Its not a shot at you..but a shot at the nitwits who consider such terms as International newspeak legalese.
Yeah. It's ridiculous. They slap on this stupid term and suddenly they can be imprisoned indefinitely, shown on television, and interrogated endlessly. Sorry, but Bush should be tried for war crimes over it.
Yeah. It's ridiculous. They slap on this stupid term and suddenly they can be imprisoned indefinitely, shown on television, and interrogated endlessly. Sorry, but Bush should be tried for war crimes over it.
Yeah, they should try him on Jerry Springer..or that dame..Judge Judy...Go Jerry Jerry..
ps If this isn't bad enough i just heard Arnie is considering election for governer of California..
Judging by the new medical use for marijuana being proposed in Canada I guess you'd have to say that they both have their "reefs "
Indeed. Too bad I have no desire to smoke either.
Edit: I love how right after 9/11 ashcroft makes this big deal on security and then decides to double the efforts and manpower used for the drug war. ****ing disingenuous piece of shit attorney general with his own agenda that has nothing to do with the public good.
As per Ashcroft..he wouldn't know if is arse was on fire...at minimum it was bad timing. at worse, incredible stupidity...
What is with you people defending with a claim of incompetence? If you punch someone in the face, saying that 'Oh, it was bad timing,' is just complete BS.
Not like you don't blatanly lie as it is, aquafire.
Did he lie? I don't believe so, and there's no evidence at this point to indicate otherwise.
Your statement is false, and simply used to support your personal bias.
"The statement was technically correct, since it accurately reflected the British paper. But the bottom line is the White House knowingly included in a presidential address information its own CIA had explicitly warned might not be true."
I read what you have put, but the problem is, if you continue to read the article, it makes it pretty clear that the CIA (ie: Tenet) never spoke to the president about it, and it's not likely anyone ever warned the president that the information might be unreliable. At the time the British still thought it accurate, the CIA didn't - that doesn't make one a liar.
colin powell didn't use the same information in his un address because of the controversy (over whether it was legit) and it was a week after the state of the union .
...and it's not likely anyone ever warned the president that the information might be unreliable.
And that makes it OK? Bush is responsible for these people. It's his job to know this. If you're really claiming a vast right wing conspiracy to hide information from the president, he is still responsible for his own office.
"It's not likely". Where do you get that? You just made it up.
I read what you have put, but the problem is, if you continue to read the article, it makes it pretty clear that the CIA (ie: Tenet) never spoke to the president about it, and it's not likely anyone ever warned the president that the information might be unreliable. At the time the British still thought it accurate, the CIA didn't - that doesn't make one a liar.
I'm sorry but do you know how dumb that sounds? If any normal institution or business were run like that the tusties or CEO would fire eveyone! So it's all the CIA's fault? Come on!
He may have not done anything punishable by the law. But, if it's proven that he knew this ahead of time ( which is really the more likely possiblity ) he probably won't be winning the next election. This isn't a minor oops that we're talking about here. A war was started, lives were lost, and large amounts of money was spent in a not too favorable economic climate. I think you're letting your bias cloud your judgement on this one.
IMO bush JUNIOR and his admin have had it in for the CIA since 9/11.
The CIA is becoming their fall guy again.
and jimmac is right. Bush JUNIOR wanted to run america "like a business" so start acting like it Mr. "president"... You are the CEO. take the blame. don't say its all the Senior V.P. of Intelligience's fault.
I'm aware that you're not an attorney, or very learned in the law, but you're also flat out wrong.
I'm not an attorney, and what's sad is that you are, and yet you write so much about the law that is so easily demonstrated false by a non-lawyer.
Quote:
Article II Section 4 of the US Constitution says:
"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
There are specific crimes included there. And as we all know, a President would then have to be convicted of those crimes he was impeached on for there to be any legal consequence.
And as we all know, Congress tries him and that trial is subject to no judicial review. They can do whatever they please. And whether indictable offenses are required for impeachment has been debated at every impeachment, and the Constitutional convention contains mixed language on the subject. You should also know, from all of your research on the topic, that the "high crimes and misdemeanors" language was taken from old English law, and did not refer only to indictable offenses.
Quote:
Additionally... Article II, Section 4 is found in the US Constitution, and has nothing to do with the UN Charter. You do not violate the laws of the United States by "violating the UN Charter" which isn't what happened anyway. The UN voted more than 4 times to authorize force against IRAQ in the event of a breach of resolutions.
You can only be held accountable in the United States for Violating the laws of the United States.
1. The UN absolutely did not authorize the use of force in this instance. Force was authorized to remove Iraq from Kuwait in 1990. Force was never authorized to invade Iraq in 2003. What were all those attempts by Bush and Powell to obtain Security Council approval, ultimately thwarted by France, if they already had the approval? Go read UNSC resolution 1441, paragraph 12, because I know you lawyers love to do research.
2. The UN Charter was approved by the Senate. I take it you've never read Article VI of the Constitution. "Supreme law of the land" ring any bells?
Quote:
Citizens of a foreign country arrested as military combatants have no constitutional rights. Bush has violated no ones rights by holding prisoners of war without a trial or priviledge of representation.
Then you're not aware that some of those held without rights have been US citizens. Do some research on Padilla and Hamdi. This is just too easy - you're falling into every trap.
Quote:
Perhaps if you studied a little more instead of repeating mindless rhetoric, you'd realize that everything Bush has done has been "in defense of the constitution and to protect the United States!!!!!!!!!!"
What's amusing about this is that you see my post in those terms. Of course I'm not in favor of impeaching Bush. That's ridiculous and stupid, and politically impossible. I'm merely responding to your superficial and inaccurate technical defense against impeachment. I repeat: Congress is the sole arbiter of impeachment, subject to no judicial review. It's a political process, and if they have the political support (and even if they don't), they can impeach him, period. Of course, you won't acknowledge that obvious truth, because you'd rather spin your wheels on legalistic defenses when none are relevant or necessary.
Of course I'm not in favor of impeaching Bush. That's ridiculous and stupid, and politically impossible.
I am not sure I understand why if Bush has given false reasons to invade another country to secure oil deals and further geopolitical goals that such deception would not warrant impeachment.
With american citizens that think as you do above BRussell I can clearly see why other countries in the world should fear the actions of the US.
I'll express my opinion when I vote against him in 16 months. But what's funny is that, for all your posturing now, Fellowship, I'd give 100-to-1 odds that if you vote, you will vote for him.
Comments
Originally posted by BR
Whoops. Unlawful combatant. My mistake. It's late. Sue me.
Dats Ok BR,
Its not a shot at you..but a shot at the nitwits who consider such terms as International newspeak legalese.
Originally posted by aquafire
Dats Ok BR,
Its not a shot at you..but a shot at the nitwits who consider such terms as International newspeak legalese.
Yeah. It's ridiculous. They slap on this stupid term and suddenly they can be imprisoned indefinitely, shown on television, and interrogated endlessly. Sorry, but Bush should be tried for war crimes over it.
Originally posted by BR
Yeah. It's ridiculous. They slap on this stupid term and suddenly they can be imprisoned indefinitely, shown on television, and interrogated endlessly. Sorry, but Bush should be tried for war crimes over it.
Yeah, they should try him on Jerry Springer..or that dame..Judge Judy...Go Jerry Jerry..
ps If this isn't bad enough i just heard Arnie is considering election for governer of California..
Quick BR..Seek asylum B4 its too late...
Originally posted by aquafire
Yeah, they should try him on Jerry Springer..or that dame..Judge Judy...Go Jerry Jerry..
Ps If this isn't bad enough I just heard Arnie ( i'' ll be back ! ) is considering election for governer of California..
And i thought that president Ray-Gun was the bottom of the barrel...Man how deep does this sh****t go ?
Quick BR..Seek asylum B4 its too late...
Originally posted by aquafire
Ooops accidental double post..quick get the axe...
Originally posted by aquafire
Yeah, they should try him on Jerry Springer..or that dame..Judge Judy...Go Jerry Jerry..
ps If this isn't bad enough i just heard Arnie is considering election for governer of California..
Quick BR..Seek asylum B4 its too late...
If I didn't love socal so much I'd be moving to the bahamas or canada.
Originally posted by BR
If I didn't love socal so much I'd be moving to the bahamas or canada.
Judging by the new medical use for marijuana being proposed in Canada I guess you'd have to say that they both have their "reefs "
Originally posted by aquafire
Judging by the new medical use for marijuana being proposed in Canada I guess you'd have to say that they both have their "reefs "
Indeed. Too bad I have no desire to smoke either.
Edit: I love how right after 9/11 ashcroft makes this big deal on security and then decides to double the efforts and manpower used for the drug war. ****ing disingenuous piece of shit attorney general with his own agenda that has nothing to do with the public good.
Originally posted by BR
Indeed. Too bad I have no desire to smoke either.
Likewise..Glad to hear it..
As per Ashcroft..he wouldn't know if is arse was on fire...at minimum it was bad timing. at worse, incredible stupidity...
Just goes to show how the government really has its finger on the pulse of the nation...
Originally posted by aquafire
As per Ashcroft..he wouldn't know if is arse was on fire...at minimum it was bad timing. at worse, incredible stupidity...
What is with you people defending with a claim of incompetence? If you punch someone in the face, saying that 'Oh, it was bad timing,' is just complete BS.
Not like you don't blatanly lie as it is, aquafire.
Originally posted by OBJRA10
Did he lie? I don't believe so, and there's no evidence at this point to indicate otherwise.
Your statement is false, and simply used to support your personal bias.
"The statement was technically correct, since it accurately reflected the British paper. But the bottom line is the White House knowingly included in a presidential address information its own CIA had explicitly warned might not be true."
I read what you have put, but the problem is, if you continue to read the article, it makes it pretty clear that the CIA (ie: Tenet) never spoke to the president about it, and it's not likely anyone ever warned the president that the information might be unreliable. At the time the British still thought it accurate, the CIA didn't - that doesn't make one a liar.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html
Who is in charge of this assylum?
Where's the Honor?
Where's the Integrity?
Where's my Ham on Rye?
Originally posted by OBJRA10
...and it's not likely anyone ever warned the president that the information might be unreliable.
And that makes it OK? Bush is responsible for these people. It's his job to know this. If you're really claiming a vast right wing conspiracy to hide information from the president, he is still responsible for his own office.
"It's not likely". Where do you get that? You just made it up.
Originally posted by OBJRA10
Bunge,
I read what you have put, but the problem is, if you continue to read the article, it makes it pretty clear that the CIA (ie: Tenet) never spoke to the president about it, and it's not likely anyone ever warned the president that the information might be unreliable. At the time the British still thought it accurate, the CIA didn't - that doesn't make one a liar.
I'm sorry but do you know how dumb that sounds? If any normal institution or business were run like that the tusties or CEO would fire eveyone! So it's all the CIA's fault? Come on!
He may have not done anything punishable by the law. But, if it's proven that he knew this ahead of time ( which is really the more likely possiblity ) he probably won't be winning the next election. This isn't a minor oops that we're talking about here. A war was started, lives were lost, and large amounts of money was spent in a not too favorable economic climate. I think you're letting your bias cloud your judgement on this one.
The CIA is becoming their fall guy again.
and jimmac is right. Bush JUNIOR wanted to run america "like a business" so start acting like it Mr. "president"... You are the CEO. take the blame. don't say its all the Senior V.P. of Intelligience's fault.
Originally posted by OBJRA10
I'm aware that you're not an attorney, or very learned in the law, but you're also flat out wrong.
I'm not an attorney, and what's sad is that you are, and yet you write so much about the law that is so easily demonstrated false by a non-lawyer.
Article II Section 4 of the US Constitution says:
"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
There are specific crimes included there. And as we all know, a President would then have to be convicted of those crimes he was impeached on for there to be any legal consequence.
And as we all know, Congress tries him and that trial is subject to no judicial review. They can do whatever they please. And whether indictable offenses are required for impeachment has been debated at every impeachment, and the Constitutional convention contains mixed language on the subject. You should also know, from all of your research on the topic, that the "high crimes and misdemeanors" language was taken from old English law, and did not refer only to indictable offenses.
Additionally... Article II, Section 4 is found in the US Constitution, and has nothing to do with the UN Charter. You do not violate the laws of the United States by "violating the UN Charter" which isn't what happened anyway. The UN voted more than 4 times to authorize force against IRAQ in the event of a breach of resolutions.
You can only be held accountable in the United States for Violating the laws of the United States.
1. The UN absolutely did not authorize the use of force in this instance. Force was authorized to remove Iraq from Kuwait in 1990. Force was never authorized to invade Iraq in 2003. What were all those attempts by Bush and Powell to obtain Security Council approval, ultimately thwarted by France, if they already had the approval? Go read UNSC resolution 1441, paragraph 12, because I know you lawyers love to do research.
2. The UN Charter was approved by the Senate. I take it you've never read Article VI of the Constitution. "Supreme law of the land" ring any bells?
Citizens of a foreign country arrested as military combatants have no constitutional rights. Bush has violated no ones rights by holding prisoners of war without a trial or priviledge of representation.
Then you're not aware that some of those held without rights have been US citizens. Do some research on Padilla and Hamdi. This is just too easy - you're falling into every trap.
Perhaps if you studied a little more instead of repeating mindless rhetoric, you'd realize that everything Bush has done has been "in defense of the constitution and to protect the United States!!!!!!!!!!"
What's amusing about this is that you see my post in those terms. Of course I'm not in favor of impeaching Bush. That's ridiculous and stupid, and politically impossible. I'm merely responding to your superficial and inaccurate technical defense against impeachment. I repeat: Congress is the sole arbiter of impeachment, subject to no judicial review. It's a political process, and if they have the political support (and even if they don't), they can impeach him, period. Of course, you won't acknowledge that obvious truth, because you'd rather spin your wheels on legalistic defenses when none are relevant or necessary.
Originally posted by BRussell
Of course I'm not in favor of impeaching Bush. That's ridiculous and stupid, and politically impossible.
I am not sure I understand why if Bush has given false reasons to invade another country to secure oil deals and further geopolitical goals that such deception would not warrant impeachment.
With american citizens that think as you do above BRussell I can clearly see why other countries in the world should fear the actions of the US.
Fellowship