1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

WOW! Bush prevents Justice from Pursuing Contempt Charges

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by rimrocker, Jul 20, 2007.

  1. thegary

    thegary Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    Messages:
    10,070
    Likes Received:
    2,013
    [​IMG]
     
  2. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    56,793
    Likes Received:
    39,077
    You're right... I finally have. This will be a royal pain in the ass, but they've gone beyond the pale. That's an old phrase meaning, "to go beyond the limits of law or decency." We are not a monarchy.



    D&D. Impeach Bush and Cheney.
     
  3. No Worries

    No Worries Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    29,838
    Likes Received:
    16,692
    Do you really mean impeached via the House AND removed from office via the Senate?

    I still don't like the idea of impeachment, especially since there are not enough votes in the Senate to actually remove Bush. Cheney maybe, But is there really a Constitutional process to remove a sitting VP? If there is, by all means we should after Cheney for ordering Plame's name to be leaked.

    WRT Bush, I would like to see a simple censure vote (hand slapping) for each and every f*ckup: violating the Geneva Conventions wrt torture, extradinary rendition, lying us into war, NSA spying, etc. The end result would leave Bush "the most censured President ever" which I think would be fitting. Censure vote should only take 50 votes, which makes it quite doable.
     
  4. mc mark

    mc mark Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    468
    Needs to be repeated --

    "There is no magic force that is going to descend from the sky and strike with lightning at George Bush and Dick Cheney for so flagrantly subverting our constitutional order. The Founders created various checks for confronting tyrannical abuses of power, but they have to be activated by political will and the courage to confront it. That has been lacking. Hence, they have seized omnipotent powers with impunity.

    At this point, the blame rests not with the Bush administration. They have long made clear what they believe and, especially, what they are. They have been rubbing in our faces for several years the fact that they believe they can ignore the law and do what they want because nobody is willing to do anything about it. Thus far, they have been right, and the blame rests with those who have acquiesced to it.

    It has been six months since the Democrats took over Congress. Yes, they have commenced some investigations and highlighted some wrongdoing. But that is but the first step, not the ultimate step, which we desperately need. Where are the real confrontations needed to vindicate the rule of law and restore constitutional order? No reasonable person can dispute that in the absence of genuine compulsion (and perhaps even then), the administration will continue to treat "the law" as something optional, and their power as absolute. Their wrongdoing is extreme, and only equally extreme corrective measures will suffice."

    -- Glenn Greenwald

    IMPEACH NOW!
     
  5. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    56,793
    Likes Received:
    39,077
    I understand your point, No Worries, which is a part of why I was against it, but impeachment is the only way to make a strong enough statement that history, and Bush, will realize there are limits. He knows no limits. Sometimes, I wonder what country he thinks he lives in.



    D&D. Impeach Bush and Cheney.
     
  6. thadeus

    thadeus Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2003
    Messages:
    8,313
    Likes Received:
    726
    It is time to impeach Bush and Cheney.
     
  7. Ottomaton

    Ottomaton Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2000
    Messages:
    18,222
    Likes Received:
    13,423
    Whether it should happen or not, another sufficiently severe option would be prosecution for crimes once he has left office. Cheney and Bush doing 20 years in SuperMax before being extradited to The Hague for a UN War Crimes tribunal would make people think twice.
     
  8. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    56,793
    Likes Received:
    39,077
    Indeed. Do both.



    D&D. Impeach Bush and Cheney.
     
  9. NewYorker

    NewYorker Ghost of Clutch Fans

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2002
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    41
    Dude, why do you stick with Bush? I mean, what's with the love affair? Dump the joker. No one in their right man should support him. Admit it, you made a mistake in voting for him. I can admit I made a mistake. I really regret it, thank god I don't live in florida or I'd really feel miserable.
     
  10. rimrocker

    rimrocker Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 1999
    Messages:
    22,272
    Likes Received:
    8,068
    More Greenwald...

     
  11. rimrocker

    rimrocker Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 1999
    Messages:
    22,272
    Likes Received:
    8,068
    Wow again. A Jay Leno joke I found funny:

    "Bush's approval rating has dropped so low the only thing he's above now is the law."

    -- Jay Leno
     
  12. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    56,793
    Likes Received:
    39,077
    Wow. Leno nailed it.



    D&D. Impeach Bush and Cheney.
     
  13. Sishir Chang

    Sishir Chang Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    11,064
    Likes Received:
    8
    For practical purposes it would take 60 votes since any censure motion is likely to be filibustered.
     
  14. Sishir Chang

    Sishir Chang Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    11,064
    Likes Received:
    8
    At the risk of defending the Admin. I don't think there is much chance of convicting Bush and Cheney. Most of what they've done is certainly unethical but unclear whether it is illegal and particularly criminally illegal at that. As the dismissal of the Plame lawsuit shows a lot of what they have done is in grey areas regarding the separation of powers. So while highly unethical criminal cases might not be possible regarding the nature of the different branches.

    IMO impeachment is more possible than criminal conviction. Of course all of this could change as we find out more.
     
  15. jo mama

    jo mama Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2002
    Messages:
    13,335
    Likes Received:
    7,407
    1) illegal wiretapping of american citizens.
    2) propaganda, paying off news columnists to write reports favorable to your policies (armstrong williams), planting fake reporters in the white house press corp, who also happen to be gay male hookers (gannon).
    3) lying your country into a war which has led to the deaths of thousands of innocent women and children.
    4) authorizing torture and acts which are in violation of the 1996 war crimes act.

    these criminals need to be arrested!
     
  16. jo mama

    jo mama Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2002
    Messages:
    13,335
    Likes Received:
    7,407
    isnt wiretapping american citizens w/out a warrant illegal?

    what about funding of propaganda?

    or authorizing torture and other acts which are in violation of the 1996 war crimes act?
     
  17. Sishir Chang

    Sishir Chang Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    11,064
    Likes Received:
    8
    One of the lawyers here can correct me but I believe that would fall under civil and not criminal law and I'm not sure whether the President or Vice President could be held personally responsible especially if done under the congressional authorization to use force.

    I'm not aware of anything illegal about that. The government has always been able to present particular points of view that the Admin. supports. Also the GW Bush and the members of the Admin. as individuals have a right to free speech. I think its unethical how they've gone about it but I have a hard time seeing anything illegal.

    The problem is how the legislation and laws have defined torture since it is somewhat subjective. Also again I don't know if as commander and chief the President can be held criminally liable for the actions of subordinates who interpret subjective language, ie if they consider "forcefully question" to be the equivalent of "torture". To me short of finding something where the President, VP, or Sec. Defense outrightly tells someone to "torture" someone I don't think they could be personally criminally charged.
     
  18. jo mama

    jo mama Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2002
    Messages:
    13,335
    Likes Received:
    7,407
    so you agree w/ bush that the FISA laws are outdated? can american citizens be wiretapped w/out a warrant? im no lawyer, but does a congressional authorization to use force (did he ever even get that? did congress even issue a declaration of war?) allow the president to wiretap american citizens w/out a warrant?

    of course the government would be allowed to present the administrations point of view. why wouldnt they? but what does that have to do with armstrong williams, unless you are trying to argue that armstrong williams is a government employee? the crime lies in the fact that they secretly paid an "independent" radio show commentator $240,000 to promote their policies on his show and try to convince other black commentators to do the same without disclosing that they had paid him to do so.

    maybe one of the lawyers can chime in, but i do believe that propaganda is against the law and this was propaganda.

    As part of the agreement, Williams was required "to regularly comment on NCLB during the course of his broadcasts," and to interview Education Secretary Rod Paige for TV and radio spots that aired during the show in 2004."
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-06-williams-whitehouse_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA

    but dont take my word for it - how about the government accountability office, which said that it was illegal b/c they did not disclose that payments were made?

    Buying of News by Bush's Aides Is Ruled Illegal
    Federal auditors said on Friday that the Bush administration violated the law by buying favorable news coverage of President Bush's education policies, by making payments to the conservative commentator Armstrong Williams and by hiring a public relations company to analyze media perceptions of the Republican Party.

    In a blistering report, the investigators, from the Government Accountability Office, said the administration had disseminated "covert propaganda" in the United States, in violation of a statutory ban.

    The contract with Mr. Williams and the general contours of the public relations campaign had been known for months. The report Friday provided the first definitive ruling on the legality of the activities.

    Lawyers from the accountability office, an independent nonpartisan arm of Congress, found that the administration systematically analyzed news articles to see if they carried the message, "The Bush administration/the G.O.P. is committed to education."

    The auditors declared: "We see no use for such information except for partisan political purposes. Engaging in a purely political activity such as this is not a proper use of appropriated funds."

    The report also sharply criticized the Education Department for telling Ketchum Inc., a public relations company, to pay Mr. Williams for newspaper columns and television appearances praising Mr. Bush's education initiative, the No Child Left Behind Act.

    When that arrangement became public, it set off widespread criticism. At a news conference in January, Mr. Bush said: "We will not be paying commentators to advance our agenda. Our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet."

    But the Education Department has since defended its payments to Mr. Williams, saying his commentaries were "no more than the legitimate dissemination of information to the public."

    The G.A.O. said the Education Department had no money or authority to "procure favorable commentary in violation of the publicity or propaganda prohibition" in federal law.

    The ruling comes with no penalty, but under federal law the department is supposed to report the violations to the White House and Congress.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/01/p...a295038c3630e7&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

    and armstrong williams isnt even an isolated incident. there was also the case of commentators maggie gallagher and michael mcmanus each being paid by the dept. of health and human servies to promote the bush administrations "healthy marriage initiative", which they both failed to disclose. plus, the military admits that they are planting news stories favorable to the u.s. in iraqi newspapers. there are probably hundreds of cases of this.

    are you honestly saying that propaganda = free speech? if they had not hidden the fact that they paid these people than i might agree that it is not illegal, but again, the crime lies in the deception of the american public.

    the laws were on the books and this administration changed the definitions of torture to be anything short of organ failure or death - this is in direct violation of our own federal laws.

    § 2441. War crimes
    (a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.
    (b) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).
    (c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
    (1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
    (2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
    (3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party and which deals with non-international armed conflict; or
    (4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.

    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002441----000-.html
     
  19. jo mama

    jo mama Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2002
    Messages:
    13,335
    Likes Received:
    7,407
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26401-2004Jun8.html

    this article discusses how torture was authorized from the highest levels - specifically, the justice department at the request of bush. the "torture memos", as they came to be known basically tossed the geneva convention down the tubes. they changed the definition of torture to be anything short of organ failure or death. this is a clear violation of u.s. and international law.

    "An Aug. 1, 2002, memo from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, addressed to Gonzales, said that torturing suspected al Qaeda members abroad "may be justified" and that international laws against torture "may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogation" conducted against suspected terrorists. The document provided legal guidance for the CIA, which crafted new, more aggressive techniques for its operatives in the field.

    In the view expressed by the Justice Department memo, which differs from the view of the Army, physical torture "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." For a cruel or inhuman psychological technique to rise to the level of mental torture, the Justice Department argued, the psychological harm must last "months or even years."

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

    John Choon Yoo (born 1967), is a professor of Law at the Boalt Hall School of Law, the University of California, Berkeley. A Korean-born American, he is best known for his work from 2001 to 2003 in the United States Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel.[1] He contributed to the PATRIOT Act and wrote controversial memos in which he advocated the possible legality of torture and that enemy combatants could be denied protection under the Geneva Conventions.

    In explaining the Yoo Doctrine, Yoo made the following statements during a December 1, 2005, debate in Chicago, Illinois, with Notre Dame Law School Professor Doug Cassel:

    Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
    Yoo: No treaty.
    Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
    Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.[12]


    http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1206725,00.html
    this article discusses how private contractors were used in abu-graib, oftentimes working alongside and giving orders to the m.p.'s, who were not properly trained to be prison guards in the first place. also details some of the gross abuses, like interrogators raping teenage boys.

    "In the report below we quote Gary Myers, a lawyer for one of the accused military policemen, as saying: "We know that CACI and Titan corporations have provided interrogators and that they have in fact conducted interrogations on behalf of the US and have interacted the military police guards at the prison."

    The scandal has also brought to light the growing and largely unregulated role of private contractors in the interrogation of detainees. According to lawyers for some of the soldiers, they claimed to be acting in part under the instruction of mercenary interrogators hired by the Pentagon. Lawyers for the soldiers argue they are being made scapegoats for a rogue military prison system in which mercenaries give orders without legal accountability.
    A military report into the Abu Ghraib case - parts of which were made available to the Guardian - makes it clear that private contractors were supervising interrogations in the prison, which was notorious for torture and executions under Saddam Hussein.
    One civilian contractor was accused of raping a young male prisoner but has not been charged because military law has no jurisdiction over him.

    One of the soldiers, Staff Sgt Chip Frederick is accused of posing in a photograph sitting on top of a detainee, committing an indecent act and with assault for striking detainees - and ordering detainees to strike each other.
    He told CBS: "We had no support, no training whatsoever. And I kept asking my chain of command for certain things ... like rules and regulations."
    His lawyer, Gary Myers, told the Guardian that Sgt Frederick had not had the opportunity to read the Geneva Conventions before being put on guard duty, a task he was not trained to perform.
    Mr Myers said the role of the private contractors in Abu Ghraib are central to the case.
    "I think it creates a laissez faire environment that is completely inappropriate. If these individuals engaged in crimes against an Iraq national - who has jurisdiction over such a crime?", Mr Myers asked.
    "It's insanity," said Robert Baer, a former CIA agent, who has examined the case, and is concerned about the private contractors' free-ranging role. "These are rank amateurs and there is no legally binding law on these guys as far as I could tell. Why did they let them in the prison?"

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4989481/
    Some of the images from Abu Ghraib, like those of naked prisoners terrified by attack dogs or humiliated before grinning female guards, actually portray "stress and duress" techniques officially approved at the highest levels of the government for use against terrorist suspects. It is unlikely that President George W. Bush or senior officials ever knew of these specific techniques, and late last —week Defense spokesman Larry DiRita said that "no responsible official of the Department of Defense approved any program that could conceivably have been intended to result in such abuses." But a NEWSWEEK investigation shows that, as a means of pre-empting a repeat of 9/11, Bush, along with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft, signed off on a secret system of detention and interrogation that opened the door to such methods. It was an approach that they adopted to sidestep the historical safeguards of the Geneva Conventions, which protect the rights of detainees and prisoners of war. In doing so, they overrode the objections of Secretary of State Colin Powell and America's top military lawyers—and they left underlings to sweat the details of what actually happened to prisoners in these lawless places. While no one deliberately authorized outright torture, these techniques entailed a systematic softening up of prisoners through isolation, privations, insults, threats and humiliation—methods that the Red Cross concluded were "tantamount to torture."

    http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=10828
    another article about how private contrators were directing military guards with regard to torture. once again, this is a report done by the army. very disturbing stuff.
    Two private military contractors are being investigated for their role in torture allegations at the Abu Ghraib prison, Iraq: CACI International, Inc. from Arlington, Virginia, and Titan of San Diego, California. CACI supplied at least one interrogator while Titan supplied at least two translators named in a 53-page classified internal Army report written by Major General Antonio Taguba that have dominated news coverage all over the world. (see box)
    A total of four men -- Steven Stephanowicz, John Israel, Torin Nelson and Adel Nakhla -- are named in the report. All of them were assigned to work with the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, a unit that is currently stationed in Germany and Italy in support of V Corps, under the command of Colonel Thomas Pappas.
    William Lawson, the uncle of Staff Sergeant Ivan "Chip" Frederick, one of the soldiers named in the report who is currently facing a court martial, told CorpWatch that his nephew told the family that the company employees were partially responsible for the abuses.
    "He tried to complain and that he was told by superior officers to follow instructions from civilians, contract workers interrogating the Iraqi prisoners. They said go back down there. Do what the civilian contractors tell you to do and don't interfere with them and loosen these soldiers up for interrogation."
    Lawson says that the company employees should be investigated and prosecuted if necessary. "I've spent 23 years in the military including time in Vietnam. I love this country but I will not allow my nephew to be used as a scapegoat," he said in a phone interview from his home in Newburg, West Virginia.
     
  20. El_Conquistador

    El_Conquistador King of the D&D, The Legend, #1 Ranking
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2002
    Messages:
    14,193
    Likes Received:
    5,177
    jo mama -- You are way off base with your arguments. You can't impeach simply because you oppose Bush's policies. I really can't find any substantive argument that you are making beyond that. Heck, your own liberal, Sisher Chang, is pimp slapping your argument down. That ought to be a sign that your *opinion* is based a little too much on your anger and not enough on a basis in fact. Sorry 'bout that.

    This entire liberal mantra of "I'm mad, let's impeach!", is just silly. Then again, when they are citing Jay Leno jokes as evidence that Bush should be impeached, then I shouldn't be surprised by further ignorance.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now