Arrest this man...

123468

Comments

  • screenerscreener Posts: 1,568member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Translation: We disagree with their opinion, so they should be disciplined. It's a legal OPINION. What is the implication here...that Bush said "make this legal" and they complied? Good luck proving that.



    Another eg. of your opinion carrying no weight on this issue.

    You completely ignore evidence that goes against your defense of the indefensible.

    You think that redefining torture happened in a vacuum?

    Like everything pertaining to the "War on Terror", they chose what they wanted to believe to justify their goals.

    Framing it as Bush said make it so is in the same ballpark as saying, find me a way to make it so.

    Even though an opinion isn't law.

    Enter Mr Yoo,

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...+Report&st=nyt

    Quote:

    Mr. Yoo, who asserted that a president during wartime has extraordinarily broad powers, was a highly influential figure in the Justice Department in the first year after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. His views found favor with Vice President Dick Cheney and his legal adviser, David S. Addington, who shared his views of presidential power.



    So they found a legal scholar to justify the redefining of torture etc.

    The question is, why would they think they needed to do this?

    Quote:

    Mr. Whitehouse, a former United States attorney, said in an interview that he believed the August 2002 memo on torture, as well as classified opinions he had reviewed, fell far short of the Justice Department's standards for scholarship. He said that in approving waterboarding, the opinions ignored both American military prosecutors' cases against Japanese officers for waterboarding American prisoners during World War II and a federal appeals court's decision that upheld the 1983 conviction of a Texas sheriff for using ''water torture'' on jail inmates.



    I see, in case they need cover.

    Are the actions a lawyer said a legal a defense?

    Apparently not.



    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/ma...=y&oref=slogin

    Quote:

    The Hamdan decision demolished the argument that the president’s war powers were limitless and beyond review. It also meant that C.I.A. and other administration officials faced possible criminal liability for past and future acts of abuse. So the administration scrambled to both justify the torture and change the law.



    Quote:

    The result was a “showdown” in Congress, wherein the president requested the power to redefine the legal standard for torture and the power to determine whether and how the Geneva Conventions apply.



    I want you'all to make it legal, to paraphrase.

    Quote:

    Congress passed legislation decreasing Congressional and judicial oversight of detainees. When Bush admitted, in short, that the second narrative — America tortures people in secret — was true, Congress effectively made it legal.



    So yeah, Bush did ask lawmakers to make it legal.

    Is it illegal for him to get the law changed? No.

    After the fact, well, maybe, if the administration believed they weren't breaking any law, even though that isn't an excuse right?

    Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse for the masses right?



    The administration knew they were breaking International Law by redefining torture before they tried to get it changed.

    This is indisputable.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,215member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by screener View Post


    Another eg. of your opinion carrying no weight on this issue.

    You completely ignore evidence that goes against your defense of the indefensible.

    You think that redefining torture happened in a vacuum?

    Like everything pertaining to the "War on Terror", they chose what they wanted to believe to justify their goals.

    Framing it as Bush said make it so is in the same ballpark as saying, find me a way to make it so.

    Even though an opinion isn't law.

    Enter Mr Yoo,

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...+Report&st=nyt



    So they found a legal scholar to justify the redefining of torture etc.

    The question is, why would they think they needed to do this?



    I see, in case they need cover.

    Are the actions a lawyer said a legal a defense?

    Apparently not.



    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/ma...=y&oref=slogin





    I want you'all to make it legal, to paraphrase.



    So yeah, Bush did ask lawmakers to make it legal.

    Is it illegal for him to get the law changed? No.

    After the fact, well, maybe, if the administration believed they weren't breaking any law, even though that isn't an excuse right?

    Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse for the masses right?



    The administration knew they were breaking International Law by redefining torture before they tried to get it changed.

    This is indisputable.



    Oohh! International Law! That's another term I love.



    Screener, all you've done is present your own spin. Let me offer an alternative view:



    The administration knew that water-boarding was a valuable way to get information in extreme cases. They knew it was controversial and wanted a legal opinion stating it was acceptable given that the individuals being subjected to it were not POWs. The got such an opinion.



    Now that opinion is being called into question. There are many who disagree with it. Therefore, it's time to prosecute! We can't have lawyers writing opinions that others disagree with, after all.
  • screenerscreener Posts: 1,568member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Oohh! International Law! That's another term I love.



    Screener, all you've done is present your own spin. Let me offer an alternative view:



    The administration knew that water-boarding was a valuable way to get information in extreme cases. They knew it was controversial and wanted a legal opinion stating it was acceptable given that the individuals being subjected to it were not POWs. The got such an opinion.



    Now that opinion is being called into question. There are many who disagree with it. Therefore, it's time to prosecute! We can't have lawyers writing opinions that others disagree with, after all.



    Yeah, the Geneva Convention sucks.

    Waging a "War" on Terror without POW's makes the Geneva Convention so passe.

    So your spin is water-boarding was, is, only controversial.

    And you answered your own question, " What is the implication here...that Bush said "make this legal" and they complied? Good luck proving that."

    by admitting they "wanted a legal opinion stating it was acceptable"

    I ask again, why need a legal opinion if it's only controversial?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

    Quote:

    Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, several memoranda,[108][109] including the Bybee memo, were written analyzing the legal position and possibilities in the treatment of prisoners. The memos, known today as the "torture memos,"[110] advocate enhanced interrogation techniques, while pointing out that refuting the Geneva Conventions would reduce the possibility of prosecution for war crimes.



    Translation.

    Why worry about War Crimes charges when you can blame it on bad legal advice.

    Quote:

    Commenting on the so-called "torture memoranda" Scott Horton pointed out



    "the possibility that the authors of these memoranda counseled the use of lethal and unlawful techniques, and therefore face criminal culpability themselves. That, after all, is the teaching of United States v. Altstötter, the Nuremberg case brought against German Justice Department lawyers whose memoranda crafted the basis for implementation of the infamous ?Night and Fog Decree.?



    I wonder if said authors knew this at the time.

    Quote:

    On February 22, 2008 Senator Sheldon Whitehouse made public that "the Justice Department has announced it has launched an investigation of the role of top DOJ officials and staff attorneys in authorizing and/or overseeing the use of waterboarding by U.S. intelligence agencies."



    Quote:

    Both houses of the United States Congress approved a bill by February 2008 that would ban waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods. But President George W. Bush vetoed the bill on March 8, 2008. It appears unlikely that bill supporters will be able to gather enough votes to overturn the veto.



    And some believe Bush will be looked on kindly in the future.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,215member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by screener View Post


    Yeah, the Geneva Convention sucks.

    Waging a "War" on Terror without POW's makes the Geneva Convention so passe.



    For the last time, the Geneva Conventions don't apply because these are not prisoners of war as defined under them. That is, unless you think that we should grant the full rights POWs have to people that cut off heads and use women and children as human shields.



    Quote:

    So your spin is water-boarding was, is, only controversial.

    And you answered your own question, " What is the implication here...that Bush said "make this legal" and they complied? Good luck proving that."

    by admitting they "wanted a legal opinion stating it was acceptable"

    I ask again, why need a legal opinion if it's only controversial?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding



    Translation.

    Why worry about War Crimes charges when you can blame it on bad legal advice.



    I wonder if said authors knew this at the time.





    And some believe Bush will be looked on kindly in the future.



    War crimes charges? Jesus...we have another one here, folks. I say again: Anyone that honestly believes George Bush should be prosecuted for war crimes is not to be taken seriously.
  • @_@ artman@_@ artman Posts: 5,231member
    For anyone interested......here's Congressman Dennis Kucinich's 35 articles of impeachment against President George W. Bush.



    In PDF format.



    Kucinich Offers Impeachment Articles Against Bush



    Quote:

    Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) introduced 35 articles of impeachment against President Bush on Monday night, reading the resolution into the Congressional Record.



    Kucinich, who unsuccessfully sought the Democratic presidential nomination this year, unveiled a litany of alleged illegal and improper acts by Bush, including war crimes.



    Kucinich has introduced a similar impeachment resolution against Vice President Cheney. That resolution was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, which has taken no action on the measure. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other top House Democratic leaders have stated that there will be no consideration of impeachment proceedings against Bush, calling the idea "off the table."



    Kucinich and other liberal Democrats, including Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.), have sought the removal of the current administration, arguing that Bush and Cheney have lied to Congress and the American public about the reasons for invading Iraq in 2003 and abused their offices in order to conduct the "War on Terror" following the 9/11 attacks.



    No, I don't think this will be successful (Kucinich has tried before), but I commend him for being persistent. This also was the only MSM source I could find on the subject.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,215member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post


    For anyone interested......here's Congressman Dennis Kucinich's 35 articles of impeachment against President George W. Bush.



    In PDF format.



    Kucinich Offers Impeachment Articles Against Bush







    No, I don't think this will be successful (Kucinich has tried before), but I commend him for being persistent. This also was the only MSM source I could find on the subject.



    You're trolling, but I'll play along. I read them again, as I have before. Where to begin? First, Kucinich is a loon. Let's start there. He's also a loon that doesn't understand grounds for impeachment. Many of his "articles" are simply his own subjective interpretation of events. They are literally laughable, as are the details provided for each one. I could give examples if you'd like.
  • @_@ artman@_@ artman Posts: 5,231member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    You're trolling.







    Laugh at this.
  • screenerscreener Posts: 1,568member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    For the last time, the Geneva Conventions don't apply because these are not prisoners of war as defined under them. That is, unless you think that we should grant the full rights POWs have to people that cut off heads and use women and children as human shields.



    Full rights aside, how should "detainees" with no rights be treated?

    The GC was redefined by Bush and company because,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Crimes_Act_of_1996

    Quote:

    The War Crimes Act of 1996 was passed with overwhelming majorities by the United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

    The law defines a war crime to include a "grave breach of the Geneva Conventions", specifically noting that "grave breach" should have the meaning defined in any convention (related to the laws of war) to which the U.S. is a party.



    The military recommended making breaches by U.S. soldiers war crimes as well "because doing so set a high standard for others to follow."



    Until the Abu Ghraib abuse of prisoners came to light, the parsing of the GC didn't seem to matter.

    What I don't know won't bother me.

    Until they saw what the US was doing in the name of protecting the homeland.



    From a Bush memo, to try and deflect the scandal,

    http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB...7/02.02.07.pdf

    Paragraph 3,

    Quote:

    of course, our values as a nation, values that we share with many nations in the world, call for us to treat detainees humanely, including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment.



    Unless you believe that detainees were always treated humanely and the Whitehouse had no idea they weren't, or all those the memo was sent to did know of inhumane treatment and were told to shape up.



    Then again,

    http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/LawPoli...4635175&page=1,

    Quote:

    President Bush says he knew his top national security advisers discussed and approved specific details about how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, according to an exclusive interview with ABC News Friday.



    At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Dick Cheney, former National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.



    But before Wednesday's report, the extraordinary level of involvement by the most senior advisers in repeatedly approving specific interrogation plans -- down to the number of times the CIA could use a certain tactic on a specific al Qaeda prisoner -- had never been disclosed.



    Ashcroft was troubled by the discussions. He agreed with the general policy decision to allow aggressive tactics and had repeatedly advised that they were legal. But he argued that senior White House advisers should not be involved in the grim details of interrogations, sources said.



    According to a top official, Ashcroft asked aloud after one meeting: "Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly."



    But the CIA had captured a new al Qaeda suspect in Asia. Sources said CIA officials that summer returned to the Principals Committee for approval to continue using certain "enhanced interrogation techniques."



    Rice, sources said, was decisive. Despite growing policy concerns -- shared by Powell -- that the program was harming the image of the United States abroad, sources say she did not back down, telling the CIA: "This is your baby. Go do it."



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    War crimes charges? Jesus...we have another one here, folks. I say again: Anyone that honestly believes George Bush should be prosecuted for war crimes is not to be taken seriously.



    He took steps to protect himself.

    What does that tell you?
  • @_@ artman@_@ artman Posts: 5,231member
    Don't forget how this whole POW or Detainee or "Teh Terrorist" thing keeps fucking things up either...



    German sues for CIA extradition



    Quote:

    Mr Masri says his case is an example of the US policy of "extraordinary rendition" - a practice whereby the US government flies foreign terror suspects to third countries without judicial process for interrogation or detention.



    He says he was kidnapped in the Macedonian capital, Skopje, in 2003, flown to a secret prison in Afghanistan, nicknamed the "salt pit" and tortured there.



    On his flight to Afghanistan, he says, he was stripped, beaten, shackled, made to wear nappies and drugged.



    Mr Masri says he was finally released in Albania five months later after the CIA realised they had got the wrong man.



    He wasn't just "released" though. He was dumped in the middle of a deep forest - blindfolded and alone - between Albania, Macedonia and Serbia. He was in Albania, but he wasn't given any papers.



    It wasn't enough for America to admit that they were wrong and return him to his family. Instead they hoped he would die in a remote forest, and they would be off the hook.



    Out of everything that the US has done in it's so-called War or Terror™, his "release" is one of the most utterly immoral and disgusting things that I have read. And I have no doubt that he is one of the lucky innocents.



    As Alan Moore said...



    Quote:

    If you are on a list targeted by the CIA, you really have nothing to worry about. If however, you have a name similar to somebody on a list targeted by the CIA, then you are dead.



  • @_@ artman@_@ artman Posts: 5,231member
    #1: Creating a secret propaganda campaign to manufacture a false case for war against Iraq



    #2 Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression



    #3 Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War



    #4 Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States



    #5 Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression



    #6 Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114



    #7: Invading Iraq without a declaration of war.



    #8: Invading Iraq in violation of the U.N. charter and international law.



    #9: Failing to provide troops with body armor and vehicle armor.



    #10: Falsifying accounts of US troops deaths and injuries for political purposes



    #11: Establishment of permanent military bases in Iraq



    #12: Initiating a war against Iraq for control of that nation’s natural resources.



    #13: Secret task force for directing national energy policy



    #14: Misprision of a felony, misuse and exposure of classified information and cover up (Plame outing)



    #15: Providing immunity from prosecution for criminal conduct for contractors in Iraq



    #16: Reckless misspending and wasted US tax dollar with Iraq contractors



    #17: Illegal detention – detaining indefinitely, and without charge, American citizens and foreign captives (suspension of habeus)



    #18: Torture – secretly authorizing and encouraging use of torture, as matter of official policy



    #19 Rendition



    #20 Imprisoning Children Bush is guilty of impeachable offence arcticle 20, imprisoning children. Has personal and acting through agents has held at least 2,500 children in violation of Geneva convention and the rights of children in armed conflict signed by the US in 2002.



    #21 Misleading Congress about threats from Iran



    #22. HAS ESTABLISHED A BODY OF SECRET LAWS THROUGH THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL. THE YOO MEMORANDUM WAS DECLASSIFIED YEARS AFTER IT SERVED AS LAW UNDER THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.



    #23 Violated Posse Comitatus Act ESTABLISHED PROGRAMS FOR THE USE OF THE MILITARY IN LAW ENFORCEMENT. MUST BE AUTHORIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CONGRESS SO THAT THE MILTARY CANNOT BECOME A NATIONAL POLICE FORCE.



    #24 Spying on citizens violating 4th Amendment



    #25 Directing telecoms to collect databases on US citizens.



    #26 Announcing intent to violate laws w/signing statements, and then violating those laws.



    #27 Failing to comply with congressional subpoenas, and instructing others to do so.



    #28 tampering with free and fair election. Corruption with the administration of justice, False allegations of voter fraud in selected districts, immediately preceding elections. Undermining process.



    #29: Conspiracy to violate voting rights act of 1965, Ohio Sec of State 2004-06



    #30: Misleading congress and american people in an attemtp to destroy medicare.



    #31 Katrina and the failures of gross negligence of the administration.



    #32: Misleading congress and the American people. Systematically undermining global climate change. Article 2, Section 3: Personally and through subordinates including the VP, for not protecting property of people vis a vis global climate change thru deception. Failure to ratify Kyoto. Editing reports - 294 edits by a lobbyist to add data which called into question the facts by muddying them. Or diminishing scientific findings.



    #33: Repeatedly ignored and failed to respond to high level intelligence warnings of planned terrorist attacks in U.S. prior to 9/11. Clark warned the president in daily briefings of the threat. Clark was unable to conviene a cabinet level position. Tenet met with the president 40 times to warn of threat. Still no meetings of top officials.



    #34: Obstruction into the investigation of 9/11



    #35: endangering the health of 9/11 first responders
  • flat stanleyflat stanley Posts: 236member
    Questioning a sitting President in a time of war while there are troops in harms way? Hannity is going to yell at you
  • @_@ artman@_@ artman Posts: 5,231member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Flat Stanley View Post


    Questioning a sitting President in a time of war while there are troops in harms way? Hannity is going to yell at you



    Seems that at the very moment Kucinich was on the floor of the House of Representatives introducing 35 articles of impeachment against President George W. Bush, his website was DOS attacked. It's still down.
  • lunocratlunocrat Posts: 95member
    Iraq was not an imminent threat to the United States. What WAS the reason for attacking Iraq? Overthrow the government? Down Fascist! Down boy! Sorry SD, this is serious shit. If you want a case against Bush read this book. Maybe you'll agree, maybe you won't.



  • tontontonton Posts: 14,064member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    For the last time, the Geneva Conventions don't apply because these are not prisoners of war as defined under them. That is, unless you think that we should grant the full rights POWs have to people that cut off heads and use women and children as human shields.



    War crimes charges? Jesus...we have another one here, folks. I say again: Anyone that honestly believes George Bush should be prosecuted for war crimes is not to be taken seriously.



    http://www.pubrecord.org/index.php?v...ntent&Itemid=9



    One of the reasons the Geneva Conventions and other agreements about torture and treatment of detainees have been set up is because each time you detain someone, there is a risk that they are innocent. This risk exists whether those detainees are citizens, foreign troops, or "enemy combatants". Anyone who suggests that it is okay to deny anyone proper protections against cruel and inhuman treatment simply because they can interpret the law to say that they can deny those protections is missing the entire concept of human rights. This is not the spirit that America was built upon. People acting upon such beliefs should be tried for treason, as their actions directly threaten the integrity of the United States of America.
  • addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,667member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    http://www.pubrecord.org/index.php?v...ntent&Itemid=9



    One of the reasons the Geneva Conventions and other agreements about torture and treatment of detainees have been set up is because each time you detain someone, there is a risk that they are innocent. This risk exists whether those detainees are citizens, foreign troops, or "enemy combatants". Anyone who suggests that it is okay to deny anyone proper protections against cruel and inhuman treatment simply because they can interpret the law to say that they can deny those protections is missing the entire concept of human rights. This is not the spirit that America was built upon. People acting upon such beliefs should be tried for treason, as their actions directly threaten the integrity of the United States of America.



    Very well said.



    Hey, remember "Red Dawn", a beloved classic of right wing agit-prop? It should be remade to reflect the new conservative paradigm: Patrick Swayze gets caught, labeled an enemy combatant and a terrorist, and disappeared into a Soviet prison camp where he is held forever in secret without charges or trial while being routinely tortured. He's a high value target, after all, and he and his band of terrorists killed a lot of brave Soviet fighting men and blew a lot of shit up.



    Oh, and in the new version we're rooting for the Russians.
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,064member
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ7lSPA9g8s



    Not as effective, as I would hope, but the shaking hands are an indicative image...
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,064member
    This is the kind of person Bush, McCain and SDW think it's okay to waterboard, deny a trial or any recourse, then refuse to pay compensation for false detention to:



    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n3976928.shtml



    This is exactly why the supreme court's decision is the only correct one.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,215member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lunocrat View Post


    Iraq was not an imminent threat to the United States. What WAS the reason for attacking Iraq? Overthrow the government? Down Fascist! Down boy! Sorry SD, this is serious shit. If you want a case against Bush read this book. Maybe you'll agree, maybe you won't.







    Bugliosi is an idiot. Have a nice day.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,215member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post


    #1: Creating a secret propaganda campaign to manufacture a false case for war against Iraq



    No evidence exists of Bush knowingly presenting false information.



    Quote:



    #2 Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression



    I love the terms: Systematically, Criminal Intent (what criminal intent?), War of Aggression, etc. Well done. See answer to #1. Also, the administration did not link 9/11 and Iraq directly.



    Quote:



    #3 Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War



    An utter crock of shit. Just about the entire world thought he had WMD. They thought so before was even in office.



    Quote:



    #4 Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States



    It one believed Saddam had terrorist ties and WMD, it was.



    Quote:



    #5 Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression



    Really. How?



    Quote:



    #6 Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114



    Actually, Bush complied with the resolution to the letter.



    Quote:



    #7: Invading Iraq without a declaration of war.



    Then we have to impeach every President that has taken any "offensive" military action. Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, LBJ, Kennedy and Ike.



    Quote:



    #8: Invading Iraq in violation of the U.N. charter and international law.



    Even if true, that's not a crime. The President can only be impeached for CRIMES.



    Quote:



    #9: Failing to provide troops with body armor and vehicle armor.



    Not a crime.

    Quote:



    #10: Falsifying accounts of US troops deaths and injuries for political purposes



    Unsupported, and not a crime.



    Quote:



    #11: Establishment of permanent military bases in Iraq



    If true, not a crime. Also impossible to prove.



    Quote:



    #12: Initiating a war against Iraq for control of that nation?s natural resources.



    And gas is $4.00 a gallon now? Guess how much it was when we invaded? Also, not a crime.



    Quote:



    #13: Secret task force for directing national energy policy



    OMG! Secrets! NOT A CRIME, Dennis.

    Quote:



    #14: Misprision of a felony, misuse and exposure of classified information and cover up (Plame outing)



    Unproven. Completely unproven.



    Quote:



    #15: Providing immunity from prosecution for criminal conduct for contractors in Iraq



    Not a crime.



    Quote:



    #16: Reckless misspending and wasted US tax dollar with Iraq contractors



    R..R...R.. Reckless misspending? This is from a member of CONGRESS?



    Quote:



    #17: Illegal detention ? detaining indefinitely, and without charge, American citizens and foreign captives (suspension of habeus)



    Not a crime, but I agree American citizens should not be held like that.



    Quote:



    #18: Torture ? secretly authorizing and encouraging use of torture, as matter of official policy



    Not true.



    Quote:



    #19 Rendition



    Crime?



    Quote:



    #20 Imprisoning Children Bush is guilty of impeachable offence arcticle 20, imprisoning children. Has personal and acting through agents has held at least 2,500 children in violation of Geneva convention and the rights of children in armed conflict signed by the US in 2002.



    This is absurd. Imprisoning children?



    [quote]



    #21 Misleading Congress about threats from Iran[/quoite]



    I'd LOVE to hear this one.



    Quote:



    #22. HAS ESTABLISHED A BODY OF SECRET LAWS THROUGH THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL. THE YOO MEMORANDUM WAS DECLASSIFIED YEARS AFTER IT SERVED AS LAW UNDER THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.



    I'd like to know what "secret law" is exactly.



    Quote:



    #23 Violated Posse Comitatus Act ESTABLISHED PROGRAMS FOR THE USE OF THE MILITARY IN LAW ENFORCEMENT. MUST BE AUTHORIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CONGRESS SO THAT THE MILTARY CANNOT BECOME A NATIONAL POLICE FORCE.



    Actually, he should have done this after Katrina. He didn't.



    Quote:



    #24 Spying on citizens violating 4th Amendment



    Not a crime, whether or not it stands up to judicial review.



    Quote:



    #25 Directing telecoms to collect databases on US citizens.



    See above.



    Quote:



    #26 Announcing intent to violate laws w/signing statements, and then violating those laws.



    Not something I support, but not a crime.



    Quote:



    #27 Failing to comply with congressional subpoenas, and instructing others to do so.



    You mean...gasp..invoking executive privilege? The horror!



    Quote:



    #28 tampering with free and fair election. Corruption with the administration of justice, False allegations of voter fraud in selected districts, immediately preceding elections. Undermining process.



    ---See Gore, Al.



    Quote:



    #29: Conspiracy to violate voting rights act of 1965, Ohio Sec of State 2004-06



    Oh boy..now we're really getting looney.



    Quote:



    #30: Misleading congress and american people in an attemtp to destroy medicare.



    ...by expanding it.



    Quote:



    #31 Katrina and the failures of gross negligence of the administration.



    Not crimes.



    Quote:



    #32: Misleading congress and the American people. Systematically undermining global climate change. Article 2, Section 3: Personally and through subordinates including the VP, for not protecting property of people vis a vis global climate change thru deception. Failure to ratify Kyoto. Editing reports - 294 edits by a lobbyist to add data which called into question the facts by muddying them. Or diminishing scientific findings.



    OMFG! I can't get enough! We disagree with Bush, so let's impeach him! First, Bush doesn't ratify treaties, the Senate does. Kyoto stood no chance of being ratified. Secondly, where is the crime?



    Quote:



    #33: Repeatedly ignored and failed to respond to high level intelligence warnings of planned terrorist attacks in U.S. prior to 9/11. Clark warned the president in daily briefings of the threat. Clark was unable to conviene a cabinet level position. Tenet met with the president 40 times to warn of threat. Still no meetings of top officials.



    It just keeps getting better. Bush is now responsible for 9/11. See, he did nothing about it despite warnings from superhero Clark.







    Quote:



    #34: Obstruction into the investigation of 9/11



    Proof?



    Quote:



    #35: endangering the health of 9/11 first responders



    Bush did this? Let me guess...by "leaving their funding behind?"
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,215member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    Very well said.



    Hey, remember "Red Dawn", a beloved classic of right wing agit-prop? It should be remade to reflect the new conservative paradigm: Patrick Swayze gets caught, labeled an enemy combatant and a terrorist, and disappeared into a Soviet prison camp where he is held forever in secret without charges or trial while being routinely tortured. He's a high value target, after all, and he and his band of terrorists killed a lot of brave Soviet fighting men and blew a lot of shit up.



    Oh, and in the new version we're rooting for the Russians.



    Let me get this straight: You guys favor granting POW status to terrorists captured on the field of battle? You think it's a good idea to give these detainees the same rights during prosecution as you and I would enjoy? They should be innocent until proven guilty?



    Please tell me you don't
Sign In or Register to comment.