• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Westfall Act

B

Bobu

New member
Joined
Jan 8, 2016
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Hi, I'm relatively new to this forums i have been reading some threads before but have never posted on them.

I had a quick question to any of those US government experts about the Westfall Act and why Hillary Clinton is not applying the act in her Benghazi Hearings yet it is applicable to George W. Bush with his war crimes. Does the Westfall Act only apply to someone who is being sued and thus does not apply to the Benghazi Hearings?

Again I'm relatively new to the forums and apologize if this question has been posted before.

Thanks.
 
Bobu said:
Hi, I'm relatively new to this forums i have been reading some threads before but have never posted on them.

I had a quick question to any of those US government experts about the Westfall Act and why Hillary Clinton is not applying the act in her Benghazi Hearings yet it is applicable to George W. Bush with his war crimes. Does the Westfall Act only apply to someone who is being sued and thus does not apply to the Benghazi Hearings?

Again I'm relatively new to the forums and apologize if this question has been posted before.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Simply because some have more to hide than others...As the cop says...Why lawyer up when not guilty?

Diving Mullah
 
Bobu said:
Hi, I'm relatively new to this forums i have been reading some threads before but have never posted on them.

I had a quick question to any of those US government experts about the Westfall Act and why Hillary Clinton is not applying the act in her Benghazi Hearings yet it is applicable to George W. Bush with his war crimes. Does the Westfall Act only apply to someone who is being sued and thus does not apply to the Benghazi Hearings?

Again I'm relatively new to the forums and apologize if this question has been posted before.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Benghazi was an UNDERCOVER gun running station for the CIA. They ran guns to Libya rebels and Syria rebels. It's why there are so many brand new American made buns over there right now.

The Right Wing is claiming Hillary Clinton covered something up. Crazy how those UNDERCOVER ops work. And crazy how slow some are to catch up. "Why did she cover it up...........................:roll:"
 
Chomsky said:
That's one cop I'd never trust!
Click to expand...

It's how quickly someone lawyers up that becomes suspicious. Say a guy's wife ends up missing, and cops come asking questions. The guy who immediately lawyers-up instead of doing all he can to help cops find his wife is the one who most likely made her disappear.

Normal people would answer police questions up until the cops started becoming hostile or accusatory. Once that happens, it makes sense to get an attorney to serve as a buffer. But, the innocent guy will still want to help the police find his wife. The guilty one hides behind his lawyer and shows no interest in helping them find his wife.
 
Excon said:
Yes your ostrich routine is incredible.

There were no war crimes.
What do you not understand about that?

And it is absolutely funny that you provided a link where the title's question is declared to be false.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I wrote an additional paragraph that didn't make it. You should quit laughing though, because my point is, the fact that the Europeans won't prosecute them or because we've declared ourselves above international law doesn't mean they didn't do anything wrong. Though the war criminals could travel to Europe un-accosted, if they went to Malaysia, they certainly would be arrested...for war crimes.

If another country had done what we have, they words "war crimes" would apply.
 
D_NATURED said:
Sorry, I wrote an additional paragraph that didn't make it. You should quit laughing though, because my point is, the fact that the Europeans won't prosecute them or because we've declared ourselves above international law doesn't mean they didn't do anything wrong. Though the war criminals could travel to Europe un-accosted, if they went to Malaysia, they certainly would be arrested...for war crimes.

If another country had done what we have, they words "war crimes" would apply.
Click to expand...
There were no war crimes.
Again. What do you not understand about that?


Your "another Country" claim is subjective fiction just your Malaysia's claim is, as 1. There were no war crimes; and 2. They have no jurisdiction.
 
Yeah...politifacts:
"Interpol, the international police organization, does not list any outstanding arrest warrants for Bush or Cheney in their searchable database. Meanwhile, experts in international law said they were not aware of pending warrants, particularly from the most obvious entity that might issue one -- the International Criminal Court in the Hague."
Quoted for relevance.
I wonder if the thread will get back to relevant talk, like the Westfall Act.

Maybe I can help in that regard:
[9] The federal statute commonly known as the Westfall Act accords federal employees absolute immunity from tort claims arising out of acts undertaken in the course of their official duties, 28 U. S. C. §2679(b)(1), and empowers the Attorney General to certify that a federal employee sued for wrongful or negligent conduct "was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose," §2679(d)(1), (2). Upon such certification, the United States is substituted as defendant in place of the employee, and the action is thereafter governed by the Federal Tort Claims Act. If the action commenced in state court, the Westfall Act calls for its removal to a federal district court, and renders the Attorney General's certification "conclusiv[e] ... for purposes of removal." §2679(d)(2).

Taken from Immunity Under Westfall Act-Osborn Case

So. Yes. This allows for basically dodging lawsuits when the action being sued for was in the purview of your job as a federal employee. And its a smart tact. I'm still new to the Act, myself, though so I urge more reading up on it. The Osborn case is interesting but is just one example of the Act in action (pun intended).
Since Bush nor Chaney are being sued as far as I know, it does not apply. It is also unlikely they will be prosecuted though the methods are "being looked at closely by the Government going forward" which I am sure means we will do better at covering...err I mean we will not torture detainees ever again.
 
Last edited:
Ntharotep said:
Yeah...politifacts:
"Interpol, the international police organization, does not list any outstanding arrest warrants for Bush or Cheney in their searchable database. Meanwhile, experts in international law said they were not aware of pending warrants, particularly from the most obvious entity that might issue one -- the International Criminal Court in the Hague."
Quoted for relevance.
I wonder if the thread will get back to relevant talk, like the Westfall Act.

Maybe I can help in that regard:
[9] The federal statute commonly known as the Westfall Act accords federal employees absolute immunity from tort claims arising out of acts undertaken in the course of their official duties, 28 U. S. C. §2679(b)(1), and empowers the Attorney General to certify that a federal employee sued for wrongful or negligent conduct "was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose," §2679(d)(1), (2). Upon such certification, the United States is substituted as defendant in place of the employee, and the action is thereafter governed by the Federal Tort Claims Act. If the action commenced in state court, the Westfall Act calls for its removal to a federal district court, and renders the Attorney General's certification "conclusiv[e] ... for purposes of removal." §2679(d)(2).

Taken from Immunity Under Westfall Act-Osborn Case

So. Yes. This allows for basically dodging lawsuits when the action being sued for was in the purview of your job as a federal employee. And its a smart tact. I'm still new to the Act, myself, though so I urge more reading up on it. The Osborn case is interesting but is just one example of the Act in action (pun intended).
Since Bush nor Chaney are being sued as far as I know, it does not apply. It is also unlikely they will be prosecuted though the methods are "being looked at closely by the Government going forward" which I am sure means we will do better at covering...err I mean we will not torture detainees ever again.
Click to expand...

Maybe I can help you.

The fact that there were no war crimes is relevant to what the OP falsely stated.

Bobu said:
yet it is applicable to George W. Bush with his war crimes.
Click to expand...


To make such a claim you first have to establish that there were war crimes.
Simply alleging it isn't sufficient.
 
Excon said:
There were no war crimes.
Again. What do you not understand about that?


Your "another Country" claim is subjective fiction just your Malaysia's claim is, as 1. There were no war crimes; and 2. They have no jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

I know you would not believe it, even if I provided 125 links to the story, but an international tribunal in Kuala Lampur DID convict 6 or 8 members of the Bush Administration back in April 2012 I think, in absentia, of war crimes. The conviction was sent on to the International Court for further action.

The case was prosecuted by Francis Boyle, an American law professor.

But quick, convince yourself I'm lying to you. :lol:
 
Thoreau72 said:
I know you would not believe it, even if I provided 125 links to the story, but an international tribunal in Kuala Lampur DID convict 6 or 8 members of the Bush Administration back in April 2012 I think, in absentia, of war crimes. The conviction was sent on to the International Court for further action.

The case was prosecuted by Francis Boyle, an American law professor.

But quick, convince yourself I'm lying to you. :lol:
Click to expand...
I know what occurred. A kangaroo Court with no real jurisdiction and no legitimacy who listened to false claims.
Doh! iLOL



Legitimacy of the tribunal

The former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Param Cumaraswamy, has suggested the tribunal is a private enterprise with no legal basis and questions its legitimacy.[14] The tribunal does not have a UN mandate or recognition, no power to order arrests or impose sentences, and it is unclear that its verdicts have any but symbolic significance.[15]​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuala_Lumpur_War_Crimes_Commission#Legitimacy_of_the_tribunal​


There were no war crimes.
Get over it.
 
Excon said:
I know what occurred. A kangaroo Court with no real jurisdiction and no legitimacy who listened to false claims.
Doh! iLOL



Legitimacy of the tribunal

The former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Param Cumaraswamy, has suggested the tribunal is a private enterprise with no legal basis and questions its legitimacy.[14] The tribunal does not have a UN mandate or recognition, no power to order arrests or impose sentences, and it is unclear that its verdicts have any but symbolic significance.[15]​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuala_Lumpur_War_Crimes_Commission#Legitimacy_of_the_tribunal​


There were no war crimes.
Get over it.
Click to expand...

The claims were not false.

Bush & Company did very much commit war crimes. Bush & Company did torture people. As his successor put it so well, "we tortured some folks". Only a few of those "folks" showed up to testify. Dubya & Dick took a pass on defending themselves.
 
Excon said:
Maybe I can help you.

The fact that there were no war crimes is relevant to what the OP falsely stated.

​


To make such a claim you first have to establish that there were war crimes.
Simply alleging it isn't sufficient.
Click to expand...

Maybe I can help you:
Rule 156. Definition of War Crimes
(ii) The conduct breaches important values. Acts may amount to war crimes because they breach important values, even without physically endangering persons or objects directly. These include, for example, abusing dead bodies;[8] subjecting persons to humiliating treatment;[9] making persons undertake work that directly helps the military operations of the enemy;[10] violation of the right to fair trial;[11] and recruiting children under 15 years of age into the armed forces.[12]

Did this happen during Bush and Cheney's watch?
I mean. If you want to say we didn't humiliate or breach any of our country's core values with the detainees then I can't really argue with that kind of blindness.
If you want to say they were never convicted then sure. Just like Clinton is not a convicted criminal neither are they.
But to say that nobody was tortured or mistreated is pretty much bury your head in the sand denial.

I am not talking about wrong or right just the letter of the law.
 
Thoreau72 said:
The claims were not false.

Bush & Company did very much commit war crimes. Bush & Company did torture people. As his successor put it so well, "we tortured some folks". Only a few of those "folks" showed up to testify. Dubya & Dick took a pass on defending themselves.
Click to expand...
Wrong. The claims were false. There were no war crimes.



Ntharotep said:
Maybe I can help you:
Rule 156. Definition of War Crimes
(ii) The conduct breaches important values. Acts may amount to war crimes because they breach important values, even without physically endangering persons or objects directly. These include, for example, abusing dead bodies;[8] subjecting persons to humiliating treatment;[9] making persons undertake work that directly helps the military operations of the enemy;[10] violation of the right to fair trial;[11] and recruiting children under 15 years of age into the armed forces.[12]

Did this happen during Bush and Cheney's watch?
I mean. If you want to say we didn't humiliate or breach any of our country's core values with the detainees then I can't really argue with that kind of blindness.
If you want to say they were never convicted then sure. Just like Clinton is not a convicted criminal neither are they.
But to say that nobody was tortured or mistreated is pretty much bury your head in the sand denial.

I am not talking about wrong or right just the letter of the law.
Click to expand...
Doh!
iLOL


The blindness is all yours.
There were no war crimes.
 
Diving Mullah said:
Simply because some have more to hide than others...As the cop says...Why lawyer up when not guilty?

Diving Mullah
Click to expand...

The idea that "lawyering up" is a tacit admission of guilt is preposterous. EVERYBODY, without exception, who is being investigated for a crime NEEDS an attorney, regardless of guilt or innocence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom