Praedor Atrebates @ 139

…
Wow. Where to begin? Let’s see, lying to Congress and the American people to get us into a war with Iraq, a country that has NEVER attacked the USA, not even by proxy, and was not even threatening the US. …

Next, spying on Americans without warrants. NEVER OK under any circumstances. The 4th Amendment is quite clear on this. …

Torture and abuse of prisoners. …
Federal law states that abuse and torture is forbidden. Period. The Geneva Conventions ban them. The Conventions against Torture, Abuse, and Inhumane Treatment also bars torture, abuse, and inhumane treatment (duh). We are signatories to BOTH treaties. …

Disappearing people, … without any recourse to courts or communication with family, home country, etc. Illegal. Habeas corpus predates the United States and is THE basic foundation upon which ALL the rest, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, rests. …

Disobeying clear federal laws as passed by Congress. Only Congress can make and pass laws. The President must obey the laws. …
The Rule of Law applies to Presidents, …

There are so many broken laws under Bush that it is a better question to ask what laws has Bush actually OBEYED? Because it is unclear that he has ever obeyed a single law ever passed. If he has, it must have been by pure accident.

It seems that you are basing your argument on Principal VI. As I recall, the intelligence agencies had identified WMD’s and provided a report to the Pres and Congress. I know some in congress have backed the notion that they were lied to, but they had access to the same intelligence reports.

The Niger “yellowcake” “16 words” “outing of Valerie Plame” story makes it clear that it wasn’t ‘bad’ intelligence, it was an intentional man-made conspiracy to lie to Americans.

…
Also, we know that Sadam used a WMD against the Kurds, that in itself is reason to go to war. It shows intent to use WMD’s.

It wasn’t a reason to go to war since he had shown no propensity to threaten us and there was no imminent threat.

…
With your torture argument, the Nazi’s and Japanese that were put to death did a lot more than what you listed. … I don’t like the idea of torture, but if it is a choice between an American city and a suspected terrorist, I’ll take that chance (regardless if the extracted information is good or not). At this point, Bush is working within the bounds of International Law.

We are signators to the Geneva Conventions, so what International Law would obviate that?

Wiretaping is definitely a slippery-slope and will be changellenging the Constitution. …
Eitherway, from a legal standpoing, until the laws are changed, Bush is working within his power.

I suppose you mean ‘the President’s power’. But, what authority does he have to break the law? I see no slippery slope, just Bush ignoring the law.

…
Keep in mind also, the Geneva Convention and similar laws, only seem to apply to so-called civilized nations.

Did we sign it? Are we not required to uphold our signatures to the Law?

Kurt — if your question is serious, in the paragraph starting, “The Administration is now operating . . ” read the first 2 or 3 links from Glenn Greenwald for a start, or better yet, read his book on What Would a Patriot Do, or any book from John Dean. Most folks here are thoroughly immersed in this background and no longer need to have it proved each time.

Thanks Scarecrow, I’ll check out Glenn’s book, sounds interesting. Gonna hold off on Dean though, his credibility is not quite there in my mind.

His book:
http://www.amazon.com/Patriot-…..mp;s=books

Kurt @ 136

Hi Guys,

Couple questions from a conservative:

1) Why do many of you continue to vote for these representatives that continue to fail in the issues that are near and dear to you?

Just like Republicans, some Democrats are so wedded to party over country or principle that they will vote for even unacceptable Democrats simply because they are Democrats.

I am not one of those.

2) I constantly see on many of these sites the “lawlessness” of Bush’s actions. What has Bush specifically done that is against the law?

I am not trying to be confrontational here, I want to know how those of you who have said this come to this conclusion.

Wow. Where to begin? Let’s see, lying to Congress and the American people to get us into a war with Iraq, a country that has NEVER attacked the USA, not even by proxy, and was not even threatening the US. That, according to Nuremberg Principles, means that Bush initiated a War of Aggression against Iraq which is one of the BIG things that Nazis were convicted of after WWII, starting an unjustified war of aggression against neighbors. Like the Nazis conducted wars of aggression and conquest, Bush has conducted a war of aggression and conquest (permanent occupation of Iraq to claim THEIR oil as our own) against a pitiful 3rd world nation.

Next, spying on Americans without warrants. NEVER OK under any circumstances. The 4th Amendment is quite clear on this. Americans are to be secure in their persons, homes, and effects unless served with a valid warrant issued by a court based on probable cause. Not merely suspicion, not reasonable suspicion. Probable cause. Period. There has been none of that and can be none of that when you are conducting a vacuum cleaner process of sucking up ALL communications from or to American citizens in country or even from outside the country (I have a brother that lives in the Bahamas…I absolutely reject the government’s right to listen to my private family conversations simply because one half of the conversation between AMERICAN CITIZENS is outside the borders of the USA).

Torture and abuse of prisoners. This is clearly illegal and unjustifiable in ALL cases. Federal law states that abuse and torture is forbidden. Period. The Geneva Conventions ban them. The Conventions against Torture, Abuse, and Inhumane Treatment also bars torture, abuse, and inhumane treatment (duh). We are signatories to BOTH treaties. The Constitution clearly states that any treaty to which we are signatories is the Law of the Land. Full stop. No argument. Period. No wiggle room. We prosecuted and executed Nazis and Japanese prison and military officials after WWII for acts that included WATERBOARDING, exposure to extreme heat and cold, physical beatings, etc.

Disappearing people, many of them innocent, for years at a time (and even permanently) without any recourse to courts or communication with family, home country, etc. Illegal. Habeas corpus predates the United States and is THE basic foundation upon which ALL the rest, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, rests. There is no statement, by the way, in the Constitution that only American citizens get to enjoy habeas corpus. It is UNIVERSAL, like life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (the words are NOT “American citizens enjoy inalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness”, it says ALL men. That means EVERYONE worldwide).

Disobeying clear federal laws as passed by Congress. Only Congress can make and pass laws. The President must obey the laws. A President can ONLY veto a law he/she disagrees with or sign it into law and challenge it in court, with the final answer coming from the court. Bush has skipped all this with signing statements and/or simply ignoring laws he finds inconvenient. Nope, that is illegal and NOT the way the USA works, it is the way Banana Republics work. The Rule of Law applies to Presidents, Congressmen, butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers. No exceptions.

There are so many broken laws under Bush that it is a better question to ask what laws has Bush actually OBEYED? Because it is unclear that he has ever obeyed a single law ever passed. If he has, it must have been by pure accident.

It seems that you are basing your argument on Principal VI. As I recall, the intelligence agencies had identified WMD’s and provided a report to the Pres and Congress. I know some in congress have backed the notion that they were lied to, but they had access to the same intelligence reports. If they based their decision to support Bush at that time, and then claim they were lied to, then what conclusion can you come to? Either the CIA gave mis-information (we know at this time is not true), or they are incompetent and are not doing their jobs, which of course gets us back to the question: Why people are still voting for these politicians :] . Also, we know that Sadam used a WMD against the Kurds, that in itself is reason to go to war. It shows intent to use WMD’s.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/…..d.asp?pg=1

With your torture argument, the Nazi’s and Japanese that were put to death did a lot more than what you listed. We know what the Nazi’s did, but the Japanese did such horrible things to the Phillipino’s, that they still hold a horrible hatrid for the Japanese today. Enough so that the Japanese don’t go to the Phillipine’s for any reason. I don’t like the idea of torture, but if it is a choice between an American city and a suspected terrorist, I’ll take that chance (regardless if the extracted information is good or not). At this point, Bush is working within the bounds of International Law.

Wiretaping is definitely a slippery-slope and will be changellenging the Constitution. I don’t mind what is being suggested in theory, but people are not to be trusted with this type of power…anybody. Eitherway, from a legal standpoing, until the laws are changed, Bush is working within his power.

I am not sure what the point of the last two paragraph’s were, so I won’t comment on them. Until the Congress changes the laws in which the President can act, Bush is working within his boundaries.

Keep in mind also, the Geneva Convention and similar laws, only seem to apply to so-called civilized nations. No other country has followed it universally. I am not saying that isn’t right, I’m just saying that is how it is. Think of the Russians in their last conflict, the Chinese in Vietnam, the militants in Iraq today (against anybody)…none of them follow the Geneva Code. America is the only nation that gets close.

Now given that Congress has the power, but refuses to use it, what does that say about Congressional desire to obtain the information (rhetorical question).
.

Hi Guys,

Couple questions from a conservative:

1) Why do many of you continue to vote for these representatives that continue to fail in the issues that are near and dear to you?

Just like Republicans, some Democrats are so wedded to party over country or principle that they will vote for even unacceptable Democrats simply because they are Democrats.

I am not one of those.

2) I constantly see on many of these sites the “lawlessness” of Bush’s actions. What has Bush specifically done that is against the law?

I am not trying to be confrontational here, I want to know how those of you who have said this come to this conclusion.

Wow. Where to begin? Let’s see, lying to Congress and the American people to get us into a war with Iraq, a country that has NEVER attacked the USA, not even by proxy, and was not even threatening the US. That, according to Nuremberg Principles, means that Bush initiated a War of Aggression against Iraq which is one of the BIG things that Nazis were convicted of after WWII, starting an unjustified war of aggression against neighbors. Like the Nazis conducted wars of aggression and conquest, Bush has conducted a war of aggression and conquest (permanent occupation of Iraq to claim THEIR oil as our own) against a pitiful 3rd world nation.

Next, spying on Americans without warrants. NEVER OK under any circumstances. The 4th Amendment is quite clear on this. Americans are to be secure in their persons, homes, and effects unless served with a valid warrant issued by a court based on probable cause. Not merely suspicion, not reasonable suspicion. Probable cause. Period. There has been none of that and can be none of that when you are conducting a vacuum cleaner process of sucking up ALL communications from or to American citizens in country or even from outside the country (I have a brother that lives in the Bahamas…I absolutely reject the government’s right to listen to my private family conversations simply because one half of the conversation between AMERICAN CITIZENS is outside the borders of the USA).

Torture and abuse of prisoners. This is clearly illegal and unjustifiable in ALL cases. Federal law states that abuse and torture is forbidden. Period. The Geneva Conventions ban them. The Conventions against Torture, Abuse, and Inhumane Treatment also bars torture, abuse, and inhumane treatment (duh). We are signatories to BOTH treaties. The Constitution clearly states that any treaty to which we are signatories is the Law of the Land. Full stop. No argument. Period. No wiggle room. We prosecuted and executed Nazis and Japanese prison and military officials after WWII for acts that included WATERBOARDING, exposure to extreme heat and cold, physical beatings, etc.

Disappearing people, many of them innocent, for years at a time (and even permanently) without any recourse to courts or communication with family, home country, etc. Illegal. Habeas corpus predates the United States and is THE basic foundation upon which ALL the rest, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, rests. There is no statement, by the way, in the Constitution that only American citizens get to enjoy habeas corpus. It is UNIVERSAL, like life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (the words are NOT “American citizens enjoy inalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness”, it says ALL men. That means EVERYONE worldwide).

Disobeying clear federal laws as passed by Congress. Only Congress can make and pass laws. The President must obey the laws. A President can ONLY veto a law he/she disagrees with or sign it into law and challenge it in court, with the final answer coming from the court. Bush has skipped all this with signing statements and/or simply ignoring laws he finds inconvenient. Nope, that is illegal and NOT the way the USA works, it is the way Banana Republics work. The Rule of Law applies to Presidents, Congressmen, butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers. No exceptions.

There are so many broken laws under Bush that it is a better question to ask what laws has Bush actually OBEYED? Because it is unclear that he has ever obeyed a single law ever passed. If he has, it must have been by pure accident.

http://thehill.com/leading-the…..10-17.html

Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution forbids ex post facto (retrospective law). Congress will pass the ex post facto law anyway, granting immunity from prosecution for Telecom wiretapping, because the Dems are still spineless, and after all, their corporate income would suffer if they didn’t cave.

It’s laughable anyway. Who would indict or prosecute any person or company wrapped in the flag and the “War on Terror?” Granted, civil suits would die on the vine until a court rules that portion of the law unconstitutional.

IANAL but that ex post facto restriction only applies one way: you cannot retroactively make something that was once legal illegal and thus punish people for past legal, now illegal, acts. You CAN retroactively make what is illegal legal (thus, people prosecuted for a “crime” that is no longer illegal can get out of jail free, etc).

Couple questions from a conservative:

1) Why do many of you continue to vote for these representatives that continue to fail in the issues that are near and dear to you?

I have not voted for Repubs in the past which in turn has removed them from office. They don’t deserve to be there if they are not doing ‘the people’s will’.

2) I constantly see on many of these sites the “lawlessness” of Bush’s actions. What has Bush specifically done that is against the law?

I am not trying to be confrontational here, I want to know how those of you who have said this come to this conclusion.

Kurt – Smile, Life is short -