Making A Case For Bushco Prosecution

[Sihouette]

There is another case to be made for prosecution. Bear with me as these things dribble in little by little to add to the snowball.

Bushco, if nothing else, reports to be all about defeating terrorism. They've gone to great lengths to strrrrreeeeetch the Constitution to allow themselves to basically have Gestapo powers to cuff, hold and torture people, to eavesdrop and invade privacy...basically sky's the limit when it comes to "preventing terrorism"...."for US safety!".

Right?

Now when asked to define what a terrorist is in their description, since many people are concerned about their loose and groovy retooling of the US Constitution, Bushco responds with a very generalized statement, a sweeping blanket to include "any person the Presidency deems a threat to the United States."

Good.

Now.

This next sitting president may, at his descretion, find that one of the greatest threats to the very stability of our nation was an illegal and expensive war that plunged our nation onto the very brink of total collapse and ruined our relationship with foreign countries we used to consider allies. In other words, forget 9-11. We can rebuild a couple of skyscrapers. What George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and co have done to our country, with the help and push from their BigOil buddies is perhaps 1,000 times worse than 9-11. And you know all what manner of things were justified doing on the heels of that convenient episode to justify "taking care of business".

So, let's take care of business and prosecute a group of terrorists that make Al Quaida look like fluffy bunny rabbits. After all, this is what Bushco would want us to do... right?


Don't worry guys (and gal) we won't waterboard you to get the information we need to prosecute and hold you. Might freeze your assets though. Garnish some profits....

 

[Sihouette]

Here's another reason to prosecute of the ? How many are we up to now?

From Cheney's interview on radio today, he defended that torture was necessary in order to achieve the objectives he and Bush were after with their illegal war in Iraq.

Here's why we must cooperate with the World Court and the Geneva Convention. Cheney has set a very troubling precident that actually endangers the lives and well-being of our armed servicepeople. The nation most looked to for its benevolence, has now set a precident that any nation who feels it "necessary" to acheive their own objectives in war may also resort to any means it deems necessary to do so.

What will keep other nations from escaping prosecution, once it is OK'd for the US to have violated the Geneva convention? We liked waterboarding, but maybe other nations might prefer bamboo up the fingernails? Perhaps being buried in sand near a red ant hill? Or maybe their local makes it more workable to take US soldiers prisoner and burn their limbs slowly from the bottom up, acid in the face? Whatever is chic for their brand of now-permissable torture "in time of war" "to acheive the objectives".

If Congress cares about its armed personelle, it simply must prosecute these crimes in tandem with the World Court. To not do so would place our service people in grave danger of torture themselves. The US Congress' duties mandate that it must manage the armed forces of our country. That also includes managing the conditions of safety in combat and other missions. To protect our armed service people from the Cheney precident, it must be reversed. And to do so, it is compulsory on Congress to pursue those responsible for bringing about the conditions which have now placed their wards, the american servicepeople, in real and tangible danger of torture themselves.

 

[BigRob]

Here's another reason to prosecute of the ? How many are we up to now?

From Cheney's interview on radio today, he defended that torture was necessary in order to achieve the objectives he and Bush were after with their illegal war in Iraq.

Here's why we must cooperate with the World Court and the Geneva Convention. Cheney has set a very troubling precident that actually endangers the lives and well-being of our armed servicepeople. The nation most looked to for its benevolence, has now set a precident that any nation who feels it "necessary" to acheive their own objectives in war may also resort to any means it deems necessary to do so.

What will keep other nations from escaping prosecution, once it is OK'd for the US to have violated the Geneva convention? We liked waterboarding, but maybe other nations might prefer bamboo up the fingernails? Perhaps being buried in sand near a red ant hill? Or maybe their local makes it more workable to take US soldiers prisoner and burn their limbs slowly from the bottom up, acid in the face? Whatever is chic for their brand of now-permissable torture "in time of war" "to acheive the objectives".

If Congress cares about its armed personelle, it simply must prosecute these crimes in tandem with the World Court. To not do so would place our service people in grave danger of torture themselves. The US Congress' duties mandate that it must manage the armed forces of our country. That also includes managing the conditions of safety in combat and other missions. To protect our armed service people from the Cheney precident, it must be reversed. And to do so, it is compulsory on Congress to pursue those responsible for bringing about the conditions which have now placed their wards, the american servicepeople, in real and tangible danger of torture themselves.

According to the Geneva Conventions we would be well within our rights to line up everyone at GITMO and shoot them as a spy.

 

[Sihouette]

I highly doubt that, but if some of them warranted being shot, it is more humane than being kept alive and tortured.

Just like when you take your dog to be put to sleep instead of hanging it from barbed wire and whacking it with a baseball bat.

Understand the difference?

Our troops are always in danger of being quickly killed when in active duty. They know that signing on. They should NEVER be allowed by Congress, having assented by silence to condone torture, to themselves being tortured. Congress is compelled to manage the conditions under which its armed forces are subjected to. Therefore they must cooperate with the World Court upholding the Geneva Convention and protect them by prosecuting and reasserting the illegality of torture...by example..

They are MANDATED to look after the armed forces.

 

[BigRob]

I highly doubt that, but if some of them warranted being shot, it is more humane than being kept alive and tortured.

Just like when you take your dog to be put to sleep instead of hanging it from barbed wire and whacking it with a baseball bat.

Understand the difference?

Our troops are always in danger of being quickly killed when in active duty. They know that signing on. They should NEVER be allowed by Congress, having assented by silence to condone torture, to themselves being tortured. Congress is compelled to manage the conditions under which its armed forces are subjected to. Therefore they must cooperate with the World Court upholding the Geneva Convention and protect them by prosecuting and reasserting the illegality of torture...by example..

They are MANDATED to look after the armed forces.

The Geneva Conventions do not protect or apply to out of uniform terrorists hiding among the civilian populations. Further, the sections that attempted to add this in was never ratified by the United States, and we are not a party to it.

And for the record, the notion that any "torture" the United States has done causes the same when our soldiers are captured is baseless. Our enemies were doing this all along with no regard to any conventions.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

So you going to tell me on what legal basis Clinton was to have had Bin Ladin sent to the US and shot? Or are you going with Clinton did not have to follow the laws of the United states? Just wondering.

 

[BigRob]

So you going to tell me on what legal basis Clinton was to have had Bin Ladin sent to the US and shot? Or are you going with Clinton did not have to follow the laws of the United states? Just wondering.

I never advocated for "sending Bin Laden" to the US, I simply advocated for taking him in to custody somewhere.

The problem is easily solved by simply not bringing him onto US soil, and therefore away from the jurisdiction of US court.

 

[Sihouette]

Yes, that really is a problem and as it turns out a very big problem...

Taking US activities out of country to justify illegal actions is what the terrorists do. And we're right back where we started: two wrongs don't make a right.

And we need to prosecute to set that example. Of course we are powerful enough to do as we please. The problem is that we must not in order to preserve what America is all about: setting a moral example for the world to follow..

Which brings me back full circle to Congress being mandated to protect our own uniformed people in active duty from being tortured by the very example we set.

 

[BigRob]

Yes, that really is a problem and as it turns out a very big problem...

Taking US activities out of country to justify illegal actions is what the terrorists do. And we're right back where we started: two wrongs don't make a right.

Who says it is wrong?

And we need to prosecute to set that example.

What good does that do when there is no case?

Which brings me back full circle to Congress being mandated to protect our own uniformed people in active duty from being tortured by the very example we set.

Who is torturing our soldiers that was not previously doing it anyway?

 

[Sihouette]

Who says it is wrong?

That's exactly what the pending hearings will sift out...by a vote of a panel or jury. That's how American Law works, or didn't you know?

The Bush Administration has defined terrorist in such a way as to include themselves in the definition. A terrorist, in their definition, is someone who has caused or has potential to cause great harm to american citizens as a result of their actions.

Therefore there is ample evidence to prosecute them. Ordering torture is so blatant an act of hubris and defiance of the Geneva Convention, that is a setup for assuring future retaliations not only against our armed personelle, but also our citizens.

When you have people strapping bombs to their bodies and blowing themselves up in desperation, a little torture isn't going to be an effective "lesson" for them to abide by. Predictably, by anyone smarter than a brain-dead garden slug, they will use it to further fuel anti-american sentiments (imagine that? ) and put us in graver danger.

So, therefore, having put americans in jeopardy and in the way of harm, they have de facto and wilfully exacerbated terrorism against our armed servicepeople and US Citizens. It is imperative of the Congress, as custodians not only of the People but also of the military to formally and visibly (due to the visible nature of the defiance) prosecute these crimes accordingly.

It's all very simple.

 

[BigRob]

That's exactly what the pending hearings will sift out...by a vote of a panel or jury. That's how American Law works, or didn't you know?

US domestic law has no jurisdiction over someone not in the United States. Didn't you know?

Therefore there is ample evidence to prosecute them. Ordering torture is so blatant an act of hubris and defiance of the Geneva Convention, that is a setup for assuring future retaliations not only against our armed personelle, but also our citizens.

Legally, those in GITMO do not fall under Geneva protections.

When you have people strapping bombs to their bodies and blowing themselves up in desperation, a little torture isn't going to be an effective "lesson" for them to abide by. Predictably, by anyone smarter than a brain-dead garden slug, they will use it to further fuel anti-american sentiments (imagine that? ) and put us in graver danger.

So now they become suicide bombers out of desperation? There were suicide bombers well before Bush took office.

So, therefore, having put americans in jeopardy and in the way of harm, they have de facto and wilfully exacerbated terrorism against our armed servicepeople and US Citizens. It is imperative of the Congress, as custodians not only of the People but also of the military to formally and visibly (due to the visible nature of the defiance) prosecute these crimes accordingly.

It's all very simple.

It also has no legal bearing... as "simple" as you want to claim it is.

 

[Sihouette]

US domestic law has no jurisdiction over someone not in the United States. Didn't you know?

No. I know the contrary actually. I studies American Government. You were required to also in order to pass high school. Did you drop out or something?

Congress has a custodial position as to the military and its operations according to the Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power:...

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

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;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The United States Constitution Article I Section 8

According to this Article of the Constitution, the "port" or "outpost" called Gitmo does in fact fall under the jurisdiction of the Congress to enforce disciplinary action against via a tribunal they may elect to oversee proceedings.

Now, the retooling of the language per military tribunals was done by the urging of the Bush administration who did so under an atmosphere of duress created by lying to Congress in order to justify the very war it was using to justify modifying the language that originally prohibited torture in all forms.

So if we trace everything back to the original lie, the responsiblity lies with the Bush Administration. Declare the war illegal due to wilfull misrepresentation of facts, and all actions resulting from that war on behalf of the administration that lied in order to get permission to go to war from Congress...and you have a proscutable case my friend. In other words, Congress may choose to retroactively nullify any statues currently protecting your pals BigRob that arose as a result of the illegal coercion that led to a state of war.

Then the way will surely be paved for the World Court to step in. Congress has a duty to protect its military from any potential harm or abuse. Let's look at what some of the reservations the GOP itself had about the retooling to allow torture:

The Congressional Fallout
At the invitation of the Supreme Court, the President approached Congress with the hope it would legislate a lower standard of accountability to Geneva Conventions. Several Republican Senators balked, however, in part because an American withdrawal from its treaty obligations might prompt other countries to do the same, thus exposing American armed forces to reduced judicial guarantees.
Source: http://terrorism.about.com/od/globalwaronterror/a/DetaineeBill_2.htm

Their concerns are my concerns and the are mandated also to be the entirety of Congress's concerns. Wilfull misrepresentation to Congress to get justification to torture is illegal. And, moreover, it is de facto aggravating terrorism against our armed personelle and citizens by spurring the same type of circumvention of treaties in other nations who also, on a whim, and illegally, may decide that torturing or randomly attacking americans is the way to go...'to further their agendas''...just like Bushco did for Peak Oil.

Seems we're at loggerheads BigRob.

Hey, I know. Let's have a hearing to sort out if Bushco's torture was illegal or not. In other words, lets get to the bottom of whether or not Bushco lied to Congress to justify conditions of war in the first place.

That's how americans contest and try laws...they TRY THEM.

Glad to see that someone has the balls to babysit this on MSM. Good work Rachel Maddow. Stay with it and don't falter, no matter what the pressure.

 

[HankHill]

I G-U-A-R-A-N-T-E-E you that if we prosecute Bushco for war crimes and lying to Congress for an excuse to invade, we will so placate not just those angry at us, but our allies who are utterly disillusioned with us at this point.

That is simply ridiculous, you obviously don't have any comprehention, in your liberal mind at what our enemy truly wants do you? They could care less if we executed Bush!

They want the West to fall! Plain and simple...

 

[Sihouette]

Our enemy, BigOil, doesn't want the west to fall, they want the Middle East's oil to themselves and the muslims who aren't keen on that have mistakenly equated "americans" with "BigOil". Prosecuting this case would paint a clear line of separation between real americans and the true nemesis, the true target of the wrath of Al Qaida and jihad: BigOil. Sure, a handful of "americans" (and I use the term very loosely in their case) would be on the run, but it's a much better situation than the majority of us taking the hits for a bunch of Grifting Oil Pirates.. I'm all for a public separation of Americans from BigOil. Let's get a public divorce via the prosecution of Bushco. THEIR AGENDA IS NOT THE AMERICAN AGENDA. Got that?

Then amercians and the west would be safe and BigOil would be running for cover. As they should be.

Moreover, if Bushco were certain that their actions were legal, they should simply not fear at all going to hearings about them. If anything, if they are true americans, they should submit to going through the motions if for no other reason to show the world how democracy works and to lessen potential threats to military abroad by offering a visible public walk-through of the "legitimacy" of their actions as tried and found legal as backed by Congress.

They don't want this to happen because they fear, justly so, that their actions will not be found legal.. And this is why any criminal so protests going to court. And it is precisely why we should try it: their vehement insistence not to..

Their resistance and trying to tie themselves to the majority, of whom disapprove of their actions, is putting american uniformed men and women as well as civilians as targets for jihad instead of themselves. Al Qaida needs to see that americans don't want to pirate their oil, that a few outlaws are up to it who have siezed power by nefarious means. Our safety would be greatly enhanced by running Bushco and BigOil through the ringer by demostrating to the frustrated at-the-end-of-their-ropes arabs that we understand and sympathize with their pain because we ourselves have been subjected to it. The true enemy of the world would be unveiled for all to see.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

In cant wait till some Americans are taken from the US, jailed for years and killed with no fair trial, and no charges...then have them killed...

It will be ok in the minds of Rob and the Bush people, as long as they take them to some island off there coast, then they can say there own laws dont apply to them, and if we ask why they took our people, they can claim that cant say do to natinal security.


or is this one of those things thats only ok for the US to do? becuse we are good, and evryone else is not good enough to have such powers?