[Spliffdaddy]

And lo and behold - there is bipartisan agreement that it shouldn't have happened.

Who are they kidding? It looks like it scared the crap out of all of them. I've never seen so many guilty mofos *act* so guilty in my life.

Maybe we should raid the offices of *all* the representatives on Capitol Hill. And check out their freezers, too.

ONLY in America, folks.

Wednesday 24 May 2006

Washington - The FBI's raid on a Democrat's office rippled through Capitol Hill Wednesday, with Republicans demanding that the bureau surrender documents and other items its agents seized under what lawmakers said were unconstitutional circumstances.

"I think those materials ought to be returned," said House Speaker Dennis Hastert, adding that the FBI agents involved "ought to be frozen out of that (case) for the sake of the Constitution."

A day earlier, the Illinois Republican complained personally to President Bush about the Saturday night raid of Rep. William Jefferson's legislative office, saying it violated the Constitution's separation of powers doctrine. Other House officials have predicted that the case would bring all three branches together at the Supreme Court for a constitutional showdown.

The raid also has united Democrats and Republicans in a rare, election-year accord. But while they stand together in opposition to an executive branch raid of a legislative branch office, party leaders are acting on different political agendas.

Democrats, hoping to exploit Republican scandals on Capitol Hill and regain control of Congress, are making it known that Jefferson, of Louisiana, is no longer welcome on the House's most prestigious panel, the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee.

For his part, Jefferson, who has denied wrongdoing, remains defiant.

"I will not give up a committee assignment that is so vital to New Orleans at this crucial time for any uncertain, long-term political strategy," Jefferson said Tuesday. "If asked, I would respectfully decline."

His spokeswoman, Melanie Roussell, added that Jefferson will not resign from Congress.

The developments are the beginning of what lawmakers predict will be a long dispute over the FBI's search of Jefferson's office last weekend. Historians say it was the first raid of a representative's quarters in Congress' 219 years.

FBI agents searched Jefferson's office in pursuit of evidence in a bribery investigation. The search warrant, signed by U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Hogan, was based on an affidavit that said agents found $90,000 in cash wrapped and stashed in the freezer of Jefferson's home.

Jefferson has not been indicted and has denied wrongdoing. The search brought Republican and Democratic leaders together in a rare alliance, fighting what they branded a breach of constitutional boundaries between branches of government.

"My opinion is that they took the wrong path," Hastert said of the FBI, after meeting with Bush in the White House. "They need to back up, and we need to go from there."

White House officials said they did not learn of the search until after it happened. They pledged to work with the Justice Department to soothe lawmakers.

"We are hoping that there's a way to balance the constitutional concerns of the House of Representatives with the law enforcement obligations of the executive branch," White House press secretary Tony Snow said. "Obviously we are taking note of Speaker Hastert's statements."

House Democrats reacted particularly quickly, in keeping with their election-year pledge to campaign against what they call a Republican "culture of corruption."

Officials said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had discussed Jefferson's situation with several fellow senior lawmakers and there was a consensus that he should step aside, preferably voluntarily, at least until his legal situation was clarified. It was not clear whether she or an emissary approached Jefferson. The officials who described the developments did so on condition of anonymity, citing the delicacy of the situation.

Pelosi moved aggressively recently when questions were raised about financial dealings of Rep. Alan Mollohan. The West Virginian quickly announced that he was voluntarily stepping aside as the senior Democrat on the ethics committee.

Whatever Jefferson's fate, the weekend raid stirred bipartisan expressions of concern.(snip)

full text > http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/052406K.shtml

more info available pretty much all over the 'net.

And on a related note:

Harry Reid, who has criticized the GOP for their "lack of ethics" - is now ass-deep in trouble for his own lack of ethics...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197350,00.html

This stuff would be hilariously funny if they weren't America's leadership.

*shrugs*

Vote for Spliffdaddy - he doesn't own a freezer.

[ThinkInsane]

I was wondering when this story would turn up here. It's been all over the place for the last week, and now the three top law enforcement officials in the country are threatening to resign over it. Must be more important stuff to talk about in the pol lounge these days.

As for the topic at hand, I hope the Justice Dept. stands firm on this. I'm sick of gov. corruption, and I don't care which party it comes from. It's about time that these douche-bags get cleaned out of office. I don't think having a bit of integrity is to much to ask from our elected officials, I mean how many does this make in the last couple of years? Screw these assbags, I've had enough of the whole lot of them. If you're dirty, you need to go.

[Spliffdaddy]

Funny how none of the laws apply to our elected representatives. Laws only apply to citizens.

[congressman]"We'll do whatever we have to do to in order to catch lawbreakers!"

"Wait! WTF? You're searching a Congressman's office just because you have him on videotape accepting a bribe for $100,000 and later you found $90,000 in his freezer?....well that's no reason to search his office!! This is a travesty of justice!! What about the almighty SEPARATION OF POWERS?? WE"RE IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION!"[/congressman]

[Dakar]

This I love:

A day earlier, the Illinois Republican complained personally to President Bush about the Saturday night raid of Rep. William Jefferson's legislative office, saying it violated the Constitution's separation of powers doctrine.

So if a Congressman or Senator goes on trial is that a violation of the seperation of powers too?

[abe]

Originally Posted by Dakar

This I love:

So if a Congressman or Senator goes on trial is that a violation of the seperation of powers too?

You do understand the legal principle behind their objection, right?

[abe]

The developments are the beginning of what lawmakers predict will be a long dispute over the FBI's search of Jefferson's office last weekend. Historians say it was the first raid of a representative's quarters in Congress' 219 years.

The following message is to the readers and posters who think that there should have been no ban on the "God Hates Fags" protesters.

Originally Posted by abe

I think that Representative Jefferson should have more freedom from government illegal searches. In fact I think the money stolen from his freezer should be returned to him. Even though this situation has never happened before and new law or a new precedent will probably be called for, I think we should just respond to this situation by giving the law breaker more freedom. Don't try to prevent his breaking the law, instead we should ALLOW HIM MORE FREEDOM to break the law and then once the case is really complex and is sure to require lots of law enforcement officers and staff members to sort it out only then should the govt. step in. Yeah, that's the ticket!

This message which follows is directed to those posters and readers who believe that even though the bad guy terrorists have a technological advantage over the government that the government is wrong to lawfully conduct secret wiretaps on suspected individuals in the US to people outside the country and to data mine numbers called.

Originally Posted by abe

I think the government is wrong to violate the Congressman's rights. IT DOESN'T MATTER that he may have broken the law and may have been caught red handed. The danger to the Constitution is much more important than an elected official taking bribes. He should have been warned ahead of time by some noble justice department leaker so that he could have hidden the money and any documents or incriminating evidence.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by abe

The following message is to the readers and posters who think that there should have been no ban on the "God Hates Fags" protesters.





This message which follows is directed to those posters and readers who believe that even though the bad guy terrorists have a technological advantage over the government that the government is wrong to lawfully conduct secret wiretaps on suspected individuals in the US to people outside the country and to data mine numbers called.

I actually agree with you, though you don't agree with yourself.

The FBI should not have stormed the representative's office. It's indeed a clear breach of the separation of powers.

As long as the suspect has his mandate he should not be prosecuted.

I will also explain why it isn't necessary for the FBI to storm the office and yet the representative who is taking bribes will still not be able to contine his work: For exactly such things the media is good, there he can be prosecuted with all the techniques the media has to expose a corrupt politician, and then he will quickly be unable to continue his work and be forced to resign...

Taliesin

[Jawbone54]

The media has proven that it only uncovers Republican corruption (notice I don't deny that there's plenty of it). For example, Harry Reid accepts $70,000 from Abramoff sources, and yet it goes unreported. Wouldn't fit in with the "Culture of Corruption" war cry for the senatorial election season.

Bottom line: if politicians are breaking the law, whether they be Republican or Democrat, they should be sent off to prison. Of course, this isn't going to happen to every corrupt politician in Washington. There wouldn't be anyone left to run the country.

[OreoCookie]

Bottom line is that people bribe people who are in power. Right now Republicans are in control of Congress, so they are the more likely target of attempted bribery. When the `other party' is in power, this trend will reverse, and so on.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

I actually agree with you, though you don't agree with yourself.

The FBI should not have stormed the representative's office. It's indeed a clear breach of the separation of powers.

As long as the suspect has his mandate he should not be prosecuted.

I will also explain why it isn't necessary for the FBI to storm the office and yet the representative who is taking bribes will still not be able to contine his work: For exactly such things the media is good, there he can be prosecuted with all the techniques the media has to expose a corrupt politician, and then he will quickly be unable to continue his work and be forced to resign...

Taliesin

Heh! I am conflicted over this matter. I agree it apparently violates the separation of powers stipulations and yet I'm hopeful that some way will be found to legally address this situation for the sake of justice.

Your solution has a very European feel to it. Not sure if I like the media being empowered in that manner or being "used" (manipulated?) in that way. It would be a very subtle and defacto case of the media going to bed with government...or at least making out in the wine cellar.

Btw, I have noticed the changes in your posting style, frequency, subject matter, verbiage, tone and point of view.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by abe

Heh! I am conflicted over this matter. I agree it apparently violates the separation of powers stipulations and yet I'm hopeful that some way will be found to legally address this situation for the sake of justice.

Your solution has a very European feel to it. Not sure if I like the media being empowered in that manner or being "used" (manipulated?) in that way. It would be a very subtle and defacto case of the media going to bed with government...or at least making out in the wine cellar.

Btw, I have noticed the changes in your posting style, frequency, subject matter, verbiage, tone and point of view.

Not sure what you mean by European `feel'. However, I do think that the media is the most important watch dog here. That's why I think media should always have a critical bias towards the government, any government. I'm not sure as to what degree this would be a `European' attitude, though. Eventually this public pressure might start an official investigation.

Since I'm not completely firm with the legal issues involved here, it would be interesting to hear their side (Simey? cpt?).

[abe]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Not sure what you mean by European `feel'.

Leaving the matter of justice to be served up by the media rather than the judicial system.

That seems like a European solution or attitude.

I'd rather there be a new law dealing with this sort of thing rather than trusting to or making use of the media.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by abe

Heh! I am conflicted over this matter. I agree it apparently violates the separation of powers stipulations and yet I'm hopeful that some way will be found to legally address this situation for the sake of justice.

Guess what, abe? We agree! Although I'm not conflicted at all: he should be investigated, but not in the same manner that you or I would be investigated while at work, because the Constitution prohibits it.

The relevent clause is Article 1, Section 6:

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

In other words, there is a special niche carved out in the Constitution that says that they have a sort of immunity from prosecution while congress is in session, except in very specific cases, and it's not a stretch to say this covers investigations and searches, too. Even if the bribery involved amounts to a felony, the constitution is very clear that investigators should not just go poking around in the same manner than they can investigate terrorists like you, abe. (Sorry, just bringing back old times! ).

If he is a crook (and all media reports point to that at this point), he deserves to be thrown out of the house. How Rep. Pelosi deals with this will be a good indicator of how well (or poorly) she might fare as a future House Speaker. The last I heard, she "asked" him to resign from his committees, and he "declined". Isn't there something more she can do?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by abe

Leaving the matter of justice to be served up by the media rather than the judicial system.

That seems like a European solution or attitude.

I'd rather there be a new law dealing with this sort of thing rather than trusting to or making use of the media.

I don't think this is particularly European, but a feature of all modern democracies. Since the US is one of the cradles of democracy, I would even go as far as saying it's something typically American.

And I don't think the media is/should be instrumentalized as a substitute for the judiciary, they work on their own mostly. It's not without reason that I was taught (in the US and Germany alike) that the press is the fourth branch of government.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Dork.

In other words, there is a special niche carved out in the Constitution that says that they have a sort of immunity from prosecution while congress is in session, except in very specific cases, and it's not a stretch to say this covers investigations and searches, too. ?

There is "some kind" of constitutional protection. It's called the speech and debate clause. That provision is quite narrow. It prevents congressmen from being questioned about things they say in Congress (i.e. you can't charge them with libel or sedition) and it prevents them from being physically prevented from travelling to and from sessions of Congress. That is all it covers. It doesn't cover ordinary felonies. Receiving bribes (the matter under investigation) is an ordinary felony.

You quoted the relevant language: "They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace."

I'm baffled why both parties in Congress have chosen to react the way that they have to the investigation of Jefferson's alleged bribe-taking. Their constitutional argument is weak. Criminal law applies to them too. That is how come several congressmen (e.g. Dan Rostenkowski) have gone to jail.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

(snip) I'm baffled why both parties in Congress have chosen to react the way that they have to the investigation of Jefferson's alleged bribe-taking. Their constitutional argument is weak. Criminal law applies to them too. That is how come several congressmen (e.g. Dan Rostenkowski) have gone to jail.

Give me a break. You aren't "baffled" about the reaction of Congress. It's pretty evident *why* they're freaking out.

Most of them have something to hide.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Give me a break. You aren't "baffled" about the reaction of Congress. It's pretty evident *why* they're freaking out.

Most of them have something to hide.

They make it look that way. But no, on balance, I think it is more that members of institutions internalize a sense of perogatives and they have a hard time taking a step backwards to see themselves the way others outside the institution see them. One way to look at it is that they are a bunch of stuffed shirts who are out of touch. But another way to look at it is the old phrase "where you sit is where you stand."

Several years ago, I read an interesting account of Jerry Ford's sudden and exremely rapid transformation from House Minority Leader to Vice President, to President. He transformed almost overnight from a champion of Congressional supremacy over the executive to a champion of executive supremacy. The attitudes go with the respective territory, and when the territory changed, so did the attitude.

Get these congressmen to take a step back, and I expect that most of them would realize how ridiculous their argument is. Of course congressional offices aren't free zones where crimes can be hidden with impunity. They know better than that. And for people like Denny Hastert to be defending someone from the other party apparently caught red handed in a corruption case in an election year is indeed baffling.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

There is "some kind" of constitutional protection. It's called the speech and debate clause. That provision is quite narrow. It prevents congressmen from being questioned about things they say in Congress (i.e. you can't charge them with libel or sedition) and it prevents them from being physically prevented from travelling to and from sessions of Congress. That is all it covers. It doesn't cover ordinary felonies. Receiving bribes (the matter under investigation) is an ordinary felony.

You quoted the relevant language: "They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace."

I did find an interesting interpretation of the Privilege from Arrest clause here:

It applies only to arrests in civil suits, which were still common in this country at the time the Constitution was adopted. 376 It does not apply to service of process in either civil 377 or criminal cases. 378 Nor does it apply to arrest in any criminal case. The phrase ''treason, felony or breach of the peace'' is interpreted to withdraw all criminal offenses from the operation of the privilege

But that's apparently a separate clause from the Speech and Debate clause. I think that in order for this clause to be worth anything, it can't be construed as narrow. It ought to protect any Congressman's office from being searched in an ordinary fashion, since he uses that office to conduct his business.

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

I'm baffled why both parties in Congress have chosen to react the way that they have to the investigation of Jefferson's alleged bribe-taking. Their constitutional argument is weak. Criminal law applies to them too. That is how come several congressmen (e.g. Dan Rostenkowski) have gone to jail.

I think it's the search of his office that is the real objection. Nobody objects to the investigation itself, or to the search that found $90k in cash in Jefferson's freezer....

[Spliffdaddy]

You should read the story about William Jefferson returning to his flooded home (at taxpayer expense) in order to gather a few items. It's interesting to discover what he considered to be "important". The items certainly wouldn't be at the top of an honest person's list of important things.

[abe]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I don't think this is particularly European, but a feature of all modern democracies. Since the US is one of the cradles of democracy, I would even go as far as saying it's something typically American.

And I don't think the media is/should be instrumentalized as a substitute for the judiciary, they work on their own mostly. It's not without reason that I was taught (in the US and Germany alike) that the press is the fourth branch of government.

Ok.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

There is "some kind" of constitutional protection. It's called the speech and debate clause. That provision is quite narrow. It prevents congressmen from being questioned about things they say in Congress (i.e. you can't charge them with libel or sedition) and it prevents them from being physically prevented from travelling to and from sessions of Congress. That is all it covers. It doesn't cover ordinary felonies. Receiving bribes (the matter under investigation) is an ordinary felony.

You quoted the relevant language: "They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace."

I'm baffled why both parties in Congress have chosen to react the way that they have to the investigation of Jefferson's alleged bribe-taking. Their constitutional argument is weak. Criminal law applies to them too. That is how come several congressmen (e.g. Dan Rostenkowski) have gone to jail.

Thanks for clearing that up. Just a question: is there a way to exempt a member of Congress from immunity on a case-by-case basis? (In Germany, this is done frequently, to allow the policing of minor issues such as speeding; the Bundestag revokes the member's immunity for that specific case.)

Also, is an investigation allowed even though a member still has immunity (the US Constitution just speaks of arrest)? (The way I read it, the answer is no, but I guess matters are more complicated than that.)

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by abe

Ok.

I guess you must have missed that in your American Government class … 

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

It's not without reason that I was taught (in the US and Germany alike) that the press is the fourth branch of government.

The government is one branch, the executive.
The parliament is the other, the legislative.
The courts are the third, the judicative.

Only in authoritative regimes, the last two are subsets of the first.

Taliesin

[TETENAL]

I have heard the media called the "fourth force" in a democracy, but never ever have I heard it called a branch of government. Thank god it's not. I would be pretty much pissed if I'b been ruled by the Springer press.

edit:
Maybe in English one says "branch" where in German we say "force" for the same thing? Then OreoCookie would be right. I'm confused. Anyway, it's just a symbolic thing.

[abe]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

I have heard the media called the "fourth force" in a democracy, but never ever have I heard it called a branch of government. Thank god it's not. I would be pretty much pissed if I'b been ruled by the Springer press.

.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Thanks for clearing that up. Just a question: is there a way to exempt a member of Congress from immunity on a case-by-case basis? (In Germany, this is done frequently, to allow the policing of minor issues such as speeding; the Bundestag revokes the member's immunity for that specific case.)

Also, is an investigation allowed even though a member still has immunity (the US Constitution just speaks of arrest)? (The way I read it, the answer is no, but I guess matters are more complicated than that.)

As I stated above, the speech and debate clause is interpreted extremely narrowly. There is also no tradition that I know of of Congress immunizing members. Nor could they generally do it. The President of the United States has pardon power, but Congress does not. Also, prosecutors are executive branch officials, not congressional, and for that matter, most prosecutors and police forces are operated by the states, not the federal government. We do have prosecutorial discretion in this country and you may have read that a couple of weeks ago, a Capitol Police officer got in trouble for letting Representative Kennedy go home without a breathalizer test after he crashed his car into a post late at night. But that was just a dumb decision, not (hopefully) policy. We kind of like our legislators to be subject to the criminal law here.

Dork:

The speech and debate clause does apply to drafts of bills and reports. That is why the FBI in this case went to extraordinary lengths when they executed the judicial search warrant. They described what they were looking for with particularity, and had agents that were not assigned to the case execute the warrant. Then they had a second committee of agents screen everything that was taken. And finally, this was after Jefferson and his lawyer ignored a subpoena for 8 months. So they really had no choice but to execute a judicial search warrant. Otherwise, the target of the investigation would get away with hiding the evidence.

Basically, to take the position Jefferson advocates, Congressmen would be above the law in their own offices. They could commit any crime, and hide the evidence in their offices. That kind of sweeping immunity doesn't have any constitutional basis. The speech and debate clause (which is what we are talking about) does not apply to felonies at all and cannot be used as a shield to criminal law enforcement and more than a president can invoke executive privilege to shield his person or office from a judicial search warrant pursuant to a criminal investigation.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

The government is one branch, the executive.
The parliament is the other, the legislative.
The courts are the third, the judicative.

This is correct, but I have learned on this forum that Americans call the parliament and the courts their "government" as well. It's a word that can mean both the executive branch as well as the force of the state.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

I have heard the media called the "fourth force" in a democracy, but never ever have I heard it called a branch of government. Thank god it's not. I would be pretty much pissed if I'b been ruled by the Springer press.

edit:
Maybe in English one says "branch" where in German we say "force" for the same thing? Then OreoCookie would be right. I'm confused. Anyway, it's just a symbolic thing.

The media is sometimes described as the "fourth estate." The idea comes from the sources of power in pre-revolutionary France where there were three estates (king, nobility, and clergy).

In fact, the media -- meaning the commercial enterprise of journalism -- has no role in our government, but they like to think they do. That is why most references to the fourth estate are written by journalists about journalists. The media's role is actually just the role of the people in self-government.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

This is correct, but I have learned on this forum that Americans call the parliament and the courts their "government" as well. It's a word that can mean both the executive branch as well as the force of the state.

Ahh, I see, thanks for the heads-up.

Taliesin

Edit: though, "headup" sounds better , abe.

[abe]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Ahh, I see, thanks for the 'heads up.'

Taliesin

Fixed.

heads-up (hĕdz'ŭp')
adj.
Showing an alert, competent style: play heads-up basketball.

n. Informal.
Information or notification, especially in advance: gave me the heads-up on the new security measures.

I always thought of this term as being one that started in the construction industry as a way of giving the workers an advance notice or an alert to a potential danger.

[OreoCookie]

@Talesin and TETENAL
In AG it was called fourth branch. Obviously it's not an official branch of government since it is not mentioned in any constitution (I'm aware of) as such. However, it came to play a pivotal role in the system of checks and balances and hence it is included in AG in the States and politics classes in Germany (at least in the three Gymnasiums I've been to).

Also, I didn't think so much of tabloids (which unfortunately have some influence on politics), but I was referring to rather serious journalistic work such as Watergate or so. Simey's comment that they are taking on the role of the people in self-government is essentially correct. However a trademark of any stable democracy is a free press that criticizes its government as it keeps the government on its toes. I agree that there are some negative side-effects, but the positive sides definitely outweigh the shortcomings.

In this sense I disagreed with aberdeenwriter. One of the features of a stable democracy is free press and as such no peculiarity of Europe (which I think for him has a negative connotation).

@Talesin
In English, government is ambiguous. I don't know about your native language, but in German there are two translations for it, Regierung and Staat(sgewalt).

So in this sense, it is at least imprecise to say that the government is the executive, you should use administration instead.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

As I stated above, the speech and debate clause is interpreted extremely narrowly. There is also no tradition that I know of of Congress immunizing members.

If that's the case, then I fail to see why there is such a big outrage by both sides of the aisle … 

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

If that's the case, then I fail to see why there is such a big outrage by both sides of the aisle … 

It's simply the search of the Congressman's office by the FBI (which is part of the executive branch) while Congress was in session that is causing the problem. Although Simey sees the Speech and Debate clause interpreted narrowly (and I've learned not to argue with Simey too much on legal matters, because he's knows much, much, much more than I do), it seems that the House leadership is using a broader interpretation as their basis for objection.

I wonder if the Democrats would have given the same support if Tom Delay's office been searched in the same manner back when he was in hot water?

[abe]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

@Talesin and TETENAL
In AG it was called fourth branch. Obviously it's not an official branch of government since it is not mentioned in any constitution (I'm aware of) as such. However, it came to play a pivotal role in the system of checks and balances and hence it is included in AG in the States and politics classes in Germany (at least in the three Gymnasiums I've been to).

Also, I didn't think so much of tabloids (which unfortunately have some influence on politics), but I was referring to rather serious journalistic work such as Watergate or so. Simey's comment that they are taking on the role of the people in self-government is essentially correct. However a trademark of any stable democracy is a free press that criticizes its government as it keeps the government on its toes. I agree that there are some negative side-effects, but the positive sides definitely outweigh the shortcomings.

In this sense I disagreed with aberdeenwriter. One of the features of a stable democracy is free press and as such no peculiarity of Europe (which I think for him has a negative connotation).

@Talesin
In English, government is ambiguous. I don't know about your native language, but in German there are two translations for it, Regierung and Staat(sgewalt).

So in this sense, it is at least imprecise to say that the government is the executive, you should use administration instead.

For someone to assert that the government (the JUSTICE department, no less!) would leave justice in a criminal matter to be dished out by the media, is a concept I find a bit foreign.

Where there was no other legal remedy available to them, ok. But the way the idea was presented seems to have a very European feel to it in the way that justice can be left to the media for delivery. Or if the government left the matter of justice to be administered by karma.

Sorta like a Judge saying, "I sentence the defendant to a term of 5 years of "what-goes-around, comes-around."

[abe]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Ahh, I see, thanks for the heads-up.

Taliesin

Edit: though, "headup" sounds better , abe.

Maybe it sounds 'better' to you because you are more FAMILIAR with the phrase, 'head up.'

And that, no doubt, might be due to reading posters here at MacNN telling each other that they have their head up their ass.

Not that anyone would ever have reason to direct such a comment at you.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by abe

For someone to assert that the government (the JUSTICE department, no less!) would leave justice in a criminal matter to be dished out by the media, is a concept I find a bit foreign.

Where there was no other legal remedy available to them, ok. But the way the idea was presented seems to have a very European feel to it in the way that justice can be left to the media for delivery.

I think that is because you have no clue about Europe. When there is an accusation of a crime the parliament lifts the immunity and there is a regular prosecution. Cases that come to my mind are Graf Lambsdorff in Germany and Silvio Berlusconi in Italy.

[abe]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

I think that is because you have no clue about Europe. When there is an accusation of a crime the parliament lifts the immunity and there is a regular prosecution. Cases that come to my mind are Graf Lambsdorff in Germany and Silvio Berlusconi in Italy.

Nevermind

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by abe

For someone to assert that the government (the JUSTICE department, no less!) would leave justice in a criminal matter to be dished out by the media, is a concept I find a bit foreign.

Where there was no other legal remedy available to them, ok. But the way the idea was presented seems to have a very European feel to it in the way that justice can be left to the media for delivery. Or if the government left the matter of justice to be administered by karma.

Sorta like a Judge saying, "I sentence the defendant to a term of 5 years of "what-goes-around, comes-around."

I assure you that justice is not left to the media in Europe. And just because you think it's foreign, doesn't mean it is. Free press doesn't replace the judiciary and I have in no way suggested it should be that way. I think you are just labelling aspects of America that you don't like as European

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by abe

And after reading your post I remain clueless.

Which implies that even after reading his post, you still are clueless

[abe]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Which implies that even after reading his post, you still are clueless

It does more than IMPLY it. It SAYS it, in so many words.