Guest darkskyabove Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 On May 9, 1974, the House Judiciary Commission opened impeachment proceedings against President Richard M. Nixon. On August 9, 1974, Mr. Nixon resigned from the office of President. At issue were certain, potentially criminal, activities; foremost being the placing of listening devices (bugging) in the offices of the Democratic party's headquarters. Due to Mr. Nixon's resignation he was never held accountable for his actions. Unless one counts losing a position he was ill-qualified to hold as accountability. (Nixon's list of totalitarian excesses could fill several books, and has.) Keep in mind that Nixon's activities in regards to the "Watergate" scandal were domestic in nature. He was never brought under Congressional scrutiny for the activities in south-east Asia. Nor his final death-knell to the gold standard. "He then announced temporary wage and price controls, allowed the dollar to float against other currencies, and ended the convertibility of the dollar into gold." (Aitken, Jonathan (1996). Nixon: A Life. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing.) [surprisingly, this is the only mention of the gold-standard issue on Wikipedia's entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon] Fast-forward to 2013. It is now found that an agency under the, alleged, control of President Obama's administration has "bugged" the communication facilities of the leaders of "alleged" ally nations. (The Pope is a complex entity. Supposedly the leader of a religious institution, yet, highly political in nature.) Let me plug it all in to my political calculator: Nixon bugs a local entity, the DNC, and is impeached, resulting in his resignation. Obama bugs everybody ( ) and there's no talk of impeachment. Hypocrisy in the halls of justice, or what? Conclusion: If Nixon (whom I'm no fan of) gets impeached for "criminally" eavesdropping on the domestic opposition, why hasn't Obama been impeached for eavesdropping on international allies? Regardless of any justification for "diplomatic security", does the U.S. government now figure that it no longer needs allies. That it can treat any, and all, as hostiles, and "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead."
STer Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 I think the reason lies in your use of quotes around criminally, which shouldn't be there. What Nixon did was, in fact, illegal. It was against US law. The eavesdropping on allies, as far as I know, is legal. I may be wrong and correct me if I am. Also, looking at the Articles of Impeachment on Nixon there is a lot more in there than just any involvement in the break-in. In fact, it looks like what he did in service of the cover-up, including paying people off to stay silent, was considered even more serious, perhaps. Major obstruction of justice case.
Mike Fleming Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 Maybe because it was the Democratic Party. It's the 2 headed bird after all. As long as you don't interfere with the "democratic process" and give both parties an equal chance to share power, it's all good. Spy on anyone else? Sure. Whatever you can get away with. Just like take as much money as you can get away with. The Republicans probably look at the spying the NSA has set up as a benefit for them when they get back in the White House. It's something that benefits the government as a whole whereas the Nixon thing, afaik was purely to benefit Nixon at the expense of the Democrats hence the impeachment. Also, an easy way to get him I guess, kind of like with Clinton. I think DSA, that you are thinking too much like government is legitimate and for the people. Look at it in the context of being a criminal protection racket and it's a bit easier to understand.
Guest darkskyabove Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 I think DSA, that you are thinking too much like government is legitimate and for the people. Look at it in the context of being a criminal protection racket and it's a bit easier to understand. Well, thanks for your vote of no confidence. I was actually trying very hard to keep my personal views out. Some leaked through and I can recognize my own bias in certain places. My conclusion is more of a rhetorical question. Considering that I'm 110% for the complete abolishment of non-voluntary institutions, it's a little surprising to be told I'm looking at government as legitimate.
Recommended Posts