It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Executive Privilege and the Divine Right of Kings

page: 4
37
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


obstruction is only a crime, when a crime has been committed to obstruct.

how can someone obstruct justice when justice has no reason to occur?

but a belief in Divine Right of Kings, requires a belief in God.
edit on 21-6-2012 by michaelbrux because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 


guess he's screwd then,, cause that is what the Ceo is actually doing.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by BobAthome
 


sucks to be that guy then.

but, I want to see some real accusations...not a performance for the camera's

must suck when only at the end that people realize they were swinging at ghost's.

that's what issa is all about.
edit on 21-6-2012 by michaelbrux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by michaelbrux
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


obstruction is only a crime, when a crime has been committed to obstruct.

how can someone obstruct justice when justice has no reason to occur?

but a belief in Divine Right of Kings, requires a belief in God.
edit on 21-6-2012 by michaelbrux because: (no reason given)


I don't know why you think it is you can ignore established and accepted definitions and simply just redefine words to suit your purposes, and I assure it is not that quality about you that I enjoy in our discourses.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 11:17 PM
link   
Monarchy may be a divine right, but regicide is a divine imperative. The execution of Charles I was a glorious thing.

edit on 21-6-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 


rege-side,,always a toss up between genes and parinoia,,

edit on 21-6-2012 by BobAthome because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
I don't know why you think it is you can ignore established and accepted definitions and simply just redefine words to suit your purposes, and I assure it is not that quality about you that I enjoy in our discourses.


He's on an Internet forum, Jean Paul. Surely you've heard of GIFT?



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


its cool to disagree.

obstruction of justice, in my personal opinion, to be a crime requires, first, that a crime, or at least some reasonable belief, evidence, that a crime has been committed to obstruct.

if otherwise, you, or anyone else, could be charged with obstruction of justice right now. any lawful authority could place the entire country under detention and say, 'if you don't tell me everything, none of you will ever see the light of day again." I wouldn't even have to know the crime that was committed beforehand. i'd only have to suspect a crime was committed.

i could just start making up things and compel you to provide me with information and if you don't give me the answer I seek, you could be lock up for contempt.

can't you see this?



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 


Regicide is human delusion of the highest order.

the only person that actually dies is the murderer.
edit on 21-6-2012 by michaelbrux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   
I have to agree with much of what the OP is saying. Moreover, Executive Privilege is a necessary evil in some cases, and I mean some. National security matters is high on the list as had been previously mentioned. However, this extraordinary power should be used as sparingly as possible, and not for political reasons or to conceal a crime.

Now, I will admit that in my humble observation of this "Fast and Furious," controversy? It has been covered quite sparingly by the MSM and with linen gloves. I am not saying it to be partisan, because I think it is beyond that at this point. People may have been killed as a result this initiative by our Justice Department. Not only Mexicans in their long and bloody drug war, but some of our own. That is the crux of the matter as far as I am concerned.

This controversy has been going on for years. Why the cloak and dagger approach by the Attorney General, Eric Holder's, Justice Department? What are they trying to hide? Mistakes are made. This is definitely a big one, and I applaud those in Congress whom have pursued this issue. People were killed in what looks like a direct link to this program.

We have to hold those who are responsible accountable, and make efforts to ensure that this type of thing does not happen again. Are careers on the line? Probably? Will some possibly face prison? Maybe? That is immaterial as far as I am concerned. It boils down to accountability. This thing is not going to go away, and this alleged obstruction is digging the hole deeper for those responsible. Just my humble opinion. On another note, I think the President wants to this thing to drag out without an outcome until after the election. Again, just my opinion.
edit on 22-6-2012 by Jakes51 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by petrus4
 


normal person based upon a merideun of a projected intelligence %tile of,, (a base of 100% being God, ability,,)
* see God Mode, hacks, codes,,not applicale in Real time play.
See Server Rules,,

lol,,ya 2004 unreal was ok.

now Halo,,, luved those little guys,, lol, sorry if not appropriate

actually is appropriate:
Executive Privilege and the Divine Right of Kings,, God Mode
lol
edit on 21-6-2012 by BobAthome because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 


You're certainly entitled to your personal opinions, my friend, and in fact I will fight until my dying breath for your right to express those opinions, but in terms of disagreement, there is no point in debate if resolution cannot be sought. Resolution cannot be had if we cannot even agree to clarify the meaning of words. It makes the whole point of debate useless if we cannot have terms we do agree on upon to begin with.

I appreciate your concerns regarding the definition as is, and your concerns are well founded, and there are several people have spent time in prison, there only crime being obstruction of justice. Martha Stewart is just one example of someone I believe was unfairly railroaded simply because she sold stock based upon privileged information then was to scared to admit this to investigators who, in my opinion, had no lawful authority to investigate her to begin with.

I don't want to get into the overreaching power of administrative agencies such as the SEC, but Martha Stewart is a good example to address what appears to be your concern while also asserting that her imprisonment was for obstruction of justice as it is defined by legal dictionaries, not how you define it.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Jakes51
 





This controversy has been going on for years. Why the cloak and dagger approach by the Attorney General, Eric Holder's, Justice Department? What are they trying to hide?


Bingo! What is the big deal in turning over documents that are not necessarily the fault of Obama's? Obama didn't create Fast and Furious, he inherited it. What is the big deal? What are they trying to hide?



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I tend to agree with you on that.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


if you believe Martha Stewart didn't belong in prison for lying to Federal Investigators about what she did for $40,000 then you'll probably be in a prison soon.

I've been to prison, not just County, but DOC...and I know what crime looks like. I chose prison freely because the food in the prison was better than the food in the county.

I know the whole scene. the first time I stood before a Judge, I was 5 years old.

you keep having your senseless debates about definitions of crime with these people and perhaps one day you'll be able to discuss crime like I discuss crime and what about the law.

The last two Governors of my state are in Federal Prison right now talking about what they know about the law.




edit on 21-6-2012 by michaelbrux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 


"The last two Governors of my state are in Federal Prison right now talking about what they know about the law. "
i take it there taking refresher courses,,

gee u think, that Magna Carta , might be a bad thing?,,




posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by michaelbrux
 





if you believe Martha Stewart didn't belong in prison for lying to Federal Investigators about what she did for $40,000 then you'll probably be in a prison soon.


This is not what I said and why I keep accusing you of being obtuse. What I said was that the federal government had no business investigating Martha Stewart to begin with, and as it turned out, the information Stewart acted on was wrong anyway.

Further, take a hard look at what you wrote above. Even if I did believe your strawman, of which I don't, simply holding that belief is not nearly enough to imprison a person.

My friend, no one forced you to enter this thread and post. You did that of your own volition. At this point in the game you should know me well enough to know that this is precisely the kind of debate you would get from me, so you can yammer on all you want about your unfortunate circumstances and your world weary view of reality all you want. If you choose to debate me, at this point there should be no surprises for you, and as long as you continue to debate me, you must know that I will insist on a standard of agreement.

Your deflection about Martha Stewart was designed to avoid admitting that the very definition of obstruction of justice I provided earlier was precisely what a jury found Martha Stewart guilty of on four counts. So, as I said, you are entitled to your opinions, but your fluctuating opinions whimsically changing as they do, do nothing for your message.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by michaelbrux
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


obstruction is only a crime, when a crime has been committed to obstruct.

how can someone obstruct justice when justice has no reason to occur?

but a belief in Divine Right of Kings, requires a belief in God.
edit on 21-6-2012 by michaelbrux because: (no reason given)


There was a crime committed in fast and furious atf officers ignored US gun laws.Then theres illegal trafficking of weapons into a foreign country.Let not forget those weapons were used in violent crimes against Mexican citizens which violates several laws including being co conspirator to murders committed. Then theres the border agent killed by those guns as well.If Holder knew this operation existed and didnt stop it immediately he was a co conspirator. If he lied to cover up his involvement thats adds perjury charges.This is far worse then Nixon no one died in the break in.

As far as using executive privilege something is wrong here.In an election year he could have thrown Holder under the bus and let him deal with congress.But he didnt hes putting himself into this battle this tells me theres something that can do far more damage politically if its released. You know if he sat back and let congress go after Holder he could have played this as purely political made a speech about attacks on the executive branch and made congress look like partisan hacks.Instead he was so worried about something coming to light he gave up an ace in the hand in an election year think about that.

Here where i speculate i can think of 3 reasons for Obamas decision.
1st that fast and furious can directly be traced to Obama his idea wont speculate as to why but i have a theory.
2nd Obama mentioned he wanted to crack down on guns crossing the border in a speech and this was the best plan Holder came up with and when it started going south involved the president meaning he was aware only after the operation started.
3rd Holder went entirely rogue and through being incompetent thought this was a good idea.Never informed Obama and he is doing this out to help Holder at great personal expense.Not a likely scenario for a politician.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


federal government had no business investigating Martha Stewart, thats right it was the SEC job.
they,, have their own investigative rule enforcement Branch,, how did that go?
i honesty forget,,



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


my situation wasn't unfortunate. and the SEC always investigates and prosecutes financial transaction crimes.

my comment was to inform you quite clearly that I am far more knowledgeable concerning US law than you will ever be.

this thread, much like the one concerning American Sheriffs...will show that my words are the ones that you and everyone else will see come to pass, not yours.




top topics



 
37
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join