Support NeoGAF

[whytemyke]

And I'm not saying it is. I was responding to a guy who was saying how once a president is out of office, you should just prosecute him for things that you couldn't prosecute him for when he was in office.

What I am saying is:

If you can't prosecute him for it when he's in office, you shouldn't be able to prosecute him for it after he leaves office.

If you can prosecute him for it after he leaves office, you should be able to prosecute him for it when he's in office.

The threshold for "prosecutability" should not change just because he left office, or else future presidents' judgments will be controlled by fear of prosecution.

that's ridiculous. the reason you can't prosecute a sitting president is because people believe he's got bigger things to do than answer every and all call and subpoena. it's not about prosecutability as a legal basis, but as a practicality basis.

if Bush is so certain that his actions were correct, or any other president, then answering for them to the public after the fact shouldn't be so daunting.

 

[dionusos]

that's ridiculous. the reason you can't prosecute a sitting president is because people believe he's got bigger things to do than answer every and all call and subpoena. it's not about prosecutability as a legal basis, but as a practicality basis.

if Bush is so certain that his actions were correct, or any other president, then answering for them to the public after the fact shouldn't be so daunting.

It's about practicality for the present AND the future. I have already laid reasons why prosecuting a president for an action can cause future presidents to be hesitant to take that action when it actually becomes necessary.

And like I said about four times already, I am not defending Bush. Of course he should come forward and answer for what he did.

My first comment in this thread was:

I'm not trying to defend Bush, but in the grander scheme of things... you have to take into account that Presidents might be more hesitant to act quickly in emergencies if they have reason to believe that their actions will lead to them being prosecuted as soon as they leave office. That's why in some cases it makes sense to protect Presidents even after they leave office, so the need for quick action isn't being mitigated by fear of future prosecution.

Of course in some cases a President should be punished, but it's tricky to just prosecute a President if it causes future Presidents to be hesitant and slow to act.

 

[grandjedi6]

If you can't prosecute him for it when he's in office, you shouldn't be able to prosecute him for it after he leaves office.

If you can prosecute him for it after he leaves office, you should be able to prosecute him for it when he's in office.

The threshold for "prosecutability" should not change just because he left office, or else future presidents' judgments will be controlled by fear of prosecution.

1.) This isn't national security or anything. The executive privilege is protecting Rove from being called to testify on politically motived US attorney firings. There's no reason why Bush needs to be protected from this other than to save his own skin.

2.) Of course the President should be controlled by fear of prosecution. If the president isn't subject to the same laws as everyone else then you can't expect him to uphold them properly. The President isn't above the constitution you know.

3.) The threshold for prosecution has changed when he left office because he was only protecting Rove with his executive privileges. But he does not have those privileges anymore. Thus he can now be prosecuted.

EDIT: If you are going to make this argument dionusos, then you have to, by default, also argue in favor of Bush. You can't just throw away this example just because it weakens your argument.

 

[Tamanon]

Yeah, I'm kinda ok with the executive branch worrying about whether what they're doing is legal. I'm perfectly fine with that "burden" being added to decisions.

 

[dionusos]

1.) This isn't national security or anything. The executive privilege is protecting Rove from being called to testify on politically motived US attorney firings. There's no reason why Bush needs to be protected from this other than to save his own skin.

2.) Of course the President should be controlled by fear of prosecution. If the president isn't subject to the same laws as everyone else then you can't expect him to uphold them properly. The President isn't above the constitution you know.

3.) The threshold for prosecution has changed when he left office because he was only protecting Rove with his executive privileges. But he does not have those privileges anymore. Thus he can now be prosecuted.

I agree in this case Bush needs to face legal ramifications, so all your Bush-related comments are misguided since I specifically stated about 6 times already that I was not defending Bush, and I was making a comment about the grander scheme of prosecuting presidents.

I know he CAN be prosecuted, and I think he should.

As for threshold, I don't think it should change when you leave office. If Bush did something seriously wrong, not even executive privilege should be able to save him even DURING his term (otherwise our Constitution would not bother allowing for impeachment). Either it's prosecutable or it's not. The fact that he left office doesn't matter.

 

[dionusos]

Yeah, I'm kinda ok with the executive branch worrying about whether what they're doing is legal. I'm perfectly fine with that "burden" being added to decisions.

You're a breath of fresh air. Even though you flat-out disagree with me, it seems you're the only one who even understands what I was trying to say.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

No one's had the cajones to test this executive privilege theory before, so it should be interesting.

My opinion is that it is the current president's call (meaning executive privilege does *not* automatically apply to former presidents). Obama does have a vested interest in the power of executive privilege so this doesn't mean he would necessarily send Bush up the river. At the same time he is in the best position to determine whether the testimony Bush is blocking ought to be "privileged". So, yes, current president's call.

 

[CharlieDigital]

You're a breath of fresh air. Even though you flat-out disagree with me, it seems you're the only one who even understands what I was trying to say.

I think you have dyslexia...

 

[Freshmaker]

I find it hardly surprising that the newly-elected democrat government, with its huge list of urgent business, almost immediately starts an investigation into the Bush administration.

As others have noted, disallowing executive privilege would inhibit whatever current administration from having the discussions it would need to make the right decisions.

Funny how the opposite was being argued when Clinton tried to assert it.

 

[KTallguy]

Lock him up.

 

[kaching]

Maybe you two missed it, but I stated already above that I am not defending Bush or saying he shouldn't face any legal ramifications. I was responding to this:

I understood the context of your comment just fine. That still doesn't explain why you felt the need to qualify it with this concern over setting the threshold too low for legal ramifications post presidency. The transgressions they're investigating wouldn't be minor misdemeanors if they turned out to be true.

 

[adamsappel]

Sounds like he did some assholish things in private to the staff too. Like the yelling at a staffer who was called in on a Saturday for not wearing a jacket. Yelled at and berated him for 15 minutes.:lol

He wasn't yelled at for not wearing a jacket. He wasn't allowed into the Oval Office to be yelled at in private about something else, because he wasn't wearing a jacket.

 

[Zombie James]

 

[Rasputin]

It's not like this is an investigation into illegal wiretapping or the push for war in Iraq. This is an investigation into the executive office "stacking the deck" at the Justice Department with Republicans loyal to lord Bush and then using those loyal Prosecutors to drum up charges against as many elected Democrats as possible. In other words dino, "if you cant beat 'em at the polls, send 'em to prison" and get a Republican in there in their place.

Karl Rove had been dreaming of just that scenario since he was in his 20's. Having the tools and power to create his "permanent Republican majority" using any means necessary.

 

[Pimpwerx]

The guy started a frickin useless war, how much more of a jackass can he possibly be.

Two-thirds of this country was drinking the same koolaid at the time. As much as I hate Bush, I hate the many people who supported his ideas then, and now act like they weren't complicit in the whole affair. PEACE.

 

[DarienA]

Two-thirds of this country was drinking the same koolaid at the time. As much as I hate Bush, I hate the many people who supported his ideas then, and now act like they weren't complicit in the whole affair. PEACE.

Well weren't they supporting because of the "proof" that this administration brought to them? Even though this administration apparently knew this "proof" was mighty suspect?

 

[thewhiterabbit]

Two-thirds of this country was drinking the same koolaid at the time. As much as I hate Bush, I hate the many people who supported his ideas then, and now act like they weren't complicit in the whole affair. PEACE.

No we were not drinking the same kool-aid. Bush lied to us and deceived the American people. That is not the same kool-aid. Cause last I checked we still have found no wmds.

 

[klausbert]

So nobody axed themselve" DAYUM, why is they attack iraq when them terrurrasts a from afghaynistane?"

 

[Borgnine]

Just when we think we're out, he pulls us back in.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

Just when we think we're out, he pulls us back in.

More like, just when he thought he was out...

 

[Forgotten_Taco]

I'm not sure you and I are on the same page on what "fair game" means. When I said he's not fair game, that doesn't mean completely exempt. It means he shouldn't be treated under normal rules. But I never advocated a position where the threshold is infinite.

I am guessing that when you read my line that he isn't "fair game," you thought I was saying he was exempt. I was simply saying the threshold for prosecuting him should be higher than for most people in America. Remember my posts are in response to someone saying that once a president is out of office, you can prosecute him for things you couldn't prosecute him for when he was in office. I am saying that this policy would miss the point, since future presidents' judgments would be ruled by fear of prosecution.

Constitution mother fucker did you read it?!

 

[Kenka]

The Haye? As in... straw? the barn?



or do you mean The Hague?

Hell you're right, french leads to some mistakes, I should have simply said Den Haag. Or should they simply be hung ?

 

[NotWii]

I read your thread title in John Stewart's Bush voice.

Me too :lol