Runway Red Lights to cut down on incursions.

On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:29:36 -0600, "news.chi.sbcglobal.net"
wrote in
:

Perhaps if you got your head out of the liberal media and bothered to read
the Constitution you would know that it is the judiciary branch that decides
what is and is not a crime, based on the laws passed by the legislative
branch.

If the Attorney General's opinion is meaningless, why is he being
asked?

It is nothing more than a variation on the old "When did you stop beating
your wife" question...

The attorney general could give a personal opinion as to whether or not it
was against the law, but that would be meaningless.

He could give a legal opinion if it is cut and dried settled law, or if
his/her examination of the facts led him her/to believe it was against the
law in that particular case.

But in the end, if the attorney general believed some act was illegal, he
could bring charges against someone, but it would be the judicial system, in
the person of a judge or jury, who would decide if a crime was committed.
And again, that would depend upon the specific facts of the case.

There is a lot of Bush hate out there, with much of it coming from liberals
and/or Democrats who count on the fact that so many Americans are totally
clueless about the Constitution...




"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:29:36 -0600, "news.chi.sbcglobal.net"
wrote in
:

Perhaps if you got your head out of the liberal media and bothered to read
the Constitution you would know that it is the judiciary branch that
decides
what is and is not a crime, based on the laws passed by the legislative
branch.

If the Attorney General's opinion is meaningless, why is he being
asked?

On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:23:15 -0600, "news.chi.sbcglobal.net"
wrote in
:

But in the end, if the attorney general believed some act was illegal, he
could bring charges against someone, but it would be the judicial system, in
the person of a judge or jury, who would decide if a crime was committed.

So Bush nominated an Attorney General who he was reasonably certain
would not indite him or the CIA.

Do you have anything factual to contribute to the discussion?

If you don't stay out of it...

But if you really want to play in this sandbox, go look up "writ of
mandamus" before you come back...



"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 12:23:15 -0600, "news.chi.sbcglobal.net"
wrote in
:

But in the end, if the attorney general believed some act was illegal, he
could bring charges against someone, but it would be the judicial system,
in
the person of a judge or jury, who would decide if a crime was committed.

So Bush nominated an Attorney General who he was reasonably certain
would not indite him or the CIA.

On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 18:49:39 GMT, "news.chi.sbcglobal.net"
wrote in
:

go look up "writ of mandamus"

Why would I do that? I'm familiar with the term.

You're not suggesting that I attempt to command the government to
cease waderboarding "detainees" are you?

You implied that Bush et al had committed indictable offenses, but had "put
in" an attorney general who would not indict them.

If you believe indictable offenses have occurred, go down to the nearest
federal courthouse and get a writ of mandamus to force him to indict.



"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 18:49:39 GMT, "news.chi.sbcglobal.net"
wrote in
:

go look up "writ of mandamus"

Why would I do that? I'm familiar with the term.

You're not suggesting that I attempt to command the government to
cease waderboarding "detainees" are you?

On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 19:51:34 GMT, "news.chi.sbcglobal.net"
wrote in
:

If you believe indictable offenses have occurred, go down to the nearest
federal courthouse and get a writ of mandamus to force him to indict.

Gail, I believe that acting FAA Administrator Robert A. Sturgell is a
typical pro-big business Bush appointee stooge who could care less
about general aviation, the segment that owns and operates 89% of the
aircraft in the US, and who will attempt to wrest Congressional
budgetary oversight of the FAA out of the hands of the lawmakers to
facilitate privatization of US Air Traffic Control, so that large
corporate pro-air-carrier interests can wrangle billions of dollars
out of the government in their mendacious attempt to put the
proverbial "fox" in charge of the "henhouse" without regard for the
consequences to all NAS stakeholders. I believe that, because it
would be consistent with Bush's past behavior, like overturning
Clinton's pronouncement of ATC as an Inherently Governmental Function.

Do you know anything about Sturgell?

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:29:36 -0600, "news.chi.sbcglobal.net"
wrote in
:

Perhaps if you got your head out of the liberal media and bothered to read
the Constitution you would know that it is the judiciary branch that decides
what is and is not a crime, based on the laws passed by the legislative
branch.

If the Attorney General's opinion is meaningless, why is he being
asked?

The Attorney General provides an opinion, which if everyone agrees with
ends a discussion, otherwise you go to the Supreme Court which provides
a ruling.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.