1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Sandy Berger to Plead Guilty to Taking Classified Docs

Discussion in 'The OT' started by BuckeyeChris, Mar 31, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. BuckeyeChris

    BuckeyeChris Icon/Supporter

    1,127
    0
    Apr 20, 2004
    Berger to Plead Guilty to Taking Materials

    Former national security adviser Sandy Berger will plead guilty to taking classified material from the National Archives, a misdemeanor, the Justice Department said Thursday.

    Berger is expected to appear in federal court in Washington on Friday, said Justice spokesman Bryan Sierra.

    The former Clinton administration official previously acknowledged he removed from the National Archives copies of documents about the government's anti-terror efforts and notes that he took on those documents. He said he was reviewing the materials to help determine which Clinton administration documents to provide to the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. ...​

    An "honest mistake," yeah, right! :lol:
     
  2. pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    and if any of us "ordinary" citizens did that, we would have probably already been behind bars, and possible accomplices (i.e. Kerry in this case) grilled by the FBI, perhaps charged as well. I suspect he'll get off with a little fine and a slap on the wrist. And we won't hear a whimper out of the democratic side about this.

    And to think, Martha Stewart spent several months in jail for less than that. :confused:
     
  3. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Sheesh, who does Sandy Berger think he is flouting the law like that, Tom DeLay? :lol:

    As soon as Republicans deal realistically with DeLay I'll take seriously criticism Democrats aren't spending enough time talking about Berger.

    *Word in bold added because I forgot it ealier and I wouldn't want any dimwit not to be able to figure out what I meant.
     
  4. Apr 1, 2005 #4 of 23
    djlong

    djlong Hall Of Fame

    4,343
    57
    Jul 8, 2002
    New Hampshire
    Based on DeLay's comments quoted by the BBC on the Schiavo case, there might be a sedition charge one could argue for.

    He basically said that the courts stood in the way of the will of the President and Congress.

    Well DUH. Hasn't he read the Constitution?
     
  5. Apr 1, 2005 #5 of 23
    Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    Maybe it's because I'm neither Democrat nor Republican than I'm able to see both with disdain quite often, but why would you excuse one person's wrongdoing with another's?

    Are you seriously a man of the cloth? I've never seen one who would say, "well, I'll take seriously one man's crimes when others take seriously another's."
     
  6. Apr 2, 2005 #6 of 23
    SimpleSimon

    SimpleSimon Hall Of Fame

    5,468
    0
    Jan 15, 2004
    You got it Capmeister.

    I suspect that in Bogy's OddWorld, things like stealing from a thief would be just fine.
     
  7. Apr 2, 2005 #7 of 23
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Because I am neither a Democrat or a Republican I am able to see the hypocrisy of both sides. Including criticizing the other side for not condemning the acts of one of their members while protecting the acts of one of their own rather than condemning him.

    You guys aren't real good at irony are you? Its a way of pointing out to someone that they should remove the log from their own eye before attempting to remove the speck from someone else's eye. :rolleyes:
     
  8. Apr 2, 2005 #8 of 23
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    The stand of our current administration is to assume international law (Like the Geneva Convention) does not apply to the United States. There is also no thought given to compromise. The stand of the Republican led Congress is to also give no consideration to compromise to any view other than that of the leadership of the Republican leadership. If you happen to be a Republican who does criticize someone like Tom DeLay you quickly find yourself out of a job. Senate Democrats block 10 out of over 200 judicial nominees? Time to take any voice they have in advise and consent away. Over 15 judges, on the state and federal level, and finally SCOTUS, agree on the law and its constitutionality, but in defiance of the Republican leadership, and now its time to try to do away with the Independence of the judicial branch, since being constitutional is only an attribute when it suits your needs.

    Liberals are afraid, and increasingly so are real conservative Republicans, as a party out of control puts the country deeper into debt and tries to dismantle the system that has worked pretty good for a long time now.
     
  9. Apr 3, 2005 #9 of 23
    Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    But your comment was about yourself. Quote: "As soon as Republicans deal realistically with DeLay I'll take seriously criticism aren't spending enough time talking about Berger." (Whatever that means, but I think I understand the implication.)

    Shouldn't you more morally say: "Mr. Berger is a thief and criminal, and I condemn his actions. I only wish the Republicans would take Mr. DeLay's crimes as seriously as they take Mr. Bergers, and the Democrats would take Mr. Berger's as seriously as they take Mr. DeLay's."

    Instead, you--supposedly someone who teaches other people morality--said you won't take one man's crimes seriously until those you disagree with take other people's crime's seriously. That's not only morally repugnant, but irrational.
     
  10. Eagles

    Eagles Godfather/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    773
    0
    Dec 31, 2003

    Duh, you need to read the constitution. Somehow the judiciary has morphed into the final word and authority on all issues relating to law and constitutionality. There are many out there today who mistakenly believe this is the case. Federal judges are constitutionally charged with interpreting federal law as it is written by legislators and applying that law to cases brought before them. They need to consider if the law in question even applies to the case in front of them, and if it does, does it pass constitutional muster. This is where the grey area is. You get judges who basically create new law from the bench based on their interpretation of existing law. You get the judges who site the "living document" argument. You may hear the, "that's not what they meant", or "the circumstances were different back then rational. I believe if that's the case, it's not up to judges to assume this and make rulings which basically change the law. It's up to the congress and the president to update and change the law. Two of todays most controversial issues, legalized abortion nationally, and gay marrage in Massachusetts are prime examples. If these are laws on the books, when were they voted on? Answer, they weren't.
    Bottom line. Both political parties as a whole don't have the guts to do their jobs. They allow these rulings to go forth as a back door way to achieve certain agendas which they would never attach their names or parties to.
    Constitutionally speaking, congress can pass, and the president can sign "ANY LAW" they want to. They can amend the constitution any way they want. They can write laws in such a way that there is no grey area. They can impeach a judge who does not follow these laws. They also have to run for re-election.
    Did you notice that constitutionally, judges have no say in this process. The founders wanted those responsable for writing the laws to be held accountable. This would mean elected Representatives as in answer to the people and be turned out of office for stupidity, not lifetime appointed judges. The lifetime judge appointment was a way to keep political pressure or influence from judicial rulings.
    I know this is civics 101, but like I said many are not aware.
    BTW, if congress and the sitting president chose to, they could change the law (amend the constitution) and set term limits for all federal judges, including supreme court justices, and the "JUDGES" could not do nothing about it.
    I also don't think this is a liberal or Conservative issue. For instance some of these more liberal rulings come from judges appointed by Conservative or republican administrations. These were judges thought to be more right leaning at the time of their appointments. I think it's a power issue. Power like that can be intoxicating.
     
  11. missileman

    missileman Legend/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    410
    0
    May 28, 2004
    Spoken like a true Liberal....always playing the "Yes, but......" game. Admit it, Sandy should go to jail! :hurah:
     
  12. Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    Er... Article III, section 2, clause 1: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; --between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

    (Although: "AMENDMENT XI
    Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795.
    Note: Article III, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 11.

    The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.")
     
  13. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    And so should Tom DeLay.
     
  14. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Yes, it is morally repugnant that those charged with making the laws of this nation should work so hard to protect one of their own who has broken them, not only working to keep him as their leader, but acting against those who have sought to discipline him. I have seen no admission of guilt by Mr. DeLay, or any sign he is willing to acknowledge and accept the consequences of what he has done.

    OTOH, we have a man who has pled guilty, and is willing to to accept whatever consequences the court finds suitable. So how much time do the Democrats need to spend denouncing a man who has admitted guilt and holds no office? When WILL the Republican party criticize Delay, and stop punishing those who do?
     
  15. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Yeah, funny how that happens.:lol::rotfl:

    Did you ever consider that once appointed for life, they no longer make decisions on bases of Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal? Could they be making their decisions solely based on the law and Constitution? Maybe Republican/conservative idealogy just doesn't stand up to the law and Constitution?

    But maybe you're right. Too powerful judges making up the law as they go along cannot be a good thing for the country. Especially when the most egregious example of "activist judges" and the most blatant violation of the separation of powers happened less then five years ago. The Supreme Court took away the power of the people and states to elect a President and instead just arbitrarily picked one.:mad: Although just how "arbitrary" this bit of judicial activism was is up for debate.
     
  16. Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    It's always repugnant when those who are charged with making and enforcing laws break them. But I was talking about your morally repugnant stand:

    "Instead, you--supposedly someone who teaches other people morality--said you won't take one man's crimes seriously until those you disagree with take other people's crime's seriously. That's not only morally repugnant, but irrational."

    Anything to say about your own immoral and irrational stand?
     
  17. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Care to say anything about the rest of my statement, instead of taking just part of it out of context. Mr. Berger has admitted guilt and will receive punishment. pjmrt's original comment, to which I was respondingwas that the Democrats would not issue a "whimper" about this (whatever that was supposed to mean.) My statement was that I would take the criticism of Democrats not criticizing Berger to the satisfaction of pjmrt seriously when Republicans stopped protecting DeLay. My statement NEVER about Berger's crime, but about pjmrt's criticism of Democrats. Now you can keep on pounding on this if you want, but I feel it is now closed. I will be willing to accept your apology for misunderstanding my statement, otherwise I'm done with it and the comments about my repugnant nature. You are now about as close as I have ever gotten to blocking someone. If you don't like me, that's fine, but at least read what I have written and not what you have imagined, before you try to insult me. The "you are a man of the cloth, so you must always be nice and be like what we think ministers should be like" line is really getting thin whenever a conservative disagrees with me.
     
  18. Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    Fair enough. I apologize for misunderstanding a statement you made where you left out a word. :) I guess I was a "dimwit" for not understanding that sometimes you leave words out.

    ;)

    However, I didn't say you NATURE was repugnant. I said the moral stand I believed you to be taking was. I was not criticizing YOU, as a person, but your seeming moral choices. Surely you understand the difference.
     
  19. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    However, you have to realize that for me, my moral choices ARE who I am as a person.

    Apology accepted.
     
  20. Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    Almost by definition, moral choices make us who we are.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page