Former White House counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff John Bolten have refused to testify before Congress about the firing of 9 U.S. attorneys. Is it time to waterboard them, or make them participate in a naked human pyramid? Hey, if the U.S. wants to have the right to torture, it should use it!
2007-08-11 08:05:26 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Coragryph: Do you think Congress will have the guts to enforce the law? I don't.
2007-08-11 08:26:44 · update #1
Thevillageidiotxxx: After we waterboard Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales, we can make them form a naked human pyramid!
2007-08-11 12:17:18 · update #2
No, but they should be cited for contempt of congress and punished accordingly. This administration has acted in a very un-American, imperial fashion and yes, it is time for Congress to reel them in. Until they do, Congress is ignoring their sworn duties, and abetting what may be the most dangerous threat to our country since George III invaded the colonies.
2007-08-11 08:17:15 · answer #1 · answered by keith_housand 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
They are accountable under the law. But there were no "illegal activities" and the executive privilege confidentiality between a President and his advisors remains intact, even after that President is out of office. There are always aspects of personal communications between a president and his advisors that the public and Congress do not have a right to know. You can whine and pule all you want and get your panties in a twist, but it still doesn't make their actions criminal, and it still doesn't mean that whiny leftists have any right to infringe on protected confidential interactions.
2016-05-19 23:06:48 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They've already committed a federal crime -- refusal to obey a Congressional Subpoena (see 2 USC 192).
But waterboarding is not a listed punishment for that felony.
And for anyone who was wondering about the Executive Privilege argument, read the statute and the applicability of the privilege. It doesn't excuse people from SHOWING UP -- even if they can arguably refuse to answer questions covered by the privilege.
Federal law says they were required to show up, and they refused. That's a crime, punishable by up to a year in jail.
2007-08-11 08:13:40 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
No, they never meant for it to work that way.
You have apparently overlooked the crass moral relativism at play here. This is the administration that seeks to know as much about American citizens as it possibly can, while allowing us to know as little as possible about the workings of the government.
They can't possibly be expected to abide by the same rules as the rest of us. That would violate the three fundamental doctrines:
A) "you're not allowed to do what we do"
B) "we're allowed to things you're not allowed to do", and
C) "we make up the rules as we go along here, and you don't".
2007-08-11 08:24:44 · answer #4 · answered by oimwoomwio 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
LOL! But that would require some level of consistency, wouldn't it? I mean, just because certain individuals are showing contempt for Congress, and therefore contempt for all of the American citizens who elected Congress, as well as for the Constutution that gives Congress its powers, doesn't mean they're trying to undermine the American way....
Oh yeah. I guess it DOES mean they're trying to undermine the American way, aren't they? Just because they aren't using bombs doesn't make them any less dangerous.
2007-08-11 08:09:34 · answer #5 · answered by Vaughn 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Who needs torture when we have prisons? You underestimate the power of a bunch of people who are unjustly imprisoned and would love to give their opinions to the folks who are responsible for their imprisonment. I could crack these nuts in 2 seconds. Did someone say NAME THAT TUNE?
2007-08-11 08:13:58 · answer #6 · answered by pappyld04 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Ok, but just this one last time. Then we go back to a nation under the rule of law.
2007-08-11 08:11:56 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
you bet ye, what is food for the goose is food for the gander, start with bush than cheney than gonzales.
2007-08-11 10:57:06 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, it is unconstitutional.
Congress does not have absolute power over the Executive branch. The attorneys work for The President.... he has a right to fire them, just like Clinton had a right to fire ALL of his.
Go buy a 9th grade civics book and learn how our government works.
2007-08-11 08:15:54 · answer #9 · answered by Mike 6 · 1⤊ 6⤋
No. Just people like you who ask these g*d-awful questions.
2007-08-11 14:08:27 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋