I might have to use this one occasionally….

"If you can stop Goldwater from spinning in his grave, ask for directions to Ben Franklin, have him explain his dictum about those who would trade liberty for security."

It seems that fear of "spectacle" trumps fidelity to law.

Mr. King,
I have just as much disrespect for Bill Clinton as anyone, but of course it was political. There was a huge, well financed industry that grew up around his political destruction. There dreams came true in Ms. Lewinsky.

When was Bush's warrantless wiretapping of international calls? Was that when they created a parallel switch room in SF to track all phone and internet traffic? Because the part that "liberals think was a violation of the law" was domestic wiretapping forbidden under the existing FISA statute. The FISA judges that Bush illegally bypassed rarely rejected authorization, and didn't even have to be notified until four days after wiretapping began. As such, the only impediment provided by the FISA judges was that they would provide a record of who were wiretapped and why.

If conservatives still believe that Bush's actions were for public safety and not for the cynical implementation of a set of illegal policies to achieve a world hegemony, I am speechless at the naivete.

If conservatives are so ruled by their fears that they will allow their leaders to ignore Constitutional guarantees and laws, what principles do they stand for? If you can stop Goldwater from spinning in his grave, ask for directions to Ben Franklin, have him explain his dictum about those who would trade liberty for security.

There is no doubt that holding the Bush administration accountable would be a spectacle. Watergate was a spectacle, but without the congresssional investigation, the public would have never learned of the corruption of their government. LBJ's Tonkin Gulf begat Nixon's sabotage of the Paris Peace talks in 1968, which after a Watergate inspired lull, begat the Reagan campaign's sabotage of Carter's efforts at freeing the hostages, which begat Iran-Contra, which begat GW Bush's various crimes. I have no doubts that others can find crimes that other presidents committed. But, my point here is that with the exception of Nixon and Watergate, no one has been held for these crimes. It has become obvious that the law has lost its deterrent effect. Each president's crimes have escalated in nature. If we don't hold Bush accountable, who will we?

Translation: Conservatives believe, at least in certain circumstances (Long War), that a president is above all law. Anything done, if it is said that it is to protect the country, is legal….anything.

That's what King is saying.

Conservatives used to be for law and order…..now they're only for law and order when it comes to minorities, and poor whites.

Let's take Bush's warrantless wiretapping of international phone calls from suspected terrorists as an example. Liberals think that was a violation of the law, and Bush should be imprisoned. But conservatives think Bush was trying to keep the country safe following the worst terrorist attack ever on this country, so they understand the President is responsible for national defense and public safety, and he wanted to prevent another attack. They don't want to see a President go to jail for trying to defend the country. They want the President to keep the country safe, so they don't get their panties in a bunch over it like liberals do. The liberals only want to see Bush, their enemy, prosecuted. The actual issue at hand is actually a grey area, legally speaking. That's the environment that sparks a political trial.

If Bush went on trial for that, it would divide the country along political and ideological lines. It would be a political trial, and it would be very damaging, very divisive, and not very helpful, except maybe for various partisan power seekers.

Btw, you know you're reaching when it takes a long diatribe to answer a simple question… try again:

How does my definition mean that all trials are political trials?

So if there is something called a "political trial"…..to me, it would involve violations of law…otherwise it wouldn't be a trial. It would be something else.

When there is a trial, you know, because a law has been broken…..politics can enter the fray outside of the trial. Is that what you're talking about?

Because if it is….then we couldn't have any more trials for law violations….because inevitably politics might enter into the fray ABOUT the trial.

frank is spot on…..conservatives used to be for law and order. Strictly for upholding the letter of the law. Not anymore.

Cheney/Bush will never be investigated and held accountable for their law violations….and as frank suggests…..that will only guarantee more executive branch lawbreaking in the future. But I guess conservatives don't care about that.