Rice urges Pakistan to return to Constitutional Government

[Corinthian]

Ah, nevermind. John Galt was the one who made it sound like fact. My mistake, Mimartin.

[Tommycat]

Why is it that no matter what the administration says someone always has to criticize them for saying it? I mean if Bush were to come out and say killing your wife is wrong and should be punished, some moron with an axe to grind will turn it around and call him a hypocrite. Those of you that criticize Rice on this statement, Are you saying that YOU support Musharraf casting aside their constitution? Or are you just so full of bile that you cannot even admit when they get something right in the administration.

 

Re the signing statements: Um those were LAWS not articles of the constitution that he criticized. In some cases rightly so. Some of the laws could have been used as a back door to gain information on sensitive operations. Heck you should see the things Clinton, Bush sr, Reagan, Carter did similarly so. This is not unique to this president. In fact this president has been more open about what the government does than the US government has ever been.

[John Galt]

I think if Bush said that killing your wife is wrong, I'd agree wholeheartedly with him, and probably say that the administration is taking a step in the right direction...

 

I am an advocate of constitutional government. What I was criticizing is that he was urging someone else to return to constitutional government, when he has done more than any other president in recent history to undermine our own constitution. Frankly, I was an early Bush supporter, and I feel that those, like me, who supported Bush in 2000 based on his promise of a "humble foreign policy" have been as deceived as the Wyoming voters that Dick Cheney lied to about being a member of the CFR.

 

If you want to put this in Christian context, I am saying that Bush should mind the log in his own eye before pointing out the spec in Musharraf's. <= yes, I'm paraphrasing Jesus there.

[LordRevan999]

Excuse Me.But as I am a citizen of Pakistan and I may not be so old I think you people don,t understand what is happening in Pakistan.First the days of musharraf were over only the decision of supreme court were left and although the parliament elected him(I might tell you that all the opposition has resigned from parliament long time ago)The supreme court was going to announce weather he was a candidate or not.Me and mostly all the citizens of Pakistan hate him So to have another year under his what can I say dictatorship he had done this.I honestley tell you no one in the parliament or the whole government or any politician is performing his role honestley all are desperate to get money.Ask me further about this if you like.I am only telling you because I could not bare that police forces were hitting lawyers and other people and old lawyers were mistreated just a 1 or 2 day ago.Still now many judges who didn't agree with musharraf are kept in their own houses and they are locked in their own house.And Many judges have resigned and what do you know new supreme court has been made very quickly after old judges resigned and what can I say all I can say is we are thankful to Bush that he has done what must be done.

[mimartin]

Why is it that no matter what the administration says someone always has to criticize them for saying it?[/Quote]Is that not our right as American citizens to criticize our government, to criticize someone I voted for?

I mean if Bush were to come out and say killing your wife is wrong and should be punished, some moron with an axe to grind will turn it around and call him a hypocrite.[/Quote]Only if he killed Laura Bush first and used an signing statement to get away with it.

Those of you that criticize Rice on this statement, Are you saying that YOU support Musharraf casting aside their constitution? Or are you just so full of bile that you cannot even admit when they get something right in the administration.

Isn’t there also about 50 other options? I have no problem with the administration saying whatever they want, I just don’t see where it our obligation to force or beliefs down anyone’s throats. I wouldn’t want them over here telling us how to run our business. I believe in the adage “do unto others as you have do unto you.” So I’d be hypocritical telling them what to do. That said this is my country and I can tell my government what I want them to do with my letter, call and most importantly my vote. So no I do not support Musharraf and yes Bush may be right, but he is still hypocritical.

Re the signing statements: Um those were LAWS not articles of the constitution that he criticized.[/Quote] And under separation of powers, Congress has the sole power to legislate in the United States. See Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution. I fail to see where in the Constitution the Executive Branch is above the law set forth by the Legislative Branch. However in Article 1 Section 8 I do see where by the power of the Constitution Congress is allowed to pass laws. The President has the power to veto any law, then the veto can be overridden by the Congress. However I fail to see how signing a piece a paper saying that you or people within the administration are not subject to a law, but everyone else is subject to the same law is Constitutional.

 

In some cases rightly so. Some of the laws could have been used as a back door to gain information on sensitive operations.[/Quote]Agreed, but when it goes to hiding information from congressional oversight then any President has over stepped their bounds and oath of office.

Heck you should see the things Clinton, Bush sr, Reagan, Carter did similarly so. This is not unique to this president.[/Quote]I’ve seen, yet I fail to see how two, three or a hundred wrongs make a right. Especially when the person in question ran on the he is going to clean up the scandals in Washington platform and that is the reason he got my vote in the first election.

In fact this president has been more open about what the government does than the US government has ever been.

I’m sorry I don’t see it. Could you provide me with proof that President Bush has been “more open about what the government does than the US government has ever been”? Outside the fact that a member of the administration divulged the name of a CIA operative I fail to see it.

[JediAthos]

Here's a quick note on executive priviledge:

 

"In the United States government, executive privilege is the power (reserve power) claimed by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to resist certain search warrants and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government. The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned in the United States Constitution, but some consider it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[1]

 

The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon, but only to the extent of confirming that there is a qualified privilege. Once invoked, a presumption of privilege is established, requiring the Prosecutor to make a "sufficient showing" that the "Presidential material" is "'essential to the justice of the case.'"(418 U.S. at 713-14). Chief Justice Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns.

 

Historically, the uses of executive privilege underscore the untested nature of the doctrine, since Presidents have generally sidestepped open confrontations with the United States Congress and the courts over the issue by first asserting the privilege, then producing some of the documents requested on an assertedly voluntary basis." (from Wikipedia)

 

 

 

Now with that I don't believe that all of the administration's claims of executive privilege should have been invoked. The problem is that, as stated above, that once the privilege has been invoked it is up to the prosecutor to prove that the information requested is essential to the case.

 

I don't really believe that the President and Secretary Rice were trying to "force" anything on President Musharraf so much as they were urging him reconsider what appear to be harsh actions.

[Tommycat]

To be honest, I don't even like Bush. I never like any politician more than I hate them less than the opposition. I just get tired of seeing the bile ridden comments. I've heard it for years and I'm just flat out tired of it.

 

As for how the current administration has been more open, from my own experiences(which mean jack to any of you, but mean a great deal to me) they have been the most cooperative with FOI requests. Anything not directly related to ongoing sensitive investigations has been freely given(I was doing some research on my own family, some of the information I have received the prior administrations flatly refused). They have released more information to the public than I have ever seen. Honestly can you show me an administration that has released MORE information than this one?