News – A federal magistrate indicated Tuesday he will order Vice President Dick Cheney to give sworn testimony in a lawsuit by a man who claims he was wrongly arrested after approaching Cheney.
They didn't compel Clintons to testify in a similar incident. Why should Cheney testify. Oh, thats right he is a Republican not a Democrat. Democrats are always right.
Clinton did have to testify. Bush and Cheney are above the law! They should both be charged for treason and as war criminals!
What crimes?
Warrantless wiretapping, lying to Congress, authorization of illegal torture techniques. Continuation of a war bbeyond the two year expiration without reauthorization from congress Discarding treaties without congressional authorization. These are just a few. There are many more, Secret meetings -- not disclosed to Congress with energy companies. Firing of the head of the GAO when overcharges made by Halliburton were exposed.
I think that the law has not prohibited wiretapping as practiced by the administration. How do you substantiate that he lied? No one could do it when Clinton lied to Congress. Any officially sanctioned interrogation methods have not included anything that clearly has the legal status of torture. Which treaty is violated? What secret meetings and how do you have evidence of them? The executive can fire any head of any Executive Branch agency whenever he wants. There is no legal prohibition.
DROP:
"What crimes?"
WARRANTLESS WIRETAPPING VIOLATES FISA & 4TH AMENDMENT
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/17/domestic...
"A federal judge ruled that the U.S. government's domestic eavesdropping program is unconstitutional and ordered it ended immediately."
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20051222.html
"The Administration is not releasing why the President could flout Congress's scheme for authorizing secret surveillance of terrorism suspects."
CHENEY'S CLOSED-DOOR ENERGY MEETING VIOLATES FEDERAL ADVISOR COMMITTEE ACT OF 1972
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020415/nichols
"Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, task forces like Cheney's must conduct public meetings, must allow interested parties to attend and must keep publicly available records. But arguing 'executive privilege,' Cheney has refused requests for records, despite legal challenges from the General Accounting Office."
http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2006/01/...
"In an earlier post, I argued that Bush's recently disclosed spy program almost certainly violates the Fourth Amendment. Now, I will take up the FISA issue...There is no question that the Bush spy program directly and unequivocally violated FISA."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/31/opinion/31bam...
"Last August, a federal judge found that the president of the United States broke the law, committed a serious felony and violated the Constitution. But under the Bush Justice Department, no F.B.I. agents were ever dispatched to padlock White House files or knock on doors and no federal prosecutors ever opened a case...It was a response to revelations that the agency had been monitoring the phone calls and e-mails of Americans for more than 4 years without first obtaining warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as required by the FISA Act."
Regarding FISA, I think its final status will have to be decided by the Supreme Court.
Wrong.
We don't have to wait for SCOTUS to make a decision. The federal court ALREADY ruled Bush's warrantless surveillance program halted on legal grounds. That ruling stands until SCOTUS decides to overturn it. Because SCOTUS did not overturn it and because there are no lawsuits filed to overturn this federal court's decision, the ruling STANDS: Bush's disregard for FISA was a violation of the Constitution.
Period.
"I think that the law has not prohibited wiretapping as practiced by the administration."
"....Regarding FISA, I think its final status will have to be ...."
You THINK?!? That's your basis for argument when presented with factual data -- that you THINK something is or isn't the case will simply make it so?? Well, fine then... I think your head is, as usual, jammed straight up your fascist ass. Make it so.
ABU GHIRAIB & TORTURE VIOLATES WAR CRIMES ACT of 1996 & GENEVA CONVENTIONS
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s14...
"One of the US soldiers convicted of mistreating prisoners at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison says his superiors made it clear those incarcerated were to be abused. The War Crimes Act, passed by Congress in 1996, allows criminal prosecution of Americans for actions that violate the rights granted prisoners and civilians by the Geneva Conventions and for 'outrages upon personal dignity.' It is backed by the full range of federal penalties, up to and including the death penalty. And all treaties, including the Geneva Conventions and the Torture Convention, are likewise the binding law of the land."
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040607/editors
"The Abu Ghraib prison scandal now implicates the highest levels of the Bush Administration in violating federal law and in war crimes."
The Geneva Convention was a treaty designed to protect uniformed combatants from mistreatment. It wasn't applied to terrorist suspects until a recent federal judicial ruling.
drop, even YOU have to admit that's BS...no one is fooled by that kind of statement.
No, I don't. There are no terrorist organization signitories to the Geneva Conventions.
That's NOT what Alberto Gonzalez said in an interview with the NYT:
Alberto Gonzalez, counsel to the President: "Both the United States and Iraq are parties to the Geneva Conventions. The United States recognizes that these treaties are binding in the war for the liberation of Iraq."
AG is a nobody. He has no power and his illegal alien drug smuggler supporting ass was right to resign. I could care less what he said.
Alberto Gonzalez held the position of the Attorney General, and as head of the Justice Department, was the TOP law enforcement officer and lawyer of the government. YOU can choose to ignore Alberto Gonzalez's statements, if you wish, but that doesn't nullify the fact that his words represent the legal position of the Bush administration.
drop,
You are assuming that all the people that get their Gevena Convention rights ignored are actually terrorists. This has been shown not to be true numerous times. What do we do then? Say "oh, sorry. I'm glad we ignore international law so I can have no consequences"???
According to the Geneva Conventions, the Taliban, the Sadr militia, and even armed Baathist remnants of Saddam's army are all included in the convention's protections. There is even a legal argument that Al Queda could fall under the conventions because they have a command structure.
It doesn't matter if you are fighting someone who has not signed the treaty, WE signed it, WE are constitutionally obligated to follow it. The mistreatment of prisoners is not just illegal, it is a moral outrage. No matter how heinous the terrorists are, we shouldn't be lowering ourselves to such despicable behavior.
In the bloodlust for revenge too many are willing to sacrifice our morality, our national standing and seem perfectly happy to put captured American GIs in future conflicts at grave risk.
Torture is the sadistic sport of those who are barren of morality and lacking in basic humanity.
That's not true. The Geneva Conventions specifically mention uniformed combatants but not terrorists.
Why don't you read the thing? What is not true? I would refer you to article 4, which defines who is covered. Militias are specifically mentioned. The Taliban are a classic militia force, as is the Sadr militia. Militias by modern definition are NON-UNIFORMED irregular forces.
It is a common right wing talking point in defense of the neocon Gitmo policies to claim that only uniformed soldiers are entitled to GC protections and rules. A simple reading of the Geneva accords will out that right wing, screech radio, talking head lie.
Because Al Queda is a quasi-militia, some might say they too are covered, though I disagree.
"allows criminal prosecution of Americans for actions that violate the rights granted prisoners and civilians by the Geneva Conventions"
You might want to look that up.
According to GC3, Terrorist and "illegal combatants" (Meaning they don't wear a uniform) are NOT covered by the GC3 and have NO protections.
Legally they are NON-PERSONS
The link below is related, this one is about Gitmo.
Detainees barred from challenging torture, abuse
The President does have certain protections due to the nature of the Executive. Clinton, for example, didn't get prosecuted for killing Serbian civilians.
As a signatory to the UN Charter and NATO, Clinton was bound to cooperate in the UN/NATO-led force, as the Constitution states that such international agreements become the "law of the land." Bush, on the other hand, invaded Iraq unilaterally and preemptively, in violation of UNSCR 1441 and the UN Charter and without NATO's approval.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
maneetion
MaryLynn_
harleyb761960
adamhowe1980
Helixbuilder
weirdnewz
RichFatCat
Tessylo
alexgarciainseattle
dunkirk
markmawn2
Jaydee40
airtravel123
newsarefree
Teech
Beau7890
aframerindio
Gnosticus
onlyonesecret
adub1010
1greenthumb
grungeplunge
Grrr
TheEveryDayHelper
TheRealizer
sailr
MacTeP
edwardmills
Welfare_Made_Me_Rich
Ionic
Rinty
time4change
Angelicat
ftheadnine
jaern
Slyfrog
schristoforides
jeepndave
lawrencee
cole122386
IdahoChris
supergolf
globalwarmer
JohnnyBull
david_nwpa
JOEY EVANS
JoseArmando
mntnman444
FalconEye
USdoct
| Channels | Anchors | Art & Design |
|---|
147)
Good. It's about time this mental midget was brought before the bar and explain why he had a man and his son arrested for telling ole dickless what he thought of him and the Iraq war.
"DICK" should have been impeached! nancy pelosi protected him. get rid of her, then impeach HIM. This dem congress is lame, pathetic, ridiculous, ...
No one supported Dennis K. when he tried to impeach "DICK."
I blame that on MSM (again.)
we should boycott the media outlets owned by murdock (sp?)
Who is this insignificant little pimp magistrate who thinks that Dick Cheney can be called to testify! How dare this little civil servant even THINK that the V.P. is subject to the same laws as the scum and slime he rules over.
This little twirp can order anything he wants. The great and powerful Cheney will tell him to go jerk himself a soda.
Testify my ass. Does this magistrate not understand the need for absolute secrecy in all matters of American government?
From boyhood protest to taking on Cheney
James B. Meadow, Rocky Mountain News
Saturday, October 21, 2006
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/art...
Lets see, humm, According to the Secret Service agents Howards was
"a man "who wasn't acting like the other folks in the area.""
According to Howard,
he watched Cheney "floating around, shaking hands," something inside Howards was detonated. "I simply couldn't, in good conscience, let this opportunity pass."
Detonated?
Main Entry: det*o*nate
Inflected Form(s): -nat*ed; -nat*ing
Etymology: French détoner to explode, from Latin detonare to expend thunder,
According to the Secret Service agents
"His behavior and demeanor wasn't quite right. The agents tried to question him, and he was argumentative and combative."
Now, would someone who claims "something inside detonated" appear to Secret Service agents as someone who "behavior and demeanor wasn't quite right" and when they stopped him he "was argumentative and combative"
Its clear Howard's was in a rage, the Secret Service agents spotted it and acted upon it, like they are supposed to do.
Now where's the video so we all can "see what happened"
Maybe you should INGEST the article linked to, rather than base-jumping the rubber toys section of the adult store.
The "detonation" was written by the journalist about the guy, it wasn't in any way a quote attributed to the guy arrested for no good reason.
It was written by the journalist INTERVIEWING Howards.
This IS HOWARDS account of what happened.
try reading more than 1 source for the story.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/art...
As he watched Cheney "floating around, shaking hands," something inside Howards was detonated. "I simply couldn't, in good conscience, let this opportunity pass."
He approached the vice president and when the number-two man in the U.S. government turned to him, Howards said, "Your policies in Iraq are reprehensible."
Later, he would recall that he may have lightly touched Cheney on the arm or shoulder because, "I remember thinking, 'He's wearing silk.' "
Did you even READ the article you linked to?
Except you left out the part where the secret agents don't agree on anything that happened and can't get their stories straight.
Injest, you are a freakin' pinhead. Go back to sleep.