The Office of Special Prosecutor

[PatrickHenry]

I was musing regarding wrongdoing in government, especially the Executive Branch and with a particular focus on the President of the USA. This office(POTUS) is so powerful and so consistently tempted to crime that I would like to see a new development in our system.

I think that in every election cycle, there should be elected a Special Prosecutor whose only task is to hound the President and charge him(or her) with the crimes committed while in office. There should be NO executive privilege to shield paperwork or electronic communication from the Prosecutor. In order to prevent collusion between the office of the SP and the POTUS, safeguards should be built in. But what would the safeguards consist of?

[Compugasm]

Your suggestion will never happen in a Republic form of government.

[Gorgo]

I think what you're proposing is supposed to happen via the "free press." How does one make sure the press is reasonably unbiased and influenced? I don't know. Probably making it part of the government in some way that makes it accountable to the people.

[Compugasm]

Originally posted by Gorgo, I don't know. Probably making it part of the government in some way...

The idea that your freedom and rights are granted to you by government is failing us all. Haven't we seen that anytime they wish to take those away, all they need to do is pass a law forbidding it, or claim it's for "the greater good"? Soon, the greater good will declare something senseless like we can't work on Sunday. Can you stop your neighbor from working on Sunday? No, but our governement does this crap every day.

600million spent on this election telling you that the other guy is bad. Call them "frat brothers", scream stolen election, etc... we give them the power to do these things, and loose ability to do it ourselves. I can no longer argue this rationality. I give up.

[Gorgo]

I'm open to other ideas. Certainly the corporate media has failed.

Government is nothing more than society coming together to solve problems. Some aspects of that have been hijacked in the U.S. mainly because of the media's (largely corporate) inability or unwillingness to inform the public. Best evidence is the recent election. Not just that Bush won, but that only two people were seen as viable candidates, and that this election was somehow "the most important election of our lives." Presidential elections do ittle to change anything, it's true.

Government does not give us freedom, no. Resistance to opression is what gives us freedom, and that's often against government, it's true. Creating healthy institutions is also what gives us freedom. Some of those healthy institutions could be called government if we tried. The so-called "private sector" can do no better. At least not without government.

[Compugasm]

Originally posted by Gorgo, The so-called "private sector" can do no better.  At least not without government.

You're right, and almost nothing in the last election had to do with the "private sector" as an institution. But consider what the concept of it means. Freedom of choice leads to the best solution of social AND economic problems. Because millions of ideas and efforts, each subject to trial and error and competition, in which the best solution becomes obvious by comparing results to all others.

It seems 99% (based on election results) belive that freedom is OK when it comes to what cereal to buy. But when it comes to an issue really important (Choose any you want, abortion, marriage, healthcare, wages, etc...) that should be controled by government. Very appealing concept to intellectuals who want control what you can, and can't do. Until that is, the very system they've created won't let them do what they wish.

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by PatrickHenry, I think that in every election cycle, there should be elected a Special Prosecutor whose only task is to hound the President and charge him(or her) with the crimes committed while in office. There should be NO executive privilege to shield paperwork or electronic communication from the Prosecutor.  In order to prevent collusion between the office of the SP and the POTUS, safeguards should be built in.  But what would the safeguards consist of?

In other words, that Prosecutor should have access to all the vital information.
You are joking, are not you ? :-)))
I want to remiand you, that not so many U.S. Presidents have ever been granted an access to U.S.'s secret (or restricted) fields, like well known "Area51", not to mention others.

A state is run by :
- finance
- military
- intelligence
It has never been changed, since the Ancient Egypt.

[PatrickHenry]

Joking, Rainbow? I guess so. I don't think the idea has any chance of being implemented...

But don't you debaters agree that the POTUS has unique temptations to commit crimes? Wouldn't an SP be a specific counter to the unique power of the Office?

Originally posted by PatrickHenry,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PatrickHenry,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>But don't you debaters agree that the POTUS has unique temptations to commit crimes?[/b]

I agree with your premise that corruption should be vigoruously exposed and those involved arrested. But then the UN would lose most of its members.

<!--QuoteBegin-PatrickHenry,
Wouldn't an SP be a specific counter to the unique power of the Office?[/quote]

The President of the USA is actually very exposed to public scrutiny, particularly through the checks and balances represented by the Senate and the House and even the Supreme Court. What is more of a concern are the activist Judges on the Suprem Court like that disgusting, subversive ACLU advocate Ginsburg who unconstitutionally make decisions to support their left wing agenda.

Here is a pretty comprehensive outline of the checks and balances that are supposed to occur.

Legislative Branch Checks on the Executive..... Impeachment power (House) Trial of impeachments (Senate) Selection of the President (House) and Vice President (Senate) in the  case of no majority of electoral votes May override Presidential vetoes Senate approves departmental appointments Senate approves treaties and ambassadors Approval of replacement Vice President Power to declare war Power to enact taxes and allocate funds President must, from time-to-time, deliver a State of the Union address Checks on the Judiciary..... Senate approves federal judges Impeachment power (House) Trial of impeachments (Senate) Power to initiate constitutional amendments Power to set courts inferior to the Supreme Court Power to set jurisdiction of courts Power to alter the size of the Supreme Court Checks on the Legislature ..... because it is bicameral, the Legislative branch has a degree of self-checking. Bills must be passed by both houses of Congress House must originate revenue bills Neither house may adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other house All journals are to be published Executive Branch Checks on the Legislature..... Veto power Vice President is President of the Senate Commander in chief of the military Recess appointments Emergency calling into session of one or both houses of Congress May force adjournment when both houses cannot agree on  adjournment Compensation cannot be diminished Checks on the Judiciary..... Power to appoint judges Pardon power Checks on the Executive..... Vice President and Cabinet can vote that the President is unable to discharge his duties Judicial Branch Checks on the Legislature.....   Judicial review   Seats are held on good behavior   Compensation cannot be diminished   Checks on the Executive.....   Judicial review   Chief Justice sits as President of the Senate during presidential  impeachment

[PatrickHenry]

Realistically, though, Snouter...How many wrong-doing presidents may expect that their party will impeach them in the US Congress?

My perception: Exactly ZERO. I think that Bush's most impeachable current offense may well be the exposure of Valerie Plame. But Bush hasn't vigorously pursued this felony matter, instead choosing to cover it up. Will Congress bring charges? Hardly...

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by PatrickHenry, Joking, Rainbow? I guess so. I don't think the idea has any chance of being implemented

The core question could be :
- WHO is going to breef that alleged prosecutor, and on what bases and sources ?
That immediately brings the next subject :
- security of the state
Even if there are good and sufficient reasons to charge the people who occupy the highest positions, but WHO is going to be that person to decide which information MAY and which MAY NOT be released to the public ?