The journey from there to here

I've listened to compelling arguments from both liberals and conservatives regarding the secret wiretapping of individuals in the United States with suspected terror ties. Frankly, my gut instinct is that President Bush broke the law (again, however, if he did, it was a conspiracy in which others should be indicted as well). And while my gut instinct is that I would like nothing better than to see him hanged from a yardarm (if indeed, we still hang people from the yardarms, as Lt. Chaffee in "A Few Good Men" pontificated...but I digress).

But the fact is, this is the United States of America and the law that governs us is the United States Constitution and not Gideon's gut. Some 200 plus years of legal precedent have given us the methods with which we should approach ANY allegation, from a homeless bum on fifth avenue right up to the chief occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania avenue. That standard provides for trial in a court of law, before a jury of one's peers. And it provides the standard of "innocent until proven guilty".

If there is one thing that President Bush did wrong, it is his repeated insistence that those who question him, those who hold him accountable to the people he was elected to lead are somehow "helping the enemy" with their questioning. But while that is patently offensive to suggest, it is nonetheless his right as a citizen to state such an opposition.

What President Bush did should be investigated, no doubt. But he did not do it in a vaccuum, and all of his co-conspirators should be equally investigated. If he DID break the law, he should find no quarter in the fact that he consulted with key members of the House and Senate before doing so. Ignorance truly is no excuse, ESPECIALLY for the chief individual empowered with its enforcement.

If an impartial investigation returns indictments, Bush and any co-conspirators should answer those indictments. But they should do so in a court of law, and not in the American media. And if he is found guilty, he should face the resultant penalties. But not until then. Bush is, after all, innocent until proven guilty and no amount of speculation can change that fact.


Comments
on Dec 21, 2005
Excellent article Gid, though of course the points raised there-in haven't stopped some from jumping to conclusions and running off even less than half-cocked.

Some have literally slandered the President of the United States and made outrageous charges that President Bush is guilty of breaking laws though they have absolutely no credible proof of same. Those folks would be well served to slow down and wait for the chips to fall where they may. By the time we reach the conclusion of things, they will likely find out there was nothing there to do anything with, and their attempts at mud-slinging will have gone for naught (not that anything like the truth would ever slow down some of the slingers here, especially not the one that claims to be giving us all the "truth" via their blog site).

I'd love nothing better than to see a certain former military man here hung from the yardarms, but I can wait until he's been tried and convicted before doing a happy dance and proclaiming to the world that he was guilty as charged.
on Dec 21, 2005

President Bush: Innocent Until Proven Guilty!


(So was Nixon)
on Dec 21, 2005

(So was Nixon)

So was Clinton.

on Dec 21, 2005
My gut is he did not break any laws.  There may be bad laws that you do disagree with, but since they are laws, and he follows them, he can only be accused of at worst, bad judgement.
on Dec 21, 2005

My gut is he did not break any laws. There may be bad laws that you do disagree with, but since they are laws, and he follows them, he can only be accused of at worst, bad judgement.

But you would agree, wouldn't you, that there's enough information to merit an independent investigation into the allegations?

on Dec 21, 2005

But you would agree, wouldn't you, that there's enough information to merit an independent investigation into the allegations?

"It is not the evidence that counts, but the seriousness of the Charges."