W: Libby 'entitled to due process' but secret trials and torture are A OK

did this statement by W in regard to Libby's indictments upset you in the ongoing context of the W administration's justification and rationalization of torture???? (and the executive order permitting secret trials and executions with no right of appeal)

"In our system, each individual is presumed innocent and entitled to due process and a fair trial. "

Due process only for them..the rest of us are GUILTY!

of wait. yes. yes, he is.

ok, the difference is none of the folks at guantanamo donated to the republican party. i knew there was a reason why they didn't deserve due process....

...each individual is presumed innocent and entitled to due process and a fair trial."


Actually, under the Patriot Act, this administration could, if it so chose, silence Scooter once and for all just by "disappearing" him. The Patriot Act surely wasn't crafted with highly visible insiders like Scooter in mind, but I doubt they'd hesitate to use it on one of their own if they felt sufficiently threatened. I don't set this forth as a likely scenario, but it's certainly plausible---they've all but shreaded our Constitution.

Hook the electrodes up to his nutz. We can get to the bottom of this in no time.

It is in the vital national interests that we find out who leaked information to the press about the identity of our operators that were charged with the task of monitoring and tracking the sales of WMD.

We should also not exempt those news gathering people that are using a good law, like the 1st amendment, to hide their involvement in this affair. Our protection from terrorists demands an accounting. Who can say, maybe those involved with this affair are terrorists themselves.

Just because an individual happens to be a high executive in one branch of the government is no reason for them to expect special treatment either, up to and including the Chief Executive himself. Even the King is subject to the laws he makes.

Edit to add: Hagar's Gallows demonstrates this point perfectly, and that lesson is right-out of the Old Testament, thus this principal has legal precedent back at least 2500 years.

It's the law. And those that would use the law, must use it all the way, to it's logical end.

These people wanted to use torture, so they should get what they asked for.

Interesting. Personally, I think the right answer is to speak out against torture in all cases. You apparently support its use in all cases. Or else you support its use in some cases and that means leaving to someone's discretion when it should be used.

onenote

And you shouldn't get-up on your soap box preaching. There is little difference between you and those that that support torture. Was your post to tell everyone how very good you are, " I think the right answer is to speak out against torture in all cases". This post is little more than posturing. Go feed your cats.

As for "You apparently support its use in all cases", go fuck yourself very much, thank you.

I'm with you 100 percent.

onenote

ps - I'm really a very slow person. What does the line "go feed your cats" mean?

in the sense that when witchfinders are accused of being witches themselves they should get to know what it feels like.