Information control, or, How to get to Orwellian governance

Why even bother with a 'non-partisan' investigation at all?

Let's have an old-fashioned Partisan investigation. It represents a great opportunity for both sides to present their case, and if the Republicans have sufficient ability to defend theirs, then they will do so and make the Dems look like fools in the process. If they don't, they will suffer the consequences with the voters.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

We have them: they are called elections.

0 Replies

That's bull, and you know it.

I suppose you'll scream 'partisanship!' over and over when the Dems take control and actually swear people in before letting them testify before Congress; something the Republicans haven't done in quite a long time.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I think you are becoming confused. The "old-fashioned partisan" investigation to which you referred in your earlier post is going on now in the public debate.

Are you instead suggesting that the organs of government directly abuse their powers in a partisan "investigation" of the administration? That, by definition, is not only undemocratic, it is a violation of both our principles of justice and the constitutional duties of the several branches of government.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I think you are becoming confused. The "old-fashioned partisan" investigation to which you referred in your earlier post is going on now in the public debate.

Are you instead suggesting that the organs of government directly abuse their powers in a partisan "investigation" of the administration? That, by definition, is not only undemocratic, it is a violation of both our principles of justice and the constitutional duties of the several branches of government.

Interestingly enough, you don't seem to have a problem when Republicans engage in partisan investigations which inevitably find other Republicans to be innocent of any charges.

If you really believe that the 'old-fashioned' partisan investigation doesn't have anything to do with majorities in Congress, then you are incredibly naive. Additionally, how did you determine that there is any sort of investigation being done at all in the 'public debate?' What is being investigated? Who is leading the investigation? Under what authority can they compell people to tell the truth? Your analogy fails under examination.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I suppose you'll scream 'partisanship!' over and over when the Dems take control and actually swear people in before letting them testify before Congress; something the Republicans haven't done in quite a long time.

It's only logical. They saw what trouble Clinton's perjury got him into, and immediately grasped the moral of the story: "Thou shalt not swear oaths when thou testifiest to Congress, lest litigation and ridicule shall haunt thee and thy party."

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Interestingly enough, you don't seem to have a problem when Republicans engage in partisan investigations which inevitably find other Republicans to be innocent of any charges.

This is a falsehood. I don't know to what investigations you refer, and you certainly don't know my reactions to them.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

If you really believe that the 'old-fashioned' partisan investigation doesn't have anything to do with majorities in Congress, then you are incredibly naive. Additionally, how did you determine that there is any sort of investigation being done at all in the 'public debate?' What is being investigated? Who is leading the investigation? Under what authority can they compell people to tell the truth? Your analogy fails under examination.

I never asserted that Congressional investigations are without elements of partisanship. Sadly, they are too often filled with it, and truth is the inevitable cost. It was you who advocated a particularly partisan investigation, not me.

The irony is that you assume the truth will result - in spite of all the historical evidence to the contrary. How can one "compell" a person to reveal the "truth" about his own inner motivations and thoughts? What about the inner motivations and intent of partisan inquisitors, armed with judicial powers? Did you find the investigations of the House Unamerican Activities Committee a beneficial road to the truth?

0 Replies

Quote:

How can one "compell" a person to reveal the "truth" about his own inner motivations and thoughts?

I don't think that inner motivations and thoughts are the question at hand here. I believe there is plenty of real-world evidence of actions that could be investigated on a wide variety of topics dealing with the war, energy policy, warrantless wiretapping, and Detainee policy.

You compell them to tell the truth about issues by swearing them in before congress (something not done by Republicans when investigating their own - see Alberto Gonzales and the Energy Execs) and then examining their testimony in comparison to others testimony and other evidence available to the comitee.

I think you know as well as I do that investigations of the Bush administration will end quite badly for the Republicans. There already exists a good body of evidence that, while their motivations may have been ones that would be agreed with by some, the actions taken by the current administration have violated several of our laws and principles in the name of 'protecting us from terrorism.' The boogeyman which will never go away.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I understand your point about the tactic of forcing testimony under oath and then investigating for inconsistencies and using the perjury law to beat the victim into submission. I think you will agree that, while this tactic has been amply used by both parties, it is hardly the highest expression of judicial process.

I also think that your estimate of the situation is seriously flawed in several respects. Was Clinton prosecuted for selling a pardon to Mark Rich? Common sense tells us that is probably what occurred, but the fact is the issue could not be proven, and he was not prosecuted or formally investigated for it. How could one truly know or prove what were Clinton's real motives?

Did the Clinton Administration meet its responsibility to protect the country from the growing pattern of organized Islamist terrorism? Remember that the first attempt to destroy the World trade center occurred just one year into the first Clinton Administration, Moreover it was followed over the next seven years by bombings of US barracks in Saudi Arabia, embassies in East Africa, and a warship in Yemen - all by the same organized Islamist terrorists. There were highly partisan hearings in Congress on these matters. Did they reveal the truth? Did they bring justice and accountability to those involved? I think the answer is fairly obvious -- neither truth nor justice (either to those accused or the people) was particularly served by the process. It was mere partisan squabbling on both sides. The real and meaningful judgement occurred in the elections of 1999 and later 2003 in which security issues played a part (among other issues).

It will be a generation or so before a reliable historical judgement on the effectiveness of our intervention in Iraq can be made. It is clear that the West is being seriously challenged by a resurgent form of Islamist zealotry that contests basic principles of Western culture and civilization. It is equally clear that this challenge predates our Iraqi intervention. The historical question is whether our intervention made our situation better or worse. it is too soon to know.

0 Replies

This isn't about the Clinton administration, though it was rather predictable that you would bring that up. It is about the myriad lies and mis-truths of the current Republican administration, which I understand is not a topic you are comfortable discussing.

This-

Quote:

It is clear that the West is being seriously challenged by a resurgent form of Islamist zealotry that contests basic principles of Western culture and civilization.

Is not clear at all. It is a boogeyman used by the Republicans to scare people. What is the 'serious challenge?' Terrorism? Our countr(ies) cannot be taken over by terrorism. They can only be frightened. Your position is so far away from the idea of 'only fearing fear itself' that it is laughable.

The truth is that the religious Zealots amongst the Islaamic population are/were as marginalized as ours were, until we gave them legitimacy by overreacting to their actions. Now, at least in the eyes of their people, they are being proven right. Way to go, Western Civilization!

Islaamic terrorism has a zero percent chance of seriously harming the US. THey have no military capacity to do so. There is no evidence that they are any less susceptible to the specter of nuclear annihilation than any other nation. I fail to see how the US is in serious danger from the terrorists; it certainly hasn't been shown how. And, I would ask, why the gigantic reluctance to actually do any sort of home defense on the part of the supposedly 'responsible' Republican party?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Islaamic terrorism has a zero percent chance of seriously harming the US. THey have no military capacity to do so. There is no evidence that they are any less susceptible to the specter of nuclear annihilation than any other nation. I fail to see how the US is in serious danger from the terrorists; it certainly hasn't been shown how. And, I would ask, why the gigantic reluctance to actually do any sort of home defense on the part of the supposedly 'responsible' Republican party?

I think that if you will reflect a bit on this statement, put aside for a moment your intensely partisan prejudgements, and consider what has been going on in the world - in Europe, the Middle East, and in the U.S. along with considerations of the real effectiveness of our nuclear deterrent against terrorists who may soon be armed with primitive bversions of these weapons - you just might just recognize the folly of what you have written here.

0 Replies

What folly? The Republican side of the argument loves to make cryptic, fearful statements about our enemies, but hates to provide actual details about how said enemies would go about attacking us.

Do us all a favor and provide said details. In what fashion would the terrorists attack us? Using what weaponry? How would they cow the US into doing what they say? Why would the specter of nuclear annihilation be less effective for them, then for other countries? Why would the specter of nuclear annihilation be less effective amongst those who support the terrorist, than those in other countries?

How would they invade the US? How would they conquer territory? How would they hold said territories? What armies would they use? How would they cross the Atlantic?

None of these questions has been adequately answered by anyone who waves the flag of Islaamic Terrorism in order to scare people. I challenge you to do so.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

You present a truly formidable (and probably deliberate) void of knowledge and understanding. Filling it is too big a task. I have better things to do.

0 Replies

What you mean to say is, you cannot actually answer a single one of those questions; that there are no realistic answers which would show that America is actually in serious danger from Islaamic extremisim.

Enough with your boogeyman! You seem to think that America is weak and vulnerable to being conquered. I think we are strong and not vulnerable to being conquered. It is amazing to me that you take such a cowardly attitude towards America. You should be ashamed of your attitude of fear. It marks you as a quisling; if the goal of the enemy is to cow us with fear of attacks, and you harp on how we should greatly fear the enemies' attacks, you are basically on their side.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

A related matter to secrecy/transparency is accountability.

It is, but, accountability has been perverted to more paper work.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

plainoldme wrote:
BTW, have you considered that your icon is a man who is known for tough guy roles but who has had plastic surgery to look better?

Have you considered that your avatar is a cow that is wearing pink heart-shaped sunglasses?

As a statement, your's doesn't work.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I think you are becoming confused. The "old-fashioned partisan" investigation to which you referred in your earlier post is going on now in the public debate.

Not really. First of all, everything said in a public debate -- of which this is pretty good example -- has no force of application. Words, words, words sums it up.

Second, if it were a real debate -- according to rules and based on facts -- most of the people here (or in the country at large) would be lost in a dream.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The truth is that the religious Zealots amongst the Islaamic population are/were as marginalized as ours were, until we gave them legitimacy by overreacting to their actions.

Oh, I must have been wrong them. Ayatollah Kohmeini didn't topple the Shah with overwhelming popular support. The Taliban didn't take hold of Afghanistan with weapons the US had given them. Thanks for enlightening me about religious zealots.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

What you mean to say is, you cannot actually answer a single one of those questions; that there are no realistic answers which would show that America is actually in serious danger from Islaamic extremisim.

Enough with your boogeyman! You seem to think that America is weak and vulnerable to being conquered. I think we are strong and not vulnerable to being conquered. It is amazing to me that you take such a cowardly attitude towards America. You should be ashamed of your attitude of fear. It marks you as a quisling; if the goal of the enemy is to cow us with fear of attacks, and you harp on how we should greatly fear the enemies' attacks, you are basically on their side.

Cycloptichorn

You continue to demonstrate why those who share your views should not be trusted with the defense and safety of the American people.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
What you mean to say is, you cannot actually answer a single one of those questions; that there are no realistic answers which would show that America is actually in serious danger from Islaamic extremisim.

Enough with your boogeyman! You seem to think that America is weak and vulnerable to being conquered. I think we are strong and not vulnerable to being conquered. It is amazing to me that you take such a cowardly attitude towards America. You should be ashamed of your attitude of fear. It marks you as a quisling; if the goal of the enemy is to cow us with fear of attacks, and you harp on how we should greatly fear the enemies' attacks, you are basically on their side.

Cycloptichorn

You continue to demonstrate why those who share your views should not be trusted with the defense and safety of the American people.

You, and others on your side, continue to fail to demonstrate why anyone should believe your views and not mine.

I challenge anyone to answer the questions I posed to George above.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Information control, or, How to get to Orwellian governance

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know