OT: Corrupt government

User Forum Topic
Submitted by moneymaker on February 4, 2016 - 11:22am

Was thinking how nice it would be if Obama were to pardon Eric Snowden before leaving office, then realized how much he hates Snowden. Then got to thinking if he were to pardon him couldn't the next president overturn it. Ok hold on I'm getting somewhere with this. Now going back to Nixon who was pardoned by Ford I found out that a president can only pardon someone convicted of a crime (Nixon was never convicted, yet he got a pardon). Ok now if the government hates Snowden so much why don't they put him on trial in abstentia? Now it starts to get interesting, they would then have to allow information to flow, wait no, can't do that as information is only suppose to flow in, not out. So the governments plan is to capture Snowden and then hold him forever (like the Guantanamo detainees) without trial. Clearly violating every precept of our Constitution. OK no more political rants from me, just realizing how things work.

Submitted by spdrun on February 4, 2016 - 12:41pm.

Criminal trials cannot be commenced in the US without a defendant's physical presence. Snowden is indicted under US civilian law, therefore cannot be held at Gitmo without trial.

Personally, I hope he stays outside the US, thumbing his nose at us and occasionally flicking a booger until he either is pardoned or dies of natural causes at a ripe old age.

Submitted by Myriad on February 4, 2016 - 1:40pm.

Why would the government pardon Snowden. He took highly classified information (Secret & Top Secret) and took it to a foreign country. That more or less equates to espionage.
If he had stayed in the US, the I think a case could be made, but at this point, we have no idea how much info he provided the Russians.

Submitted by spdrun on February 4, 2016 - 1:58pm.

Well then let him stay outside the US. The service that he did by exposing illegal spying more than outweighs the other thing.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on February 4, 2016 - 2:13pm.

spdrun wrote:

Personally, I hope he stays outside the US, thumbing his nose at us and occasionally flicking a booger until he either is pardoned or dies of natural causes at a ripe old age.

At least 1/2 the population believes that Snowden is a traitor. So it's not like Obama can easily pardon him. Such a pardon would label Democrats as weak on terrorism and foreign policy for decades.

The problem with such a life abroad is that you can't live a normal life, of the establishment, owning property, etc... It's a life on the run.

It wouldn't be so bad for Snowden if Russia gave him citizenship and a Russian institution gave him a fellowship with a secure source of income. He could become a guest commentator on the USA, on RT. Is he qualified or is he just a rogue computer geek?

It also depends how bad our secret services want to get Snowden. Leave him alone, or try to snatch him? Some US criminals, like Roman Polanski, have lived abroad very well.

The US supports foreign dissidents through government agencies and private organizations; but we're not used to having dissidents of our own. That's the privilege of asymmetrical power, where we hold greater power.

Submitted by spdrun on February 4, 2016 - 3:08pm.

Half the American population (more actually) are stupid sheep.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on February 4, 2016 - 4:00pm.

Moneymaker, you caused me to read more about the Nixon pardon on wikipedia.
Ford issued a proclamation pardoning Nixon for crimes he had or may have commited and that was the end of it.

I don't think future president can reverse a pardon.

Wikipedia mentioned something about accepting the pardon, Is acceptance necessary? I'm not clear how that works, but I'd be interested in understanding the legal mechanics.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on February 4, 2016 - 4:10pm.

spdrun wrote:
Half the American population (more actually) are stupid sheep.

I believe the "average" person is only concerned about our own power. They are not interested in universal principles. So if we bomb and kill people, or spy on others, or operate extra judicially, it's always righteous. But anything that affects our power is always wrong.

Submitted by paramount on February 5, 2016 - 12:59am.

And at least half of the population believed the youtube story.

Submitted by NotCranky on February 5, 2016 - 8:45am.

paramount wrote:
And at least half of the population believed the youtube story.

What is the youtube story?

Submitted by moneymaker on February 5, 2016 - 9:51am.

FlyerInHi wrote:
Moneymaker, you caused me to read more about the Nixon pardon on wikipedia.
Ford issued a proclamation pardoning Nixon for crimes he had or may have commited and that was the end of it.

I don't think future president can reverse a pardon.

Wikipedia mentioned something about accepting the pardon, Is acceptance necessary? I'm not clear how that works, but I'd be interested in understanding the legal mechanics.

According to what I read in order to be pardoned you actually have to be convicted of something first, he was never convicted that I know of.

Did you know that Congress has not jailed anybody for contempt since 1934? Might be time to do it again. I'm talking about the drug gauging thing.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on February 5, 2016 - 2:34pm.

moneymaker wrote:

According to what I read in order to be pardoned you actually have to be convicted of something first, he was never convicted that I know of.

I think that the presidential pardon worked in conjunction with prosecutorial discretion. When Ford issued his proclamation of pardon, all prosecutorial activities ceased.

I would love for the press to be more technically and legally exact when they report stories. Oftentimes, they leave out very important aspects of stories.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on February 5, 2016 - 9:48pm.

What about Julian Asange? Should he be freed as the UN group declared?

Ecuador's embassy as refuge is interesting. I know a Jewish family from Ecuador. They told me that when their parents fled Hungary back in the 40s only Ecuador gave them visas. As the kids grew up, they all relocated to the USA or Western Europe. Now, there are about 200 jewish familles left in Quito.

Submitted by paramount on February 6, 2016 - 12:15pm.

List of some of the Unconstitutional Agencies:

Department of Education
Department of Energy
National Labor Relations Board
EPA

Submitted by spdrun on February 6, 2016 - 1:52pm.

EPA? Ever heard of the Santa Susana laboratory? In the 50s, they had a reactor meltdown 30 miles WNW from downtown LA, and burned barrels of rad waste, again in open air. The prevailing winds blow towards LA of course.

How about the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland being so polluted with oil and solvents that its surface caught fire? Love Canal? Dioxin waste dump sold off to build a school and houses.

Anyone who believes that private industry will regulate itself enough to keep a clean environment is kidding him/herself.

Department of Energy exists largely to regulate nuclear power in the US. Do we really want to end up with private industry building reactors to the cheapest spec? When that happens, see also: Chernobyl.

All those industries might need reforming (in particular bringing EPA and EU auto standards into line so world-market cars can be sold in US), but they're useful.

Submitted by harvey on February 7, 2016 - 5:57am.

paramount wrote:
List of some of the Unconstitutional Agencies:
....

Did Rick Perry finally remember?

Submitted by NotCranky on February 7, 2016 - 11:10am.

EPA might not be unconstitutional but it can be so extreme in power grabs that it seems like it should be.

Submitted by spdrun on February 7, 2016 - 11:19am.

But not having it would be worse.

Submitted by bearishgurl on February 7, 2016 - 3:05pm.

Blogstar wrote:
EPA might not be unconstitutional but it can be so extreme in power grabs that it seems like it should be.
I think that the various environmental agencies in SD County should have been more thorough in their studies of the environmental impact at the base of Mt Miguel and southward. As it stands, it is now full of (mostly tightly packed) residential development from the Sweetwater Reservoir all the way down to nearly the northern edge of Brown Field (about 8-9 miles, including the west/southwest sides of the base of the transmitter) as a result of the residential "building spree" of the early/mid '00's.

These unwise choices have caused the coyote population living out there to run scared into town. By the time they are able to successfully sprint into my (urban) area 9-10 miles west (near SD Bay), they are emaciated, thirsty and starving. Several small pets of my neighbors have been killed while in their front yards ... even tied up (one small dog was killed right in front of its owner)! I've helped their distraught owners transport and bury three of these pet bodies where there was just basically eyes, spine and a few entrials left, if that. It's really sad that Big Development has been allowed to essentially destroy the habitat of these wild animals only to add to the headaches and congestion of the area with overbuilding. These bad decisions also led to gross overpopulation and lack of safety for the pets of those residents of even the long-established areas.

We have only our "esteemed" greedy (and corrupt) leaders to thank for this travesty.

Submitted by harvey on February 8, 2016 - 4:57am.

Blogstar wrote:
EPA might not be unconstitutional but it can be so extreme in power grabs that it seems like it should be.

If "extreme' power grabs make a federal organization unconstitutional, then much of the military would be unconstitutional.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on February 8, 2016 - 6:49am.

Wait, why is the epa "unconstitutional"?

Submitted by all on February 8, 2016 - 11:02am.

scaredyclassic wrote:
Wait, why is the epa "unconstitutional"?

Because the founding parents said nothing about it?

Submitted by scaredyclassic on February 8, 2016 - 11:22am.

Mmm. That's not exactly the standard.

Submitted by all on February 8, 2016 - 4:00pm.

scaredyclassic wrote:
Mmm. That's not exactly the standard.

Because King John's Bible says thou shalt not regulate toxic fumes at federal level?

Submitted by ucodegen on February 9, 2016 - 11:58pm.

scaredyclassic wrote:
Wait, why is the epa "unconstitutional"?

It has the potential to create and enforce laws extra-judicially and outside of the constitutionally stated process (laws are supposed to be written/enacted by Congress, signed by Pres, reviewed by Judicial). There is a somewhat accepted sidestep that Congress enacted the EPA, so it is now allowed, though still is a question whether the EPA can create laws in and of itself outside of Congress.

Submitted by ucodegen on February 10, 2016 - 12:06am.

bearishgurl wrote:
These unwise choices have caused the coyote population living out there to run scared into town. By the time they are able to successfully sprint into my (urban) area 9-10 miles west (near SD Bay), they are emaciated, thirsty and starving. Several small pets of my neighbors have been killed while in their front yards ... even tied up (one small dog was killed right in front of its owner)! I've helped their distraught owners transport and bury three of these pet bodies where there was just basically eyes, spine and a few entrials left, if that. It's really sad that Big Development has been allowed to essentially destroy the habitat of these wild animals only to add to the headaches and congestion of the area with overbuilding.
While Big Development may contribute to the problem, homeowners have also contributed as well as the legislature. Dog food dishes left outside overnight with food in it, uncontrolled trash, leaving little dogs/cats outside overnight (little dog = Chicken McNugget to a coyote). The other problem is that people like to see deer and try to entice them closer to their property. The coyotes follow the deer as well as other wild animals. The final thing that has contributed is that coyotes no longer fear man - in part due to laws now in place. We are not legally allowed to take action against coyotes on or around our property (as if coyotes don't learn and adapt).

Submitted by ucodegen on February 10, 2016 - 12:30am.

@flu
Considering the comments on the EPA, you might want to check this out:
http://news.yahoo.com/epa-putting-foot-d...

Submitted by harvey on February 10, 2016 - 5:19am.

ucodegen wrote:
scaredyclassic wrote:
Wait, why is the epa "unconstitutional"?

It has the potential to create and enforce laws extra-judicially and outside of the constitutionally stated process (laws are supposed to be written/enacted by Congress, signed by Pres, reviewed by Judicial). There is a somewhat accepted sidestep that Congress enacted the EPA, so it is now allowed, though still is a question whether the EPA can create laws in and of itself outside of Congress.

The military has its own legal system, with courts, judges, prisons, and even the death sentence.

All because of a law passed by congress.

The EPA is no different. It was granted authority within a certain scope by congress. Congress can also take that authority away. Government wouldn't work if congress had to approve every detail of every organization.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on February 10, 2016 - 11:56am.

ucodegen wrote:
scaredyclassic wrote:
Wait, why is the epa "unconstitutional"?

It has the potential to create and enforce laws extra-judicially and outside of the constitutionally stated process (laws are supposed to be written/enacted by Congress, signed by Pres, reviewed by Judicial). There is a somewhat accepted sidestep that Congress enacted the EPA, so it is now allowed, though still is a question whether the EPA can create laws in and of itself outside of Congress.

I remember from my middle school civics class that congress writes the laws but the president develops the regulations.

For example the FCC is thinking about forcing cable companies to allow customers to buy their own cable boxes. Congress never wrote anything like that. The executive interprets the law and comes up with regulations.

The courts don't review laws until someone who has standing sues.

Submitted by bearishgurl on February 10, 2016 - 12:59pm.

ucodegen wrote:
bearishgurl wrote:
These unwise choices have caused the coyote population living out there to run scared into town. By the time they are able to successfully sprint into my (urban) area 9-10 miles west (near SD Bay), they are emaciated, thirsty and starving. Several small pets of my neighbors have been killed while in their front yards ... even tied up (one small dog was killed right in front of its owner)! I've helped their distraught owners transport and bury three of these pet bodies where there was just basically eyes, spine and a few entrials left, if that. It's really sad that Big Development has been allowed to essentially destroy the habitat of these wild animals only to add to the headaches and congestion of the area with overbuilding.
While Big Development may contribute to the problem, homeowners have also contributed as well as the legislature. Dog food dishes left outside overnight with food in it, uncontrolled trash, leaving little dogs/cats outside overnight (little dog = Chicken McNugget to a coyote). The other problem is that people like to see deer and try to entice them closer to their property. The coyotes follow the deer as well as other wild animals. The final thing that has contributed is that coyotes no longer fear man - in part due to laws now in place. We are not legally allowed to take action against coyotes on or around our property (as if coyotes don't learn and adapt).
Yes, uco, one of my neighbors who lost their beloved cat to a coyote had cat food sitting out on their front porch for years .... but no more.

My point was that City should have stuck it to Big Development with a requirement for a years-long, invasive EIR BEFORE issuing subdivision permits for this HUGE swath of former "open space" which is literally backed right up to the mountains and countryside of SE SD County. The results of this would have surely caused them to severely downscale or reject outright the vast majority of Big D's plans. We as urban dwellers of SAME CITY (8.5 to 12 miles away from this sorry a$$ over-development) should NOT have to suffer the ill effects of this poorly-planned debacle since we have not chosen to relocate there.

Instead, our (former) Council chose to roll around in the sheets with Big Development for YEARS all the while with stars in their eyes and dreaming of a massive increase in property tax coffers. Their successors, now forced to sleep in that same bed, know exactly how well that worked out for them ... and how it affected the service levels of ALL city residents, since they now have LESS employees at this VERY late date to serve MORE residents :=0

In fact, City had no business whatsoever annexing county land to begin with into what is now 91914 and 91915. It heavily impacted the quality of life for existing residents to their detriment.

Ahhh, yes, back in 1982, the CA Legislature sanctioned our Council and Big D to share the same bed, blankets, sheets and pillows in the form of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mello-Roos

I've posted here before that Sen. Henry Mello has to be rolling in his grave with disgust and disbelief of how his signature MR Act has been used and abused by CA counties and municipalities over the years as a vehicle to destroy every inch of open space wild animal habitat even remotely "close" (1-3 hours away) from job centers!

In our case, these wild, starving coyotes have had to traverse 9 miles or more over/under 2-3 FREEWAYS, as well as thru large culverts and drainage canals (both dirt and concrete) to end up sprinting emaciated into downtown Chula Vista in "attack-mode search" of a random small dog or cat to "snack on" for their very survival.

My area was first developed 80-90 years ago and we're not in a fire zone or on the edge of development in any way, shape or form. Unlike new-construction buyers, we urban residents didn't sign up for this (or "deer watching") and don't deserve our security and peaceful existence compromised in this fashion. I have small pet(s) and it's a frightening thought that my dog could be fatally attacked in a split second while walking on a leash next to me.

I'm glad to see that Big D has finally seen fit to leave town but the damage is already done. None of this had to happen and we have only our corrupt (former) leadership to thank for it (most of whom are now undoubtedly collecting public pensions, if qualified).

Submitted by FlyerInHi on February 10, 2016 - 3:00pm.

BG, sorry to say but household pets are not environmentally friendly. They are the invaders. And I say that as a dog lover.

It's build out or build up. We need dwellings for people to live in.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.