"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

snip

The gist of it is that FISA didn't and doesn't limit a President's
authority to act timely.
I haven't heard any compelling or authoritative argument that even
sitting President's are imune from oversight.
It's a transparency thing as well Ed.

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think it would be good
for the country, and I doubt if you could get a conviction. If I
understand you accurately, you think it would be good, and you're not as
concerned about getting a conviction as you are about having a trial.

I'd like to insure that future President's excercise better judgement either
because that have or or because they fear the consequences.
Being able to look back at the outcome of Richard Nixon absent a pardon
would have been beneficial.
Ford pardoned Nixon for the exact reasons you have stated here Ed.
One consequence of that pardon was that Cheney and his fellow travellers
concluded that Nixon's mistake was getting caught because he was TO OPEN.
They also concluded that there really wasn't significant risk.

Ford never anticipated a George W. Bush.
The two are as different as night and day both as civil servants and men.
I can't help but wonder what a 1970's Ford would have thought of the
nomination by his party of the likes of George W. Bush.

It's pretty obvious in light of Tuesday's result that America, as a country,
has repudiated the Bush years to a large extent.


I see it as divisive, at just the wrong time. And I don't think you'd be
able to avoid having it look like political retribution, to many US
citizens as well as to the rest of the world. The fine points are not
going to be nearly as visible as are the facts that it's a constitutional
argument and that we're willing to imprison those with whom we don't agree
about constitutional interpretations. It isn't as if they were simply
enriching themselves or arresting members of the opposition. If anything,
proposing it as "justice" will breed a lot of cynicism and resentment
within the US itself.

The Constitution has provided for these things while they're occurring, by
means of impeachment and trial. Congress had that opportunity but didn't
act upon it. Now it's done, and the political process will undo as much of
it as possible. To hold criminal trials after the fact is iffy.

I'm open to alternative solutions Ed and the one thing I know for sure is
that I don't really know what's best.
I'm only willing to exclude business as usual as an adequate response. You
have to draw the line somewhere.


JC