[redmenace]

In regaurds to the NSA, I am not going to defend nor support their activities. I posted that information just as an FYI.

As per Clinton, he wasn't acquitted. He was impeached by the Senate. But, they did not remove him from office. He was in no way acquitted.

It is important because, as I said before, he lied in a sexual harrasment suit against him and obstructed justice, or atleast tried. Both of which are serious crimes. And the law applies to us all. This has nothing to do with running the country. Now you should rephrase your question to say: Does lying under oath, in a matter that was unrelated to his position (or atleast loosly related), justify him being removed from office? That is the real debate. Not, as you so eligantly put it, "shoving a cigar in some tarts snatch" having to do with running the country.

[aldo_14]

In regaurds to the NSA, I am not going to defend nor support their activities. I posted that information just as an FYI.

As per Clinton, he wasn't acquitted. He was impeached by the Senate. But, they did not remove him from office. He was in no way acquitted.

It is important because, as I said before, he lied in a sexual harrasment suit against him and obstructed justice, or atleast tried. Both of which are serious crimes. And the law applies to us all. This has nothing to do with running the country. Now you should rephrase your question to say: Does lying under oath, in a matter that was unrelated to his position (or atleast loosly related), justify him being removed from office? That is the real debate. Not, as you so eligantly put it, "shoving a cigar in some tarts snatch" having to do with running the country.

Why does it matter if he lied about a private, personal matter?  why is this important?  If I was to have an affair, would I be placed on public trial - by law or media - for it?  What exactly was the 'justice' for?  What did he lie about that was in the public - i.e. governmental and national - interest with regards to his capability as a president?

Albeit, he wasn't convicted, was he?  AFAIK the Senate rejected the 2 charges of impeachment. So surely it's not like he was 'let away with it' or somesuch, if it got that far?  In my understanding, facing a court and not being convicted usually amounts to being found innocent (or, in Scots law, 'not proven' as a third option).

And it's probably quite appropriate for me to use the crudest possible terms, because this was basically a fairly sleazy and pathetic affair.  Media and show over actual relevance; political points scorting ahead of maybe actually considering the issues of running a country.  And here you are dragging this up again, demanding he be punished in some way despite the fact he was put on effective trial anyways.  Basically you're saying that you disagree with that verdict, so you're ignoring it?

We've seen far more serious crimes committed by the Bush administration (and probably every other Presidency, this is just my - time - frame of reference here).

[WMCoolmon]

What were the original investigations started on, actually? I was unaware that an affair was such a serious offense.

[aldo_14]

What were the original investigations started on, actually? I was unaware that an affair was such a serious offense.

I don't know.  From what I can tell, the story of the affair was broken, he (Clinton) denied it, and then he was accused of lying and hence perjury.  He possibly would have been better off just being honest, but on the other hand, the way - IIRC (it was a while ago) - the republicans went about it hammer and tongs made them look distinctly unsavoury as well.  A casual read of the wikipedia stuff makes it look like a lot of ultimately unfounded/unsupportable/thrown out accusations were being made at the time, and this was partially related to that.

[karajorma]

It is important because, as I said before, he lied in a sexual harrasment suit against him and obstructed justice, or atleast tried. Both of which are serious crimes. And the law applies to us all. This has nothing to do with running the country. Now you should rephrase your question to say: Does lying under oath, in a matter that was unrelated to his position (or atleast loosly related), justify him being removed from office? That is the real debate. Not, as you so eligantly put it, "shoving a cigar in some tarts snatch" having to do with running the country.

So? Bush went AWOL during war time. I don't see you clamouring for his head even though that came to light far more recently than anything Clinton did. Like I said you're showing a very clear bias in all your posts.

And yet again you seem to be assuming I don't think Clinton should be punished. Of course he should but it was your claim that he should be number 1 that I take issue with because it displays a very clear bias and I prefer people who stay neutral and realise that both sides are wankers.

Well, after that, I'm guessing the reason would be because the people that're the supposed targets of such action (the Terrorists, if you will) would then be able to take action to circumvent it (ie communicate more via mail, try to obtain information on what key phrases and such trigger additional surveillance, come up with better codes for phone communication) whereas by keeping the project in the dark, it would lure such suspected terrorists into a false sense of security and prevent them from taking such measures.

And of course if you then expose those methods in an open trial, to implicate one particular terrorist, then you make circumvention of those same methods easier by others with motive to avoid the surveillance.

Sorry but that is a very poor excuse. You're claiming that the NSA would risk giving away the details of their operation if they revealed the details in court. I agree 100%. Telling the terrorists that their phones were likely to be tapped would give away the operation after a few trials revealed that the terrorists had been caught due to wiretaps. What you've missed is that this is true whether the wiretap is legal or not. So even in the case of a legal wiretap the evidence isn't going to be presented in court. The NSA would merely use it as a starting point to gather evidence that they would use.

So now the stumbling block is simply whether you can legally get a wiretap without the suspect learning of it. That's obviously got to be possible otherwise wiretaps would be virtually useless.

[ionia23]

 

[redmenace]

So? Bush went AWOL during war time. I don't see you clamouring for his head even though that came to light far more recently than anything Clinton did. Like I said you're showing a very clear bias in all your posts.

And yet again you seem to be assuming I don't think Clinton should be punished. Of course he should but it was your claim that he should be number 1 that I take issue with because it displays a very clear bias and I prefer people who stay neutral and realise that both sides are wankers.

ok, you are obviously not following the conversation. I am not acting like Clinton is Public Enemy No. 1. People were acting like, as usual, that the whole impeachment preceedings were strictly about sex and evil fundamentalists. Really, there were far worse politicians to choose from ie. Bush.

But yes, he is a little jackass for going awol, not in vietnam, but in the Texas National Gaurd.

[karajorma]

I am following it. It's just tiring hearing you constantly bashing the Democrats. Bash them all instead.

Anyway seeing as you've had a go at Bush now I'll let it lie

[redmenace]

If it will make you happy I can start all my posts with the words Bush Sucks?

[karajorma]

Nah. It would be Bush Sucks but... < 12 paragraph diatribe on the democrat party >

Not really much point is there?

[Corsair]

Bear confirms - "Yes, I did **** in woods"
Shock study reveals White is the opposite of Black - faces Zebra protests
Fish declares - "I did not need that bicycle"

Teen Does Really Stupid Thing!

Seriously though... this could shake up Washington in a rather interesting way. My US Government teacher says that this is one of the three biggest stories in American government to have occured during his time teaching the class (something like 8 years or so).

[Ace]

Yeah, I get the feeling that he is not a very happy person in real life.

Only when around stupid people

[Deepblue]

Bear confirms - "Yes, I did **** in woods"
Shock study reveals White is the opposite of Black - faces Zebra protests
Fish declares - "I did not need that bicycle"

Teen Does Really Stupid Thing!

Seriously though... this could shake up Washington in a rather interesting way. My US Government teacher says that this is one of the three biggest stories in American government to have occured during his time teaching the class (something like 8 years or so).

No.

This sort of dirt has always happened.

[Unknown Target]

Yea, what's the big deal? Stupid teenager, so what?

[Corsair]

No.

This sort of dirt has always happened.

I know it's always happened, I'm just saying what my teacher said. And anyway, while this sort of thing has always happened, somebody as big as Abramoff going down and then cooperating with the government to take down other people doesn't happen every day. It could turn out to be a pretty big story, depending on who else gets fingered and actually prosecuted.