NationStates Jolt Archive

Bless us for trying.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6120163.html
McALLEN, Texas — A South Texas grand jury has indicted Vice President Dick Cheney and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on state charges related to the alleged abuse of prisoners in Willacy County's federal detention centers.

First saw it here, actually: http://suicideforhire.comicgenesis.com/ Shows how much of a newshound I am...

So, does anyone think it's gonna stick? Does this surprise anyone? Actually, I'm not surprised that they're getting indicted, but I am surprised that it's coming from Texas.

Comments, NSG?

this was already posted on.
I said it there and I will say it again. that county in Texas had a DA who was fame hungry and would get any politician he could indicted. He would then try to throw together a case. He hasn't succeeded once. and He lost reelection so he is gone in January as the voters had enough of his show boating.


Also the charges are flimsy and come from Cheney being invested in a corporation that runs the privatized prisons. the reason it wont stick is Cheney like most politicians set up a blind trust. And blind trust have those far been sufficient to avoid conflict of interest charges.

Sheesh I know you all hate Cheney but wouldn't you rather wait for a legitimate charge based off a legitimate investigation ?

this was already posted on.

Where? Damn, I looked for it just in case... :(

Also the charges are flimsy and come from Cheney being invested in a corporation that runs the privatized prisons. the reason it wont stick is Cheney like most politicians set up a blind trust. And blind trust have those far been sufficient to avoid conflict of interest charges.

Sheesh I know you all hate Cheney but wouldn't you rather wait for a legitimate charge based off a legitimate investigation ?

It's more that it's coming from Texas that surprises me. I personally don't think this will stick either.

Where? Damn, I looked for it just in case... :(



It's more that it's coming from Texas that surprises me. I personally don't think this will stick either.

All of Texas is not the Crawford Ranch. Just as All of California is not San Francisco.
Texas used to elected majority Democrat legislatures until 2002 (though this was largely because the democrats gerrymandered it to hell.)

All of Texas is not the Crawford Ranch. Just as All of California is not San Francisco.
Texas used to elected majority Democrat legislatures until 2002 (though this was largely because the democrats gerrymandered it to hell.)

Well, there's that, but there's also the difference in local, state, and national political parties. You gotta remember, for the best part of the 20th Century, Texas elected nothing but Democrats to the governor's office, too.

However, in regards to this particular case, its like the DA over in Raleigh that indicted those boys in the infamous Duke Rape Case. You know, the one where there was no rape, just accusations by an unfortunately mentally unstable young woman, but the DA thought it would help him get re-elected? Which it did, but then he was dis-barred for ethics violations stemming from the case, IIRC, so he lost the job anyway.

Suing or indicting someone for something which they almost assuredly have no individual knowledge of or control over is stupid. That would be like suing me for the Exxon Valdez disaster because I own a few shares of Exxon. :rolleyes:

Where? Damn, I looked for it just in case... :(

Here, over a week ago: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=573432

Grand Juries are weird and I wish I knew more about them...

*waits for Neo Art or Cat Tribes to show up*

They seem to be more of a type proceeding to see if there's a case than an actual case in and of themselves.

They seem to be more of a type proceeding to see if there's a case than an actual case in and of themselves.

That's pretty much it. They exist to see if their's enough evidence to go to trial.

What is the purpose of the grand jury?

The primary function of the modern grand jury is to review the evidence presented by the prosecutor and determine whether there is probable cause to return an indictment.

The original purpose of the grand jury was to act as a buffer between the king (and his prosecutors) and the citizens. Critics argue that this safeguarding role has been erased, and the grand jury simply acts as a rubber stamp for the prosecutor.

Since the role of the grand jury is only to determine probable cause, there is no need for the jury to hear all the evidence, or even conflicting evidence. It is left to the good faith of the prosecutor to present conflicting evidence.

In the federal system, the courts have ruled that the grand jury has extraordinary investigative powers that have been developed over the years since the 1950s. This wide, sweeping, almost unrestricted power is the cause of much of the criticism. The power is virtually in complete control of the prosecutor, and is pretty much left to his or her good faith.
http://www.abanet.org/media/faqjury.html

However, in regards to this particular case, its like the DA over in Raleigh that indicted those boys in the infamous Duke Rape Case. You know, the one where there was no rape, just accusations by an unfortunately mentally unstable young woman, but the DA thought it would help him get re-elected? Which it did, but then he was dis-barred for ethics violations stemming from the case, IIRC, so he lost the job anyway.
Durham, and no, nothing like this. The best thing for the then-DA to have done would have been to pursue the case in an honest fashion and then proceed to lose or drop the case in a clear and honest fashion.

Dropping the case right off the bat "because she's a crazy woman" would have been highly unprofessional and gotten him canned in short order. The Duke lacrosse rape case needed to be gone over thoroughly before a conclusion could be reached about it (plenty of reasonable doubt => "Not guilty.") What he did was halfway towards doing the right thing and his job.

There's a difference between that and just pure showboating. For the county DA here, it's not even especially relevant to his county, let alone his office; for the Duke rape case, it was absolutely essential that the DA handle it, and the local situation on the ground meant it was going to be public no matter what he did. The difference between doing the job badly, and doing something that isn't really even your job.

That said, I appreciate his action, even if I think it is highly unlikely to lead to the conviction of Cheney. I am unfortunately afraid that it may provide a handy excuse for issuing Cheney a blanket pardon, however.

Sheesh I know you all hate Cheney but wouldn't you rather wait for a legitimate charge based off a legitimate investigation ?
Yeah, Cheney should go down for Abu Ghraib, along with a score of others.

but I am surprised that it's coming from Texas.

Comments, NSG?

It's more that it's coming from Texas that surprises me.

As a Texan, you can bite me.

Also, point of order: Bush is not Texan. He was born in Conn. or some other pissant state that isn't Texas...he simply lives here and tries to play it off. At best, he's a Naturalized Texan.

As a Texan, you can bite me.

Also, point of order: Bush is not Texan. He was born in Conn. or some other pissant state that isn't Texas...he simply lives here and tries to play it off. At best, he's a Naturalized Texan.

Massachusetts didn't elect him as Governor. Texas did. Ergo the reputation - it's well deserved. People actually care about the governors you elect, especially if they end up as presidents.

As a Texan, you can bite me.

Also, point of order: Bush is not Texan. He was born in Conn. or some other pissant state that isn't Texas...he simply lives here and tries to play it off. At best, he's a Naturalized Texan.

True, but Connecticut had the good sense to not elect him governor, can Texas say the same? I didn't think so.

He actually was a mediocre governor, and probably would've won whatever gubernatorial election he went for. We just happened to draw the short straw. I just don't think that because of one of our former governors, we have a weak justice system.