Making A Case For Bushco Prosecution

Do you take medication for your masochistic-tendencies?

:rolleyes:

You take the NYT, I'll use legal precedence and court decisions.


The NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program is the controversial program that authorizes the monitoring of, without warrants, phone calls, e-mails, internet activity, text messaging, and other communication involving any party suspected of having links to terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda or its affiliates even when the other party to the call is within the United States. The Executive has taken the position that it is acting within its constitutional obligations and within the law by carrying out this program.

Article II of the Constitution grants the Executive the power of “Commander in Chief” and also requires that the Executive “take care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This power, along with powers granted in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Resolution and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as well as judicial precedence in regards to the Fourth Amendment give the Executive all the power that is needed to carry out this program.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was enacted in 1978 as a response to such programs as Operation Minaret and the Church committee. FISA allows the Justice Department to obtain warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) before or up to 72 hours after the beginning of the surveillance. FISA authorizes a FISC judge to issue a warrant if "there is probable cause to believe that… the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power." Second, FISA permits the President or his delegate to authorize warrantless surveillance for the collection of foreign intelligence if, "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.” While this would seem to close the case, it also allows for this to be circumvented by a statute from Congress.

In United States v. Duggan it was upheld at the circuit court level that there are exceptions to the normal warrant requirements when the purpose of the surveillance is to prevent attack from a foreign threat. Also, the Supreme Court has not ruled on the legality of targeting US persons acting as agents of a foreign power and residing in this country, however this scenario has previously occurred, such as in the Aldrich Ames case. It can be speculated that the Supreme Court refuses to rule on this issue so as not to bind the Executive’s hands.

The National Security Act of 1947 states that the President is required to keep Congressional intelligence committees "fully and currently" informed of U.S. intelligence activities, however for covert actions, from which intelligence gathering activities are specifically excluded in §413b(e)(1), the President is specifically permitted to limit reporting to the “gang of eight.” The Executive Branch fully complied with this requirement when implementing the NSA terrorist surveillance program by briefing thirteen members, dozens of times, over the span of three Congresses. Aside from this is the fact that FISA targets an outdated method of surveillance and an outdated enemy. This is clearly seen in the testimony of SA Rowley when she stated FISA procedural hurdles had hampered the FBI's investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker.

The President was also given clear authority under the Authorization to Use Military Force Resolution, which establishes the statute that enables the Executive to conduct this program. The AUMF authorized the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The preamble of the resolution goes as far as to state “Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States:” This is a clear indication that Congress is giving the President, under authority of the Constitution, the ability to do whatever he deems necessary, as Commander in Chief, to prevent further terror attacks. The Executive asserts that communications intelligence is an essential part of waging war and preventing terror attacks and that this must be included in any natural reading of the authorization. Further there is a long precedence of the Executive engaging in warrantless surveillance dating back to George Washington's interception of British mail. The actions taken by the Executive in the NSA Terrorist Surveillance program have a long precedence to stand on.

In a ruling made by the Supreme Court in 2004, in the case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld the Supreme Court ruled that the Executive had the ability under the authorization to use force passed by Congress to detain an American citizen captured on a foreign battlefield “based on longstanding law-of-war principles,” in spite of a federal law prohibiting such detentions unless authorized by Congress. This would seem to show that Congress' force authorization implicitly gave the president the power to conduct any activity considered an essential aspect of waging war, including warrantless electronic surveillance, at home and abroad. The intent of Congress is clear again in the Protect America Act of 2007. This bill allowed the monitoring of all electronic communications of people in the United States without a court's order or oversight, so long as it is not targeted at one particular person "reasonably believed to be" inside the country. These legislative actions, as well as judicial precedence makes it clear that the Executive is acting within its legal bounds.

One of the arguments made against the NSA program is that it violates the rights protected by the 4th Amendment. In fact, The Supreme Court held in Katz v. United States (1967), that the monitoring and recording of private conversations within the United States constitutes a "search" for Fourth Amendment purposes, and therefore the government must generally obtain a warrant before undertaking such domestic wiretapping. However, the protection of "private conversations" has been held to apply only to conversations where the participants have not merely a desire but a reasonable expectation that the conversation is indeed private to themselves and that no party whatsoever is listening in. In the absence of such a reasonable expectation, the Fourth Amendment does not apply, and surveillance without warrant does not violate it. Privacy is clearly not a reasonable expectation in communications to persons in the many countries whose governments openly intercept electronic communications, and is of dubious reasonability in countries against which the United States is waging war.

Opponents of this action will tell you that broad claims of Presidential power contradicts the will of Congress when it passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and that the law intended for the government to seek warrants from a special FISA court before conducting such surveillance. While this might possibly be true at the time it was passed, the circumstances demand for more up to date version of this law that is able to adapt with the changing nature of warfare. As John Yoo argues. “Congress has already authorized the President to use force under the Constitution; the president has the authority to use force to repel outside attacks. Why would the president be disabled from learning the information about where to point the gun when he already has the power to pull the trigger? I think that's basically what we're talking about. The President's constitutional authority to use force to try to kill the leaders of Al-Qaeda has to carry with it the authority to use all the methods he can to find out where they are in the first place.”

Given the above, the Executive has not only the authority, but the obligation, to carry out the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program. It must be viewed that if an interpretation of FISA that allows the President to conduct the NSA activities were not “fairly possible,” FISA would be unconstitutional as applied in the context of this congressionally authorized armed conflict. In that event, FISA would prohibit the President from undertaking actions necessary to fulfill his constitutional obligation to protect the Nation from foreign attack in the context of a congressionally authorized armed conflict with an enemy that has already staged the most deadly foreign attack in our Nation’s history. As seen in Morrison V. Olson, a statute may not impede the President’s ability to perform his constitutional duty, particularly not the President’s most solemn constitutional obligation—the defense of the Nation.
 
Werbung:
That's all a fancy way of saying "good lawyers will use twisted semantics of law to get our criminals off the hook".

But it still doesn't solve the problem of American citizens not feeling safe abroad. The world believes there is a case for criminality, since we tried people at Nueremberg for the same types of crimes...suddenly our war criminals have a justified cause...as long as it was trying to grab a resource like oil..

No, the rest of the world is fuming mad (and if they "aren't", they're actually scared s-less that they'll get caught up in the prosecution too...eh T. Blair? ) at the Bushco group and American citizens will not be safe, nor welcomed, respected nor loved abroad as long as we let this wee little group of A-holes off the hook and harbor them here. So millions will suffer and some may die for Bushco's "right" to abuse the laws of the World Court and for lying to Congress about WOMDs..the Downing Street Memo and so forth.. Not in my universe..

The Hague is gearing up for proceedings regardless of Congress and the new administration's lack of testicles when it comes to keeping its house in order.

And how can foreign governments lend us credit we so badly need to recover if we show them via our inaction and passive assent that we agree with what Bushco did to the Middle East and to our own Congress..and at Gitmo? It would be like having a whipped wife of domestic violence coming in for a loan so she can go to the store and buy her husband more whiskey, to get drunk on, and beat her some more. Do we really believe foreign countries are stupid enough to lend to a nation controlled by mindless, shortsided thugs like Bushco?

No.

So, for American safety abroad, our very reputation, to escape being held by the world as "guilty also by passive assent", and for our economy, we have no other choice but to join with the Hague's proceedings against Bushco. I almost fell off my chair last night watching an interview on Keith Olberman's show where they were actually seriously discussing if Americans would welcome the Hague's inquiries and investigation into Bushco's culpability. :p

I thought, "throw a stone and see if you cannot hit someone who would pay good money to see Cheney, Bush and the gang wearing orange and peering from behind bars.."

Were they serious?
:rolleyes:

You'll see nothing but how "americans don't want Bushco prosecuted"...blah blah blah blah...on every media outlet they can still control, or coerce...but do a poll of the average Joe and you'll find that if they discover we'd be harboring fugitives and making americans less safe by enraging the World further against us... you'd find like an 80% approval rating for prosecution instead of harboring fugitives..
 
You're forgetting that prosecuting them would make the world safer for Americans. Seeing that we can keep our own aggressors in line and accountable will ease tensions worldwide and open arms to americans.

Prosecuting them is actually a national-security must.

Criminals should be prosectued. Especially criminals in high places because they are seen as the example for everyone. Maybe prosecuting the Buschco would make the next person who wants to lie to us about war, or legalize torture, or spy on the American people, to think better of it.
 
That's all a fancy way of saying "good lawyers will use twisted semantics of law to get our criminals off the hook".

Actually its a legal way of saying you have no case.

But it still doesn't solve the problem of American citizens not feeling safe abroad. The world believes there is a case for criminality, since we tried people at Nueremberg for the same types of crimes...suddenly our war criminals have a justified cause...as long as it was trying to grab a resource like oil..

You want to go into a court room with the argument "the world believes there was criminality here?" How ridiculous is that. Public opinion is not what drives interpretation of law.

No, the rest of the world is fuming mad (and if they "aren't", they're actually scared s-less that they'll get caught up in the prosecution too...eh T. Blair? ) at the Bushco group and American citizens will not be safe, nor welcomed, respected nor loved abroad as long as we let this wee little group of A-holes off the hook and harbor them here. So millions will suffer and some may die for Bushco's "right" to abuse the laws of the World Court and for lying to Congress about WOMDs..the Downing Street Memo and so forth.. Not in my universe..

First problem, the United States does not recognize the World Court, therefore we would never agree to be subject to a trial there. Aside from that, you have made no legal case, therefore a trial is a waste of time.

The Hague is gearing up for proceedings regardless of Congress and the new administration's lack of testicles when it comes to keeping its house in order.

Good, they will have hearing, and the United States will not recognize whatever they have to say, along with the UK. Both members of the Security Council mind you, that technically speaking can veto that court's decision.

And how can foreign governments lend us credit we so badly need to recover if we show them via our inaction and passive assent that we agree with what Bushco did to the Middle East and to our own Congress..and at Gitmo? It would be like having a whipped wife of domestic violence coming in for a loan so she can go to the store and buy her husband more whiskey, to get drunk on, and beat her some more. Do we really believe foreign countries are stupid enough to lend to a nation controlled by mindless, shortsided thugs like Bushco?

Other names do not care about "what Bush did in the Middle East" when they are thinking about loaning us money. They care about the rates and the relative strength of the dollar. As for nations lending the US money. We have no problem obtained foreign credit, so apparently they are stupid enough.

So, for American safety abroad, our very reputation, to escape being held by the world as "guilty also by passive assent", and for our economy, we have no other choice but to join with the Hague's proceedings against Bushco. I almost fell off my chair last night watching an interview on Keith Olberman's show where they were actually seriously discussing if Americans would welcome the Hague's inquiries and investigation into Bushco's culpability. :p

No sitting President is going to take action that will weaken the power of his own office. Not even Obama. The World Court can have their staged play if they would like, but it means nothing in the real world.

I thought, "throw a stone and see if you cannot hit someone who would pay good money to see Cheney, Bush and the gang wearing orange and peering from behind bars.."

They are not going to jail, regardless of what MSNBC might tell you. A court that the United States does not recognize have no authority to hold a trial like this. They can if they like, but it is all for show.

You'll see nothing but how "americans don't want Bushco prosecuted"...blah blah blah blah...on every media outlet they can still control, or coerce...but do a poll of the average Joe and you'll find that if they discover we'd be harboring fugitives and making americans less safe by enraging the World further against us... you'd find like an 80% approval rating for prosecution instead of harboring fugitives..

Do tell what laws you plan to try them under because so far you have made no legal case. Also, yet again, this court has no authority on this matter. You are of course welcome to continue to think whatever you wish.
 
"This is not the America I know," President George W. Bush said after the first, horrifying pictures of U.S. troops torturing prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq surfaced in April 2004. The President was not telling the truth. "This" was the America he had authorized on Feb. 7, 2002, when he signed a memorandum stating that the Third Geneva Convention — the one regarding the treatment of enemy prisoners taken in wartime — did not apply to members of al-Qaeda or the Taliban. That signature led directly to the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay. It was his single most callous and despicable act. It stands at the heart of the national embarrassment that was his presidency.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1870319,00.html

Even George Washington wrote about torture and he decried it in any situation. We signed the Geneva Convention and George Bush abrogated that agreement arbitrarily for the American people. He should be prosecuted for the war crime of mistreatment of prisoners.

And before someone gives me grief because "the other guys did it too!", let me say that what other people do is not the issue. America used to stand for something, we were the good guys, we didn't start preemptive wars and we didn't torture people, but now we're end up looking like any other cheap-ass dictaorship with our ethically retarded leader doing things in our name that should never be done.
 
"This is not the America I know," President George W. Bush said after the first, horrifying pictures of U.S. troops torturing prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq surfaced in April 2004. The President was not telling the truth. "This" was the America he had authorized on Feb. 7, 2002, when he signed a memorandum stating that the Third Geneva Convention — the one regarding the treatment of enemy prisoners taken in wartime — did not apply to members of al-Qaeda or the Taliban. That signature led directly to the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay. It was his single most callous and despicable act. It stands at the heart of the national embarrassment that was his presidency.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1870319,00.html

Even George Washington wrote about torture and he decried it in any situation. We signed the Geneva Convention and George Bush abrogated that agreement arbitrarily for the American people. He should be prosecuted for the war crime of mistreatment of prisoners.

And before someone gives me grief because "the other guys did it too!", let me say that what other people do is not the issue. America used to stand for something, we were the good guys, we didn't start preemptive wars and we didn't torture people, but now we're end up looking like any other cheap-ass dictaorship with our ethically retarded leader doing things in our name that should never be done.

The additional Protocols of this part of the Geneva Conventions (Protocol I and II) were never ratified by the United States for the sole reason that we do not want to legitimize these guerrilla terror groups.

Now you are coming back and saying the United States needs to be held accountable for provisions it refused to sign, basically for the sole purpose of legitimizing these groups?

At best, your case would hang in the balance on some notion of international common law, which will not win you a case. The express reservations to the earlier stated Protocols were to avoid exactly what is going on now. No US governmental body would recognize any international court decision otherwise. No world court (at least not a UN one) will take on the matter, because their credibility will be destroyed when the United States simply ignores their ruling.
 
The additional Protocols of this part of the Geneva Conventions (Protocol I and II) were never ratified by the United States for the sole reason that we do not want to legitimize these guerrilla terror groups.

Now you are coming back and saying the United States needs to be held accountable for provisions it refused to sign, basically for the sole purpose of legitimizing these groups?

At best, your case would hang in the balance on some notion of international common law, which will not win you a case. The express reservations to the earlier stated Protocols were to avoid exactly what is going on now. No US governmental body would recognize any international court decision otherwise. No world court (at least not a UN one) will take on the matter, because their credibility will be destroyed when the United States simply ignores their ruling.

That's too bad, it makes us just another rogue State living the Might is Right philosophy.
 
Yes, and you know what America does with rogue states...

Invade and kill!

What's good for the goose is good for the gander..(more farm wisdom there for you..lol..)

Criminals should be prosectued. Especially criminals in high places because they are seen as the example for everyone. Maybe prosecuting the Buschco would make the next person who wants to lie to us about war, or legalize torture, or spy on the American people, to think better of it.~Mare

Absolutely true and excellent points to add to the already long list of why we should prosecute criminals.

Let's look at it this way BigRob..maybe you can wrap your head around this one. If I or another democrat had done these atrocities, we'd be hung, strung, drawn, quartered, tarred and feathered for good measure.

Bill Clinton had extramarital sex and you'd have thought the GOP was going to lynch him...they did impeach him.

NOTHING has been done to Bushco for far, far, far worse atrocities that may hurt our country for many decades to come. I am wondering if our economy, wrecked by nothing but the Treasury being drained to fund a hostile corporate takeover of Middle Eastern oil reserves, will ever recover?

One thing is certain about the Iraq war: It has cost a lot more than advertised. In fact, the tab grows by at least $200 million each and every day.

In the months leading up to the launch of the war three years ago, few Bush administration officials were willing to comment publicly on the potential costs to the United States. After all, no cost would have been too high if the United States faced an imminent threat from an Iraq armed with weapons of mass destruction, the war's stated justification.

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/
The lies about WOMDs are therefore directly related to our economy's demise.

This too should be traced, documented and brought up at the trials. I say, give them the option out of sentencing if they pay billions in restitution to Iraq and the US citizens. Garnish their wages...the same would be done to any other citizen but Bushco..
 
Absolutely true and excellent points to add to the already long list of why we should prosecute criminals.

Let's look at it this way BigRob..maybe you can wrap your head around this one. If I or another democrat had done these atrocities, we'd be hung, strung, drawn, quartered, tarred and feathered for good measure.

Wrap my head around it? You have been unable to make a single legal point on any criminal issue. Aside from that, no, if a Democrat had done this you would not hear me saying anything. I support American dominance, regardless of which party is at the helm.

Bill Clinton had extramarital sex and you'd have thought the GOP was going to lynch him...they did impeach him.

I do not think this is relevant to a foreign affairs or a security issue. That said, I was not one of the ones screaming for Clinton's head.

NOTHING has been done to Bushco for far, far, far worse atrocities that may hurt our country for many decades to come. I am wondering if our economy, wrecked by nothing but the Treasury being drained to fund a hostile corporate takeover of Middle Eastern oil reserves, will ever recover?

As has been pointed out, all the funds going to fund the wars in the Middle East do not even compare to the amount we are currently blowing on financial bailouts and stimulus plans.

The lies about WOMDs are therefore directly related to our economy's demise.

The financial sector bought bad paper and the global money structure collapsed because we invaded Iraq? I do not think so.

This too should be traced, documented and brought up at the trials. I say, give them the option out of sentencing if they pay billions in restitution to Iraq and the US citizens. Garnish their wages...the same would be done to any other citizen but Bushco..

No it would not. You have presented no legal argument capable of an any actual conviction... therefore all you would see is "any other citizen" walking out of the courtroom with charges dropped.
 
Not legitimizing terror groups makes us a rouge state?

Refusing to torture people is hardly legitimizing terror groups. Rogue States ignore International law and torture or disappear people, start preemptive wars, spy on their own citizens, lie, cheat, and steal.
 
You don't know any administrations doing that do you BigRob?
:rolleyes:

Surely not innocent, pure and chaste, blameless, blood-free, sweet sweet Dick Cheney or George W.? :(

:p

I could put both of their souls in a thimble and still have ample room to spare.
 
Refusing to torture people is hardly legitimizing terror groups. Rogue States ignore International law and torture or disappear people, start preemptive wars, spy on their own citizens, lie, cheat, and steal.

Torturing people is hardly a policy of the United States. Has it happened, yes, is it a policy, no.

The United State also does not cause its people to "disappear." A solid case can be made also that a preemptive war is not a violation of international law. In terms of "spying" on its own citizens, all laws were fully complied with, and after the controversy there was bipartisan support to continue the program in a slightly revised form.

When did we "cheat" and "steal?"
 
You don't know any administrations doing that do you BigRob?
:rolleyes:

Surely not innocent, pure and chaste, blameless, blood-free, sweet sweet Dick Cheney or George W.? :(

:p

Either make a legal case for your points, or it will become increasing obvious to all reading this that you simply do not have one. People do not get put on trial because you wish it were so.
 
Werbung:
Torturing people is hardly a policy of the United States. Has it happened, yes, is it a policy, no.

The United State also does not cause its people to "disappear." A solid case can be made also that a preemptive war is not a violation of international law. In terms of "spying" on its own citizens, all laws were fully complied with, and after the controversy there was bipartisan support to continue the program in a slightly revised form.

When did we "cheat" and "steal?"

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.

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.

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