Supreme Court: Bush in violation of U.S. law and Geneva Conv

[tcwest10]

Can I get a picture of somebody wearing "Bush-Bashing Goggles", please ?
Also, do they come in ANSI-approved styles?

[yupchagee]

Also, do they come in ANSI-approved styles?

No. Only ISO approved.

[TincoSkin]

Can I get a picture of somebody wearing "Bush-Bashing Goggles", please ?
Also, do they come in ANSI-approved styles?

i thought that said asian approved styles

[yupchagee]

Can I get a picture of somebody wearing "Bush-Bashing Goggles", please ?
Also, do they come in ANSI-approved styles?

i thought that said asian approved styles

Might be made in N Korea.

[crazyhorse1]

Dear 1nikster,

The administration has resisted all efforts to get it to explain why the prisoners of Gitmo are classified as they are or called terrorists or any plans to provide information for trials or charges. This a violation of the Geneva Conventions, especially so as they have not been attended to according to U.S. or International law.
They have been denied attorneys and, as you know, tortured. Rummy himself supervised the torture of a prisoner and Gitmo's General Miller was sent to Iraq to impose his methodology there.
All of the above has been established or reported, if you prefer that word, in magazines and newspapers all over the United States and around the world.
It has also been repeatedly reported that U.S. soldiers have murdered prisoners and have stood by as Afghan forces have murdered prisoners.
Do you deny the above? or do you think there is some vast left wing conspiracy afoot to bash Bush?
I'm a former Bush defender and was 100% behind him until it became clear he was lying about Iraq. If there weren't overwhelming evidence of his various mental abberations and general incompetence and immorality there would be no Bush bashing from me. He is a clear and present danger.
His attack on our Constitution and Bills of Rights is unprecedented in American history. I know you attribute his spying on Americans and his string of lies about what widespread its been as attempts to protect us from terrorists, but that notion holds no water. He's not only clearly lied about when he started the spying program, he's lied about why. We know that he didn't take terrorism serviously until after 911. There have been a number of books written about his failure to act on Clinton's warning, as well as Tenet's and Clark's and Rice's, until after the tragedy.
The deduction that he was spying primarily to consolidate his power and then, after 911, used 911 as an excuse to attack Iraq, is held by half the country. This conclusion is supported not only by the numerous other scandals, disrespect for law, and exposed lies of his administration but also by his sudden lack of concern with catching Osama and the current news that the task force focusing on Osama's capture has been discontiued.
As for your notion that the election wasn't fixed in Ohio and that the long waits in democratic districts was caused by blue collar workers not getting off work until late and therefore arrived at once.... You're right and you're wrong. You're right about the phenoema. You're wrong in thinking that the situation wasn't foreseen and ignored, therefore engineered by Blackwell. It was his job to see that voting machines could handle voters at peak hours. It's one of the oldest tricks in the book to undersuppy polling officials so that blue collar workers get jammed at the polls.
Bushes' proved crimes:

Illegal spying
Secret prisons-- violation of Geneva Conventions
Pre-emptive strike-- violation of Geneva Conventions
Aggressive war-- violation of Geneva Conventions
Use of Cluster bombs-- violation of Geneva Conventions
Failure to execute U.S. laws
Lying to congress, UN
Failure to honor International agreements, treaties
Illegal detention of prisoners at Gitmo-- supreme court ruling


There are a host of other crimes that will be proved; the above are either open and shut, admitted, or done openly.

[yupchagee]

You need to study history. We have had the sedition act (John Adams), suspension of habeous corpus (Lincoln), espionage act (Wilson) Japanese Americans (US citizens) in camps (FDR). This is all reported in this weeks TIME, hardly a big fan of Bush. As for your other "facts", I don't have time to refute them 1 by 1.

[Deadskins]

You need to study history. We have had the sedition act (John Adams), suspension of habeous corpus (Lincoln), espionage act (Wilson) Japanese Americans (US citizens) in camps (FDR). This is all reported in this weeks TIME, hardly a big fan of Bush. As for your other "facts", I don't have time to refute them 1 by 1.

What is your point? All of those actions were later deemed to have been unconstitutional as well. It is the relinquishing of rights in the short term that threatens our rights in the long term. Try not to be so short-sighted. Time/Warner, one of America's biggest corporations, and the publisher of Time magazine, is not a fan of Bush? How do you arrive at that conclusion?

[yupchagee]

You need to study history. We have had the sedition act (John Adams), suspension of habeous corpus (Lincoln), espionage act (Wilson) Japanese Americans (US citizens) in camps (FDR). This is all reported in this weeks TIME, hardly a big fan of Bush. As for your other "facts", I don't have time to refute them 1 by 1.

What is your point? All of those actions were later deemed to have been unconstitutional as well. It is the relinquishing of rights in the short term that threatens our rights in the long term. Try not to be so short-sighted. Time/Warner, one of America's biggest corporations, and the publisher of Time magazine, is not a fan of Bush? How do you arrive at that conclusion?

My point is that the word "unprecedented" is so overstated tat it is a clear distortion. My ppint is that, durin a time of war, Presidents have usually taken actions that, in peace time, would be unacceptable. Are you saying that all large corporations are Bush suporters? If so, you're not paying attention. ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT... are all large corps & they are alll Bush bashers. The dems get at least as much money from the super rich (ex George Soros) as the reps. Politics has changed in the last 100 yrs. Wake upo Rip!

[Deadskins]

My point is that the word "unprecedented" is so overstated tat it is a clear distortion.

This is the only valid point you made in your entire post.

My ppint is that, durin a time of war, Presidents have usually taken actions that, in peace time, would be unacceptable.

What I am saying is that wartime or peacetime, these actions are unacceptable. Particularly, if you start the war so that you can take these actions.

Are you saying that all large corporations are Bush suporters? If so, you're not paying attention. ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT... are all large corps & they are alll Bush bashers.

First of all, I think you meant Disney, GE, and Viacom. The vast majority of media in this country is consolidated in the hands of about 6 corporations. All corporations are in business to make money for their shareholders. If you believe otherwise, you are naive. None of the outlets you mentioned bash Bush. Quite the contrary, they have let him run roughshod over the constitution with little or no regard for their obligation as the Fourth Estate, to disseminate accurate, and timely, information to the populace of this nation.

The dems get at least as much money from the super rich (ex George Soros) as the reps. Politics has changed in the last 100 yrs. Wake upo Rip!

Please! Do you honestly believe your own nonsense? For every one George Soros, there are 1000 Richard Mellon Scaifes or Rupert Murdochs. Politics hasn't changed one iota in the last 10,000 years. Those that have will always try to control those that don't. Look past all the rhetoric and slight of hand, and this is patently obvious.

Now I'll try to go back to ignoring you again.

[yupchagee]

My point is that the word "unprecedented" is so overstated tat it is a clear distortion.

This is the only valid point you made in your entire post.

My ppint is that, durin a time of war, Presidents have usually taken actions that, in peace time, would be unacceptable.

What I am saying is that wartime or peacetime, these actions are unacceptable. Particularly, if you start the war so that you can take these actions.

Are you saying that all large corporations are Bush suporters? If so, you're not paying attention. ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT... are all large corps & they are alll Bush bashers.

First of all, I think you meant Disney, GE, and Viacom. The vast majority of media in this country is consolidated in the hands of about 6 corporations. All corporations are in business to make money for their shareholders. If you believe otherwise, you are naive. None of the outlets you mentioned bash Bush. Quite the contrary, they have let him run roughshod over the constitution with little or no regard for their obligation as the Fourth Estate, to disseminate accurate, and timely, information to the populace of this nation.

The dems get at least as much money from the super rich (ex George Soros) as the reps. Politics has changed in the last 100 yrs. Wake upo Rip!

Please! Do you honestly believe your own nonsense? For every one George Soros, there are 1000 Richard Mellon Scaifes or Rupert Murdochs. Politics hasn't changed one iota in the last 10,000 years. Those that have will always try to control those that don't. Look past all the rhetoric and slight of hand, and this is patently obvious.

Now I'll try to go back to ignoring you again.

You have a mind like a steel trap- slammed shut. Anyone who says the mainstream media is pro Bush is either lying or ignorant. I don't think you are ignorant.

[Deadskins]

You have a mind like a steel trap- slammed shut. Anyone who says the mainstream media is pro Bush is either lying or ignorant. I don't think you are ignorant.

Let me ask you a question:
Where did you get the idea that the mainstream media has a left-wing bias?

Now I'll give you the answer:
From the mainstream media.

Like a magician, it's all about misdirection.

P.S. I see you have finally figured out how to use the "quote" button. Kudos!

[crazyhorse1]

You need to study history. We have had the sedition act (John Adams), suspension of habeous corpus (Lincoln), espionage act (Wilson) Japanese Americans (US citizens) in camps (FDR). This is all reported in this weeks TIME, hardly a big fan of Bush. As for your other "facts", I don't have time to refute them 1 by 1.

You need to read my posts. Bush's illegal imprisonment and treatment of detainees is only cited as part of my charge that Bush has made unprecedented attacks against the Constitution and Bills of Rights.

Try to come to grips with: signing statements, seperation of church and state, asserting the primacy of the executive branch, arbitrarily taking prisoners and even purchasing them, torturing prisoners,
refusing to enforce laws, misleading Congress, fixing elections, phone jamming, disenfranchising minorities, conducting an unauthorized and illegal war, kidnapping Americans and Canadians, establishing secret prisons, allowing the looting of the treasury by Halliburton, shipping prisoners to barbaric states to be tortured and murdered, conducting negotiations with Abramoff and Reed, etc.
No American president has even come close to Bush in regard to attacks on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. No one has approached either his scale or diversity. He's the champ.

[yupchagee]

You need to study history. We have had the sedition act (John Adams), suspension of habeous corpus (Lincoln), espionage act (Wilson) Japanese Americans (US citizens) in camps (FDR). This is all reported in this weeks TIME, hardly a big fan of Bush. As for your other "facts", I don't have time to refute them 1 by 1.

You need to read my posts. Bush's illegal imprisonment and treatment of detainees is only cited as part of my charge that Bush has made unprecedented attacks against the Constitution and Bills of Rights.

Try to come to grips with: signing statements, seperation of church and state, asserting the primacy of the executive branch, arbitrarily taking prisoners and even purchasing them, torturing prisoners,
refusing to enforce laws, misleading Congress, fixing elections, phone jamming, disenfranchising minorities, conducting an unauthorized and illegal war, kidnapping Americans and Canadians, establishing secret prisons, allowing the looting of the treasury by Halliburton, shipping prisoners to barbaric states to be tortured and murdered, conducting negotiations with Abramoff and Reed, etc.
No American president has even come close to Bush in regard to attacks on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. No one has approached either his scale or diversity. He's the champ.

The constitution doesn't say anything about signing statements. They don't violate the constitution, nor do they have any constitutional status.
Where does the constitution say "separation of church & state"?
You have no real evidence that prisoners have been taken arbitrarily or purchased. You have no evidence that any have been murdered. You have no evidence that mistreatment of prisoners had the approval of even generals much less the top civilian leaders.

You talk of fixing elections & disenfranchising minorities is a figment of your drug induced halucinations.

Lobbiests aren't partisans. They give to both parties, more to the party in power.

Do you think locking up foreign terror suspects is worse than denying habeous corpus? imprisoning US citizens based on their ethnicity? The latter 2 are explicitly in the constitution.

[hkHog]

Yesterday's Supreme Court ruling goes far beyond Bush trying Gitmo detainees by kangaroo courts. It establishes that all detainees, even Al
Qaida members are protected by laws and Geneva Conventions that cannot be suspended by claims of inherent powers of the President (a favorite Bush fantasy). Many of you on this site have constantly argued Bush can establish secret prisons, torture, etc. with impunity because of absurd reasons I have repeatedly stated are B.S. and not in the Conventions or supported by law: such as insurgents don't have uniforms, suspected terrorists are excepted,etc. Well, frankly, you have been flat out wrong and now Bush is in trouble.
Even his spying programs are now, by law, illegal, because they are based on the same invented B.S. his Gitmo policy was-- the inherent power of the President to break the law in war time. He has no such blank check, according to the Supreme Court, and did not receive a blank check from congress.
I don't know what will happen now because of the sheer stupidity and timidity of too many people, but the legal framework for the finding that Bush is a war criminal and a President who has committed numerous impeachable offenses is now firmly in place. That he has now exceeded his powers as chief executive and violated the Geneva Conventions, as well as violated US. law, is now a matter of record. It is also well to note that this decision has been handed down by a conservative court.

I hope that when the terrorists are set free they bomb your house.

[1niksder]

Dear 1nikster,

WOW yet another way to spell my username - you'd think it wouldn't be so hard to spell on this site....

The administration has resisted all efforts to get it to explain why the prisoners of Gitmo are classified as they are or called terrorists or any plans to provide information for trials or charges. This a violation of the Geneva Conventions, especially so as they have not been attended to according to U.S. or International law.
They have been denied attorneys and, as you know, tortured. Rummy himself supervised the torture of a prisoner and Gitmo's General Miller was sent to Iraq to impose his methodology there.
All of the above has been established or reported, if you prefer that word, in magazines and newspapers all over the United States and around the world.

They have been classidied as terrorist because of where they were picked up or what they were reported to be doing. If you look at when and where the were picked up and what the U.S. was doing at the time you stop using this as a fallback. As far as trails go how would you give a fair trail to someone you accuse of want to kill your way of life. (Stop talking about what the CIC isn't doing without putting forth a alternativeor it will continue to sound like Bush bashing). You can't go on what is reported in the mags and and daily rags because those statements weren't taking under oath in a court of law ( when you do, you sound like you're doing what you are complainig that Bush is doing)

It has also been repeatedly reported that U.S. soldiers have murdered prisoners and have stood by as Afghan forces have murdered prisoners.
Do you deny the above? or do you think there is some vast left wing conspiracy afoot to bash Bush?

I can confrim any of it so what's the difference? I defend our military until the end of time (if guilty they'll be dealt with and in the end the only people that won't get pass this are people like you). Our Sailors and Soilders will make mistakes and they will be dealt with, more importantly other Serviceman will learn from the mistakes of those that you want to trout out every chance you get.

I'm a former Bush defender and was 100% behind him until it became clear he was lying about Iraq. If there weren't overwhelming evidence of his various mental abberations and general incompetence and immorality there would be no Bush bashing from me.

I really don't care where any of you stand when it come to politics, but in you case after a bad day you do make a good read (particually when you go link-crazy). I'm going to say it ONE MORE TIME I don't support any political party, canidate, or platform. I ama staunch support of of Bernie M, and his family and friends, I support our troops and the Commander-in-Cheif (I didn't spell CIC incorrectly I just wanted to give you some ammo... since I haven't read anything that you haven't already plaster thoughtout this board). Not only am I not a Bush defender, if I were a Bush basher it people like you that would really make take a look at my postition. I won't elaborate because you are in a league of your own and you need to be there... alone

He is a clear and present danger.

You might want to take that DVD back to Blockbuster too...

His attack on our Constitution and Bills of Rights is unprecedented in American history. I know you attribute his spying on Americans and his string of lies about what widespread its been as attempts to protect us from terrorists, but that notion holds no water.

The Constitution protects us as U S citizens - What U S citizen has taken this infomation that you are so shocked that a adminitration would try to perpertrate and filed suit over their rights being violated (show me some victims... any... one). You don't know to attribute my thoughts about the Phone taps or the banking info that was/is being used because I haven't stated a opinion on it. I said the U S hasn't been attacked on our soil since 9-11-01 and that's all I said, it's rather pompus of you to think you could group me withanyone based on a post or two in a thread. Check the search buttom out (unlike you constant, should have been put to bed opinions on others opinions, I tend to be all over the place, but again I support no party or group as a whole).

He's not only clearly lied about when he started the spying program, he's lied about why. We know that he didn't take terrorism serviously until after 911. There have been a number of books written about his failure to act on Clinton's warning, as well as Tenet's and Clark's and Rice's, until after the tragedy.
The deduction that he was spying primarily to consolidate his power and then, after 911, used 911 as an excuse to attack Iraq, is held by half the country.

OK who polled half the country and why was my whole household missed, in fact by whole block was missed or this is just some more of that stuff you be pulling out of your...

This conclusion is supported not only by the numerous other scandals, disrespect for law, and exposed lies of his administration but also by his sudden lack of concern with catching Osama and the current news that the task force focusing on Osama's capture has been discontiued.

Do you cut and paste this stuff or do you really take the time to retype it on the hourly bases

As for your notion that the election wasn't fixed in Ohio and that the long waits in democratic districts was caused by blue collar workers not getting off work until late and therefore arrived at once.... You're right and you're wrong. You're right about the phenoema. You're wrong in thinking that the situation wasn't foreseen and ignored, therefore engineered by Blackwell. It was his job to see that voting machines could handle voters at peak hours. It's one of the oldest tricks in the book to undersuppy polling officials so that blue collar workers get jammed at the polls.

I said look at the demorgraphics and you came up with this, I'm starting to see where your true issues are. Just as you blame Blackwell The DNC had people tasked to handle the same situation no blame went to them on your end, why is that. I didn't try to justify what happen in Ohio (I'm in Duval county) but don't try to justfy it for me and then come back with a weak rebuttal. It's just not fair

Bushes' proved crimes:

Don't you have a couple of hundrer threads with this title in it?

Illegal spying

Define legal spying...... from the spyee's point of veiw

Secret prisons-- violation of Geneva Conventions

If it's a secret how do you know about it

Pre-emptive strike-- violation of Geneva Conventions

The convention governs how parties will/should act in war... Pre-emptive would mean the same as prior to.... see where I'm going here

Aggressive war-- violation of Geneva Conventions

Who was the last vistor in a passive war

Use of Cluster bombs-- violation of Geneva Conventions

When and where, Parade out the people that were there and tell me how they know the differencr between a cluster and a FAE

Failure to execute U.S. laws
Lying to congress, UN
Failure to honor International agreements, treaties

When are the hearings... Where's the Impeachment proceeding?.... Don't want to hear about a GOP contorlled congress on this one because if he was screwing up as obviously as you would want other's to believe, you would have been posting about "How the right was jumping ship on Bushes watch, instead of a stupid "Look at Bushes Approval ratings" thread everyother day a few months ago

Illegal detention of prisoners at Gitmo-- supreme court ruling


There are a host of other crimes that will be proved; the above are either open and shut, admitted, or done openly.

Sure they will

[Deadskins]

Did you guys know that there is a spelling checker on the google toolbar? Also, there is a "preview" button right next to the "submit" button, that allows you to read your post before you submit it. I would recommend both buttons, so that we all don't have to reread your posts 12 times just to understand what you are trying to say.

[Countertrey]

No American president has even come close to Bush in regard to attacks on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. No one has approached either his scale or diversity. He's the champ.

Lincoln. Suspension of Habeas Corpus.

FDR. Imprisonment of American Citizens for the crime of being of Japanese ancestry.

To a smaller scale, also did the same with many German-Americans and Italian-Americans.

I suspect you consider both to be heroes. Both had their share of college professors calling for their impeachment. Guess it's all a matter of who's ox is gored.

Ummmm... is there an educator in the house?

[Irn-Bru]

Lincoln also shut down newspapers--shut them down--when they printed sufficient 'opposition' material. FDR threatened to do the same on occasion, though I don't know that he ever did follow through on it. Some conservatives (neo-cons? Columnists that appear on websites such as Townhall) are refering to these facts and asking the question "why is Bush going so soft on the press?" Not quite the conclusion that I come to. . .

Countertrey, I'm with you in thinking that the things our president has done are far from unprecedented. However, precedent isn't enough to pass a morality test, in my opinion. When you cite the actions of FDR and Lincoln in connection with Bush, am I to believe that

(a) You disagree with the actions of L and FDR but are generally okay with Bush
(b) You disapprove of all of these cited acts of executive power
(c) You are generally okay with all of these, given that each were done in a time of war

or some other option?

[Countertrey]

FFA wrote:

Countertrey, I'm with you in thinking that the things our president has done are far from unprecedented. However, precedent isn't enough to pass a morality test, in my opinion. When you cite the actions of FDR and Lincoln in connection with Bush, am I to believe that

(a) You disagree with the actions of L and FDR but are generally okay with Bush
(b) You disapprove of all of these cited acts of executive power
(c) You are generally okay with all of these, given that each were done in a time of war

That would be "(c)", especially since you qualified with the word "generally". FDR's enternment of Japanese Americans without cause was, in my opinion, criminal, especially considering that FDR did not make any effort to make restitution or reparations to those AMERICANS whose lives he destroyed. I can only imagine Crazyhorse's LEGITIMATE outrage should GWB attempt to intern Arab-Americans under the same sort of pretext. As you suggest, there were many other limitations on civil liberties taken by FDR which, I believe, WERE legitimate and necessary, given the circumstances.

My response was primarily to point out that Crazyhorse was:
1. WRONG, and
2. Very selective in his attempts to cite a lack of precedence (I'm feeling charitable).