Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
I would suggest justice is better served when the US attorneys are able to focus on their core mission of the law enforcement "priorities of the "local jurisdiction and the needs of the community" without worrying about meeting an arbitrary standard of the political priorities of a President?=
|
During the Civil Rights movement the Federal Government set the standard for going after local official for violating the civil right of American citizens. This is an example of the opposit of what you suggest. If I were President during that time - I would have fired those who did not act on the priorities I set. This was clearly a political issue. The country benefitted.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
I was ready to fire off a long-winded refutation of a lot of your points until I got to this. That's the basic point, I think. The US Attorneys are supposed to be unbiased, at least in theory. The fired ones were let go because they weren't biased enough.
|
US Attorneys have to have the view that a law has been violated and want to prove the violation. They have to have a bias by definition. It is the Judge and jury who should not have a bias.
Should a US Attorney target people because of party affiliation, no. Should a Us Attorney target people based on the law, yes. For example if the President wants to target organized drug traffic, the US Attorney needs to act accordingly. This is political.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
ace....sometimes, you really..... kindly support your "wasted millions" statement.
|
No charges where brought against anyone for "outing" Plame. What more do you want? If you can give me an answer to that, I would gladly take the issue to the next level, but that is the base question in my mind.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ubertuber
Ace:
Let's see here... US Attorney has a track record of excellence in election fraud situations, works with FBI and investigates 100 claims of voter fraud. Finds that all are not substantiated enough to go to court (and the FBI agrees) and does not file suit. To me, that sounds non-political.
|
Why not investigate 101, 150, 1,000. The decision to start and end, to file or not file suit has political issues connected in the decision.
Quote:
|
Then he gets fired for not pursuing the cases involving the opposition party before the election. Oh yeah, these are the cases that weren't pursued for legal and evidentiary reasons. That part sounds political.
|
If the Democrats have evidence of this, they have a strong case. I don't think they do.
Quote:
|
In terms of bias, Ace, I can tell that you've got absolutely 0 clue how I vote. Yeah, we've all got biases, but I make an effort to see around mine. Ask yourself this - who is served by a system in which it is appropriate for the justice system to be subserviant to the current party in power. It sure isn't the voters/taxpayers. I thought government was supposed to serve the people, not itself, and not at the expense of the integrity of the judicial system.
|
Government is the people. Government serves the people. People have agendas (politics, bias, etc). How can politics be seperated from government? I don't think it possible. Everything the government does is political. Republicans are not altruistic, neither are Democrats. when I say Democrats are guilty of political grand standing or that they are doing something fro political gain, it is funny how many want to jump all over the issue and want to believe in mythical ideals that don't and have never existed.
Not sure I have anything else to add on this subject.