Barbara Bush on the refugee's & the NY Times on Bush

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

more from Wikipedia:
Criminal negligence

Criminal negligence, in the realm of criminal common law, is a legal term of art for a state of mind which is careless, inattentive, neglectful, willfully blind, or reckless; it is the mens rea part of a crime which, if occurring simultaneously with the actus reus, gives rise to criminal liability. Some distinguish recklessness from negligence; recklessness is a 'malfeasance' that increases the danger of an act occurring; whereas criminal negligence is a 'misfeasance or 'nonfeasance,'merely allowing otherwise avoidable dangers to manifest. This is an example of the difference between a general intent crime and a specific intent crime with recklessness being more specific than criminal negligence. UM, JASON? In some cases this 'nonfeasance' can rise to the level of willful blindness where the individual intentionally avoids confronting a situation that no reasonable person would ever allow to occur. (can I hear a DUH? boys and girls?) Gross criminal negligence is behaviour which involves a "wanton disregard for human life." Of course, in all these cases if the actus reus or bad act never occurs then there is no crime as both elements are necessary under the criminal common law to sustain a guilty conviction.

Usually the punishment for criminal negligence, criminal recklessness, criminal endangerment, willful blindness and other related crimes is imprisonment, unless the criminal is insane (OR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES) (and then in some cases the sentence is indeterminate). Examples of criminally negligent crimes are criminally negligent homicide and negligent endangerment of a child

personally, I cant see Monkey boy actually being intelligent enuff to have a criminal intent (mens rea) but I have NO problem envisioning him to have an actus rea (negligent act) because he is SO dependent upon his advisors about what to do, and I dont think ANY of them saw this coming......

Is criminal negligence an impeachable offense? Also, Dubya does not operate on ethics. I would love for a reporter to ask him to define ethics.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

Is criminal negligence an impeachable offense? Also, Dubya does not operate on ethics. I would love for a reporter to ask him to define ethics.

A President can be impeached for just about anything but it is never really done for anything but a "high crimes and misdemeanors" because why bother with it if the subsequent conviction cannot go through.

Here is a pretty cool site on it.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/impeach.html

As for criminal negligence - I doubt it could be proven in the instance of Katrina because though FEMA was horrid in the five day delay, they were very good in the other aspects of this. FEMA can also demonstrate that in that five day period they were gathering supplies, coordinating with local authorites, etc. So, while I think the five day delay is inexcuseable, I think it would not constitute any concept of wanton disregard, etc.

Interestingly, this negligence argument is often raised in state and Federal governments in the arenas of public assistance. For example, people often need public assistance immediately - if they die from starvation of disease while waiting for the red tape to clear, was the govt. negligent in fulfilling its duty, etc.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Rubbish in court - if you can prove they acted with a careless disregard for human life - you may, and I stress MAY, have a chance - but you cannot demonstrate that here despite all of our outrage - a jury would never believe it nor would any judge let it past the preliminary motions. But, if you want to think they would - call the DOJ in your area and convince them to press charges against W - I suggest you believe in the lottery instead as it has better odds

you are talking about specific intent(reckless disregard). I am talking about general intent (misfeasance) which is covered by Criminal Negligence.

Some distinguish recklessness from negligence; recklessness is a 'malfeasance' that increases the danger of an act occurring; whereas criminal negligence is a 'misfeasance or 'nonfeasance,'merely allowing otherwise avoidable dangers to manifest. This is an example of the difference between a general intent crime and a specific intent crime with recklessness being more specific than criminal negligence.

I think a case could be made that Dumbya deliberately put those lives at risk by withholding funds that the Army Corps of Engineers requested to fortify those levies. He has consistently underfunded projects that have needed doing for his entire presidency. he is willing to rape the environment, eliminate environmental controls to help his corporate buddies....I cannot believe that a savvy lawyer couldnt NAIL that Eejit.

If Clinton can get impeached for dallying with an intern (where no human lives were at risk, the country was not at risk, you get the picture...)
then Monkey Boy should be impeached for misfeasance. This is crazy! He is a sorry excuse for a public official.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

you are talking about specific intent(reckless disregard). I am talking about general intent (misfeasance) which is covered by Criminal Negligence.

If Clinton can get impeached for dallying with an intern (where no human lives were at risk, the country was not at risk, you get the picture...)
then Monkey Boy should be impeached for misfeasance. This is crazy! He is a sorry excuse for a public official.

Bless your stubborn heart - Clinton was not impeached for having sex with ML - nice try at the spin though

Clinton actually commited a crime that was very easy to demonstrate - he lied under oath, which was obstruction of justice - he also perpetuated that crime by using his position in the Fed. Govt. to try and cover it up (he got her a job, his let his peeps go out and lie for him in an effort to stay the storm, etc. ) - BTW - I am not debating Clinton's guilt with you as you have no capacity whatsoever to acknowledge that Clinton did anything wrong. But, if you want to debate it, I refer you to the prior debate on Nancy's board.

In the instant case you are trying to assert, you would have to show that W and Co. did essentially nothing to help these people and that just cannot be proved. They will be able to show that during that five days they had people in NOLA and the other effected areas who were saving thousands. They will also be able to prove that in that four or five day period they were assembling the assistance, fulfilling legal requirements, etc. They will also be able to show that the state and local officials were slow to act as well. So, that is not negligence.

In the end, I think the five day wait was unexcuseable, but it is not actionable. Again, if you think so, call your Congressman and call for W's impeachment.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

. . .

I think a case could be made that Dumbya deliberately put those lives at risk by withholding funds that the Army Corps of Engineers requested to fortify those levies. He has consistently underfunded projects that have needed doing for his entire presidency. he is willing to rape the environment, eliminate environmental controls to help his corporate buddies....I cannot believe that a savvy lawyer couldnt NAIL that Eejit . . . .

You would have to convict every Pres. of the US that ever was as money is often withheld from various things.

[irishgrl]

sigh....I guess thats true enuff......

I keep hoping that bastid will hang himself with a rope of his own making.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

sigh....I guess thats true enuff......

I keep hoping that bastid will hang himself with a rope of his own making.

Oh honey - I wish they would find some smoking gun somwhere - though impeachment is really an academic exercise as the next three in line are worse IMO.

Here is, I think, how it goes:

Vice President - if W goes Cheney will as well

Speaker of the House - worse than W

President Pro Tempore of the Senate - hide all cats from him

Secretary of State - I could live with her

it will never get to the ones below and I think Hiomeland Sec. is now in there somewhere.

Secretary of the Treasury
Secretary of Defense
Attorney General
Secretary of the Interior
Secretary of Agriculture
Secretary of Commerce
Secretary of Labor
Secretary of Health and Human Services
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Secretary of Transportation
Secretary of Energy
Secretary of Education
Secretary of Veterans Affairs

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

sigh....I guess thats true enuff......

I keep hoping that bastid will hang himself with a rope of his own making.

I think it's coming dear, I really do. Don't give up hope.

[irishgrl]

I may need some hand-holding to hang on...

[bushesandbriars]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Bless your stubborn heart - Clinton was not impeached for having sex with ML - nice try at the spin though

Clinton actually commited a crime that was very easy to demonstrate - he lied under oath, which was obstruction of justice - he also perpetuated that crime by using his position in the Fed. Govt. to try and cover it up (he got her a job, his let his peeps go out and lie for him in an effort to stay the storm, etc. ) - BTW - I am not debating Clinton's guilt with you as you have no capacity whatsoever to acknowledge that Clinton did anything wrong. But, if you want to debate it, I refer you to the prior debate on Nancy's board.

In the instant case you are trying to assert, you would have to show that W and Co. did essentially nothing to help these people and that just cannot be proved. They will be able to show that during that five days they had people in NOLA and the other effected areas who were saving thousands. They will also be able to prove that in that four or five day period they were assembling the assistance, fulfilling legal requirements, etc. They will also be able to show that the state and local officials were slow to act as well. So, that is not negligence.

In the end, I think the five day wait was unexcuseable, but it is not actionable. Again, if you think so, call your Congressman and call for W's impeachment.

Okay, what I want to know is this--why, if you give even the slightest s??t about human life, are you defending Bush? I think his actions are impeachable, and all your babble about criminal negligence is utterly irrelevant because the issue is moral, not legal> And you know it. Where is this high morality the Republicans love to crank on when the chips are down and it's time to help the next guy out a bit?

This is what infuriates me about conservatives; they're the masters of spin, and the first thing they do is accuse everyone else of spinning issues. I find it amusing you accuse Irishgrl of having no capacity to acknowledge Clinton did anything wrong, when you seem to have no capacity to do that with Bush in this instance, because if you did, you would not be here defending him, watering down what he did with long cut-and-pasted passages from legal journals. And Clinton may have officially been charged with the Whitewater scandal, but the reason people went with it and scented blood on the tracks in the first place was because of the Lewinsky scandal. You pretending otherwise is a mixture of disingenuousness and good-old fashioned denial. And, speaking of spin, did you consider anything she said, or did you just rush to rip her argument apart? Isn't that part of spin--never listening to the other person? Which is the conservative method: Pander to people's prejudices and fears, and you can get them to behave any way you want. Give 'em a scapegoat.

And all this about neligence--this is almost as good as your whole thing about how freedom of speech isn't provided for by the Constitution. I'd like to point out something relevant you seem to me to miss all the time--the bloody government exists to serve its people, not the other way around. We aren't a business that the fiscal conservatives run. We aren't chattel. Freedom of speech is, for the record, provided for--the Constitution doesn't grant rights to its people; it outlines limitations on the government's powers and specifies what issues are private matters and how rights are to be recognized, which you should know with your penchant for quoting legal documents. How you got around "abridging the freedom of speech" is a masterpiece of spin philosophy.

It strikes me, reading a number of your posts, that you don't pay any actual attention to what other people say, but prefer to argue from a skewed point of view all the time, something which I have never before considered my business, except that this time it struck a chord in me that that is precisely what conservatives do; it seems to be an inherent trait. Shout the other guy down. Poison the well. Flip-flop when it serves. You'll perhaps notice how damn quick the conservatives were this time to evoke the First Amendment, yes? Apparently what Babs said would only be "un-American" if it had come out of Hillary Clinton's mouth. If there were a Most Useless First Lady in History contest, she and dear Laura would split the vote. Even Nancy Reagan could usually keep her mouth shut.

"By the people, of the people, and for the people"--ring a bell? The government has a moral, ethical, fiscal, and political resposibility to its people. Something Republicans have no concept about whatsoever, apparently. I mean, the people hit by Katrina all just a bunch of crackers and poor black trash, so who gives a damn whether they live or die, right? It isn't as though they're human, and think of all the money it'll save! But, for the record, negligence is a prosecutable crime, and when you say it isn't, you're goo old-fashioned wrong. People sue stores when they slip and fall for negligence. People who neglect their children--and what Bush did is no different--are brought up on criminal charges, and the charge on the sheet is criminal negligence. It seems to me, wading through your posts, that you're trying to psuedo-intellect your way out of it, not, I think, because you even especially believe in this president, but because you backed yourself into a corner and would rather defend his actions than admit you were wrong about anything. Maybe not. But that's how it comes across to me. And the never-admit-you're-wrong tack seems the method this whole bloody adminstration and his legions of supporters are taking. Bush could blow the damn world up, and they'd still support it. And so would a number of people, because he's that brilliant at appealing to what is worst in human nature.

So my other question is this: Is it stupidity or actual evil leading people to defend Bush? Or just hypocrisy? Because as far as I can tell, a person must be one of the three to think this is all right. And I want to know, since you so bravely stuck your neck out to defend him. I'm not saying you are, and I'm not a saint. No one is. But I want to know, because I could never in a million years justify a "president" who would conduct himself as Bush has, even if it were the man I had voted for. I would say I was wrong, because I would be wrong. So why don't Bush's supporters? Because they just hate to see the tax dollars going to help the people who need them? Why not say, "We're wrong about this. We're wrong about Iraq. We're going to do things differently. We apologize for causing needless suffering. We want to make it right." What's wrong with that? Is it macho bull****--oh, we musn't look weak in the face of the world--or what? I watched Bush in New Orleans; you could see him cringe every time a poor person touched him. Why defend that? Opinions may have been dismissive and low of the U.S. before in some circles, but now we're actually hated. And not just by the Taliban or bin Laden. I'm not religious, but this quote has been in my head for days, and since conservatives are so hot on the Bible, here's a fire and brimstone one from Matthew, 23:28: "Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity." Is that bit left out of the conservative version?

The U.S. has turned into this hard, dog-eat-dog place since Bush came on the scene. It started with the 2000 campaign and the Florida fiasco, and it's gone right on. What happened to: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"? Or are they just statistics and tax dollars and mathematical probabilties sent to complicate the lives of the well-to-do? Do you ever get sick of social Darwinism? Shall we eat the poor, a la Swift? I'm curious to know if you really believe, from the very most honest and compassionate place in yourself, that what Bush did was not criminal, and that what Clinton did was worse? And I don't care about the law; I'm telling you now if you quote it to me I won't read it, because I know better, and I don't give a damn what the law says. The law is not necessarily the truth. I'm asking you as a moral question, because this is a moral issue as to why everyone whether was so slow, why the response was limited, and how it would have gone down if it had happened in, oh, I don't know, Kennebunkport or Houston. He had a duty to provide for those people; they were suffering and dying and needed the wherewithal of the government, which exists for this purpose, to do its job. People don't have governments because we love them; we have them because they're supposed to guide, to protect, to lead, to organize. To pretend otherwise is slimy. And I honestly believe, after reading your responses in this thread, you'd argue the sky is orange if you thought you could win, and pretend the other person's opinion is no more than liberal wishy-washiness. Except all you've written discounts the human beings. Harry Connick, Jr. was in New Orleans before FEMA. It's a different kind of spin you indulge in, the sort that reduces any issue not to its ethical or moral core, but to who can out-clever the other, who can win, who can pick little technicalities apart. Well, I'm sorry, but that doesn't work. Death is not a statistical factor to add into the read-sheet when it's your death, your child's death, your loved ones.

And whatever else may or may not be true, I know this much: Before the government has a duty to make money for the chosen ones, it has a duty to protect its people. I doubt that five days would be "not negligence" if it had been your family drowning down there, or wading through ****, or dying of thirst, however intellectually lofty you think your argument is.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Secretary of Transportation

Mineta's a Democrat. I'll take him.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by bushesandbriars

Okay, what I want to know is this--why, if you give even the slightest s??t about human life, are you defending Bush? I think his actions are impeachable, and all your babble about criminal negligence is utterly irrelevant because the issue is moral, not legal> And you know it. Where is this high morality the Republicans love to crank on when the chips are down and it's time to help the next guy out a bit?

This is what infuriates me about conservatives; they're the masters of spin, and the first thing they do is accuse everyone else of spinning issues. I find it amusing you accuse Irishgrl of having no capacity to acknowledge Clinton did anything wrong, when you seem to have no capacity to do that with Bush in this instance, because if you did, you would not be here defending him, watering down what he did with long cut-and-pasted passages from legal journals. And Clinton may have officially been charged with the Whitewater scandal, but the reason people went with it and scented blood on the tracks in the first place was because of the Lewinsky scandal. You pretending otherwise is a mixture of disingenuousness and good-old fashioned denial. And, speaking of spin, did you consider anything she said, or did you just rush to rip her argument apart? Isn't that part of spin--never listening to the other person? Which is the conservative method: Pander to people's prejudices and fears, and you can get them to behave any way you want. Give 'em a scapegoat.

And all this about neligence--this is almost as good as your whole thing about how freedom of speech isn't provided for by the Constitution. I'd like to point out something relevant you seem to me to miss all the time--the bloody government exists to serve its people, not the other way around. We aren't a business that the fiscal conservatives run. We aren't chattel. Freedom of speech is, for the record, provided for--the Constitution doesn't grant rights to its people; it outlines limitations on the government's powers and specifies what issues are private matters and how rights are to be recognized, which you should know with your penchant for quoting legal documents. How you got around "abridging the freedom of speech" is a masterpiece of spin philosophy.

It strikes me, reading a number of your posts, that you don't pay any actual attention to what other people say, but prefer to argue from a skewed point of view all the time, something which I have never before considered my business, except that this time it struck a chord in me that that is precisely what conservatives do; it seems to be an inherent trait. Shout the other guy down. Poison the well. Flip-flop when it serves. You'll perhaps notice how damn quick the conservatives were this time to evoke the First Amendment, yes? Apparently what Babs said would only be "un-American" if it had come out of Hillary Clinton's mouth. If there were a Most Useless First Lady in History contest, she and dear Laura would split the vote. Even Nancy Reagan could usually keep her mouth shut.

"By the people, of the people, and for the people"--ring a bell? The government has a moral, ethical, fiscal, and political resposibility to its people. Something Republicans have no concept about whatsoever, apparently. I mean, the people hit by Katrina all just a bunch of crackers and poor black trash, so who gives a damn whether they live or die, right? It isn't as though they're human, and think of all the money it'll save! But, for the record, negligence is a prosecutable crime, and when you say it isn't, you're goo old-fashioned wrong. People sue stores when they slip and fall for negligence. People who neglect their children--and what Bush did is no different--are brought up on criminal charges, and the charge on the sheet is criminal negligence. It seems to me, wading through your posts, that you're trying to psuedo-intellect your way out of it, not, I think, because you even especially believe in this president, but because you backed yourself into a corner and would rather defend his actions than admit you were wrong about anything. Maybe not. But that's how it comes across to me. And the never-admit-you're-wrong tack seems the method this whole bloody adminstration and his legions of supporters are taking. Bush could blow the damn world up, and they'd still support it. And so would a number of people, because he's that brilliant at appealing to what is worst in human nature.

So my other question is this: Is it stupidity or actual evil leading people to defend Bush? Or just hypocrisy? Because as far as I can tell, a person must be one of the three to think this is all right. And I want to know, since you so bravely stuck your neck out to defend him. I'm not saying you are, and I'm not a saint. No one is. But I want to know, because I could never in a million years justify a "president" who would conduct himself as Bush has, even if it were the man I had voted for. I would say I was wrong, because I would be wrong. So why don't Bush's supporters? Because they just hate to see the tax dollars going to help the people who need them? Why not say, "We're wrong about this. We're wrong about Iraq. We're going to do things differently. We apologize for causing needless suffering. We want to make it right." What's wrong with that? Is it macho bull****--oh, we musn't look weak in the face of the world--or what? I watched Bush in New Orleans; you could see him cringe every time a poor person touched him. Why defend that? Opinions may have been dismissive and low of the U.S. before in some circles, but now we're actually hated. And not just by the Taliban or bin Laden. I'm not religious, but this quote has been in my head for days, and since conservatives are so hot on the Bible, here's a fire and brimstone one from Matthew, 23:28: "Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity." Is that bit left out of the conservative version?

The U.S. has turned into this hard, dog-eat-dog place since Bush came on the scene. It started with the 2000 campaign and the Florida fiasco, and it's gone right on. What happened to: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"? Or are they just statistics and tax dollars and mathematical probabilties sent to complicate the lives of the well-to-do? Do you ever get sick of social Darwinism? Shall we eat the poor, a la Swift? I'm curious to know if you really believe, from the very most honest and compassionate place in yourself, that what Bush did was not criminal, and that what Clinton did was worse? And I don't care about the law; I'm telling you now if you quote it to me I won't read it, because I know better, and I don't give a damn what the law says. The law is not necessarily the truth. I'm asking you as a moral question, because this is a moral issue as to why everyone whether was so slow, why the response was limited, and how it would have gone down if it had happened in, oh, I don't know, Kennebunkport or Houston. He had a duty to provide for those people; they were suffering and dying and needed the wherewithal of the government, which exists for this purpose, to do its job. People don't have governments because we love them; we have them because they're supposed to guide, to protect, to lead, to organize. To pretend otherwise is slimy. And I honestly believe, after reading your responses in this thread, you'd argue the sky is orange if you thought you could win, and pretend the other person's opinion is no more than liberal wishy-washiness. Except all you've written discounts the human beings. Harry Connick, Jr. was in New Orleans before FEMA. It's a different kind of spin you indulge in, the sort that reduces any issue not to its ethical or moral core, but to who can out-clever the other, who can win, who can pick little technicalities apart. Well, I'm sorry, but that doesn't work. Death is not a statistical factor to add into the read-sheet when it's your death, your child's death, your loved ones.

And whatever else may or may not be true, I know this much: Before the government has a duty to make money for the chosen ones, it has a duty to protect its people. I doubt that five days would be "not negligence" if it had been your family drowning down there, or wading through ****, or dying of thirst, however intellectually lofty you think your argument is.

Do me a favor and put me on block as I seem to be so offensive with the truth. Thanks.

Also, my brother was down there. He got out and then returned on his own to help rescue people while shots were being fired all around him. I also have not heard from several of my friends from there. So, I'll thank you not to comment on that any further before you know what you are talking about - though you apparently have a knack for that considering the words you put in my mouth in your ridiculous post.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Mineta's a Democrat. I'll take him.

Well, we have our work cut out for us to get that far down the list But, if your willing so am I despite what bushesandbriars erroneously thinks

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Do me a favor and put me on block as I seem to be so offensive with the truth. Thanks.

Also, my brother was down there. He got out and then returned on his own to help rescue people while shots were being fired all around him. I also have not heard from several of my friends from there. So, I'll thank you not to comment on that any further before you know what you are talking about - though you apparently have a knack for that considering the words you put in my mouth in your ridiculous post.

I'm sorry to hear about you not hearing from your friends. The story you told me about that woman's miscarriage haunts me. Do you know her name and if she survived?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

I'm sorry to hear about you not hearing from your friends. The story you told me about that woman's miscarriage haunts me. Do you know her name and if she survived?

No - I do not. From what I understand, she was evacuated to Houston and I have not heard any reports in the media about people dying there, though it seems likely some did. I also think they probably took her immediately to a hospital once she arrived. I know many were taken to hospitals - that is why I say that. Sadly, my bother was so overwhelmed with just helping people that after the shock, she was just one of so many, which is terrifying.