maporsche
 
  2  
Sat 25 Jul, 2009 12:25 pm
@mysteryman,
Like trying to incite a crowd of onlookers who are surrounding the police officers, maybe?
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Sat 25 Jul, 2009 12:26 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Gates was not resisting the will of any legal police action; he provided ID showing that he was the legal resident at the house. At that point, the police action was over.


it would have been over had Gates not already verbally assaulted the cop. Once the reason for the investigation had been put to bed with Gates proving his innocence, Gate's misbehaviour then needed to be addressed. Crimes and misbehaviour that take place during legal investigations must be punished, it happens all of the time and should happen all of the time. We even nail Presidents when they refuse to comply with the collective will for honesty and cooperation during the investigation of possible crimes. Both Nixon and Clinton were rung up for misbehaviour during the investigation, not the criminality before the investigation.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 25 Jul, 2009 12:26 pm
@mysteryman,
Of coarse the ultimate blame inures to the president, but he did not order the tanks or instructed the FBI to take the action they did. Big difference; something you're missing. The president cannot control everything that happens under his/her watch. You're asking for the impossible - of any president.

Until something like this happens, no president is going to be aware there is a problem; this is the very first time this kind of incident happened. You're asking any president to predetermine problems - an impossible task for any human.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Sat 25 Jul, 2009 12:34 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Gates was not resisting the will of any legal police action; he provided ID showing that he was the legal resident at the house. At that point, the police action was over.


it would have been over had Gates not already verbally assaulted the cop. Once the reason for the investigation had been put to bed with Gates proving his innocence, Gate's misbehaviour then needed to be addressed. Crimes and misbehaviour that take place during legal investigations must be punished, it happens all of the time and should happen all of the time. We even nail Presidents when they refuse to comply with the collective will for honesty and cooperation during the investigation of possible crimes. Both Nixon and Clinton were rung up for misbehaviour during the investigation, not the criminality before the investigation.


Once again, Bullshit. There was no legal 'misbehavior' to be addressed. Within one's home, you can say whatever you like.

I don't even know why I'm bothering to respond to you on this issue, as you clearly have no idea what the actual law is, and would rather rely upon assertions that Authority Must Not Be Challenged.

Cycloptichorn
mysteryman
 
  2  
Sat 25 Jul, 2009 12:38 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
The president cannot control everything that happens under his/her watch


You realize your own words just cleared Bush for ANY wrongdoing that might have happened under his watch.
Now all he has to do is say he didnt know about it.

BTW, I dont believe it, but you did say it.
I believe that the President, like a ships captain, is totally responsible for EVERYTHING those under his command (or in the Presidents case, those that work for him) do in their official capacity.

So even if he claims he didnt know, he is still responsible for what happened.
For the record, I do believe that Clinton knew in advance about the plan.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Sat 25 Jul, 2009 12:39 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Once again, Bullshit. There was no legal 'misbehavior' to be addressed. Within one's home, you can say whatever you like.


you are not free to verbally assault or harass the agents of the collective while they are conducting the business of the collective, on property you own nor anywhere else.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  2  
Sat 25 Jul, 2009 12:40 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Within one's home, you can say whatever you like.


And you must be willing to accept the consequences of those words.
If you threaten to kill the President in your own home, and the Secret Service finds out, you can expect a visit from them, investigating you.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 25 Jul, 2009 12:48 pm
@mysteryman,
You are talking about a "police state" aren't you? Who's going to report any conversation to the feds that can be backed up? Your word against mine works very well unless it's on tape. Ofcoarse, Bush would have caught somebody from their listening to Americans illegally on their phones.

Now, let's determine the number of times this will really happen from anybody talking about "killing the president" in their own home? And the "secret police" finding out. LOL
Is fear-mongering your meme too?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Sat 25 Jul, 2009 12:49 pm
@mysteryman,
Quote:
It was a federal operation, led by and conducted by federal agents.

Yes, and? Are you saying Federal agents don't use state resources when they conduct investigations and arrests?
Quote:
The Special Counsel considered whether the use of active duty military at Waco violated the Posse Comitatus Act or the Military Assistance to Law Enforcement Act. These statutes generally prohibit direct military participation in law enforcement functions, but do not preclude indirect support such as loaning equipment, training in the use of equipment, offering expert advice, and providing equipment maintenance. The Special Counsel noted that the military provided “extensive” loans of equipment to the ATF and FBI including, among other things, two tanks the offensive capability of which had been disabled. Additionally, the military provided more limited advice, training, and medical support. The Special Counsel concluded that these actions amounted to indirect military assistance within the bounds of applicable law. The Texas National Guard, in its state status, also provided substantial loans of military equipment, as well as performing reconnaissance flights over the Davidian complex. Because the Posse Comitatus Act does not apply to the National Guard in its state status, the Special Counsel determined that the National Guard lawfully provided its assistance.
If the President had ordered the use of the National Guard it would have violated the law. Since the official investigation found no evidence of that, I prefer their telling to your made up facts.

As to WHY the ATF asked for the equipment....
Quote:
The ATF suspected that the Branch Davidians could have acquired .50 caliber rifles, so they asked for Bradley armored vehicles, which could resist that caliber. Koresh said during the siege that he could destroy the Bradleys, so they were supplemented with two M1A1 Abrams tanks and five M728 Combat Engineer Vehicles



Quote:
It was ordered by his Attorney General, during his administration.
As such, even if he wasnt told in advance, since he is the President he is still responsible for what happened.
I happen to believe that he did know in advance about the plan.
And I have never seen anything to the contrary.
So because you have seen nothing to the contrary then it must be true? Surely you don't want to stand by that logic MM. I have seen no evidence that the acting AG was even informed of the action since it was the serving of a search warrant. I doubt the AG is informed of every search warrant. I have seen nothing to the contrary.

I guess since Bush wasn't told about what was going on at Abu Gharib that makes him responsible. Laughing
mysteryman
 
  2  
Sat 25 Jul, 2009 12:55 pm
@parados,
Quote:
I guess since Bush wasn't told about what was going on at Abu Gharib that makes him responsible


That depends on who you ask.

I say that as CinC he is responsible.

CI says that Bush was not responsible for the actions of his commanders at the camp.

Quote:
two tanks the offensive capability of which had been disabled.


Then why were they needed?
Tanks are not defensive weapons, they are used to attack fortified positions.
If their weapons were removed, they were useless.
mysteryman
 
  2  
Sat 25 Jul, 2009 01:08 pm
@parados,
BTW, In her SWORN TESTIMONY to The Crime Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee and the National Security International Affairs and Criminal Justice Subcommittee of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, she said this...

Quote:
Ladies and gentleman, Chairman McCollum, Chairman Zeliff, and the members of the subcommittee, this was the hardest decision I have ever had to make, probably one of the hardest decisions that anybody could have to make. It will live with me for the rest of my life. I'm accountable for it, and I'm happy to answer your questions."


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/waco/renoopeningst.html

So she admitted to ordering the assault, she admitted to being in charge, so she did know about what was planned by the feds and what they were going to do.

Also, she said that kids were being abused during the standoff, but later she ADMITTED that that was not the case...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/waco/topten.html#branch

Quote:
At first Reno explained that a paramount reason for approving the tear-gas assault on April 19 was that "babies were being beaten." ("Reno Says, I Made the Decision," WPost, Apr. 20, 1993.) FBI Director Sessions, however, said the next day there was "no contemporary evidence" of child abuse. ( Report to the Deputy Attorney General on the Events at Waco, Texas, February 28 to April 19, 1993.) And Reno revised her statement several months later, agreeing there was no evidence of ongoing child abuse by Koresh,


As for what Clinton knew, we know this...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/waco/topten.html#branch

Quote:
In the early days of the crisis Clinton endorsed a "wait-and-see" strategy, asking to be consulted before a change in strategy. On April 18, in a conversation with Reno, the President endorsed the gas plan. Although Clinton distanced himself from the matter after April 19, saying it has been Reno's call, FRONTLINE has learned that Clinton apparently followed developments at Waco closely through some of his closest White House aides.


So, Clinton DID know about it beforehand.




cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 25 Jul, 2009 01:22 pm
@mysteryman,
I didn't say that; I said Bush was an incompetent and recruited incompetent people into his administration. The soldiers were already in service, and the secretary of defense (appointed by Bush) was the person who is responsible for the selection of who heads the wars.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 25 Jul, 2009 01:24 pm
@mysteryman,
Even if he "knew" about it before hand, he let the people in charge make the final decision. Smoke bombs was not his idea; but he did give the go ahead; what a good manager does.
mysteryman
 
  2  
Sat 25 Jul, 2009 01:27 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
I didn't say that; I said Bush was an incompetent and recruited incompetent people into his administration. The soldiers were already in service, and the secretary of defense (appointed by Bush) was the person who is responsible for the selection of who heads the wars.


Yes, you did.

Once you said this...
Quote:
The president cannot control everything that happens under his/her watch


You admitted that the President is NOT responsible for the actiopns of those that work for him or work in his admin.
Since the commanders at Abu Ghraib were working for the President, all he has to do is say he didnt know and he is not responsible for their actions.

So, he cant be held responsible for the actions of anyopne on his staff or in his admin, because he "didnt know" about them.

So, is he responsible or isnt he?
Is he in control or isnt he?
mysteryman
 
  1  
Sat 25 Jul, 2009 01:29 pm
@cicerone imposter,
And the people in "charge" worked for him and were appointed by him.
Therefore, he IS responsible for what they did and the decisions they made.

And a good manager will stand up and admit when he or she screws up and work to make sure it doesnt happen again.
He didnt do that either.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 25 Jul, 2009 01:31 pm
@cicerone imposter,
From Wiki:
Quote:
The children were then interviewed by the FBI and Texas Rangers, allegedly for hours at a time.[14] The children had been physically and sexually abused long before the standoff,[33] and it was one of the key reasons given to both President Bill Clinton and Janet Reno as justification for launching tear gas on the compound to force the Davidians out.[34]


So, please explain to us what the problem is with their decision?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 25 Jul, 2009 01:32 pm
@mysteryman,
What the f..k are you talking about? The Bush administration are the ones who approved the torture tactics with approval from the attorney general. Where have you been all these years?
mysteryman
 
  1  
Sat 25 Jul, 2009 01:35 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
The president cannot control everything that happens under his/her watch


Those are your words.
Therefore, all Bush has to say is he didnt know about it and he is in the clear.
After all
Quote:
The president cannot control everything that happens under his/her watch
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Sat 25 Jul, 2009 01:36 pm
Why is that interesting?
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  2  
Sat 25 Jul, 2009 01:52 pm
Perhaps, Fox, he meant to say "interesting site."
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1363
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.16 seconds on 05/17/2024 at 03:33:11