Rod Blagojevich (D)

UG....I'm not interested in debating gun control with you. That was not the issue.

You made some nebulus charge about "suborning of the Department of Justice under Janet Reno" and offered as an example that Reno did not defend the Second Amendment from that Administration's encroachments in the 94 Crime Bill.

The fact remains that there was nothing unconstitional in the 94 crime bill when it was proposed and enacted, including the AWB (using the vernacular of the time).

So your charge is bogus.

[TGRR]

Gah! Janet Reno. The ugliest Nazi in history. Seriously, she made Goering look like a hottie.

Fact: She was the Queen-Hell gun-grabber.

Fact: Her answer to EVERYTHING was to send in goons with submachine guns (Waco, Elian Gonzales, etc).

Fact: She was a freedom-hating old hag who regularly used the constitution for shit rag when she couldn't find an orphan. I won't really rest easy until they bury the old bitch...and I hope someone remembers to drive a stake through her heart, first.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Yeah but do you like her or not?

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Yeah but do you like her or not?

No. As much as I appreciate Doom, and like a good psychotic now and then, there ARE limits.

[xoxoxoBruce]

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Redux

UG....I'm not interested in debating gun control with you. That was not the issue.

You made some nebulus charge about "suborning of the Department of Justice under Janet Reno" and offered as an example that Reno did not defend the Second Amendment from that Administration's encroachments in the 94 Crime Bill.

The fact remains that there was nothing unconstitional in the 94 crime bill when it was proposed and enacted, including the AWB (using the vernacular of the time).

So your charge is bogus.

No, I just haven't assembled the research yet... that was merely a taste, the merest smallest start. Be patient. This thread will come to the top of the page again in due course.

"Assault weapon" is not a term used by the knowledgeable in discussing arms. It is quite without specific meaning, yet it's flung around as a bogeyman: there is nothing in the term to distinguish a big wet rock from a stone axe from a musket from a revolver from a lead pipe from a stick from a.... this is the idea you have hitherto not grasped. The people pushing the "assault weapon" idea were relying on the ignorance of persons who hadn't a knowledge of the matter.

Frankly, if you take an antigun view (and no good Jew should take one unless he wants the Holocaust back, because it'll burn better if antigun laws and views are prevalent, for the State always has guns, and it was a State's guns that controlled European Jewry) you have absolutely no hope at all contending with me. The last guy to try it was Spexxvet, and he disgraced himself horribly, getting stared down by the entire Cellar when he lost it and began raving about "hoping someone buttfucks [UG] in the mouth" -- all his antigun ideas written into the thread got pulverized by a combination of me, radar, and xoxoxoBruce.

UG....this is not about gun control but rather your charge about "suborning of the Department of Justice under Janet Reno"...

But for the record, I am not anti-gun.

I thought the DC gun ban was far too restrictive and unconstitutional. I rarely agree with Scalia, but his decision in Heller works for me:

Held:
1) The Second Amendment protects an individual's right to posess a fireman unconnected with service in a milita, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home....

2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsover and for whatever purpose....

And I still find your comparisons to Nazi Germany, Communist Russia and China, etc. as fear-mongering.

The fact that we have an independent juidciary and a system of checks and balances, as demonstrated most recently by the Heller case, makes such comparisons a stretch of one's imagination to the point of paranoia.

Back to the issue at hand, please....examples of "suborning of the Department of Justice under Janet Reno"....

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

No, I just haven't assembled the research yet... that was merely a taste, the merest smallest start. Be patient. This thread will come to the top of the page again in due course.

I'm not here to defend the Clinton administratiobn...I'm just looking for you to provide examples that are comparable to the five examples of illegal or questionable actions by the Bush DoJ that I documented earlier.

Hit me with your best shot....fire away!

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Then let us make a small beginning with these:

Human Events, 29 Oct 1999:

“Something needs to be done about the U.S. Department of Justice. It is a corrupt organization. Columnists now refer to it as the "Justice (sic) Department" and the "Department of Injustice." The torrent of lies and false prosecutions that pour out of the DOJ cause even Mexicans to say that the "colossus of the North is more corrupt than we."

FBI agents testified before Congress 22 Sep 1999 that

a corrupt Justice Department blocked their investigation of the campaign-finance scandal in which the Chinese government purchased access to the Clinton Administration and our military secrets.
The agents told Congress that their DOJ supervisor, Laura Ingersoll, prevented them from using search warrants while critical evidence was destroyed by a Clinton crony.
Ingersoll claimed that the agents did not have "probable cause" for a warrant. This from a DOJ that routinely uses asset forfeiture laws to seize the homes of elderly grandparents on the "probable cause" that a grandchild might have had drugs in the house.

Complete text here.

We kept hearing about this kind of thing all through the Clinton Adminstration. This was just a late example. Impeachment proceedings, remember, were initiated about that Administation's distant relationship with veracity and its close relationship with perjury. When you're that kind of operator, having the Attorney General running interference for you is a handy thing to have.

From FrontPageMagazine.com, dated March 25, 2004, relating to a deportation proceeding that began in 1997. Mazen al-Najjar was Sami al-Arian's brother in law.

The Al-Najjar re-hearing was full of oddities. Defense attorneys held daily press conferences outside the court while the Reno DOJ essentially muzzled the prosecution side. There were strong indications that a senior DOJ adviser on Reno’s staff was in direct contact with one of Al-Najjar’s defense attorneys during the time the hearing was being conducted. The same Immigration Judge, after reviewing the same classified evidence he had reviewed in 1997 plus two weeks of other evidence, instead of rendering the same decision he rendered in 1997, issued a lengthy, convoluted decision releasing Al-Najjar on an $8,000 bond. The winds of political correctness had blown very hard.
Janet Reno, to her temporary credit, stayed the Immigration Judge’s order, as she legally could, until December 2000. Note, that was after the election. She then allowed the Immigration Judge’s decision to stand, without appeal, and Al-Najjar was released on the $8,000 bond. The Attorney General who, for three-and-a-half years had known fully well who and what Mazen Al-Najjar was -- even more so than the Immigration Judge, since she had been fully briefed on the Tampa PIJ case parameters -- decided to let the guy walk. Of course,L] she was about to walk herself, since her boss was out of a job.

FrontPageMag's item.

You may recall the Clinton Administration trying to tame the Internet. Wisely, the Bush Administration didn't take this Nanny State policy anywhere.

"[Security] is not just a matter of centralizing a particular function in a particular office, it is a matter of developing technology to protect the technology," Reno commented during her press availability session last week. "We need the equipment, we need the expertise. We need cooperation from foreign governments to be able to trace these attacks. We need to cooperate with foreign governments to protect their infrastructure. We've got to design a system that....is secure, Reno said." At first glance Reno's statement might be mistaken for a wise admonition against rigid supervision and other elements of Big Government. But to read it that way, we have to answer the question of when, if ever, the Reno Department of Justice (DoJ) has acted to reduce government intrusions into the private lives of citizens. What Reno is responding to so strongly here is the horrifying thought that the FBI, and in some circumstances even the DoJ, might have to answer to ordinary non-combatants at OMB in matters of cyber-security. Furthermore, the cushy little partnership of mutual affection between the DoJ and the White House might find itself strained by a dour, skeptical chaperone.

From the The Register: biting the hand that feeds IT.

Nor would it end here. One simply sifts the conservative periodicals... and the pro-gun ones.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Then let us make a small beginning with these:

Nor would it end here. One simply sifts the conservative periodicals... and the pro-gun ones.

LOL......conservative and pro-gun periodicals making charges about Clinton and Reno? What surprise!

Yet not one link or footnote in any of those publications to primary sources or any factual data to support their allegations. Another surprise...well, not really!

I provide facts and findings about Bush DoJ abuses and/or unlawful acts from primary sources, GAO and internal DoJ reports , and you provide undocumented allegations from periodicals with an anti-Cllinton agenda.

Hell, if I wanted to play that game, I could match your conseravtive periodicals and list pages of charges and allegations about the Bush administration from the ACLU, The Nation, or even MoveOn.org.

Facts, dude! Not unsubstantiated allegations.