Making A Case For Bushco Prosecution

[BigRob]

Where did the billions go that we must bail out the giant financial institutions? The really big criminals get away scot free. Bush made torture a legal tool--he and Cheney--and for this they should be punished.

This is not a foreign policy issue. But OK. Congress approved the bailout, charge them.

Preemptive war on a country that was no threat to us except in the diseased minds of those who lied to lead us into war.

This can be debated on any number of grounds, but arguing that someone's mind is "diseased" is not going to win you a court case about this.

After the fact they found justification for their spying, collusion among the two parties in power is hardly proof of legality.

"Found" justification? It was plain as day the argument that says the President has the authority to carry out this program. He complied with FISA, complied with the National Security Act, and complied with his Constitutional obligation to defend the country.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

This is not a foreign policy issue. But OK. Congress approved the bailout, charge them.
This can be debated on any number of grounds, but arguing that someone's mind is "diseased" is not going to win you a court case about this.
"Found" justification? It was plain as day the argument that says the President has the authority to carry out this program. He complied with FISA, complied with the National Security Act, and complied with his Constitutional obligation to defend the country.

I wasn't refering to the bailout, I was talking about the people who took the money in the first place.

Torture. What about that?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Criminals should be prosectued. Especially criminals in high places because they are seen as the example for everyone.

....Especially when they're the ones who're (constantly) insisting on Allowing The Marketplace To Regulate Itself.​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

First problem, the United States does not recognize the World Court, therefore we would never agree to be subject to a trial there.

Yeah....for OBVIOU$-rea$on$!!!!

"It's not because they are "independent contractors" that the freelance torturers hired by the military and the CIA to do its dirty work in Afghanistan and Iraq and Guantanamo are getting off. It's because the Bush administration doesn't want to see them facing a public trial, in which they'd start talking publicly about who hired them and what they were hired to do."​

 

[BigRob]

Yeah....for OBVIOU$-rea$on$!!!!



​

Of course other notables who oppose the World Court would be not only Bush, but Kerry, Clinton, the list can continue.

 

[BigRob]

I wasn't refering to the bailout, I was talking about the people who took the money in the first place.

Torture. What about that?

Torture has never been a stated policy of the United States. Yes there are some instances where it has gone overboard and those people have been dealt with accordingly.

However, this will get back to the whole issue of "what is torture." Is waterboarding torture? Many good arguments on both sides. Is sleep deprivation torture? Without a clear cut definition of torture, it turns into a circular debate that will be unwinnable by either side, especially if you want o try senior administration officials.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Torture has never been a stated policy of the United States. Yes there are some instances where it has gone overboard and those people have been dealt with accordingly.

Yeah.....the same way folks were dealt-with, for outting Val Plame. ​

 

[BigRob]

Yeah.....the same way folks were dealt-with, for outting Val Plame. ​

Another sound legal argument from the Shaman corner.

 

[Sihouette]

Torture has never been a stated policy of the United States. Yes there are some instances where it has gone overboard and those people have been dealt with accordingly.

However, this will get back to the whole issue of "what is torture." Is waterboarding torture? Many good arguments on both sides. Is sleep deprivation torture? Without a clear cut definition of torture, it turns into a circular debate that will be unwinnable by either side, especially if you want o try senior administration officials.~ BigRob

It's very simple really. Torture is anything that would make you yourself suffer unwarrantedly. If your house is so clean that you advocate throwing stones...then by all means...go ahead..

"especially if you want to try senior administration officials."

Hmmm *checks calendar*... Well that's simple too. They no longer will be "senior", nor "administration", nor "officials" in about a week or so.

Problem solved!

 

[BigRob]

It's very simple really. Torture is anything that would make you yourself suffer unwarrantedly. If your house is so clean that you advocate throwing stones...then by all means...go ahead..

"especially if you want to try senior administration officials."

Hmmm *checks calendar*... Well that's simple too. They no longer will be "senior", nor "administration", nor "officials" in about a week or so.

Problem solved!

Of course that is "your" definition that holds no bearing in a court of law.

 

[Sihouette]

On October 20, Professor Marjorie Cohn became president of the National Lawyers Guild. In an interview with me Sunday, the new president of the NLG identified several instances in which she says President Bush has violated U.S. and international law. Here they are:

1) Bush illegally invaded a sovereign nation under false pretenses and then put laws in place to immunize himself and his high officials from war crimes prosecutions. Even before Bush removed his hand from the Bible Laura held as Chief Justice William Rehnquist swore him in as President, Bush was planning to attack Iraq and change its regime.

2) Bush ignored warnings of the 9/11 attacks, then used that tragedy as an excuse to invade Iraq and push laws through a shell-shocked Congress too timid to stand up for our Constitution.

3) Under the guise of fighting the terrorists, but undoubtedly aimed at those who criticize his policies, Bush inaugurated a secret program of warrantless spying on Americans that violates the Fourth Amendment and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

4) Bush's USA Patriot Act creates a crime of domestic terrorism that the government is using to target environmental rights activists.

5) Bush illegally suspended the Geneva Conventions, ordered the summary execution of those he suspected of terrorist connections, and put policies in place that resulted in torture and inhuman treatment of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantánamo and the CIA's "black sites."

6) Bush pushed the Military Commissions Act through Congress that unconstitutionally destroys habeas corpus rights for non-US citizens and waters down our obligations under the Geneva Conventions. It also allows Bush to classify both US and non-US citizens as "unlawful enemy combatants" and lock them up indefinitely.

Cohn is a criminal defense attorney and teaches criminal law and human rights at Thomas Jefferson School of Law. She lectures on international human rights and U.S. foreign policy. She is a news and legal consultant for CBS News, Court TV, BBC, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Air America Radio, NPR and Pacifica Radio. Her book, "Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law," is to be published, spring 2007 by PoliPointPress. Professor Cohn is the U.S. representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists.
Source: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/15031

Don't forget that the alleged perp of 9-11, Bin Laden, was an old family friend of the Bush family, who's other family members got a quick private flight out of the country at taxpayers expense, and at the order of the Bush administration, before the dust even settled in NYNY.

OK BigRob, let's look at your angle. In time of war, the President may act as legislator...you may even argue to the extreme of turning the very foundation of our country, the US Constitution on its head.

But...if the President's inner circle and he LIED about circumstances leading to our establishing said war, to coerce Congress into approving that war, then a very good argument could be made that any subsequent "laws" enacted, or even the very status of "war" itself could be nullified and the President et al can in fact be tried as not just lying to Congress, but also of High Treason, having illegally rewritten the Constitution for nefarious and selfish agendas.

I sincerely hope your buddies have their tracks covered with respect to that because if they don't, we CAN try them criminally. All it will take is testimony to convince Congress that the reasons supplied by Bushco, being the deciding factors compelling them to approve war were false, Bushco is going to have to invest in some more antiperspirant in the months to come.


The US owes the world at the very least an exhaustive investigation into the matter of lying to Congress to justify war. If lying is known to have happened, Congress is compelled by the description of their duties to try the case. And they are compelled for the matter of protecting US citizens from angry retaliation, to cooperate with the World Court in investigating whether or not Bushco lied to justify war in the first place. If this one fact can be proven, Bushco's other crimes will mandate proceedings for High Treason.

Their actions were treasonous because they lied in order to forward a political agenda of an elite group of wealthy oil barons, one of which is the Bush family friends, the Bin Laden family, Haliburton etc. And these agendas via an expensive and illegal war did cripple our economy so badly as to render it vunerable to our enemies. That is treason. And we have more than two witnesses to that I'll wager..

I've read US history books and I cannot help but wonder...what with Bush Sr. working the CIA back in the Kennedy days..Johnson...W.Bush and all that if Texas really didn't mean what it intended when it said it was going to get even with being forced to comply with statehood instead of succession. "The Lone Star State" has really put some dark characters very near our governing hub. All that oil and whatnot...I sometimes get the feeling like the Lone Star State might be making good on its promise?

 

[BigRob]

OK BigRob, let's look at your angle. In time of war, the President may act as legislator...you may even argue to the extreme of turning the very foundation of our country, the US Constitution on its head.

But...if the President's inner circle and he LIED about circumstances leading to our establishing said war, to coerce Congress into approving that war, then a very good argument could be made that any subsequent "laws" enacted, or even the very status of "war" itself could be nullified and the President et al can in fact be tried as not just lying to Congress, but also of High Treason, having illegally rewritten the Constitution for nefarious and selfish agendas.

I sincerely hope your buddies have their tracks covered with respect to that because if they don't, we CAN try them criminally. All it will take is testimony to convince Congress that the reasons they decided to approve war were false and Bushco is going to have to invest in some more antiperspirant in the months to come.

So now you want to try some vague notion of "international law" in a US domestic court? Perhaps you were referring to the World Court that we don't recognize? Get real.

None of what you have stated has any evidence to back it up. And every Bush action that was taken is backed up by an OLC decision. Beating one of those in court is quite frankly impossible.

One of your claims is the NSA program is illegal, which I already responded to and clearly showed that it was not. You are basically advocating for the trial of a President because he is more politically savvy than you. Bush did not "ram" things through Congress, Congress voted on and approved them. Now you do not like the outcome so you want to try the President? Good luck with that.

 

[Sihouette]

Now come on, you know that's not what I said. I said that if Congress can demonstrate that the original impetus for going to war was illegal, then the war itself is illegal and all statutes applying to the Executive branch for leeway during times of war are nullified...paving the way for prosecution.

That exists within AMERICAN law BigRob. You know that...silly!

 

[Sihouette]

In fact, in light of the internet and the preponderance of evidence already out implicating Bushco's having lied to Congress to coerce them to declare war, it is compulsory for Congress to pursue the Executive branch if the citizens it represents call for it.


But first I guess, they technically need to impeach Bush and Cheney...then they can go after them as the common criminals they appear to be.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.Article 1, Section 3

As to complying with the World Court, it seems that there is a law morally compelling Congress to cooperate with regards to the Bushco trials:

The Congress shall have Power To.. define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
Article 1 Section 8

It says they have the power to, not that they must. But in order to protect the US citizenry en masse, from backlash of atrocities committed unjustly to other nations by the harbored-fugitives Bushco, Congress is really mandated to prosecute them, because Congress is in charge of maintaining protective services for the citizenry of the US.

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Article 1 Section 8

Laws like these are somewhat broad and open to interpretation. It could be interpreted that Congress might choose to repel invasions (could be interpreted as "random acts of terrorism against the citizenry" ) by holding it's nefarious officers or former officers of state to prosecution for acts deemed to agitate compelling and well-founded worldwide hostilities towards the citizenry. So if the Hague finds Bushco blatantly guilty of acts of unforgivable and illegal atrocities within the World Court, Congress may then act on behalf of securing the safety of its citizenry from predictable backlashes by cooperating with extradition and sentencing of the criminal element responsible.

In fact, I would think it would be mandated?

 

[Sihouette]

In other words, if Congress has ample reason to expect, as a result of their actions, or in this case inactions, that US citizenry might come to harm as a direct result of these actions (or inactions) then wouldn't Congress be held culpable as to the harm that came to those citizens?

Might we not expect acts of terrorism to rise if we harbor criminals found so in the World Court? Might we also expect acts of terrorism to subside should we act as good world citizens and not protect nefarious individuals who have shown potential and in fact have caused great harm to a number of nations?