Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ChairmanPoo]

nt

[ChairmanPoo]

No, you do not need referential evidence to prove that a person does not hold a public office anymore.  Political "importance" as a figure is not something that can be given evidential proof.  On the question of whether he has any real immunity from being charged with crimes, no citation is needed - he is not immune, end of story.  Arguing about that is arguing about conspiracy.

Where did I argue he was legally immune, or that he holds a political office?


He doesn't need to be participating in public politics to have clout or influence. Given that he was VP for two years, and he's dirty rich, I think it's very likely he has enough important friends to lobby against him getting convicted. If you want to call this a conspiracy theory, your call. Are you willing to bet money on him getting extradited to Nigeria? 20 $ against 20 €, what do you say?

[Aqizzar]

What did I just say?  Return that edit, you made yourself clearer the first time, when you keep hammering that "political clout" somehow has real legal weight.  On the legal question of whether he is immune, there is no argument.  He is not.  On the practical question of whether he ever would be charged with anything, that is not a quality that can be held to evidential proof.  Just admit it's a stupid argumentary tactic and quit stating the obvious.

[ChairmanPoo]

What did I just say?  Return that edit, you made yourself clearer the first time, when you keep hammering that "political clout" somehow has real legal weight.  On the legal question of whether he is immune, there is no argument.  He is not.  On the practical question of whether he ever would be charged with anything, that is not a quality that can be held to evidential proof.  Just admit it's a stupid argumentary tactic and quit stating the obvious.

that edit was getting pasted in post number two.

you keep hammering that "political clout" somehow has real legal weight

I did say no such thing. I said that political clout has weight. And yes, power and influence can help you wiggle out of problems, including legal problems.

  On the legal question of whether he is immune, there is no argument.  He is not.

you keep trying to argue against something I never said. This is getting annoying

On the practical question of whether he ever would be charged with anything, that is not a quality that can be held to evidential proof.

Yes it can. We can wait and see if he is in fact charged with anything.

Just admit it's a stupid argumentary tactic and quit stating the obvious.

Oh please, that's the pot calling the kettle black.

Just for the sake of trying to get clearer, I'll try to state (again) what I am saying:

I don't think that DC is the dead weight that you are making him to be. He was VP for 8 years. He likely has a lot of influence within the Republican party, and by extension, sympathizing politicians and judges. Thus, I find it 's likely that he won't get convicted.

[Leafsnail]

You... kindof seem to be arguing against something noone said, too.

Fun fact: At present, the USA won't care that much if Dick Cheney gets arrested. His time as a powerful politician is now over.

Sure, he might have some influence in stopping himself from getting charged, but that doesn't mean that the American government will necessarily protect him.

[Sowelu]

Children!  Children!!

[Aqizzar]

On the practical question of whether he ever would be charged with anything, that is not a quality that can be held to evidential proof.

Yes it can. We can wait and see if he is in fact charged with anything.

So, you're asking for a citation from the future then?  Awesome.

The rest of this is just pointless blustering over nonissues, and I'm more than happy to concede that it's meaningless and not worth arguing about, because I'm not entirely sure what's being argued about.  Besides Dick Cheney being able to wriggle out of legal culpability, which I don't believe I've ever argued against, and slipped in a pretty good piece of past evidence for a couple posts ago.

[ChairmanPoo]

Besides Dick Cheney being able to wriggle out of legal culpability, which I don't believe I've ever argued against,

... which is what I've been saying ALL ALONG...

[Aqizzar]

Besides Dick Cheney being able to wriggle out of legal culpability, which I don't believe I've ever argued against,

... which is what I've been saying ALL ALONG...

And I never said anything to the contrary.  Grakelin said, and I agreed with him, that shouting CITATION NEEDED when you hear a non-provable statement you don't like is stupid.  Everything else was an argument over things that were never said.

[Grakelin]

Dick Cheney was VP for eight years, by the way, not two.

Citation: The first decade of the twenty-first century.

Leafy: Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. The Obama Administration isn't going to kick up a major fuss if they try to charge him with anything. They already know he's a big target, judging by the extended length of protection the Secret Service has been ordered to give him.

I don't think that if he got convicted, they would necessarily extradite him, either. It's more likely that he would just have to deal with never leaving the USA again, which isn't all that bad, really.

Chariman: That's great. My point was about whether the USA would get upset by Cheney being charged of an international crime, and try to lean on Interpol to back off. Not whether Dick Cheney would roll up and say "Hey, I'm a cool bro, here's some money". I don't even understand how you got anything else out of my post.

[ChairmanPoo]

Grakelin said, and I agreed with him, that shouting CITATION NEEDED when you hear a non-provable statement you don't like is stupid.

Well, I think that shouting "FUN FACT" before issuing a non-provable statement is stupid too

[Aqizzar]

...Just stop.  Stop trying to start arguments over things nobody here has said.  Especially not things that I have not said.

Chariman: That's great. My point was about whether the USA would get upset by Cheney being charged of an international crime, and try to lean on Interpol to back off. Not whether Dick Cheney would roll up and say "Hey, I'm a cool bro, here's some money". I don't even understand how you got anything else out of my post.

The current administration stonewalling foreign prosecution has nothing to do with people being upset about Cheney being charged by a foreign court.  Cheney left office with like 12% Favorability polling, I bet there'd be dancing in the streets if people saw Cheney being carted away in handcuffs.  What they're afraid of is setting a precedent.  That precedent being, honoring the resolutions of foreign and international courts, hosted by people we're supposed to be treaty-holding allies with, when the resolution essentially declares political decisions to be major crimes.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

Grakelin said, and I agreed with him, that shouting CITATION NEEDED when you hear a non-provable statement you don't like is stupid.

Well, I think that shouting "FUN FACT" before issuing a non-provable statement is stupid too

it is provable that he is no longer a powerful politician, he may be a powerful man and his powerful friends may care if he gets arrested, not the current powerful politicians of the USA, tough

[smjjames]

Now if this had come out while bush was still president, this would have caused a massive scandal for sure. However, all it does at this time is prove even more that bush was a major oil corp monger, which was already known.

[nenjin]

Leafy: Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. The Obama Administration isn't going to kick up a major fuss if they try to charge him with anything. They already know he's a big target, judging by the extended length of protection the Secret Service has been ordered to give him.

All former presidents, vice presidents and their families continue to have Secret Service details even after they've left office, afaik until they kick the bucket. The US Government rightly assumes that former presidents and vice presidents remain targets even if they no longer hold office.

The fact Cheney is roundly hated by many Americans, and has incredibly close ties to one of the largest defense contracting firms in the U.S. and perhaps the world, probably didn't hurt that decision any either.