well you know, maybe like Cheney, Bush is also not part of the executive branch!
Great Void
30-06-2007, 02:25
Well you know, maybe like Cheney, Bush is also not part of the executive branch!
Damn right! You know he never executed no-one!
Jocabia
30-06-2007, 02:35
Are you talking about the Lewinsky scandal? I might have used it, but protecting privileged information issued by advisers is not the same thing as having extramarital sex with a young woman.

Okay since there is where debate GOES. I brought it here.

So I see, so if it was say a violation of the ten commandments then it's under the jurisdiction of the congress, yes? You know like stealing?
Luporum
30-06-2007, 02:41
This nation was founded on brilliant, but radical and revolutionary, new ideas, developed by a group of men working in the utmost secrecy lest news of their thoughts spread: let's keep it that way.

The American Governemnt keeping secrets from the British is one thing.

The American Government keeping secrets from the American People is something different. We made this country, not the other way around.

You are nothing more than a dirty facist of the worst kind.
FreedomAndGlory
30-06-2007, 02:42
So I see, so if it was say a violation of the ten commandments then it's under the jurisdiction of the congress, yes? You know like stealing?

No, if it's in the violation of the Ten Commandments, then it's under the jurisdiction of God. I believe that executive privilege is a sacred right granted to the president and is not to be breached on any account, whether it be suspected sex or alleged corruption. It is ultimately up to God to render a judgment on these men. For our worldly purposes, and for the well-being of our form of government, we must protect the right of the president to seek whatever advice he wants without those conversations being privy to anyone else.
Luporum
30-06-2007, 02:44
No, if it's in the violation of the Ten Commandments, then it's under the jurisdiction of God. I believe that executive privilege is a sacred right granted to the president and is not to be breached on any account, whether it be suspected sex or alleged corruption. It is ultimately up to God to render a judgment on these men. For our worldly purposes, and for the well-being of our form of government, we must protect the right of the president to seek whatever advice he wants without those conversations being privy to anyone else.

Again, you are a facist. An enemy of democracy and god given rights of the people.
Ifreann
30-06-2007, 02:49
No, if it's in the violation of the Ten Commandments, then it's under the jurisdiction of God. I believe that executive privilege is a sacred right granted to the president and is not to be breached on any account, whether it be suspected sex or alleged corruption. It is ultimately up to God to render a judgment on these men. For our worldly purposes, and for the well-being of our form of government, we must protect the right of the president to seek whatever advice he wants without those conversations being privy to anyone else.

You're absolutely correct. Really people, how do you expect the Glorious President Bush to establish Himself as Ruler For Life if the other branches of government try to stop Him abusing His power? It's just not going to happen.
Jocabia
30-06-2007, 02:49
No, if it's in the violation of the Ten Commandments, then it's under the jurisdiction of God. I believe that executive privilege is a sacred right granted to the president and is not to be breached on any account, whether it be suspected sex or alleged corruption. It is ultimately up to God to render a judgment on these men. For our worldly purposes, and for the well-being of our form of government, we must protect the right of the president to seek whatever advice he wants without those conversations being privy to anyone else.

So you do think Clinton is an example of it happening recently? How very inconsistent of you since you said that there was only one example.
FreedomAndGlory
30-06-2007, 02:53
So you do think Clinton is an example of it happening recently? How very inconsistent of you since you said that there was only one example.

Do you think you can stop twisting my words? I said that Clinton was a bad example because extramarital sex was not equivalent to protecting confidential information obtained from advisers. True, they are both examples of executive privilege, but they are in a completely different vein and I wanted to use a more similar and more apt example.
Jocabia
30-06-2007, 03:00
Do you think you can stop twisting my words? I said that Clinton was a bad example because extramarital sex was not equivalent to protecting confidential information obtained from advisers. True, they are both examples of executive privilege, but they are in a completely different vein and I wanted to use a more similar and more apt example.

One was protecting a man who'd had extramarital sex, a subject that has no bearing on the presidency and IS NOT a violation of the law. The other, the one from your OP is a man who we KNOW committing acts of theft, vandalism and breaking and entering. They investigation was of a crime when we're talking about Nixon, or did you forget that?

So let's see, first you admit there was an incident the actions of the president were investigated during the Clinton administration, an investigation that questioned everyone and attempted to get them to break executive privelege. You said there was no such example. Second, you claim that it's okay because it was something not in violation of the law and something that should be left to God. The absurdity is why we're laughing.

Meanwhile, you said it's permissable if there are violations of the law, which Nixon was caught for. The law and the commandments. There pretty much isn't anyone that thinks the President has the right to steal.
FreedomAndGlory
30-06-2007, 03:07
Meanwhile, you said it's permissable if there are violations of the law, which Nixon was caught for. The law and the commandments. There pretty much isn't anyone that thinks the President has the right to steal.

The president certainly doesn't have the right to steal; however, executive privilege supersedes lesser concerns. If Nixon's guilt could be proven without infringing on the executive branch's power and prerogatives, then his trial should have proceeded. Ultimately, God will be the judge of whether a president is guilty or innocent; on this world, we must content ourselves with preserving our democracy as we know it by maintaining executive privilege.

And I already admitted that using Clinton would have been a viable example, but I still don't feel it is equally apt. With Nixon, it was cut-and-dried: surrender the tapes or don't. With Clinton, the whole thing devolved into a referendum on the definition of "is."
Jocabia
30-06-2007, 03:15
The president certainly doesn't have the right to steal; however, executive privilege supersedes lesser concerns. If Nixon's guilt could be proven without infringing on the executive branch's power and prerogatives, then his trial should have proceeded. Ultimately, God will be the judge of whether a president is guilty or innocent; on this world, we must content ourselves with preserving our democracy as we know it by maintaining executive privilege.

So I see. The law doesn't matter to the President at all. You do realize that the great men you mentioned created the ability to impeach specifically in opposition to your claim. I guess they just weren't as smart as you are, huh? Or maybe they weren't as committed to democracy?


And I already admitted that using Clinton would have been a viable example, but I still don't feel it is equally apt. With Nixon, it was cut-and-dried: surrender the tapes or don't. With Clinton, the whole thing devolved into a referendum on the definition of "is."

I'll show how that goes. "I said there were no other examples. Turns out ther was. Sorry. I was wrong." Meanwhile, it's not as apt because the case was more absurd? So are you admitting it's more appropriate to compare Bush and Nixon because both are ACTUALLY breaking the law and both cases were more airtight? That seems counter to your argument.
The Lone Alliance
30-06-2007, 05:29
As he himself says if you aren't guilty then you have nothing to fear.

I mean if Bush can find out what we're doing, I think it's fair for us to do the same.

Freedom is on the march!!!


But not FreeDumb, he's being left in the dark.
Nebansox
30-06-2007, 05:39
The American Governemnt keeping secrets from the British is one thing.

The American Government keeping secrets from the American People is something different. We made this country, not the other way around.

You are nothing more than a dirty facist of the worst kind.

To be honest some fascists aren't that bad, it was just screwed up so many times that people have learned to fear and hate it, but if the government controled some stuff such as utility usage and job control, people would have more time to do wat they want becuase they would need less schooling and who really ever likes the job they choose anyway,+ with so many politicians, the politicians are more worried about their career rather than the country, whereas if one leader was in charge of his country he could do wats best for it and if not the people have always been able to overthrow an ineffective regime
British Londinium
30-06-2007, 05:40
Wow, F&G, when I thought you could stoop no lower...

In the case United States v. Nixon, in which the Supreme Court ordered the President to produce the tapes, the court agreed with "the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties" and also stated that "[h]uman experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process." But Nixon still had to produce the tapes. The President does not have absolute authority. Indeed, if he did, the President would be nothing more than a Louis XIV who only lasts for four years. Surely, when the Founding Fathers envisioned the "freedom and glory" that the United States would be embracing, they did not imagine a time-limited tyranny.

The President is accountable to the people, for there is nothing separating him from the people. Whilst you criticize the current Congressional investigations, F&G, you fail to realize that this is wholly within the purview of the Congress, because the Congress is burdened with the duty of holding the government accountable to the people. Since the legislative branch is charged in the constitution to investigate "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" committed by federal officials, it is their job to investigate the executive branch.

So before you start trolling (again), how about you try to actually come up with a thought process that makes logical sense?

Oh, and your incessant support for the presidency is oddly reminiscent of Stephen Colbert (in a way), but far more forced and less amusing.
Dobbsworld
30-06-2007, 05:49
If Bush has nothing to hide then he has nothing to fear.

Ugh, I feel so dirty now.

It'll get better. In about a year and a half. 'Til then, just think of the dirt as a sort of skin-hugging personal shield, helping to keep your precious bodily fluids free from impurities.
Minaris
30-06-2007, 06:06
Oh, and your incessant support for the presidency is oddly reminiscent of Stephen Colbert (in a way), but far more forced and less amusing.

And I doubt it shares the intent of satire that SC has.
The Nazz
30-06-2007, 06:45
And I doubt it shares the intent of satire that SC has.

I don't. I think FreedomAndGlory takes the piss out of everyone who takes him seriously and actually argues with him instead of simply mocking him like he deserves.

I do agree with one thing as far as the lessons of the past are concerned. This time, if there's criminal wrongdoing that can be proven, no pardons. Ford did us no favors in 1975 by pardoning Nixon.
Gauthier
30-06-2007, 06:56
If only the mods couldt nail F.A.G.'s UberBushevik drivels as spamming...
Nobel Hobos
30-06-2007, 09:34
If only the mods couldt nail F.A.G.'s UberBushevik drivels as spamming...

That's quite the wrong approach I fear.

F-A-G isn't spamming. And I think the jury's still out on whether he was trolling in this thread.
His pro/anti-Bush alignment is irrelevant to anything which would get him banned.
Calling names is ... well, you get the idea.
Jampurimimyanya
30-06-2007, 09:53
Anyone else feel like they just sipped a slurpee much too quickly?

Nah, when I do that, I get a headache. Whereas, this gives me the giggles. :D
Lunatic Goofballs
30-06-2007, 10:15
Watergate characterized some of the most grievous excesses and wanton abuse of power in the history of this nation. Constitutional guarantees were recklessly discarded as "unreasonable searches and seizures" prevailed. The turmoil cast our country in deep peril as the events drove the nation to the brink of anarchy. Bounds were rashly overstepped; the very fiber of our democratic state hung in the balance as the wisdom of the Founding Fathers was ignored and the all-important doctrine of "separation of powers" was flouted. Why am I bringing this up now, several decades too late? Because the echoes of that horrible catastrophe still reverberate to this day. Lessons learned during that turbulent period still apply today, more than ever.

We presently find ourselves in a similar situation and must take precautions so that the mistakes of the past are not repeated. We must avert the heinous tragedy which befell our nation all those years ago. The dread shadow of the fiasco still looms imposingly over us right now.

As you may recall, power-hungry demagogues who disregarded the Constitution by shamelessly attacking and subduing a critical part of our government: the executive branch. President Nixon suffered at the hands of these fiends, driven by blood-lust, who cared nothing for the Constitution. They curtailed the power of Nixon's lofty office by ordering him to produce confidential tapes which recorded several of his private conversations. He, like any good American, refused to turn them over: to properly execute his duties, the President must be able to seek advice without the prying eyes of ghoulish observers studiously watching his every move and their ears hearing his every word. A fundamental tenet of our system of government is that the president is elected to serve the public good; this is rendered impossible if he is too petrified to consult his advisers, knowing that one false phrase may call upon him a shower of fury. The Supreme Court stepped in to arbitrate the conflict, but it, too, stood against President Nixon. This crisis showed how powerless the executive branch had become, prone to ravenous vultures seeking easy prey. Our democracy cannot survive if the person the people elected is too scared to do his job.

Yet the lessons of the past have not been learned. Again, the Democrats are calling for reams of confidential conversations to be disclosed and are clawing at executive privilege left and right. Members of the administration are ceaselessly interrogated on the roles they play and the judicial branch is forcing them to divulge numerous secrets which should never have seen the light of day. Loyal public servants are brutally thrown in jail as our Constitution is being torn asunder. Without executive privilege to rely on, I fear that the president will be forced to formulate his opinions based on scant information and little advice. Few will risk advocating a more controversial idea for fear that they, too, will be imprisoned or ridiculed for their stance. Inevitably, the fabric of this great nation will be rent apart by this disastrous turn of events as flawed decision after flawed decision will be made on the basis of one man's thoughts alone. In this critical time, we must remember the lessons of the past, and we must heed them. For us to prosper and for our "experiment" in freedom to survive, the executive branch must remain strong and nobody must be too frightened to perform their duty by aiding the president, no matter how unpopular their ideas. The sanctity of the president's privacy must be honored. Everybody in the administration should stand up and tell the president what they devoutly believe in, unafraid of the possibility that time will prove them wrong and they will be hamstrung in the public square.

This nation was founded on brilliant, but radical and revolutionary, new ideas, developed by a group of men working in the utmost secrecy lest news of their thoughts spread: let's keep it that way.

It's nice to know that I'm not the only clown around here. :)
Neo Undelia
30-06-2007, 11:13
It's nice to know that I'm not the only clown around here. :)
I believe you've won the thread.
Loupiac
30-06-2007, 11:52
Yup. Only Republicans tear apart the Constitution and lie to the people.:rolleyes:
Luporum
30-06-2007, 12:13
Yup. Only Republicans tear apart the Constitution and lie to the people.:rolleyes:

--Thread Topic--

-You-
Ollieland
30-06-2007, 13:28
Watergate characterized some of the most grievous excesses and wanton abuse of power in the history of this nation. Constitutional guarantees were recklessly discarded as "unreasonable searches and seizures" prevailed. The turmoil cast our country in deep peril as the events drove the nation to the brink of anarchy. Bounds were rashly overstepped; the very fiber of our democratic state hung in the balance as the wisdom of the Founding Fathers was ignored and the all-important doctrine of "separation of powers" was flouted. Why am I bringing this up now, several decades too late? Because the echoes of that horrible catastrophe still reverberate to this day. Lessons learned during that turbulent period still apply today, more than ever.

We presently find ourselves in a similar situation and must take precautions so that the mistakes of the past are not repeated. We must avert the heinous tragedy which befell our nation all those years ago. The dread shadow of the fiasco still looms imposingly over us right now.

As you may recall, power-hungry demagogues who disregarded the Constitution by shamelessly attacking and subduing a critical part of our government: the executive branch. President Nixon suffered at the hands of these fiends, driven by blood-lust, who cared nothing for the Constitution. They curtailed the power of Nixon's lofty office by ordering him to produce confidential tapes which recorded several of his private conversations. He, like any good American, refused to turn them over: to properly execute his duties, the President must be able to seek advice without the prying eyes of ghoulish observers studiously watching his every move and their ears hearing his every word. A fundamental tenet of our system of government is that the president is elected to serve the public good; this is rendered impossible if he is too petrified to consult his advisers, knowing that one false phrase may call upon him a shower of fury. The Supreme Court stepped in to arbitrate the conflict, but it, too, stood against President Nixon. This crisis showed how powerless the executive branch had become, prone to ravenous vultures seeking easy prey. Our democracy cannot survive if the person the people elected is too scared to do his job.

Yet the lessons of the past have not been learned. Again, the Democrats are calling for reams of confidential conversations to be disclosed and are clawing at executive privilege left and right. Members of the administration are ceaselessly interrogated on the roles they play and the judicial branch is forcing them to divulge numerous secrets which should never have seen the light of day. Loyal public servants are brutally thrown in jail as our Constitution is being torn asunder. Without executive privilege to rely on, I fear that the president will be forced to formulate his opinions based on scant information and little advice. Few will risk advocating a more controversial idea for fear that they, too, will be imprisoned or ridiculed for their stance. Inevitably, the fabric of this great nation will be rent apart by this disastrous turn of events as flawed decision after flawed decision will be made on the basis of one man's thoughts alone. In this critical time, we must remember the lessons of the past, and we must heed them. For us to prosper and for our "experiment" in freedom to survive, the executive branch must remain strong and nobody must be too frightened to perform their duty by aiding the president, no matter how unpopular their ideas. The sanctity of the president's privacy must be honored. Everybody in the administration should stand up and tell the president what they devoutly believe in, unafraid of the possibility that time will prove them wrong and they will be hamstrung in the public square.

This nation was founded on brilliant, but radical and revolutionary, new ideas, developed by a group of men working in the utmost secrecy lest news of their thoughts spread: let's keep it that way.

Laughable. Unadulterated, partisan, laughable, bullshit. You fail again FAG.
Soleichunn
30-06-2007, 14:28
I believe that executive privilege is a sacred right granted to the president and is not to be breached on any account, whether it be suspected sex or alleged corruption. It is ultimately up to God to render a judgment on these men.

That sounds a lot like the reasoning behind the Divine Right of Kings. You should stop 'borrowing' the justification for medievil absolute monarchs.
FreedomAndGlory
30-06-2007, 15:15
The President does not have absolute authority.

Indeed, the president has very little power. He is completely dependent upon Congress to pass any legislation which he requires and can do virtually nothing without their approval. Only in wartime does the president have a modicum of power in relation to the military.

Whilst you criticize the current Congressional investigations, F&G, you fail to realize that this is wholly within the purview of the Congress, because the Congress is burdened with the duty of holding the government accountable to the people. Since the legislative branch is charged in the constitution to investigate "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" committed by federal officials, it is their job to investigate the executive branch.

How can you expect the executive branch to function if the president cannot expect to receive candid remarks about his job from his various advisers? You fail to realize that what you suggest would yield devastating consequences as successive presidents would fumble around in the dark with their policies as administration members would be too afraid to speak their mind. The legislative branch should be able to investigate assorted offensive, but without breaking the sacred bond of confidentiality.

You do know that legally, whatever a man says to his priest, rabbi, etc., is privileged and the police cannot force the religious leader to divulge the contents of the conversation, right? The same thing applies to the presidency, only it's a hundred time more imperative that secrecy be maintained for the welfare of our nation.
FreedomAndGlory
30-06-2007, 15:17
I'll show how that goes. "I said there were no other examples. Turns out ther was. Sorry. I was wrong." Meanwhile, it's not as apt because the case was more absurd?

You're pretty slow on the uptake, aren't you? I'll put it in a simpler form.

Nixon: consulted his advisers for advice.
Bush: consulted his advisers for advice.
Clinton: conducted a secret affair without the knowledge of his advisers.
Jocabia
30-06-2007, 15:27
You're pretty slow on the uptake, aren't you? I'll put it in a simpler form.

Nixon: consulted his advisers for advice.
Bush: consulted his advisers for advice.
Clinton: conducted a secret affair without the knowledge of his advisers.

Yes, I'm struggling with this. Let's see if I can figure it out.

True, they are both examples of executive privilege

So let's see just a moment ago, Clinton was an example of executive privilege and now he isn't. Now, maybe I'm "pretty slow on the uptake" but it seems like you're contradicting yourself. But, hey, I'm silly and I just read how you've flipped on this point thrice already.

Monica was in the employ of the President. Executive privelege applies. As you've already said, before you claimed it didn't, and after you claimed it didn't exist as an example.
Sane Outcasts
30-06-2007, 15:28
How can you expect the executive branch to function if the president cannot expect to receive candid remarks about his job from his various advisers? You fail to realize that what you suggest would yield devastating consequences as successive presidents would fumble around in the dark with their policies as administration members would be too afraid to speak their mind. The legislative branch should be able to investigate assorted offensive, but without breaking the sacred bond of confidentiality.

Oh, bullshit. Look to your own examples before inventing consequences that never occurred. Did Presidents after Nixon "fumble around in the dark"? No, they went about fulfilling their duties as usual.

You do know that legally, whatever a man says to his priest, rabbi, etc., is privileged and the police cannot force the religious leader to divulge the contents of th e conversation, right? The same thing applies to the presidency, only it's a hundred time more imperative that secrecy be maintained for the welfare of our nation.
Did you know that, legally, a President does not resemble a rabbi or a priest in any way, shape, or form? There is nothing sacred about the office of the President and certainly no reason to trust the man in the office of the President blindly enough to forgo investigations into abuses of power.
Dobbsworld
30-06-2007, 15:38
Nixon weren't no angel, FAG.

And he didn't even get what he had coming, so quit your bitching, boy.
Jocabia
30-06-2007, 15:50
Oh, bullshit. Look to your own examples before inventing consequences that never occurred. Did Presidents after Nixon "fumble around in the dark"? No, they went about fulfilling their duties as usual.


Did you know that, legally, a President does not resemble a rabbi or a priest in any way, shape, or form? There is nothing sacred about the office of the President and certainly no reason to trust the man in the office of the President blindly enough to forgo investigations into abuses of power.

He intentionally ignores that the purpose of the impeachment process, the reason for existence, is that it's the only means of holding the President accountable for violations of the law once he's in office. It's quite simply the only check to his power.

This nation was founded on brilliant, but radical and revolutionary, new ideas, developed by a group of men working in the utmost secrecy lest news of their thoughts spread: let's keep it that way.

Apparently, MTAE agrees with these men and as such, we should adhere to the principles of the Constitution. Fortunately, our congress did just that with Nixon and, hopefully, will do just that with Bush.

Amusingly, it was designed to deal with breaches of law. Apparently, it's justified to break EP because the President is doing things that are a violation to the sanctity of marriage, but not for breaches of law. You know, cuz that would be a little too close to what impeachment was designed for and all.
Vittos the City Sacker
30-06-2007, 16:04
I'm waiting for Cat-Tribes, like most of you should have.
FreedomAndGlory
30-06-2007, 16:31
So let's see just a moment ago, Clinton was an example of executive privilege and now he isn't.

I said it before and I'll say it again: yes, it is an example, but not an equally good example. My point was that executive privilege should be staunchly defended because a president must sometimes consult his advisers confidentially. However, it would be hard to maintain this if I cited Clinton as an example, because Clinton did not discuss the Lewinsky matter with his advisers (to my knowledge). Nixon, on the other hand, did.
FreedomAndGlory
30-06-2007, 16:35
Did you know that, legally, a President does not resemble a rabbi or a priest in any way, shape, or form?

Yes, but the role of a president is infinitely more important to our country than that of, say, a cleric. The fate of the nation may sometimes depend on the quality and variety of opinions to which the president has access; restricting the stream of original ideas to a trickle can only bode doom for our country. My point in bringing that up was to show that there are legal precedents for this type of "privilege"; certainly the president should be afforded more rights than a religious figure for the aforementioned reason.
Jocabia
30-06-2007, 16:51
I said it before and I'll say it again: yes, it is an example, but not an equally good example. My point was that executive privilege should be staunchly defended because a president must sometimes consult his advisers confidentially. However, it would be hard to maintain this if I cited Clinton as an example, because Clinton did not discuss the Lewinsky matter with his advisers (to my knowledge). Nixon, on the other hand, did.

I'm still waiting for you to just say, "yep, I was wrong." See, you said there were no other examples. You later admitted there were even if you don't like them. Yep, that makes you wrong. Thanks for playing.

Nixon got caught violating the law. Extensively. Caught. It's not a question. He got caught.

Clinton, to anyone's knowledge, has never been proven to be in violation of the law. His impeachment failed. Nixon's undoubtedly would have succeeded seeing as even he knew this and resigned.

But, hey, if you use as your example someone who violated the law and got caught violating the law as your argument for why we should trust the President, then I'm going to have to just giggle.

The flaw in your logic is obvious. The impeachment process is made for holding the President accountable to the law. That is the purpose. As such, any attempts to do so, like catching Nixon in several violations, is exactly how it was intended to be used.
The Nazz
30-06-2007, 17:03
I'm waiting for Cat-Tribes, like most of you should have.

We're perfectly capable of pointing and laughing at a troll without Cat-Tribes (though I certainly enjoy her company).
Minaris
30-06-2007, 17:08
I don't. I think FreedomAndGlory takes the piss out of everyone who takes him seriously and actually argues with him instead of simply mocking him like he deserves.

I dunno. If FAG/FreeDumb/FnG/MtaE/<Whatever your nickname for him is here> is being satirical, then he's certainly not good at it.
Vittos the City Sacker
30-06-2007, 17:18
We're perfectly capable of pointing and laughing at a troll without Cat-Tribes (though I certainly enjoy her company).

Unless you consider the current administration and a portion of the congress to be trolls, (I am sure that, with the current make-up of the SCOTUS, a couple of them as well) I would not consider bringing this issue up to be trolling.

I want to hear the legal precedent behind this, and it appears that most simply want to antagonize the OP rather than give this issue any sort of discussion.
Jocabia
30-06-2007, 17:20
Unless you consider the current administration and a portion of the congress to be trolls, (I am sure that, with the current make-up of the SCOTUS, a couple of them as well) I would not consider bringing this issue up to be trolling.

I want to hear the legal precedent behind this, and it appears that most simply want to antagonize the OP rather than give this issue any sort of discussion.

I think the issue is more with the idea that Nixon is example of where we should not have searched for criminal activity. You can argue whether or not analysis will actually catch Bush, but it's a FACT that it caught Nixon. There are plenty of examples where congress set out to lynch the President. With Nixon, they were proven right.
Vittos the City Sacker
30-06-2007, 17:30
I think the issue is more with the idea that Nixon is example of where we should not have searched for criminal activity. You can argue whether or not analysis will actually catch Bush, but it's a FACT that it caught Nixon. There are plenty of examples where congress set out to lynch the President. With Nixon, they were proven right.

Yeah, but it is a delicate question because there is a benefit to presidential privilege concerning counsel, and it congressional inquiries like this should not get ad hoc justifications of "Hey, we caught him".

I really don't have much of an opinion of that issue, and would just like to see some judges opinions and the legal history behind it.

As for Nixon, he was a crook, as were many presidents.
Jocabia
30-06-2007, 17:34
Yeah, but it is a delicate question because there is a benefit to presidential privilege concerning counsel, and it congressional inquiries like this should not get ad hoc justifications of "Hey, we caught him".

Yes, but in the case of Nixon, I think it's difficult to argue that they didn't have cause. Technically, they caught Clinton as well. Unfortunately, they only "caught" him because he violated the law during the investigation. They actually never proved he did anything other than answer a really stupid question the way anyone would likely have answered it.


I really don't have much of an opinion of that issue, and would just like to see some judges opinions and the legal history behind it.

As for Nixon, he was a crook, as were many presidents.

I agree. I strongly suspect Clinton was a crook. The difference is there really was no support for cause for investigating Clinton. That's why he makes a good example, whether he was guilty or not.
Naturality
30-06-2007, 20:00
We're perfectly capable of pointing and laughing at a troll without Cat-Tribes (though I certainly enjoy her company).

/off topic
Cat Tribe is a white guy. I remember the thread where he told Jocabia he was a white male. I, like Jocabia, thought he was black until then. Oh and he's a smoker. hehe. I have the memory of an elephant sometimes.. other times I won't remember someones name 1 minute after they've introduced themselves.
Ambrose-Douglas
30-06-2007, 20:18
The thing I don't understand about all this is why anyone is Congress is even ALLOWING Bush to throw out Executive Privilege... it doesn't even exist!

Go back and read the Constitution you hold so dear Freedom... there is not a single mention of Executive Privilege anywhere in their. And, if it isn't in the Constitution as a power of the President, then it doesn't exist, and, therefore, he doesn't have it.

End of debate.
Johnny B Goode
30-06-2007, 20:37
And, by the way, learn what actually happened in Watergate.
Dobbsworld
30-06-2007, 21:55
And, by the way, learn what actually happened in Watergate.

Well, apparently his Holiness, Saint Richard M. Nixon was wrongfully accused by the evil liberal media (as always, under the watchful eye of their Master, Satan himself) of things that he'd never ever would've done 'cause he was America's greatest President. Ever.
Johnny B Goode
30-06-2007, 22:03
Well, apparently his Holiness, Saint Richard M. Nixon was wrongfully accused by the evil liberal media (as always, under the watchful eye of their Master, Satan himself) of things that he'd never ever would've done 'cause he was America's greatest President. Ever.

That seems to fit.
The Nazz
30-06-2007, 23:10
Unless you consider the current administration and a portion of the congress to be trolls, (I am sure that, with the current make-up of the SCOTUS, a couple of them as well) I would not consider bringing this issue up to be trolling.

I want to hear the legal precedent behind this, and it appears that most simply want to antagonize the OP rather than give this issue any sort of discussion.

If you want to have a serious discussion of whether or not executive privilege covers some specific circumstances dealing with the current investigations, then fine. But FreedomAndGlory won't be at the head of that discussion, because he's not a serious poster. He's a troll who takes disingenuous positions deliberately and then acts self-righteous when called on it. I refuse to play his game.

As far as Cheney is concerned, he's done something impeachment worthy regardless of whether executive privilege was invoked or not. He openly admitted to violating an executive order regarding the handling of documents--being part of the executive doesn't get you a pass on that. Executive privilege doesn't extend to being allowed to break the law.