Transparency and the Rule of Law...

[downtown]

Or why Bush would have most likely done exactly the same thing given that he used executive privilege 5 times while Obama has only done so once?

Again, why does that matter? Bush isn't here. If this sort of thing is wrong, then its wrong to do it once, and it's wrong here. If it isn't wrong, then we shouldn't have attacked Bush for it. If it is okay in specific circumstances, can anybody argue why this might fall under that?

Withholding the documents certainly makes me think that the White House was more involved in it than I previously thought.

 

[Formaldehyde]

But we have no idea whether this particular instance is "wrong" or not. Without the actual data being publicly disseminated, it is impossible to actually say. And even then, it would likely still be opinion.

But in general, I agree. Using executive privilege should be minimized as much as possible. And it should never be used for partisan reasons.

One thing is for certain. The Republicans in Congress have turned this incident into a partisan vendetta as they typically do. Bush using executive privilege to hide the direct involvement of their administration with the torture of innocent people is a far bigger issue that has still completely escaped justice, even though many of the specific details were finally revealed.

 

[MobBoss]

And that has relevance to what I said how?

Its relevant from a point of scale. Your comment implied the USA was the largest supplier....its not. Not even close actually. Thus your label given isnt even really factual.

@Form. Did Bush ever make a promise of being transparent in such things as Obama did?

 

[DinoDoc]

Without any actual evidence that the release of this information would not endanger informants and undercover agents still working to stop this endemic problem, I don't see where we have any choice but to grudgingly accept his judgment, just as the clearly partisan Obama-haters told us we must do with Bush under far worse circumstances.

So what you are saying is that the GOP should get the New York Times to ask for the documents? Also, the claim releasing information contained in the documents would endanger lives of informants is a little rich given that the document requests center on how the DOJ came to the conclusion it should retract a letter in which it lied to Congress last year about the existance of the program in question and how it treated personnel who tried to blow the whistle on gunwalking.

 

[DinoDoc]

Bush using executive privilege to hide the direct involvement of their administration with the torture of innocent people is a far bigger issue that has still completely escaped justice, even though many of the specific details were finally revealed.

American agents are dead. That would see to argue against the point that you are trying to make regarding the relative importance of issues where privilege has been asserted in the past as far as the public is concerned.

Also Obama had advice to give the president in just this sort of situation: "You know, there's been a tendency on the part of this administration to try to hide behind executive privilege every time there's something a little shaky that's taking place. And I think, you know, the administration would be best served by coming clean on this," then-Senator Barack Obama said in an interview with CNN in 2007.

 

[JollyRoger]

Its relevant from a point of scale. Your comment implied the USA was the largest supplier....its not. Not even close actually. Thus your label given isnt even really factual.

@Form. Did Bush ever make a promise of being transparent in such things as Obama did?

Bush was set to bring honor and dignity back to the White House and not to use our troops for nation building. Is being secretive honorable or dignified?

 

[MobBoss]

Bush was set to bring honor and dignity back to the White House and not to use our troops for nation building. Is being secretive honorable or dignified?

Probably depends on the secret.

 

[JollyRoger]

Probably depends on the secret.

So you concede that there are times a President should invoke exective privilege? That being more selective about it is the common sense approach to being honorable and dignified?

 

[MobBoss]

I think trying to link 'more selective' with 'common sense' is a reach. One can absolutely do something less and still do it for the wrong reasons. Your point is logically false.

 

[JollyRoger]

I think trying to link 'more selective' with 'common sense' is a reach. One can absolutely do something less and still do it for the wrong reasons. Your point is logically false.

Given your bolding in the OP and your conclusions from it, I would just be playing down to the thread level.

 

[MobBoss]

Given your bolding in the OP and your conclusions from it, I would just be playing down to the thread level.

Dont have anything meaningful to add then?

 

[Formaldehyde]

I think he just did, not that it hasn't already been repeatedly mentioned.

 

[JollyRoger]

Dont have anything meaningful to add then?

Given that you have yet to address the point I made in my first post of this thread, I am just spiking the ball at this point.

 

[MobBoss]

Given that you have yet to address the point I made in my first post of this thread, I am just spiking the ball at this point.

Dont forget the pelvic thrusting and toe tapping.

 

[JollyRoger]

Dont forget the pelvic thrusting and toe tapping.

Don't want to infringe on the intellectual property of others.

 

[kochman]

I always liked the, "Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be a store, not a government agency" t-shirts.

Classic!

I dont see why the fact that this program was started under Bush (or not) would be relevant in releasing documentation?

I'm still waiting for the source about the "fact" part of this statement.

 

[Archbob]

Meh, its not like Bush was any better. Every politicians will break promises. Not surprising.

 

[kochman]

Meh, its not like Bush was any better. Every politicians will break promises. Not surprising.

I hardly think Bush ought to be the measuring stick for our expectations.

 

[Berzerker]

so does that mean the repubs wont be showing their contempt for holder...any more?

 

[FriendlyFire]

How do you feel about the use of executive privilege in this case? Necessary or wasted attempt at damage control?
Discuss.

Watergate.

I rather have DOJ investigation compromised than an cover up and stonewalling. On the other hand this is the Republicans, Whom impeach Clinton over a extra martial affair and allowed President Bush not to testify under oath or in public. Yeah Bush, 3000 dead Amercian etc etc /broken record EDIT having a bad day