Pardon?
Oh, for goodness' sake!.
Because it wasn't hard enough to explain the Constitution yesterday, now there is this. Though, I guess this puts a new spin on the idea of "a jury of your peers."
If Bush is so concerned with appropriate sentencing and fairness, there are maybe some more pressing issues he should think about. Like Guantanamo.
2 comments:
I don't get your comment about the Constitution? It has been and always will be that the constitution allowed the President to make Presidential pardons. Those combatants in Gitmo are not US citizens and thus not under its protection. You have every right to disagree but use the right reason. What does the Geneva Convention say about it. If it is legal, other than the cost and the fact there is still a war going on I guess they should be there rather than back in the war. MUD
While there is a system of checks and balances, the idea of a jury of ones peers is a key part of the judicial system. There is no question that Scooter is guilty. That wasn't even a question. But because he is a friend of Mr. Bush, he chose to override the decision of the courts. That isn't instituting a balance of powers, but rather an abuse of power.
Re: Guantanamo.
oh, and in response to:
use the right reason.
Don't tell me what to do or how to argue.
Post a Comment