It wasn't non-partisan. Hurling rhetorical rocks at Boehner is pretty much playing to the GOP base that's convinced that he's a sell-out to the whole cause. Boehner is pretty much the designated whipping boy for the Tea Party caucus.
It was non-partisan in that he was addressing all representitives to uphold the law...period. Hurling rocks at his own while upholding the standard for all elected officials should not be a partisan thing it should be a constitutional thing. I guess that escaped you.
It wasn't just liberals who responded pretty strongly to my question. On the one hand, you have President Obama's executive action, which is pretty clearly within his authority to set priorities for the enforcement of the law.
That is not what Obama has done at all, he has nullified existing law which is not in his power to do constitutionally. Even when Reagan made executive action on immigration (which seems to be a favorite liberal cry) it was only to clarify the law's boundary of enforcement. Making new law and refusing to enforce existing law because you don't like it is not within the presidents power, nor should it be. Gowdy made that point also, "what laws will the next president choose to nullify?" If it is a republican that nullifies existing discrimination laws will you be for it? will you also say that he is within his power to do so? How far are you willing to go with this?
And if it isn't, the courts can remedy that problem, and there's little to indicate that the administration would try to place their actions in "legal outer space".
They are already there ("legal outer space") & you along with most liberals cheer his lawlessness.
On the other hand, you have top executive, not just exercising discretion in the lawful performance of their duties, but allegedly ordering people to break the law.
That is not the case, the actions taken were in the limits of the law, the liberals that were briefed into what was happening at the time agreed & authorized it, and only the fringe 31% agree with you that it was unlawful or wrong.
The Bush administration was far more lawless than the Obama administration, and yet there isn't a peep about that from Gowdy.
Because what the administration did was lawful and was briefed to all branches of the government at that time. It is a bit late for the libs that sanctioned it to now cry foul, yet you seem unwilling to subscribe any culpability to them...funny how that works.
The IRS situation is potentially different, but so far, Congress has been unable to find any link to high-level administration officials, and not for lack of trying.
Well like the Nixon tapes the left has done a fine job of stonewalling & destroying the evidence but, what makes this case far more sinister is watergate was a scandal between political parties while the IRS scandal was a crime against the citizenry of the United States. Would you like to see a different administration attack you, your business, your character using arguably the strongest arm of the federal government? I think not but, hey it was only right wing citizens that were targeted so I assume you are good with that. :juggle:
As far as legal authorization goes, there is no way to legalize torture. Do you think the Japanese or the Nazis lacked the highest level of authorization for their actions, for which they were prosecuted? Or Milosevic, who was no less than president of his country? To allow the Geneva Conventions to be overridden by high-ranking officials would gut them.
Inflicting bodily harm, severe pain is the standard, does sleep depravation, humiliation, or waterboarding (fear for ones life) rise to that? I think not.
Also, I'd like to know how the Judiciary was "briefed". Considering that they review cases, without an opposing party, they really don't seem to have a role to play. They cannot take initiative upon themselves.
I should have been more clear, I meant the Atty General. & Judiciary Committees were briefed. I was not referring to the Supreme Court.
Well, no, no one is entitled to their own definition of crimes. Else what could ever be called criminal? But I think that if you don't see torture here in the very same acts that we prosecuted people for in the past, I think you are wearing your ideological blinders pretty firmly.
1) Why not? I mean if you can uphold what laws you want, and nullify the ones you don't, than it is open season, no? See how that works? But your Okay with it as long as it is "your man" doing it.
2) If it was bought into by the administration as well as all the lawmakers involved (left & right) to authorize it than the standard was met to be implemented.
3) Be specific, where was anyone punished for the acts of sleep deprivation, humiliation, or waterboarding? these actions have only been deemed as torture by a minority at this point and it is still up for debate, the left only has spotlighted it for political gain pure & simple.
My understanding is that the charged would have to be referred to the UN Security Council, where the US would hold a veto. Ironically, this might be the best place for you to make the case that the Obama administration is lawless; they are unlikely to allow charges to proceed.
It is more unlikely that it will get that far.
We do hold that veto at the Security Council. We really shouldn't use it, though.
Like I said above...
I consider that an indictment of a large portion of the American public, on some level. When the Nazis were vanquished, and the Germans were shown what was being done in their names not far from their homes, they were largely appalled by it. I'm not sure Americans would have the sense to be.
Waterboarding, sleep deprivation, humiliation, and the rest of the methods used here don't rise the level in any way of the real pain & suffering inflicted by the the Japanese, the Germans against innocents, or even by ISIS right now and Americans can see the trivial nature of liberal cry's of torture in this case.
