The because someone else has done it already its OK defence

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 09:45 PM
link   
With the debates that concern Bush squashing Scooter Libby Jail sentence on AP I have noticed that one of the defences is that Clinton pardoned an long list of people. This kind of argument is flawed at its core If I was to commit murder I couldn't make the case that what I did was OK because someone else has done it before me.

I have seen an variation of such flawed arguments when it comes to debating the Iraq War.
The war defenders say that because many of the Dems voted for the war it must have been an good idea. Well If I commit an crime I cant use the "someone thought it was an good idea" as an defence in an court of law.

Before the age of twelve I knew that the someone else did it defence wouldn't prevent me from getting into trouble or facing up to being responsible for my actions.
So why would any mature adult resort to such an argument ?
There are two possible reasons.


  1. The person is very immature .
  2. The person is unwilling to admit that there are flaws with there political ideology or that there are flaws with the people and party they support.


None of the above traits are very appealing and both go help US politicans maintain the orchestrated political divide. The other common tactic is to divert away from the topic at hand by turning an thread into another pointless Conservative vs Liberal bashing threads.


[edit on 8-7-2007 by xpert11]

[edit on 8-7-2007 by xpert11]




posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 09:55 PM
link   
I don't think they are necessarily trying to justify it always when they mention Clinton, they are just trying to point out that Clinton was worse and usually by extension that Clinton supporters who are criticizing Bush are hypocrites.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 09:59 PM
link   
There is no precedent for what Bush is doing.

Other presidents have pardoned a litany of rapists, murderers, druggies, etc, what separates what Bush has done is that Bush himself is involved and he benefits* by pardoning Libby.

In order for there to be a precedent there must have been a president before Bush who has done precisely what HE is doing. There isnt.

He pardons Libby, or others in his immediate cabinet and IT IS NOT the same as past presidents who have the power to pardon some serious criminals out there but were outside of their inner circle.

For Pete's sakes, i can see him pardoning himself. Yea, that's the ticket.

Everything he does, he benefits. So does Cheney, et al.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by uberarcanist
they are just trying to point out that Clinton was worse and usually by extension that Clinton supporters who are criticizing Bush are hypocrites.
Really????

How was he worse???



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Wether you agree with Scooters commutation depends on what party you align yourself with.
Its business as usual with Washington, if the next President is a Democrat there will be scandals as there is with every admistration, and the the Republican faithful will be screaming about someone who get pardoned just as the Democrats are screaming now, just as the Republicans were back during Clintons term.

same o same o move along nothing to see really



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe

Originally posted by uberarcanist
they are just trying to point out that Clinton was worse and usually by extension that Clinton supporters who are criticizing Bush are hypocrites.
Really????

How was he worse???


So you don't think Clinton and Rich were not connected somehow in some sort of dealings? Don't you think that billionaire Rich paid Clinton back somehow for his pardon?



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
There is no precedent for what Bush is doing.


Maybe that isnt the case Bush senior raised controversy by pardoning people connected to the Iran Contra scandal. Anyway the topic isnt about if Bush made the right decision when he gave Libby an get out of jail free card. But I think that I do understand what your getting at in this instance.

Can we all please stay on the topic at hand and leave the rights and wrongs of Bush decisions for another thread.




[edit on 8-7-2007 by xpert11]



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by uberarcanist So you don't think Clinton and Rich were not connected somehow in some sort of dealings? Don't you think that billionaire Rich paid Clinton back somehow for his pardon?


So just for yucks, Uber...as long as were getting all partisan over this, go through the effort of finding out who Rich's lawyer was. Then tell me how different Bush is from Clinton. I await your response with bemusement.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Now we are seeing one of the things that I mentioned on this thread. The thread is being diverted away from its purpose because people are unable to deal with the subject matter at hand in the manner required.

IMO if you don't like the topic at hand or you cant add anything useful or relevant then there is no need to post on that thread.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 10:42 AM
link   
I think that bringing up Clinton (or anyone else) is a way of trying to make what Bush did seem 'not so bad'. The trouble with this is that next time Bush does something worse (which he will), people will say, "Well, so-and-so did it too". And down goes the standard.

Accepting or calling forth the "because someone else has done it already its OK defense" lowers standards all around and over time, we have a government that can do anything and get away with it (which is nearly where we find ourselves today).

The slow erosion of morals and standards in government over the past 30 years is just exactly what happens when this defense is used.


Originally posted by xpert11
Before the age of twelve I knew that the someone else did it defence wouldn't prevent me from getting into trouble or facing up to being responsible for my actions.


That's just it. Responsibility for one's actions. It's a quaint concept all but forgotten in today's American society. (and when I say "American", I mean the US)



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 10:45 AM
link   
It's part of his job. Bush can outright pardon people, as is written in the Constitution of the United States.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 04:04 PM
link   
And to answer the OP question with a question...

WHY is it all of a sudden an issue? I can answer that, because you all hate the man..

The fact that he has pardoned and commuted FAR less than MOST sitting presidents is a VALID point to be brought up when you are lynching the man for doing EXACTLY what is considered common practice in the White House... and doing FAR FAR less of it...

GOOD GRIEF

PRECEDENT people..

Precedent is perfectly legal and an accepted practice with ALL areas of law...

Sheesh

Talk about beating a dead horse...

Semper



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 04:21 PM
link   
xpert, I hear what you're saying. I think what's behind your thread is also what was behind what motivated me to post this. It's tiring.

Correct me if I'm wrong.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 05:02 PM
link   
You're missing the whole point completely.

The president's commutation of Libby's jail sentence isn't justified by Clinton's pardons. It is justified because the president has the power under the Constitution of the United States to grant pardons and clemency.

Some have noted that compared to some of the scumbags Clinton pardoned, Libby is a choirboy, but that's irrelevant.

No president needs to justify any pardon.

Maybe this will help to clarify the situation somewhat.

usgovinfo.about.com...



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Pointing out Clinton's deeds when compared to Bush is vital.

The reason is some people believe history started in 2000, when Bush became President. It is all they know.

How many people know that Clinton fired 96 attorneys, compared to Bush's 8?

How many people know that Clinton pardoned 241 people, including 100+ in his last week in office, compared to Bush's 6 pardons to date?

Think Bush was spying on American's? What about Clinton asking the FBI to look into files of the people he was about to fire at the White House Travel Office? AKA Travelgate?

George Bush has nothing on Bill Clinton when it comes to perceived wrongs.

I forgive the average American for not knowing better. But there is no excuse for Democrat politicians and their ignorance, especially the ones that served during both administrations.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott No president needs to justify any pardon.


True, but sooner or later they're going to be held to account for their actions...whether in a court of law or in the court of public opinion. Obviously Clinton hasn't escaped his foibles.

But the point to the thread is whether or not it is acceptable to use the defence that 'someone else already did it'. To me, the problem is self evident...folks are putting party politics above morality. To justify Bush's (mis)use of his constitutional powers by saying Clinton did worse, is to rationalize ignoble behavior. At what point does the cycle stop? If the electorate is not willing to declare partisan bickering as counter to its own personal values, then I guess the people get what they deserve.

Perhaps the answer is to stop voting the party, and vote the individual that best represents their interests. You might end up with a more homogenised group of lawmakers, but on the other hand some of the wing-nuts (of either stripe) would end up back on the fringes.

The key, still, is to cease governing by playing the blame game.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
To justify Bush's (mis)use of his constitutional powers by saying Clinton did worse, is to rationalize ignoble behavior.


The president didn't misuse his power. He exercised it, just as Clinton did and every president before him.

Are Canadian poitics so boring that Canadians have to spend time obsessing about cases as trivial as this one?

Democrats, I can understand. For seven years, they've been in a living hell. Every time the president poots, it's cause for impeachment.

Democrats hate president's with backbone.

[edit on 2007/7/9 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 06:34 PM
link   
What I believe the OP is trying to get at is accepting responsibility for your actions. This uproar over the pardon of Libby is to quote the bard "much ado about nothing". The President doesn't have to defend or justify his actions; they were legal. Now if you want to debate how ethical the pardon was; well that's a topic for a different thread.

It might help to remember that which is legal is not always the right thing to do. Perhaps that might make a more logical debate.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott


Are Canadian poitics so boring that Canadians have to spend time obsessing about cases as trivial as this one?



This is not the first time I've seen you pull this chestnut out Grady. Because we're Canadian we can't have an opinion about what's going on below the border? Get over it dude. Your politics and economy are closely related to ours.

So, should we expect that you are going to stop posing about the situation in Iraq, Iran, NK, Constantinople, Fairy Land, etc because it isn't American? Not likely. So get off this bus, it isn't leaving the terminal.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Democrats hate presidents with backbone?



That's funny, Grady. Is that all it is? Here i was worried that the current administration had used the Constitution as papier du toilette unless it suited them to refer to it as we have in this case. Not to mention everything else.

Wow, how wrong can one be.





new topics
top topics
 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join