PDA

View Full Version : you're the Prez not KING


46zilzal
07-26-2006, 05:48 PM
The American Bar Association claims President Bush has violated the oath of office by issuing hundreds of "signing statements" to disregard selected provisions of the laws that Congress passed and he signed.

A bipartisan, 11-member panel of the ABA found that President Bush is not only disregarding laws but using such signing statements far more than any president in history. In fact, Bush has used signing statements to raise constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more than 100 laws. All of the presidents combined before 2001 had issued only 600.

Secretariat
07-26-2006, 08:56 PM
The American Bar Association claims President Bush has violated the oath of office by issuing hundreds of "signing statements" to disregard selected provisions of the laws that Congress passed and he signed.

A bipartisan, 11-member panel of the ABA found that President Bush is not only disregarding laws but using such signing statements far more than any president in history. In fact, Bush has used signing statements to raise constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more than 100 laws. All of the presidents combined before 2001 had issued only 600.

Is this the Conyers vs. GW and the Spector vs GW suits?

Suff
07-26-2006, 09:09 PM
Is this the Conyers vs. GW and the Spector vs GW suits?

No , Independent report released 7/24/06

ABA: Bush violating Constitution
Bar association president says signing statements erode democracy
Monday, July 24, 2006
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's penchant for writing exceptions to laws he has just signed violates the Constitution, an American Bar Association task force says in a report highly critical of the practice.


The ABA group, which includes a one-time FBI director and former federal appeals court judge, said the president has overstepped his authority in attaching challenges to hundreds of new laws.
The attachments, known as bill-signing statements, say Bush reserves a right to revise, interpret or disregard measures on national security and constitutional grounds.

"This report raises serious concerns crucial to the survival of our democracy," said the ABA's president, Michael Greco. "If left unchecked, the president's practice does grave harm to the separation of powers doctrine, and

Tom
07-26-2006, 10:19 PM
ABA?
What is a second rate basketball leauge doing filing lawsuits?

I thought they folded???

JPinMaryland
07-26-2006, 11:04 PM
I dont get it, is the ABA mad at him for making so many of these statements or the principle itself? Maybe they should go after the first president who made one of these on principles alone. Otherwise they sound like they are just mad he made so many of them..feh.

PaceAdvantage
07-27-2006, 01:22 AM
In fact, Bush has used signing statements to raise constitutional objections to more than 800 provisions in more than 100 laws. All of the presidents combined before 2001 had issued only 600.

Didn't you once try to tell me that all Bush does is take vacations? How does he find the time......

Show Me the Wire
07-27-2006, 02:00 AM
The problem they have is not with the signing statement, per se, how the executive branch will interpret the law (that is what the executive branch does).

It is because Pres. Bush has used the signing statement to declare provisions of bills crafted to limit his executive powers as being unconstitutional and not enforceable. Meaning it renders any attempt at forcing the president to report to congress about specific matters, etc. meaningless.

JustRalph
07-27-2006, 02:16 AM
ah, it's good to be King.........

kenwoodallpromos
07-27-2006, 06:22 AM
"bills crafted to limit his executive powers".
Well, Excuse me if I question ABA's objection to Bush's objection to Congress Expanding their powers by taking on the US Supreme Court's function of limiting Presidential Powers!
What Exactly is it that the ABA objects to? the fact that Clinton and most of Congress are lawyers and Bush is not?
Many Congresses and Presidents have had turf wars, and the boundaries are supposed to be settled by the Supreme court, not Congress or the ABA.
"Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--"

kenwoodallpromos
07-27-2006, 06:36 AM
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm
Advisory statement to Clinton (his counsel) on signing statements (note conclusion).

JPinMaryland
07-27-2006, 10:07 AM
They could just impeach him if he is not following the law. Maybe the ABA should lobby for that if they really believe he's not following the law?

46zilzal
07-27-2006, 11:05 AM
They could just impeach him if he is not following the law. Maybe the ABA should lobby for that if they really believe he's not following the law?
good idea

46zilzal
07-27-2006, 11:35 AM
"[The Supreme Court was] silent on whether or not Guantánamo -- whether or not we should have used
Guantánamo. In other words, they accepted the use of Guantánamo, the decision I made." (Jul. 7, 2006)

Brain dead: all three nuerons were at work when he uttered this one.

Tom
07-27-2006, 12:02 PM
Ah, what a whine list we have here.

Rove - indicment is immenent!
Bush - impeach!
Chenny - impeach!
Gitmo - shut er down!
Iraq - get out!

( all sing)

....and the wheel,
goes round,
and round.

:lol:

JustRalph
07-27-2006, 02:10 PM
hang on to your hats, if the Dems get congress.........they will attempt to impeach him. It will be a major mistake........but they will try to impeach.

46zilzal
07-28-2006, 12:50 AM
hang on to your hats, if the Dems get congress.........they will attempt to impeach him. It will be a major mistake........but they will try to impeach.
there are lots of grounds for it. Not a mistake if it is proven.

Lefty
07-28-2006, 01:57 AM
46, lawyers contribute most of their money to the dems, so this is not surprising. Yawn....

PaceAdvantage
07-28-2006, 03:21 AM
there are lots of grounds for it. Not a mistake if it is proven.

"Lots of grounds" as in what? Anything you can dream up, I'm sure someone else can nullify.....

46zilzal
07-28-2006, 09:48 AM
http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/grounds.html
http://www.thefourreasons.org/

ljb
07-28-2006, 01:35 PM
While I agree that Bush and his cronies should be impeached, I don't think it is going to come down to that. The Dems have more class then that. They will just keep him in line for the next two years.
ps to 46,
interesting links.

Tom
07-28-2006, 05:19 PM
If wishes were horses.......you gotta win an election first.:D

JustRalph
07-28-2006, 07:26 PM
While I agree that Bush and his cronies should be impeached, I don't think it is going to come down to that. The Dems have more class then that. They will just keep him in line for the next two years.
ps to 46, interesting links.

Bullshit! they will go for the throat.......I give them 3 months at most.......

sq764
07-29-2006, 06:02 PM
http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/grounds.html
http://www.thefourreasons.org/
LOL, Bush has arranged for prisoners to be sent to prisons to be tortured?

Wow, then hell he is a bad guy. Just give us that proof here, as a side note ok?

:rolleyes:

46zilzal
07-29-2006, 06:20 PM
LOL, Bush has arranged for prisoners to be sent to prisons to be tortured?

Wow, then hell he is a bad guy. Just give us that proof here, as a side note ok?



called rendering. lots of evidence for it.

sq764
07-29-2006, 06:22 PM
called rendering. lots of evidence for it.
Show me where Bush approved of prisoners knowingly being tortured.

I'll sit back and wait for this one..

46zilzal
07-29-2006, 06:53 PM
Media reports describe suspects being arrested, blindfolded, shackled, and sedated, or otherwise kidnapped, and transported by private jet or other means to the destination country. The reports also say that the rendering countries have provided interrogators with lists of questions. Although Egypt has been the most common destination, suspected terrorists have been rendered to other countries, such as Jordan, Morocco, and Uzbekistan. According to former CIA case officer Bob Baer, "If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear - never to see them again - you send them to Egypt."[5]

kenwoodallpromos
07-29-2006, 07:57 PM
Media reports describe suspects being arrested, blindfolded, shackled, and sedated, or otherwise kidnapped, and transported by private jet or other means to the destination country. The reports also say that the rendering countries have provided interrogators with lists of questions. Although Egypt has been the most common destination, suspected terrorists have been rendered to other countries, such as Jordan, Morocco, and Uzbekistan. According to former CIA case officer Bob Baer, "If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear - never to see them again - you send them to Egypt."[5]
_
"He unsuccessfully urged the Clinton Administration to back an internal Iraqi attempt to overthrow Saddam Hussein in 1995 with covert CIA assistance. Baer quit the Agency in 1997 and wrote the book See No Evil documenting his experiences while working for the Agency."

46zilzal
07-29-2006, 08:05 PM
_
"He unsuccessfully urged the Clinton Administration to back an internal Iraqi attempt to overthrow Saddam Hussein in 1995 with covert CIA assistance. Baer quit the Agency in 1997 and wrote the book See No Evil documenting his experiences while working for the Agency."
the movie Syriana is based upon his work.

kenwoodallpromos
07-29-2006, 08:10 PM
Why do you stop short off posting that the policy began in 1995 under Clinton? I dislike both major parties and dislike having to research and post when you and other so called "liberals" are so conservative with information? This is how the tit-for-tat trying to blame only 1 party when they are both lousy starts most of the time.
If you do not like a policy that is currently in effect just say so, regardless of what the admin's party label is?

kenwoodallpromos
07-29-2006, 08:14 PM
Media reports describe suspects being arrested, blindfolded, shackled, and sedated, or otherwise kidnapped, and transported by private jet or other means to the destination country. The reports also say that the rendering countries have provided interrogators with lists of questions. Although Egypt has been the most common destination, suspected terrorists have been rendered to other countries, such as Jordan, Morocco, and Uzbekistan. According to former CIA case officer Bob Baer, "If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear - never to see them again - you send them to Egypt."[5]
_
Did you read the first link you gave for reasons to impeach Bush? it says BUSH STARTS THE RENDERING. That is an out and out lie that even Bob Baer disagreeds with.
All you are doing is giving a bad name to all liberals, including me!

46zilzal
07-29-2006, 08:26 PM
Bush and his team have set us a system of prisons around the world where prisoners can be tortured. They have transported prisoners from the United States, Europe and elsewhere to other countries for the purpose of having them tortured. They have fought hard to build a legal case for torture but the fact remains that torture is highly illegal. It is also considered an ineffective means of getting reliable information from a prisoner. Bush is guilty of violating of the Federal Torture Act, the UN Torture Convention and the Geneva Convention.

where does it say that (start)?

JustRalph
07-29-2006, 09:34 PM
finally bush is doing something I agree with.......... Yea! Bushie!

kenwoodallpromos
07-29-2006, 11:27 PM
Bush and his team have set us a system of prisons around the world where prisoners can be tortured. They have transported prisoners from the United States, Europe and elsewhere to other countries for the purpose of having them tortured. They have fought hard to build a legal case for torture but the fact remains that torture is highly illegal. It is also considered an ineffective means of getting reliable information from a prisoner. Bush is guilty of violating of the Federal Torture Act, the UN Torture Convention and the Geneva Convention.

where does it say that (start)?
_________

Bush and his team have set us a system.
Lionk on title of that "reason":
"Bush sets up secret prisons run by the CIA in foreign countries to escape US laws against torture. Rice claims European countries supported this plan. [WashingtonPost] [CNN] [FindLaw]"
This implies he started the export-for toture idea, which was Clinton's.
Clinton was never impeached for that.

hcap
07-30-2006, 05:00 AM
Did they skirt the Geneva Convention? Only following orders may not be an excuse according to the Nuremberg accords. In any case it seems they ARE a bit concerned. As youse guys say..."if you ain't done nothing wrong you got nothin to worry about".

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060728-013106-7191r

White House officials are drafting legislation to protect U.S. personnel from certain war crimes prosecutions, The Washington Post reported....

kenwoodallpromos
07-30-2006, 06:53 AM
Did they skirt the Geneva Convention? Only following orders may not be an excuse according to the Nuremberg accords. In any case it seems they ARE a bit concerned. As youse guys say..."if you ain't done nothing wrong you got nothin to worry about".

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060728-013106-7191r

White House officials are drafting legislation to protect U.S. personnel from certain war crimes prosecutions, The Washington Post reported....
I was in boot camp in 1982- what I was taught then was to follow the Geneva Convention and the UCMJ, no matter what orders are given. No one in the military is required to follow illegal orders. I'm sure that has not changed. Anyone who breaks the rules takes their individual chances of being punished.

Buckeye
07-30-2006, 11:25 AM
Bush will be the President for the entire length of his SECOND term barring anything unforseen. After that, he'll be out. Those opposed to his policies should name and support a candidate for the office that can win the next election, is that too much to ask?

Endorsement by the NYT or selected experts on debating skills will not do it.

Just trying to help.

Lefty
07-30-2006, 11:52 AM
hcap, it's my understanding that the Geneva Convention does not cover non uniformed terrorists. During all our wars, if you were out of uniform, you were treated as a spy.

Tom
07-30-2006, 12:13 PM
Hey Hcap - real simple: THEY behead and torture and mutilate our soldiers, WE do whatever the HELL we want to do any of them.

I searched , and found not a word from YOU expressing outrage over our two soliders mutlitated and beheaded. Genuiine soldier, in uniform. NOT mad dog cowards dressed like some minimum wage extra from Ben Hur. Where were you when a legitimate outrage was committed, Hcap, where were you?

sq764
07-30-2006, 12:47 PM
Media reports describe suspects being arrested, blindfolded, shackled, and sedated, or otherwise kidnapped, and transported by private jet or other means to the destination country. The reports also say that the rendering countries have provided interrogators with lists of questions. Although Egypt has been the most common destination, suspected terrorists have been rendered to other countries, such as Jordan, Morocco, and Uzbekistan. According to former CIA case officer Bob Baer, "If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear - never to see them again - you send them to Egypt."[5]
Thanks for this.. Still waiting for this proof. Maybe I missed it. Please try again

sq764
07-30-2006, 12:49 PM
Bush and his team have set us a system of prisons around the world where prisoners can be tortured. They have transported prisoners from the United States, Europe and elsewhere to other countries for the purpose of having them tortured. They have fought hard to build a legal case for torture but the fact remains that torture is highly illegal. It is also considered an ineffective means of getting reliable information from a prisoner. Bush is guilty of violating of the Federal Torture Act, the UN Torture Convention and the Geneva Convention.

where does it say that (start)?
How do you know this? Those 'unnamed sources' again? :lol:

sq764
07-30-2006, 12:51 PM
Did they skirt the Geneva Convention? Only following orders may not be an excuse according to the Nuremberg accords. In any case it seems they ARE a bit concerned. As youse guys say..."if you ain't done nothing wrong you got nothin to worry about".

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060728-013106-7191r

White House officials are drafting legislation to protect U.S. personnel from certain war crimes prosecutions, The Washington Post reported....
UPI is your source eh?

Hmm, these are some of the stories on their front page:

# Chicago Metra worker curses passengers
# Italian celeb proves beestung lips real
# Man charged with biting off rooster head
# A rare find in a Virginia dumpster site

are you serious dude?

kenwoodallpromos
07-30-2006, 01:34 PM
"Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention."
_______________________-
Hez, Hamas, Al-QUeda, terrorists, do not qualify.

Buckeye
07-30-2006, 01:52 PM
It's a "party thing", win the next election and then maybe you'll be happy.

Placing my bets against it. You guys against the President make me sick because you think about every possible argument against his actions.

Torture is not always bad and you clowns know it deep down. Why don't you just post "I voted for Kerry and I lost."

Better luck next time jokers. I don't support torture (unless it's for our enemies) but maybe you don't see it that way. Do you have some special category of rules concerning enemies of the State that exclude torture?

You guys are simply mad about losing the election, you have no principles so stop it.

Buckeye
07-30-2006, 02:14 PM
You lost we won.

Arguments aside, next time be more careful about who you put up as a presidential candidate.

Don't know who the the next candidates will be at this point, but I will vote for the most capable person who represents my inteests.

Correct me anytime you want, the winner of the next election will represent the intrests of America, not the interests of the NYT or the PLO.

The system is still working in 2006 and I venture to quess it will continue.

You clowns are supposed to lose so maybe that makes you feel better?

What do you stand for, truth and justice or what?

Buckeye
07-30-2006, 02:30 PM
You see, if we all agree to make the best of things instead of trying to win the last election, maybe we could all agree to go forward. Until then, it seems as though you may have your work cut out for you. At least until the next time our Country gets attacked, then I expect your company.

What a joke.

Got any better ideas better than Liberty, Equality and Opportunity?

Every once in a while a group of Men are willing to stake their Lives and Sacred Fortunes on an idea, that's the why The United States of America has done and will do everything required.

Get used to it. Vote for your candidate and if you lose that's understandable.

46zilzal
07-30-2006, 03:46 PM
Every once in a while a group of Men are willing to stake their Lives and Sacred Fortunes on an idea, that's the why The United States of America has done and will do everything required.

you really think that history is going to rectify the actions of these clowns? hardly

yeah their sacred forutnes are all in oil.

Tom
07-30-2006, 03:51 PM
Nothing to rectify.

We are writting history, not sitting on the sidelines in a foreign country throwing stones.

Any damned fool can sit and whine ( and most do)

If you feel so strongly, got off your duff and do something about it.

PaceAdvantage
07-30-2006, 03:58 PM
yeah their sacred forutnes are all in oil.

At least you won't have to waste much time deciding on your mantra for your next yoga class.

hcap
07-30-2006, 04:03 PM
Sq asks me if the link to the UPI article discussing the administrations concerns 'bout criminal prosecution is a valid source cuase they also have some doubtful stories as wellUPI is your source eh?So, sq, if you don't care for upi maybe the Supreme court will do?The reason the bushies are concerned is that they lost an important case in the Supreme Court

Why the Court Said No

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=43&ItemID=10633

"The Justice Department has maintained that the President can order torture, notwithstanding a criminal statute and an international treaty prohibiting torture under all circumstances. President Bush has authorized the National Security Agency to conduct warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, despite a comprehensive statute that makes such surveillance a crime. He has approved the "disappearance" of al-Qaeda suspects into secret prisons where they are interrogated with tactics that include waterboarding, in which the prisoner is strapped down and made to believe he will drown. He has asserted the right to imprison indefinitely, without hearings, anyone he considers an "enemy combatant," and to try such persons for war crimes in ad hoc military tribunals lacking such essential safeguards as independent judges and the right of the accused to confront the evidence against him.

In advocating these positions, which I will collectively call "the Bush doctrine," the administration has brushed aside legal objections as mere hindrances to the ultimate goal of keeping Americans safe. It has argued that domestic criminal and constitutional law are of little concern because the President's powers as commander in chief override all such laws; that the Geneva Conventions, a set of international treaties that regulate the treatment of prisoners during war, simply do not apply to the conflict with al-Qaeda; and more broadly still, that the President has unilateral authority to defy international law. In short, there is little to distinguish the current administration's view from that famously espoused by President Richard Nixon when asked to justify his authorization of illegal, warrantless wiretapping of Americans during the Vietnam War: "When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal."

These realities make the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, issued on the last day of its 2005-2006 term, in equal parts stunning and crucial. Stunning because the Court, unlike Congress, the opposition party, or the American people, actually stood up to the President.

lsbets
07-30-2006, 04:48 PM
Hcap - don't know much about zmag. Are they as reliable and honest as truthleftout? I have a gut feeling, which if I get really bored later I'll see if its right, that zmag is another looney left site, where the members of the cult all feel really good about each other and swallow whatever koolaid the Jim Jones wannabees feed them.

hcap
07-30-2006, 05:30 PM
Anybody or source who youse guys see as criticizing dear leader becomes suspect eh? Well no matter who reports it, the Supremes struck down the justice department in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

"In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the military commissions created by President Bush to conduct trials of Guantanamo detainees failed to meet the minimum standards of procedural fairness required under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and to afford defendants “all the judicial guaranties which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples” as required by the Geneva Conventions."

Now it so happens if you google Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, you will find ALL news sources reporting the bush justice dep losing that case. My link to UPI was suggesting there might be criminal problems for the administration. So what.
Don't even wanta see dear leader et al squirm a bit?

BTW, UPI has been acuired by the Unification Church recently. The Washington Times is owned by same, as is "Insight" magazine, and of course I wouldn't be surprised if moon has Faux news connections as well. So I am an equal oportunity employer of these sources. Whine all you want bout Zmag. And truthout is still more valid then some of youses' guys junk, beats say newsmax handsdown

Now here's the Wash Post..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/27/AR2006072701908_pf.html

Detainee Abuse Charges Feared
Shield Sought From '96 War Crimes Act

"An obscure law approved by a Republican-controlled Congress a decade ago has made the Bush administration nervous that officials and troops involved in handling detainee matters might be accused of committing war crimes, and prosecuted at some point in U.S. courts.

Senior officials have responded by drafting legislation that would grant U.S. personnel involved in the terrorism fight new protections against prosecution for past violations of the War Crimes Act of 1996. That law criminalizes violations of the Geneva Conventions governing conduct in war and threatens the death penalty if U.S.-held detainees die in custody from abusive treatment.

In light of a recent Supreme Court ruling that the international Conventions apply to the treatment of detainees in the terrorism fight, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales has spoken privately with Republican lawmakers about the need for such "protections," according to someone who heard his remarks last week.

Gonzales told the lawmakers that a shield is needed for actions taken by U.S. personnel under a 2002 presidential order, which the Supreme Court declared illegal, and under Justice Department legal opinions that have been withdrawn under fire, the source said. A spokeswoman for Gonzales, Tasia Scolinos, declined to comment on Gonzales's remarks.

lsbets
07-30-2006, 05:34 PM
Anybody or source who youse guys see as criticizing dear leader becomes suspect eh?

Actually it has nothing to do with criticizing Bush, I've read a lot about the case from a lot of different sources. The doubt comes because you linked to the source, and when there is an obscure source linked to by you, history says its probably bogus. You have developed quite the track record of posting bull the past few months. To make it simple, the doubts have nothing to do with Bush and everything to do with you.

sq764
07-30-2006, 05:43 PM
Anybody or source who youse guys see as criticizing dear leader becomes suspect eh? Well no matter who reports it, the Supremes struck down the justice department in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

"In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the military commissions created by President Bush to conduct trials of Guantanamo detainees failed to meet the minimum standards of procedural fairness required under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and to afford defendants “all the judicial guaranties which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples” as required by the Geneva Conventions."

Now it so happens if you google Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, you will find ALL news sources reporting the bush justice dep losing that case. My link to UPI was suggesting there might be criminal problems for the administration. So what.
Don't even wanta see dear leader et al squirm a bit?

BTW, UPI has been acuired by the Unification Church recently. The Washington Times is owned by same, as is "Insight" magazine, and of course I wouldn't be surprised if moon has Faux news connections as well. So I am an equal oportunity employer of these sources. Whine all you want bout Zmag. And truthout is still more valid then some of youses' guys junk, beats say newsmax handsdown

Now here's the Wash Post..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/27/AR2006072701908_pf.html

Detainee Abuse Charges Feared
Shield Sought From '96 War Crimes Act

"An obscure law approved by a Republican-controlled Congress a decade ago has made the Bush administration nervous that officials and troops involved in handling detainee matters might be accused of committing war crimes, and prosecuted at some point in U.S. courts.

Senior officials have responded by drafting legislation that would grant U.S. personnel involved in the terrorism fight new protections against prosecution for past violations of the War Crimes Act of 1996. That law criminalizes violations of the Geneva Conventions governing conduct in war and threatens the death penalty if U.S.-held detainees die in custody from abusive treatment.

In light of a recent Supreme Court ruling that the international Conventions apply to the treatment of detainees in the terrorism fight, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales has spoken privately with Republican lawmakers about the need for such "protections," according to someone who heard his remarks last week.

Gonzales told the lawmakers that a shield is needed for actions taken by U.S. personnel under a 2002 presidential order, which the Supreme Court declared illegal, and under Justice Department legal opinions that have been withdrawn under fire, the source said. A spokeswoman for Gonzales, Tasia Scolinos, declined to comment on Gonzales's remarks.
Your problem (like 46zilzal's) is that all you read is propaganda pieces and it's probably rare for you to actually read unbiased articles.

You don't even give yourself a chance to learn anything about this world, you're too busy on a witchhunt to bury Bush.

hcap
07-30-2006, 05:53 PM
Ls, your reaching. What about the Wash Post??? You are using the ole' "are you still beating your wife" crap. Nothing wrong with my sources. As good as the bs you buy into from the WMDs went to syria, to alarm over minor issues blown out of proportion by the rightwing bamboozling noise machine.

The bushies are worried. Particularly if the dems take the house.
As they should be.

Yes sq, I hate bush with a passion. Tell me what have you learned of the world other than one or 2 liner crapola you post. Curious you quote me and then say your usual nonsense-without adding a damn thing. Your pretty transparent

hcap
07-30-2006, 06:14 PM
Check out the originals and summaries.
And a lot more.

http://www.texscience.org/reform/torture/

THE MEMOS (all in PDF format):

Memo of Patrick F. Philbin and John C. Yoo, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, to William J. Haynes, II, General Counsel, Department of Defense, "Possible Habeas Jurisdiction over Aliens Held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba," 28 December 2001.

Memo of John C. Yoo and Robert J. Delahunty, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, to William J. Haynes, II, General Counsel, Department of Defense, "Application of Treaties and Laws to al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees," 9 January 2002. (Also here: Yoo's Memo on Avoiding the Geneva Convention Restrictions)

These two memorandums from the Justice Department, both written by John C. Yoo, a University of California law professor who was serving in the department, provided arguments to keep United States officials from being charged with war crimes for the way prisoners were detained and interrogated. The memorandums, principally the one written on January 9, provided legal arguments to support Bush administration officials' assertions that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to detainees from the war in Afghanistan.

Memo of Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President, to President George W. Bush, "Decision Re Application of the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War to the Conflict with al Qaeda and the Taliban," 25 January 2002. (Also here: Gonzales's Memo to Bush)

White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales, in a memorandum to President Bush, said that the Justice Department's advice in the January 9 memorandum was sound and that Mr. Bush should declare the Taliban and Al Qaeda outside the coverage of the Geneva Conventions. That would keep American officials from being exposed to the federal War Crimes Act, a 1996 law that carries the death penalty.

Memo of William H. Taft, IV, The Legal Adviser, Department of State, to Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President, "Comments on Your Paper on the Geneva Convention," 2 February 2002. (Also here: Taft's Memo on the Dangers of Rejecting the Geneva Conventions)

A memorandum from William H. Taft, IV, the State Department's legal adviser, to Mr. Gonzales warned that the broad rejection of the Geneva Conventions posed several problems. "A decision that the conventions do not apply to the conflict in Afghanistan in which our armed forces are engaged deprives our troops there of any claim to the protection of the conventions in the event they are captured." An attachment to this memorandum, written by a State Department lawyer, showed that most of the administration's senior lawyers agreed that the Geneva Conventions were inapplicable. The attachment noted that C.I.A. lawyers asked for an explicit understanding that the administration's public pledge to abide by the spirit of the conventions did not apply to its operatives.......

lsbets
07-30-2006, 06:19 PM
Ls, your reaching. What about the Wash Post??? You are using the ole' "are you still beating your wife" crap. Nothing wrong with my sources.

Hcap, no reaching here. As I stated before, history says that obscure source + link from Hcap = work of fiction.

Maybe bigmack can work on deprogramming you one day if you try to leave the hatebush cargo cult. :lol: :lol: :lol:

hcap
07-30-2006, 06:45 PM
Ls, wha-bout-da-iraqi-general-says-WMDs-went to syria??
And all the other claptrap you still cling to, like an old teddy bear,
or Gene Wilder in the original The Producers clinging
to his "blue blanky" :lol:

Maybe bigmack can pry it out of your hands

Then you too will realize the emp has no clothes.

lsbets
07-30-2006, 06:52 PM
Ls, wha-bout-da-iraqi-general-says-WMDs-went to syria??
And all the other claptrap you still cling to, like an old teddy bear,
or Gene Wilder in the original The Producers clinging
to his "blue blanky" :lol:

Maybe bigmack can pry it out of your hands

Then you too will realize the emp has no clothes.

Interesting you keep bringing up the Iraqi general. I don't believe I ever said anything beyond its a possibility (if you recall, the guy said it happenned, and some of us said, yeah that's possible), because the fact is we do not know what Saddam did with his WMDs. What do you think Saddam did with them Hcap? You have never asked that question, no matter how many times you have been asked. Why not? Is it not in the cult manual? It appears that the one with no clothes is you. What do you think happenned to them Hcap? Can you think when the cult doesn't give you an answer?

46zilzal
07-30-2006, 07:03 PM
You don't even give yourself a chance to learn anything about this world, you're too busy on a witchhunt to bury Bush.
this world is really effected by what the incompetent has/is doing

sq764
07-30-2006, 09:23 PM
Yes sq, I hate bush with a passion. Tell me what have you learned of the world other than one or 2 liner crapola you post. Curious you quote me and then say your usual nonsense-without adding a damn thing. Your pretty transparent
Why would I waste my time adding my opinion to you? Youalready know everything and you make it clear how intellectually superior you are to everyone that calls you out as the fraud you are.

Sorry buddy..

sq764
07-30-2006, 09:26 PM
Interesting you keep bringing up the Iraqi general. I don't believe I ever said anything beyond its a possibility (if you recall, the guy said it happenned, and some of us said, yeah that's possible), because the fact is we do not know what Saddam did with his WMDs. What do you think Saddam did with them Hcap? You have never asked that question, no matter how many times you have been asked. Why not? Is it not in the cult manual? It appears that the one with no clothes is you. What do you think happenned to them Hcap? Can you think when the cult doesn't give you an answer?
funny how they also never answer why a guy, with nothing to hide, would want to delay or prevent weapons inspectors from doing their thing..

Ironic, isn't it?

sq764
07-30-2006, 09:27 PM
this world is really effected by what the incompetent has/is doing
then stop

kenwoodallpromos
07-30-2006, 11:12 PM
Check out the originals and summaries.
And a lot more.

http://www.texscience.org/reform/torture/

THE MEMOS (all in PDF format):

Memo of Patrick F. Philbin and John C. Yoo, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, to William J. Haynes, II, General Counsel, Department of Defense, "Possible Habeas Jurisdiction over Aliens Held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba," 28 December 2001.

Memo of John C. Yoo and Robert J. Delahunty, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, to William J. Haynes, II, General Counsel, Department of Defense, "Application of Treaties and Laws to al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees," 9 January 2002. (Also here: Yoo's Memo on Avoiding the Geneva Convention Restrictions)

These two memorandums from the Justice Department, both written by John C. Yoo, a University of California law professor who was serving in the department, provided arguments to keep United States officials from being charged with war crimes for the way prisoners were detained and interrogated. The memorandums, principally the one written on January 9, provided legal arguments to support Bush administration officials' assertions that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to detainees from the war in Afghanistan.

Memo of Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President, to President George W. Bush, "Decision Re Application of the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War to the Conflict with al Qaeda and the Taliban," 25 January 2002. (Also here: Gonzales's Memo to Bush)

White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales, in a memorandum to President Bush, said that the Justice Department's advice in the January 9 memorandum was sound and that Mr. Bush should declare the Taliban and Al Qaeda outside the coverage of the Geneva Conventions. That would keep American officials from being exposed to the federal War Crimes Act, a 1996 law that carries the death penalty.

Memo of William H. Taft, IV, The Legal Adviser, Department of State, to Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President, "Comments on Your Paper on the Geneva Convention," 2 February 2002. (Also here: Taft's Memo on the Dangers of Rejecting the Geneva Conventions)

A memorandum from William H. Taft, IV, the State Department's legal adviser, to Mr. Gonzales warned that the broad rejection of the Geneva Conventions posed several problems. "A decision that the conventions do not apply to the conflict in Afghanistan in which our armed forces are engaged deprives our troops there of any claim to the protection of the conventions in the event they are captured." An attachment to this memorandum, written by a State Department lawyer, showed that most of the administration's senior lawyers agreed that the Geneva Conventions were inapplicable. The attachment noted that C.I.A. lawyers asked for an explicit understanding that the administration's public pledge to abide by the spirit of the conventions did not apply to its operatives.......
______________
The Geneva Convention does NOT apply, because the terrorists are committing genocide, which the UN deals with separately:

"Article 5
The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3.

Article 6
Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3 shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction."
_________
It says Bush has to follow the US Constitiution, which provides for "speedy trial" by a civilian court, as the UN considers persons committing genocide common criminals, like Hussein is being tried for, not part of any military.

Tom
07-30-2006, 11:31 PM
then stop

:lol::lol::lol:

Tom
07-30-2006, 11:34 PM
Hcap" Wolf! Wolf!
lsbets: Not again. Go away.
Hcap: No, really! Wolf! Wolf!
lsbets: You cry Wolf! everyday. Now go away.

*pause"

Hcap: "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
lsbets: "Good! Maybe it will fall on the wolf!"

lsbets
07-30-2006, 11:38 PM
Hcap" Wolf! Wolf!
lsbets: Not again. Go away.
Hcap: No, really! Wolf! Wolf!
lsbets: You cry Wolf! everyday. Now go away.

*pause"

Hcap: "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
lsbets: "Good! Maybe it will fall on the wolf!"

:lol: :lol: :lol: Tom - that ranks up there as one of your best.

hcap
08-05-2006, 07:22 AM
Youse guys may chuckle among youselves all ya want. Yuck it up.

Why don't we hear from da real chicken little?

" A year after his “Axis of Evil” speech before the U.S. Congress, President Bush met with three Iraqi Americans, one of whom became postwar Iraq’s first representative to the United States . . . During their conversation with the President, Galbraith claims, it became apparent to them that Bush was unfamiliar with the distinction between Sunnis and Shiites.

Galbraith reports that the three of them spent some time explaining to Bush that there are two different sects in Islam -- to which the President allegedly responded, “I thought the Iraqis were Muslims!”

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Ambassador_claims_shortly_before_invasion_Bush_080 4.html

http://billmon.org/archives/bush-dumb.jpg

Tom
08-05-2006, 11:10 AM
b-dit, b-dit, b-dit
That's all folks!

Check his shoes - he knows the difference between shiite and shinola!

:lol:

Secretariat
08-05-2006, 12:52 PM
Youse guys may chuckle among youselves all ya want. Yuck it up.

Why don't we hear from da real chicken little?

" A year after his “Axis of Evil” speech before the U.S. Congress, President Bush met with three Iraqi Americans, one of whom became postwar Iraq’s first representative to the United States . . . During their conversation with the President, Galbraith claims, it became apparent to them that Bush was unfamiliar with the distinction between Sunnis and Shiites.

Galbraith reports that the three of them spent some time explaining to Bush that there are two different sects in Islam -- to which the President allegedly responded, “I thought the Iraqis were Muslims!”

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Ambassador_claims_shortly_before_invasion_Bush_080 4.html

http://billmon.org/archives/bush-dumb.jpg


:lol: :lol: :lol: