Rumsfeld Flees France, Fearing Arrest [Archive] - The Political Asylum - Forums for Intelligent Discussion & Debate

Yellowdogtexan

10-29-2007, 06:53 PM

This is amusing. http://www.alternet.org/story/66425Former U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld fled France today fearing arrest over charges of "ordering and authorizing" torture of detainees at both the American-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the U.S. military's detainment facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, unconfirmed reports coming from Paris suggest.

U.S. embassy officials whisked Rumsfeld away yesterday from a breakfast meeting in Paris organized by the Foreign Policy magazine after human rights groups filed a criminal complaint against the man who spearheaded President George W. Bush's "war on terror" for six years.

Under international law, authorities in France are obliged to open an investigation when a complaint is made while the alleged torturer is on French soil.

According to activists in France, who greeted Rumsfeld, shouting "murderer" and "war criminal" at the breakfast meeting venue, U.S. embassy officials remained tight-lipped about the former defense secretary's whereabouts citing "security reasons".

Anti-torture protesters in France believe that the defense secretary fled over the open border to Germany, where a war crimes case against Rumsfeld was dismissed by a federal court. But activists point out that under the Schengen agreement that ended border checkpoints across a large part of the European Union, French law enforcement agents are allowed to cross the border into Germany in pursuit of a fleeing fugitive.

"Rumsfeld must be feeling how Saddam Hussein felt when U.S. forces were hunting him down," activist Tanguy Richard said. "He may never end up being hanged like his old friend, but he must learn that in the civilized world, war crime doesn't pay."

International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) along with the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), and the French League for Human Rights (LDH) filed the complaint on Thursday after learning that Rumsfeld was scheduled to visit Paris.

Wabash

10-29-2007, 07:55 PM

Yes,...it is amusing! Tip of the Liberal Whacko iceberg.....gotta hand it to you dog...you come up with the best Left Wing Whackos in the world!:magnify

crazierthanever

10-29-2007, 07:57 PM

Yes,...it is amusing! Tip of the Liberal Whacko iceberg.....gotta hand it to you dog...you come up with the best Left Wing Whackos in the world!:magnify

So Wabby... you the pot :stir or the kettle?

Wabash

10-29-2007, 07:59 PM

So Wabby... you the pot :stir or the kettle?

I'm the house of common sense!:wink
That inflamatory puff piece is just that!

April15

10-29-2007, 07:59 PM

Too bad they couldn't nab the guy. I wonder if Bush is paying attention?

issac the dragon

10-29-2007, 09:48 PM

I wish they had caught him. He and the whole Bush admin. need to be tried for war crimes.

Wabash

10-29-2007, 10:45 PM

Pfftttt!

Yellowdogtexan

10-30-2007, 12:00 AM

I'm the house of common sense!:lol:blah:bullshit:rofl2:lmao Thanks. That is the silliest and funniest thing that I have heard in a while. :lol:blah:bullshit:rofl2:lmao

Wabash

10-30-2007, 12:32 AM

:lol:blah:bullshit:rofl2:lmao Thanks. That is the silliest and funniest thing that I have heard in a while. :lol:blah:bullshit:rofl2:lmao

That's because you are not a believer in good, but a believer in evil! I feel sorry for you...

Yellowdogtexan

10-30-2007, 12:45 AM

That's because you are not a believer in good, but a believer in evil! I feel sorry for you...I actually truly pity you wabby. You are a sad person.

Lets look at the facts here. Rumsfeld is being charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity for the use of torture in Iraq. Torture is wrong and evil. It is the GOP and people who support torture who are evil and the people who oppose torture who represent the forces of good and what is right. If you support torture, then wabby you are on the side of evil and darkness.

Wabash

10-30-2007, 12:48 AM

I actually truly pity you wabby. You are a sad person.

Lets look at the facts here. Rumsfeld is being charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity for the use of torture in Iraq. Torture is wrong and evil. It is the GOP and people who support torture who are evil and the people who oppose torture who represent the forces of good and what is right. If you support torture, then wabby you are on the side of evil and darkness.

Except...Rumsfeld is not being charged with anything...he doesn't answer to Communists! No US citizen does! The US doesn't torture...and the allegations are groundless!

Commie /Socialists may dictate what you do, but not me!

Wabash

10-30-2007, 01:03 AM

A United States Marine was
attending some college courses between assignments. He had completed
missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.One of the courses had a professor who
was an avowed atheist and a member of the ACLU.

One day the professor shocked the class when he came in He looked to the
ceiling and flatly stated, "God, if you are real, then I want you to
knock me off this platform, I'll give you exactly 15 minutes." The
lecture room fell silent You could hear a pin drop.

Ten minutes went by and the professor proclaimed, "Here I am God, I'm
still waiting." It got down to the last couple of minutes when the
Marine got out of his chair, went up to the professor, and cold-cocked
him; knocking him off the platform. The professor was out cold. The
Marine went back to his seat and sat there, silently. The other students
were shocked and stunned and sat there looking on in silence.

The professor eventually came to, noticeably shaken, looked at the
Marine and asked, "What the heck is the matter with you?" "Why did you
do that?"The Marine calmly replied, "God was too busy today protecting
America's soldiers who are protecting your right to say stupid stuff and
act like an idiot, So, He sent me."
:wink

patriotsblade

10-30-2007, 01:14 AM

Wabash

10-30-2007, 10:32 AM

Reminds me of Farrakan's Million Man March...that was a joke. I wonder what this will be like!

My sons told me about this and are thinking about marching in oppossition to it! Maybe I will do the same.

April15

10-30-2007, 11:38 AM

Yellowdogtexan

10-30-2007, 12:37 PM

Except...Rumsfeld is not being charged with anything...he doesn't answer to Communists! No US citizen does! The US doesn't torture...and the allegations are groundless!The war against Iraq is on very shaky ground under international law. rumsfeld is no longer protected by diplomatic immunity and under French and international law could be prosecuted for war crimes if he is arrested in that country. That is why he fled.

I hate to break it to you but cheney and bush will not be taking too many trips outside the US after their terms expire except perhaps to the UK. One or more of these groups will try the same stunt with bush once he is no longer protected by diplomatic immunity.

issac the dragon

10-30-2007, 12:45 PM

Kidnapping is a plan. Take the suckers to another country. I am ashamed of people who are so stupid they don't believe that the Bushies have engaged in torture. They have admitted it. Rice has said she is sorry it happened to an innocent man. I'm sure she goes to bed and weeps for his pain. And it has happened to a lot of innocent people. After all, we have released most of the people we imprisoned on supicion. And I am certain we tortured every one of them.

sparks

10-30-2007, 01:12 PM

Under international law, authorities in France are obliged to open an investigation when a complaint is made while the alleged torturer is on French soil.

Why doesn't the U.S. do the same?

issac the dragon

10-30-2007, 01:49 PM

We do if it involves another country. It is our own politicians we will not hold accountable.

Wabash

10-30-2007, 04:37 PM

I seriously doubt a marine would do what is described in this BS story. First of all it would prove the atheist correct that there is no god.

It was humor....Aprill...let it go...Haaaaaaaaaaaaa!

The war against Iraq is on very shaky ground under international law. rumsfeld is no longer protected by diplomatic immunity and under French and international law could be prosecuted for war crimes if he is arrested in that country. That is why he fled.

I hate to break it to you but cheney and bush will not be taking too many trips outside the US after their terms expire except perhaps to the UK. One or more of these groups will try the same stunt with bush once he is no longer protected by diplomatic immunity.

Whoa there Big fella...whoa!

Once out of office, Rumsfled is a private citizen.
A President on the other hand is always a President, hence the need for Secret Service Protection for Life!
They can stick their stupid accusations of war crimes up their collective asses!

Yellowdogtexan

10-30-2007, 04:42 PM

Once out of office, Rumsfled is a private citizen.
A President on the other hand is always a President, hence the need for Secret Service Protection for Life!
They can stick their stupid accusations of war crimes up their collective asses!Do you tire of being wrong? :ydt Once bush is out of office, he is a private citizen (even with Secret Service protection) and is subject to the same laws as anyone else. Currently he has diplomatic immunity as a head of state and is not subject to prosecution but that status ends on 1/20/09 :ydt

April15

10-30-2007, 04:53 PM

Do you tire of being wrong? :ydt Once bush is out of office, he is a private citizen (even with Secret Service protection) and is subject to the same laws as anyone else. Currently he has diplomatic immunity as a head of state and is not subject to prosecution but that status ends on 1/20/09 :ydtIsn't that grand! Maybe he get a rendition?

Wabash

10-31-2007, 12:28 PM

I understand that Hillary has loaned him her aircraft for a fast get away! No warmup required! No con trail and virtually no heat signature!

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x77/watermelon039/Hillarysaircraft.jpg

Ringo

10-31-2007, 12:29 PM

:nerdToo bad they couldn't nab the guy. I wonder if Bush is paying attention?

You mean you wanted to see France turn into Glass? If that ever happened at least as long as a man with balls is POTUS, France would be allowed 24 hrs to release him or face consequences they would not like at all!

I bet Doggie and the Cowardly French Girly Boys have a lot in common, ya suppose??:nerd:mw:mw

April15

10-31-2007, 12:43 PM

:nerd

You mean you wanted to see France turn into Glass? If that ever happened at least as long as a man with balls is POTUS, France would be allowed 24 hrs to release him or face consequences they would not like at all!

I bet Doggie and the Cowardly French Girly Boys have a lot in common, ya suppose??:nerd:mw:mw
Ringo,
I sure hope you realize that outside of America there are very few that support what Bush has done. And France doesn't have enough sand to be made into glass. If what my european friends tell me is true for all in europe no one from this administration will be able to visit once they lose diplomatic immunity.
I do not know YellowDogTexan so I can't speak to his or her courage.

Wabash

10-31-2007, 02:15 PM

Ringo,
I sure hope you realize that outside of America there are very few that support what Bush has done. And France doesn't have enough sand to be made into glass. If what my european friends tell me is true for all in europe no one from this administration will be able to visit once they lose diplomatic immunity.
I do not know YellowDogTexan so I can't speak to his or her courage.

Disguises have been around for a long time as well as phony passports...spys use em all the time...
As for Europe, it's already lost to Islamofacisit! Europe is overrated...I know, I've been there !

issac the dragon

10-31-2007, 02:32 PM

Wabash

10-31-2007, 02:47 PM

Would that make America proud? To see Bush sneaking around in disguise so he can leave the country without being arrested. Why if he has such big balls wouldn't he be courageous enough to go to Europe and dare them to arrest him? Stand trial and defend in an open court the idea that he is not a war criminal. Aw, but he'd have to be a man to do that. And we all know he is not.

That was a joke issac!

First of all, he has nothing to stand trial for... and secondly, since Europe is overrun by Liberals, Muslims and Communists, do you think he could get a fair trial? I don't! It would be a stacked deck and a total farce!

So this story is news to you, but Hillary(A presidential wannabe) bombing out last night is not? Too funny!

issac the dragon

10-31-2007, 02:52 PM

Didn't watch it, and I don't give a hoot about Clinton, except that she would make a far, far, better president than the piece of crap we've got. And yes, I do think Bush would get a fair trial in Europe. The evidence against him is so clear, there would be no reason for anyone to try to trump up evidence.

Wabash

10-31-2007, 03:03 PM

April15

10-31-2007, 04:32 PM

Yellowdogtexan

11-13-2007, 06:51 PM

The same group which forced rumsfeld to flee from France is planning to go after bush and cheney once they are no longer protected by diplomatic immunity (i.e. Jan.20, 2009) http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/28671President Bush and any of his aides that advocated or participated in torture will be the targets of legal action even after they leave office, President Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights(CCR), New York, said.

“After Bush is out of office, the Center(CCR) will pursue Bush and (Vice-President) Cheney. We are not going to let go of these people,” said Ratner, whose organization coordinates the work of more than 600 lawyers nationally involved in defending the rights of prisoners held by the U.S. at Guantanamo, many of whom say they have been tortured. The non-profit CCR is the leading civil rights litigating and advocacy organization in the nation.

“We think (those responsible for) this systemic program of torture (conducted by) this country have got to be made accountable whether it takes us one year or five years or ten years. And (we’re going) to go after the key architects of this torture program and make it particularly hot for them, particularly to travel to Europe,” Ratner said.

Ratner said former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and the authors of the so-called “torture memos” written by the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department could be targets. “What you can’t do as a lawyer is to advise people to find ways to escape criminality and violate the laws,” Ratner said. “There’s no issue to me. These lawyers are deep deep into what we consider the torture conspiracy,” Ratner said.

He also said Vice President Cheney is considered to be “the architect of a lot of the torture programs” and “there’s a lot of evidence George Bush had to sign off on executive orders that approved essentially the torture program, (and) extraordinary rendition.” “We believe there is clear evidence the Bush administration went off the pages of law and implemented a torture program which essentially violated the Geneva Convention against torture and its own (U.S.) laws whether at Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib (Iraq) or Pakistan,” Ratner told Dean Lawrence Velvel of Massachusetts School of Law at Andover, host of the program, “What The Media Doesn’t Tell You,” aired globally over the World Radio Network.bush may want to stay in crawford or dallas following his term because he will be a legal target by these groups and eventually they will get jurisdiction over him.

Wabash

11-13-2007, 10:26 PM

I can still see his face as he crapped his jeans when told of the tower being hit. The Crawford Princess

Now April, was it you that accused Bush of conspiracy and orchestrating the bombing of the twin towers? If so, he would have known about it and have no need to crap his jeans!

The same group which forced rumsfeld to flee from France is planning to go after bush and cheney once they are no longer protected by diplomatic immunity (i.e. Jan.20, 2009) http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/28671bush may want to stay in crawford or dallas following his term because he will be a legal target by these groups and eventually they will get jurisdiction over him.

Well, tell your friend Ratner that neither you nor he should count on that happening......I'd say that would be a very dangerous road on which to embark!

Yellowdogtexan

11-14-2007, 09:36 AM

Well, tell your friend Ratner that neither you nor he should count on that happening......I'd say that would be a very dangerous road on which to embark!Why do you think this? These people are using the law to track down people thery believe are war criminals. bush violated international law when he invaded Iraq, when he ignored the Geneva Conventions and when he authorized the use of torture. Some countries are claiming jurisdiction to try such criminal activities and after he leaves office bush will no longer have diplomatic immunity and will be subject to arrest if he goes to one of these countries. Why do you think that the bluster of a nobody like you would matter here?

Yellowdogtexan

05-28-2008, 02:34 PM

This is amusing. There is still more speculation that bush may face arrest if he ever leaves the US after his term is up http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/26/israelandthepalestinians.usa1Last night, before a packed crowd at Hay, Carter spoke of his "horror" at America's involvement in torturing prisoners, saying he wanted the next US president to promise never to do so again.

He left an intriguing hint that George Bush might even face prosecution on war crimes charges once he left office.

When pressed by Philippe Sands QC on Bush's recent admission that he had authorised interrogation procedures widely seen as amounting to torture, Carter replied that he was sure Bush would be able to live a peaceful, "productive life - in our country".

Sands, an international legal expert, said afterwards that he understood that to be "clear confirmation" that while Bush would face no challenge in his own country, "what happened outside the country was another matter entirely".

Wabash

05-28-2008, 03:01 PM

This is amusing. There is still more speculation that bush may face arrest if he ever leaves the US after his term is up http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/26/israelandthepalestinians.usa1

I think Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter should face charges on dereliction of duty for failing to take action against terrorists during their Presidencies...thereby leaving troops and the American people vulnerable to attack and/or capture!

Yellowdogtexan

05-28-2008, 03:43 PM

I think Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter should face charges on dereliction of duty for failing to take action against terrorists during their Presidencies...thereby leaving troops and the American people vulnerable to attack and/or capture!Luckily your opinion does not matter and these pretend crimes are not actionable except in your fantasy world. However, the use of torture and the violation of the Geneva Conventions are actually crimes under international law and due to these crimes, bush will not be able to leave the country after his term is up except to go to Saudi Arabia or Israel.

Wabby you really should try living in the real world. There are real laws and in the real world, the use of torture and violations of the Geneva Conventions are war crimes that will allow bush to be prosecuted if he is silly enough to leave the US after his term is over

Lone Laugher

05-28-2008, 03:54 PM

What!!! Hold on a minute!!! Are you trying to say that international laws may actually apply to red-blooded patriotic Americans! Who ever heard of such a ridiculous thing?! No foreign government would dare arrest one of our top brass---they would have to be nuts! We are America! Who the hell do they think they are?!

Does that about sum up your intellectual point of view on the subject Wabs?

Trueblue

05-28-2008, 04:35 PM

Yellowdogtexan

05-28-2008, 05:19 PM

The case would fail because the evidence is just the opposite.But you are letting facts and reality get in the way of wabby's talking point. Facts and reality are foriegn concepts to wabby

Cookie Parker

05-28-2008, 06:59 PM

Yes,...it is amusing! Tip of the Liberal Whacko iceberg.....gotta hand it to you dog...you come up with the best Left Wing Whackos in the world!:magnify

Not quite..this clown is up for war crimes in the international court in every country he and Bush and Cheney and Rice allowed the CIA to capture the citizens and drag them to rendition in torture camps like Egypt.

That's why the crowd is looking for property in Dubai and why you don't see Condi joining MCCain....Dubai doesn't extradite to other nations..

Course my theory is they won't last long in an Arab nation...the Sunnis are the minor population there.

BartonX

05-28-2008, 09:56 PM

Not quite..this clown is up for war crimes in the international court in every country he and Bush and Cheney and Rice allowed the CIA to capture the citizens and drag them to rendition in torture camps like Egypt.

That's why the crowd is looking for property in Dubai and why you don't see Condi joining MCCain....Dubai doesn't extradite to other nations..

Course my theory is they won't last long in an Arab nation...the Sunnis are the minor population there.

Another graphic illustration of the fact that with lower life forms ignorance has no limits. Higher life forms know Bush is not the bastard either Carter or the criminal Clinton were. Clinton is the cause for 9/11.

Yellowdogtexan

05-29-2008, 10:27 AM

Saguaro

05-29-2008, 10:40 AM

Another graphic illustration of the fact that with lower life forms ignorance has no limits. Higher life forms know Bush is not the bastard either Carter or the criminal Clinton were. Clinton is the cause for 9/11.

:bullshit

Ringo

05-30-2008, 08:53 AM

The same group which forced rumsfeld to flee from France is planning to go after bush and cheney once they are no longer protected by diplomatic immunity (i.e. Jan.20, 2009) http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/28671bush may want to stay in crawford or dallas following his term because he will be a legal target by these groups and eventually they will get jurisdiction over him.

Oh bullshit idiot!!! Should that happen every fucking Liberal in America would become a Target and NOT for LEGAL action, but for finality for their TREASONOUS ways!!!:nerd:mw:tb:godzilla:godzilla:godzilla

toxic

05-30-2008, 08:55 AM

bush will face arrest if he leaves the US and goes to certain countries. The use of torture and violation of the Geneva Conventions are taken seriously by civilized countries who believe in the rule of law. The opinion of a layperson like Doc will be meaningless to these countries and the rule of law will eventually win out.

He is probably safe due to Diplomatic Immunity, until he leaves office.

But Rumsfeld is already on his own.

nixon

05-30-2008, 03:08 PM

SavageJug

05-30-2008, 03:30 PM

bush will face arrest if he leaves the US and goes to certain countries. The use of torture and violation of the Geneva Conventions are taken seriously by civilized countries who believe in the rule of law. The opinion of a layperson like Doc will be meaningless to these countries and the rule of law will eventually win out.

Do you honestly believe the United States of America would allow a former President, ANY former President, to be arrested and incarcerated in a foreign country?

Hello...anybody home?

Lone Laugher

05-30-2008, 03:36 PM

Why not? Are we not followers of the rule of law?

SavageJug

05-30-2008, 03:49 PM

Why not? Are we not followers of the rule of law?

Let another nation try it. Watch how fast the aircraft carriers start leaving port.

Lone Laugher

05-30-2008, 03:51 PM

Yes...we are tough, aren't we. Tough and arrogant.

SavageJug

05-30-2008, 03:59 PM

Yes...we are tough, aren't we. Tough and arrogant.
Yes, until another nation needs aid after a disaster or during a famine. Then we are the first one there.

The USA took on the role of "World's Policeman" after WWII.

We cannot, and will not allow another nation to harrass, incarcerate, or in any other way harm a former POTUS.

To commit such actions would be considered and act of war.

Lone Laugher

05-30-2008, 04:04 PM

Oh! Why didn't you say so? Of course, you are 100% correct. How could anyone argue with those points?

Yellowdogtexan

05-30-2008, 04:24 PM

We cannot, and will not allow another nation to harrass, incarcerate, or in any other way harm a former POTUS.

To commit such actions would be considered and act of war.That is your opinion. Do you have any legal authority for your position. Do you really think that the US will go to war to protect bush if bush is stupid enough to go to a country where he could be prosecuted for his war crimes? bush is going to pardon himself and everyone involved in his illegal activities before he leaves office but such pardons will not affect bush's potential criminal liability under international law. bush would be stupid to go overseas unless and until there is some clear authority that he will not be subject to war crimes.

There are a large number of foriegn countries that recognize the concept of univerisal jurisdition and bush should never visit any of these countries. I imagine that the SS and the State Department will advise bush about these countries and he will not be stupid enough to leave the US.

SavageJug

05-30-2008, 04:33 PM

That is your opinion. Do you have any legal authority for your position. Do you really think that the US will go to war to protect bush if bush is stupid enough to go to a country where he could be prosecuted for his war crimes? bush is going to pardon himself and everyone involved in his illegal activities before he leaves office but such pardons will not affect bush's potential criminal liability under international law. bush would be stupid to go overseas unless and until there is some clear authority that he will not be subject to war crimes.

There are a large number of foriegn countries that recognize the concept of univerisal jurisdition and bush should never visit any of these countries. I imagine that the SS and the State Department will advise bush about these countries and he will not be stupid enough to leave the US.
Yes, they will. Carter, Bush Sr., and Clinton too.

Calling the POTUS a war criminal is absolutely ludicrous. Do you even know the true definiton of a war criminal?

Trueblue

05-30-2008, 04:50 PM

Let another nation try it. Watch how fast the aircraft carriers start leaving port.

Sorry, that's just talk.

Yes, until another nation needs aid after a disaster or during a famine. Then we are the first one there.

The USA took on the role of "World's Policeman" after WWII.

We cannot, and will not allow another nation to harrass, incarcerate, or in any other way harm a former POTUS.

To commit such actions would be considered and act of war.

Actually, we are not that great with foreign aid. The Tsunami is an example.

If a President has broken international law, then we lose our moral authority if we demand that other nations follow international law, but insist that we don't have to.

I do agree that it would be a national humiliation to have a former President convicted of war crimes.

The source of this shame is having a President who willfully broke the law. You are blaming the law for being the law instead of the President for not following the law.

Yellowdogtexan

05-30-2008, 04:51 PM

Calling the POTUS a war criminal is absolutely ludicrous. Do you even know the true definiton of a war criminal?Yes. Do you? Unlike you, I am not a laypeson and understand the law. Use and authorization of the use of torture and deliberate violation of the Geneva Conventions are violations of international law. It has been established that bush was involved in the decision to authorize the use of torture by the CIA and others and that act alone would expose bush to trial as a war criminal.

SavageJug

05-30-2008, 05:02 PM

Sorry, that's just talk.

No, it's not talk. They would leave port very quickly.

Yes. Do you? Unlike you, I am not a laypeson and understand the law. Use and authorization of the use of torture and deliberate violation of the Geneva Conventions are violations of international law. It has been established that bush was involved in the decision to authorize the use of torture by the CIA and others and that act alone would expose bush to trial as a war criminal.

Put away your intense hatred of Bush for one minute. Answer this honestly.

Do you think the USA would allow a former POTUS to be incarcerated, and put on trial in a foreign nation?

Not whether you or anyone else thinks it's legal.

Do you think it would be allowed to happen?

Yellowdogtexan

05-30-2008, 05:13 PM

bush has caused a great deal of embarassment for our country. We are now known as a country that uses torture and violates civil rights and international law. If bush decides to leave the country, he will be warned about which countries it would be stupid for him to visit. If bush disregards that advice, then I would not be surprised to see the US govt letting bush reap what he sowed. I am really ashamed of what bush has done to the reputation of the United States and would not care if he was tried because only an idiot would tempt fate by leaving the US.

Torture is not popular and if frowned upon under international law. The bushies knew that this was a potential and so I doubt that bush is planning to leave the country once his diplomatic immunity is no longer in effect.

Again, bush will be warned before he tries to travel and any actions here will be his own choice.

I expect bush to pardon himself before he leaves office. It is not clear that this is effective but I expect him to try or to play a game where he resigns five minutes before his term is up so that cheney can pardon him. If this occurs, then I expect bush will never tempt fate and travel outside the US except to Saudi Arabia or Israel.

Trueblue

05-30-2008, 05:16 PM

No, it's not talk. They would leave port very quickly.

On what grounds? And with what mission?

Put away your intense hatred of Bush for one minute. Answer this honestly.

Do you think the USA would allow a former POTUS to be incarcerated, and put on trial in a foreign nation?

Not whether you or anyone else thinks it's legal.

Do you think it would be allowed to happen?

Put away your confusion about this issue for a minute. This is not about my feelings about Bush. It's about Bush's violation of international law.

I think it would be a terrible humiliation for the entire nation if Bush were tried and jailed.

But what is your point here? That the law doesn't matter? That the President is above the law? Do you really believe that we can expect other nations to obey the law if the US does not?

SavageJug

05-30-2008, 05:19 PM

My point is, the USA would never allow a former POTUS to be jailed by a foreign nation. PERIOD!

Won't happen in our lifetime.

Trueblue

05-30-2008, 05:21 PM

My point is, the USA would never allow a former POTUS to be jailed by a foreign nation. PERIOD!

Won't happen in our lifetime.

It probably won't happen. But if it does, how do we stop it? We can't send war planes to bomb the Hague.

Yellowdogtexan

05-30-2008, 05:27 PM

My point is, the USA would never allow a former POTUS to be jailed by a foreign nation. PERIOD!

Won't happen in our lifetime.Some people including Americans believe in the rule of law. bush may escape prosecution here in the US with some games with pardons to be issued before he leaves office but those pardons will have no effect overseas. When bush tries to pardon himself, I am predicting that there will be some anger and outrage that may make it more likely that the American govt. will not risk war for bush if bush decides to be stupid.

Again, bush will be warned before he tries to leave the US and if bush disregards such advice, then the US govt. may indeed allow the rule of law to win out.

SavageJug

05-30-2008, 05:36 PM

It probably won't happen. But if it does, how do we stop it? We can't send war planes to bomb the Hague.

Why not? In our short 230 year history, we have invaded almost everyone but the Vatican. Like it or not, American's are some warlike people. We always have been.

Some people including Americans believe in the rule of law. bush may escape prosecution here in the US with some games with pardons to be issued before he leaves office but those pardons will have no effect overseas. When bush tries to pardon himself, I am predicting that there will be some anger and outrage that may make it more likely that the American govt. will not risk war for bush if bush decides to be stupid.

Again, bush will be warned before he tries to leave the US and if bush disregards such advice, then the US govt. may indeed allow the rule of law to win out.

I don't believe Bush will have to pardon himself. McCain, Obama, or Clinton would do it.

A sitting President let a former President go to jail? Not a chance. That might set a precedent that would could back to bite them on the ass.

Name a President in your lifetime, that hasn't done something "shady".

Yellowdogtexan

05-30-2008, 05:59 PM

I don't believe Bush will have to pardon himself. McCain, Obama, or Clinton would do it.The choice will between Senator Obama and mc :cane. If mc :cane loses, then bush will pardon himself (it is not clear if he has this power) or will play a game where he resigns five minutes before his term is up so that cheney can pardon him (after bush has previously pardoned cheney, rummy, condi and a host of others) for the use of torture and the violation of international law.

Senator Obama is a constitutional law professor and a believer in the rule of law. I would not count on Senator Obama pardoning bush and I doubt the bush is a trusting soul on this issue.

Cookie Parker

05-30-2008, 08:27 PM

:nerd

You mean you wanted to see France turn into Glass? If that ever happened at least as long as a man with balls is POTUS, France would be allowed 24 hrs to release him or face consequences they would not like at all!

I bet Doggie and the Cowardly French Girly Boys have a lot in common, ya suppose??:nerd:mw:mw

Balls we don't need in the White House....however, someone with a huge johnson would work...wouldn't be so self-conscious that another man would have a bigger johnson..and I'm sure compared to Bush, EVERYONE had a bigger johnson..well, maybe not little Cheney.....and no, Hillary may have big balls...but we ALL know which race has the bigger johnson, right? ;)

Trueblue

05-30-2008, 09:08 PM

Why not? In our short 230 year history, we have invaded almost everyone but the Vatican. Like it or not, American's are some warlike people. We always have been.

I don't believe Bush will have to pardon himself. McCain, Obama, or Clinton would do it.

A sitting President let a former President go to jail? Not a chance. That might set a precedent that would could back to bite them on the ass.

Name a President in your lifetime, that hasn't done something "shady".

We'll draw the line at bombing the Hague.

Bush doesn't have the authority to pardon himself, nor does the next President. We are talking about a world court.

As I said, I don't think Bush will be indicted, but it's for political reasons. Torture is a war crime, and he's pretty much admitted to sanctioning torture, so guilt isn't really the issue.

As for something shady, come on! Torture isn't "something shady".

BartonX

05-30-2008, 11:09 PM

bush will face arrest if he leaves the US and goes to certain countries. The use of torture and violation of the Geneva Conventions are taken seriously by civilized countries who believe in the rule of law. The opinion of a layperson like Doc will be meaningless to these countries and the rule of law will eventually win out.

You talk like a man with a paper ass. When was the Geneva convention ever worth a shit or valid? In your fertive dreams is where. By the way numbnuts what makes you think President Bush would even consider going to Geneva?

Wake up your version of reality is a paper moon and a cardboard sea.

BartonX

05-30-2008, 11:13 PM

It probably won't happen. But if it does, how do we stop it? We can't send war planes to bomb the Hague.

Just push a button high in the Rockies and nuke their ass is how. I mean really it isn't as though the Europeans have any redeeming value. More land less people goes along way in environmental circles. :LL Screw the Hague who needs it???

BartonX

05-30-2008, 11:20 PM

Balls we don't need in the White House....however, someone with a huge johnson would work...wouldn't be so self-conscious that another man would have a bigger johnson..and I'm sure compared to Bush, EVERYONE had a bigger johnson..well, maybe not little Cheney.....and no, Hillary may have big balls...but we ALL know which race has the bigger johnson, right? ;)

Actually, studies have shown that all men want a longer schlong even if they are a pole vaulter and the study also stated that women cannot understand this. Maybe that is because they know all of their nerve endings are close to the surface?

As for which race has the long dongs that would be the American Indians and the Jews. By the way just call me Tonto Goldberg. :)

Yellowdogtexan

06-18-2008, 08:20 AM

This is amusing http://www.opednews.com/articles/LAW-SCHOOL-TO-ORGANIZE-BUS-by-Sherwood-Ross-080615-783.html
A conference to plan the prosecution of President Bush and other high administration officials for war crimes will be held September 13-14 at the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover .

"This is not intended to be a mere discussion of violations of law that have occurred," said convener Lawrence Velvel, dean and cofounder of the school. "It is, rather, intended to be a planning conference at which plans will be laid and necessary organizational structures set up, to pursue the guilty as long as necessary and, if need be, to the ends of the Earth."

"We must try to hold Bush administration leaders accountable in courts of justice," Velvel said. "And we must insist on appropriate punishments, including, if guilt is found, the hangings visited upon top German and Japanese war-criminals in the 1940s."

Velvel said past practice has been to allow U.S. officials responsible for war crimes in Viet Nam and elsewhere to enjoy immunity from prosecution upon leaving office. "President Johnson retired to his Texas ranch and his Defense Secretary Robert McNamara was named to head the World Bank; Richard Nixon retired to San Clemente and his Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was allowed to grow richer and richer," Velvel said.

He noted in the years since the prosecution and punishment of German and Japanese leaders after World War Two those nation's leaders changed their countries' aggressor cultures. One cannot discount contributory cause and effect here, he said.

"For Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and John Yoo to spend years in jail or go to the gallows for their crimes would be a powerful lesson to future American leaders," Velvel said.

The conference will take up such issues as the nature of domestic and international crimes committed; which high-level Bush officials, including Federal judges and Members of Congress, are chargeable with war crimes; which foreign and domestic tribunals can be used to prosecute them; and the setting up of an umbrella coordinating committee with representatives of legal groups concerned about the war crimes such as the Center for Constitutional Rights, ACLU, among others.

Matt

06-18-2008, 08:42 AM

Very intriguing idea.
It should be interesting to follow ~ but do you think this is the best timing?

BartonX

06-18-2008, 11:55 AM

Very intriguing idea.
It should be interesting to follow ~ but do you think this is the best timing?

Try try as hard as can be they'll never reduce our President to the level of the trashy Clinton Legacy. Clinton lied under oath and they convicted him by impeachment for being the worthless bastard he is.

Bush will leave a legacy of style and grace and a consistency only great men have to offer despite the slander of weak and feeble minds. :)

Yellowdogtexan

06-18-2008, 12:03 PM

Try try as hard as can be they'll never reduce our President to the level of the trashy Clinton Legacy. Clinton lied under oath and they convicted him by impeachment for being the worthless bastard he is.Do you tire of being wrong? President Clinton was not convicted of anything. The Senate rejected and voted down each and every charge against him.

Yellowdogtexan

06-18-2008, 12:05 PM

Bush will leave a legacy of style and grace and a consistency only great men have to offer despite the slander of weak and feeble minds.bush will be ranked as one of the worse if not the worst president in history. After bush leaves office, he will not be able to leave the US except to visit countries that do not prosecute war crimes.

I am predicting that bush will be first president to either pardon himself for his various actions or that bush will resign shortly before his term is up so that cheney can sign a pardon for bush (after bush had already pardoned cheney).

Wabash

06-18-2008, 12:19 PM

This is amusing http://www.opednews.com/articles/LAW-SCHOOL-TO-ORGANIZE-BUS-by-Sherwood-Ross-080615-783.html
What garbage by a jealous, nose bent out of shape, Liberal Cocksucker!
Even when the 2nd most powerful woman in the world has said "hands off"! Do you ever tire of this drivel?
Do you tire of being wrong? President Clinton was not convicted of anything. The Senate rejected and voted down each and every charge against him.
I thought he was convicted of lying to the Grand Jury and disbarred. You know as well as I do that he should have been impeached and sent to jail!

Wabash

06-18-2008, 12:21 PM

bush will be ranked as one of the worse if not the worst president in history. After bush leaves office, he will not be able to leave the US except to visit countries that do not prosecute war crimes.

I am predicting that bush will be first president to either pardon himself for his various actions or that bush will resign shortly before his term is up so that cheney can sign a pardon for bush (after bush had already pardoned cheney).
Great idea...I already posted the Bush resignation speech last week! I'll email the WH, as I often do, and give the duly elected President of the USA your suggestion!:rooster

You may have done a real service to Bush for this suggestion!:LL

issac the dragon

06-18-2008, 12:25 PM

The US needs Bush to be prosecuted. For our own sakes, so that president Obama or McCain and those who follow will know not to commit the same crimes. It is necessary for our moral survival.

If he can't be convicted in this country, he should certainly be convicted in the World Court. Cheney's pardon wouldn't help him there. George Bush is every bit as evil as Hussein was. And with less cause. The crime Hussein commited was gasing rebels. The Iraqis commited no crime.

Wabash

06-18-2008, 12:32 PM

Yellowdogtexan

06-18-2008, 12:33 PM

I thought he was convicted of lying to the Grand Jury and disbarred. You know as well as I do that he should have been impeached and sent to jail!President Clinton was not convicted of anything. He did agree to suspend his law license for five years but that period had expired and he is eligible to be re-admitted if he wanted to take a pay cut.

Matt

06-18-2008, 05:05 PM

Sorry issac, it's not going to happen! Just a wet dream of doggie and others...plus we are headed for a worldwide financial collapse and there will be much more important stuff on our plates!

The policies of the bush tribe played a big role in the worldwide financial problems. He played like there was no problem far into the problem not to mention the fact that his ill advised war caused a lot of it.

The man never succeeded at anything in his life. He faked his way through. His only success was that his behavior during Vietnam put a stop to much of the draft dodger talk.
The fact that the Rovers could play the fear card and dirty tricks to get him duly elected in 2004 is reason enough to imprison Rove.

Even his family didn't think he should be president but Jeb lost his first attempt of the governorship in Florida. The fact that Jeb then won allowed the disenfranchising of many voters in Florida plus other cheating.
Why doesn't Wabby read up on the Bush dynasty?
He seems so informed on some others.

Wabash has a full time job defending Bush and coming up with urban legends about Clinton who lied about an indiscretion that he is very familiar with.

Yellowdogtexan

06-18-2008, 06:59 PM

In a House hearing today, a Florida congresswoman asked Col. Larry Wilkerson about whether Yoo, Addington, Gonzales and others should travel outside of the US and he is blunt about these men being subject to arrest for war crimes. Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwSH_vNkekY

Yellowdogtexan

06-18-2008, 11:17 PM

The US General how investigate Abu Grahaib has gone on record that the bush administration have committed war crimes and the only issue is swho ordered the use of torture. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/41514.html The Army general who led the investigation into prisoner abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison accused the Bush administration Wednesday of committing "war crimes" and called for those responsible to be held to account.

The remarks by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, who's now retired, came in a new report that found that U.S. personnel tortured and abused detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, using beatings, electrical shocks, sexual humiliation and other cruel practices.

"After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes," Taguba wrote. "The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."

Taguba, whose 2004 investigation documented chilling abuses at Abu Ghraib, is thought to be the most senior official to have accused the administration of war crimes. "The commander in chief and those under him authorized a systematic regime of torture," he wrote.

Trueblue

06-19-2008, 08:16 AM

And once he did this report, the Bushies treated him just like they are not treating Scott McClellan.

Yellowdogtexan

06-19-2008, 12:46 PM

These are very serious charges and it appears that one or more other countries are considering war crime indictments for a group of bush administration officials http://www.tnr.com/toc/story.html?id=597957fd-6bbf-4d02-b29f-3dbd35176038Is it likely that prosecutions will be brought overseas? Yes. It is reasonably likely. Sands's book contains an interview with an investigating magistrate in a European nation, which he describes as a NATO nation with a solidly pro-American orientation which supported U.S. engagement in Iraq with its own soldiers. The magistrate makes clear that he is already assembling a case, and is focused on American policymakers. I read these remarks and they seemed very familiar to me. In the past two years, I have spoken with two investigating magistrates in two different European nations, both pro-Iraq war NATO allies. Both were assembling war crimes charges against a small group of Bush administration officials. "You can rest assured that no charges will be brought before January 20, 2009," one told me. And after that? "It depends. We don't expect extradition. But if one of the targets lands on our territory or on the territory of one of our cooperating jurisdictions, then we'll be prepared to act."

Viewed in this light, the Bush Administration figures involved in the formation of torture policy face no immediate threat of prosecution for war crimes. But Colin Powell's chief of staff, Colonel Larry Wilkerson, nails it: "Haynes, Feith, Yoo, Bybee, Gonzales and--at the apex--Addington, should never travel outside the U.S., except perhaps to Saudi Arabia and Israel. They broke the law; they violated their professional ethical code. In the future, some government may build the case necessary to prosecute them in a foreign court, or in an international court." Augusto Pinochet made a trip to London, and his life was never the same afterwards.

The Bush administration officials who pushed torture will need to be careful about their travel plans.

Cookie Parker

06-22-2008, 01:45 PM

Try try as hard as can be they'll never reduce our President to the level of the trashy Clinton Legacy. Clinton lied under oath and they convicted him by impeachment for being the worthless bastard he is.

Bush will leave a legacy of style and grace and a consistency only great men have to offer despite the slander of weak and feeble minds. :)

Bush has already lied...on tape...your point?

Cookie Parker

06-22-2008, 01:46 PM

These are very serious charges and it appears that one or more other countries are considering war crime indictments for a group of bush administration officials http://www.tnr.com/toc/story.html?id=597957fd-6bbf-4d02-b29f-3dbd35176038

Because Dubai does not allow extradition to any country, it is thought this to be the reason Cheney has relocated Halliburton there and Bush spent time looking at housing recently.

BartonX

06-22-2008, 07:49 PM

President Clinton was not convicted of anything. He did agree to suspend his law license for five years but that period had expired and he is eligible to be re-admitted if he wanted to take a pay cut.

Resident Clinton was officially impeached but our chickenshit senate failed to do their duty and finish the trashy bastard off. The worse President officially was Carter according to the experts, so I guess asshole doesn't get to claim that for his legacy either. Clinton was and is an abject failure.

Bush on the other hand cannot be impeached because he has done nothing to be impeached for. Rather than being trash like the Clintons he is an honorable and noble man who is beseiged by stupid assed critics that wouldn't make a wart on his ass! :yep

BartonX

06-22-2008, 07:54 PM

Because Dubai does not allow extradition to any country, it is thought this to be the reason Cheney has relocated Halliburton there and Bush spent time looking at housing recently.

I thought the theory your side had was that they had already bought up thousands of acres in Paraguay they were going to flee to??? Get your stories strait. Bush is a great President, since Truman, your side has failed miserably to produce one. One reason is liberals have shit for brains. :rofl

BartonX

06-22-2008, 07:57 PM

Bush has already lied...on tape...your point?

My point is you are full of shit! And no one can show where Bush ever lied about anything. Your side is just trying to reduce him to being the scumbag Bill Clinton was and you can't do it so I depart saying....."Rave on catshit someone will cover you up."

BartonX

06-22-2008, 08:02 PM

My point is you are full of shit! And no one can show where Bush ever lied about anything. Your side is just trying to reduce him to being the scumbag Bill Clinton was and you can't do it so I depart saying....."Rave on catshit someone will cover you up."

President Bush is intelligent enough to fly a combat jet fighter. Can you name one Democrat that is smart enough to do that??? :rofl

Saguaro

06-22-2008, 09:15 PM

Anyone of us

nixon

06-23-2008, 05:11 AM

President Bush is intelligent enough to fly a combat jet fighter. Can you name one Democrat that is smart enough to do that??? :roflhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxsIZBiY1uE&NR=1 I wouldn't trust this idiot to bring in the morning paper.

Trueblue

06-23-2008, 06:36 AM

:yep

Yellowdogtexan

06-23-2008, 08:13 AM

My point is you are full of shit! And no one can show where Bush ever lied about anything. "Do you tire of being WRONG
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22794451/WASHINGTON - A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.....

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.
bush lied 259 times himself and the bushies together made 935 lies in order to sell the stupid war in Iraq.

Yellowdogtexan

06-23-2008, 08:16 AM

My point is you are full of shit! And no one can show where Bush ever lied about anything.The bi-partisan report of the Senate Intelligence Committee disagree with Dochttp://www.mcclatchydc.com/244/story/39963.html A long-awaited Senate Select Intelligence Committee report made public Thursday concludes that President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney made public statements to promote an invasion of Iraq that they knew at the time were not supported by available intelligence.

A companion report found that a special office set up by then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld undertook "sensitive intelligence activities" that were inappropriate "without the knowledge of the Intelligence Community or the State Department."

“Before taking the country to war, this administration owed it to the American people to give them a 100 percent accurate picture of the threat we faced. Unfortunately, our Committee has concluded that the administration made significant claims that were not supported by the intelligence,” said committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV, D- W. Va. It's long been known that the administration's claims in the runup to the Iraq war, from Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to al Qaida to whether Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program, were incorrect. But the Senate report is the first official examination of whether the president and vice president knew that their claims were incorrect at the time they made them.

“There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate," Rockefeller said in a statement.

Among the reports conclusions:

Claims by President Bush that Iraq and al Qaida had a partnership "were not substantiated by the intelligence."

The president and vice president misrepresented what was known about Iraq’s chemical weapons capabiliies.

Rumsfeld misrepresented what the intelligence community knew when he said Iraq's weapons productions facilities were buried deeply underground.

Cheney's claim that the intelligence community had confirmed that lead Sept. 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta had met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 was not true.

Yellowdogtexan

06-23-2008, 08:18 AM

The issue here is not the lies told by bush but the fact that bush, cheney, rumsfeld and others authorized the use of torture and the violations of international law. Again, bush and the rest of the bushies will need to be very carefule which countries they visit after January 20, 2009 and there will be attempts to hold members of the bush administration responsible for these treaty violations and war crimes.

Yellowdogtexan

07-11-2008, 12:16 PM

The International Red Cross has determined that bush adminstration has committed war crimes. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/washington/11detain.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rssRed Cross investigators concluded last year in a secret report that the Central Intelligence Agency’s interrogation methods for high-level Qaeda prisoners constituted torture and could make the Bush administration officials who approved them guilty of war crimes, according to a new book on counterterrorism efforts since 2001.

The book says that the International Committee of the Red Cross declared in the report, given to the C.I.A. last year, that the methods used on Abu Zubaydah, the first major Qaeda figure the United States captured, were “categorically” torture, which is illegal under both American and international law.

The book says Abu Zubaydah was confined in a box “so small he said he had to double up his limbs in the fetal position” and was one of several prisoners to be “slammed against the walls,” according to the Red Cross report. The C.I.A. has admitted that Abu Zubaydah and two other prisoners were waterboarded, a practice in which water is poured on the nose and mouth to create the sensation of suffocation and drowning.....

Citing unnamed “sources familiar with the report,” Ms. Mayer wrote that the Red Cross document “warned that the abuse constituted war crimes, placing the highest officials in the U.S. government in jeopardy of being prosecuted.” Red Cross representatives were not permitted access to the secret prisons where the C.I.A. conducted interrogations, but were permitted to interview Abu Zubaydah and other high-level detainees in late 2006, after they were moved to the military detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

The book says the C.I.A. shared the report, which Ms. Mayer first described last year in less detail in The New Yorker, with President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Bernard Barrett of the International Committee of the Red Cross declined to comment on the book except to say that the committee “regrets that any information has been attributed to us” because it believes its work is more effective when confidential.

He did confirm that committee personnel “are regularly visiting” the high-level Qaeda prisoners, now at Guantánamo Bay. “We have an ongoing confidential dialogue with members of the U.S. intelligence community, and we would share any observations or recommendations with them.”

The book says Abu Zubaydah told the Red Cross that he had been waterboarded at least 10 times in a single week and as many as three times in a day.

The book also reports that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the chief planner of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, told the Red Cross that he had been kept naked for more than a month and claimed that he had been “kept alternately in suffocating heat and in a painfully cold room.”

The report says the prisoners considered the “most excruciating” of the methods being shackled to the ceiling and being forced to stand for as long as eight hours. Eleven of the 14 prisoners reported prolonged sleep deprivation, the book says, including “bright lights and eardrum-shattering sounds 24 hours a day.”
bush will issue blanket pardons before he leaves office (but after the Nov. elections) for members of his administration to deal with the US charges. These pardons will not be effective as to international war crimes and I doubt that bush will be traveling overseas after his term is up.

Wabash

07-11-2008, 07:57 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxsIZBiY1uE&NR=1 I wouldn't trust this idiot to bring in the morning paper.
Soooo, you believe all the DNC talking points huh?

:yep
You too!

Do you tire of being WRONG
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22794451/bush lied 259 times himself and the bushies together made 935 lies in order to sell the stupid war in Iraq.
Oh ya...journalism organization...there's some folks I doubt are believable! Dan Rather come to mind...there's lots of liberal Dan Rather types out there!
Besides, they have NO authority to do shit!!!! Except shoot off their mouths!

The issue here is not the lies told by bush but the fact that bush, cheney, rumsfeld and others authorized the use of torture and the violations of international law. Again, bush and the rest of the bushies will need to be very carefule which countries they visit after January 20, 2009 and there will be attempts to hold members of the bush administration responsible for these treaty violations and war crimes.
I doubt they are very worried...you make mountains out of molehills doggie...but only on Pubs!

The International Red Cross has determined that bush adminstration has committed war crimes. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/washington/11detain.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rssbush will issue blanket pardons before he leaves office (but after the Nov. elections) for members of his administration to deal with the US charges. These pardons will not be effective as to international war crimes and I doubt that bush will be traveling overseas after his term is up.
Again...NO Authority to sanction anything...just diarrhea of liberal brains!!
I don't trust the Red Cross to keep their own house straight! Nor are they worth a shit in a war zone!

Wabash

07-11-2008, 08:03 PM

...promoter of liberal diarrhea of the brain...........

quiet man

07-11-2008, 08:13 PM

Soooo, you believe all the DNC talking points huh?

You too!

Oh ya...journalism organization...there's some folks I doubt are believable! Dan Rather come to mind...there's lots of liberal Dan Rather types out there!
Besides, they have NO authority to do shit!!!! Except shoot off their mouths!

I doubt they are very worried...you make mountains out of molehills doggie...but only on Pubs!

Again...NO Authority to sanction anything...just diarrhea of liberal brains!!
I don't trust the Red Cross to keep their own house straight! Nor are they worth a shit in a war zone!
there are two things to count on in this world:
that wabby and bartonx will never realize their intel rivals only bush's approval rating.
change is coming to the world and we better get ready.

one other thing wabby you are still the single most self absorbed pub on the planet your only rival being bartonx. some things never change! :drevil

Judge Smails

07-11-2008, 08:15 PM

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2003/11/04/1bell.jpg

Wabash

07-11-2008, 08:25 PM

there are two things to count on in this world:
that wabby and bartonx will never realize their intel rivals only bush's approval rating.
change is coming to the world and we better get ready.

one other thing wabby you are still the single most self absorbed pub on the planet your only rival being bartonx. some things never change! :drevil
How am I self absorbed?
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2003/11/04/1bell.jpg
DUMB POST!

Wabash

07-11-2008, 08:26 PM

NOTHING is MORE laughable than liberals spinning their brains!!!:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl

Judge Smails

07-11-2008, 09:01 PM

How am I self absorbed?

DUMB POST!

Your grasp of the written word is limited to 2 syllables or less.

I thought I'd try pictures to aid you with your comprehension skills.

Most of the lower primates are able to respond positively utilizing a system of reward and punishment.

We'll try that next with you wabby.

Don't let me down...I have faith that you can manage this.

Judge Smails

07-11-2008, 09:07 PM

Look wabby....it even worked for your master!

http://members.shaw.ca/jmoelaert/Bush%20monkey.jpg

BartonX

07-11-2008, 10:59 PM

Inappropriate timing and response I suspect the root cause to be sexual inadequacy and a latent mean streak.:LL

Yellowdogtexan

07-11-2008, 11:06 PM

Again...NO Authority] to sanction anything...just diarrhea of liberal brains!!
I don't trust the Red Cross to keep their own house straight! Nor are they worth a shit in a war zone!A pretend cop like you should not question the only real authority on this subject. The Geneva Conventions provide tha the International Red Cross is to monitor compliance with the Geneva Conventions.

I trust the judgment and opinion of the International Red Cross compared to a silly person who pretends to have law enforcement expierence. The judgement of the International Red Cross actually carries some weight compared to a silly lay person.

Yellowdogtexan

07-11-2008, 11:09 PM

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2003/11/04/1bell.jpgbush and cheney will not be able to leave the US after the report of the International Red Cross becomes public. War crimes are treated seriously by the civilized world which the US apparently not a part of any longer.

BartonX

07-11-2008, 11:09 PM

A pretend cop like you should not question the only real authority on this subject. The Geneva Conventions provide tha the International Red Cross is to monitor compliance with the Geneva Conventions.

I trust the judgment and opinion of the International Red Cross compared to a silly person who pretends to have law enforcement expierence. The judgement of the International Red Cross actually carries some weight compared to a silly lay person.

Both the Red Cross and the Geneva Convention are extinct.

BartonX

07-11-2008, 11:11 PM

bush and cheney will not be able to leave the US after the report of the International Red Cross becomes public. War crimes are treated seriously by the civilized world which the US apparently not a part of any longer.

The U.S. is the civilized world, all the rest are either jerkoff Europeans or Chinks.

Yellowdogtexan

07-11-2008, 11:22 PM

The U.S. is the civilized world, all the rest are either jerkoff Europeans or Chinks. Civilized countries do not commit war crimes. If bush leaves the country after his term is up, he will be arrested and tried for war crimes. After the Red Cross report becomes public, an Obama administration will not stand in the way of justice.

Feith, Yoo, cheneys COS, Haynes, rumsfeld, Ashcroft all better planned on never leaving the country.

Again, bush is not stupid. bush will pardon or try to pardon himself and the other members of his administration for their involvement in these war crimes. Those pardons will speak a great deal about the fact that bush knows that he has exposure.

Yellowdogtexan

07-11-2008, 11:24 PM

Both the Red Cross and the Geneva Convention are extinct.The opinion of a silly layperson is meaningless and of no import. No one cares about the opinion of a silly layperson who has no clue about the law or the legal process.

BartonX

07-11-2008, 11:30 PM

The opinion of a silly layperson is meaningless and of no import. No one cares about the opinion of a silly layperson who has no clue about the law or the legal process.

Well to be honest I did suspect that your opinion was meaningless and of no import and the fact that your silly opinion showed you to be clueless in regard to legal process(s) did not escape me.:LL

BartonX

07-11-2008, 11:32 PM

Civilized countries do not commit war crimes. If bush leaves the country after his term is up, he will be arrested and tried for war crimes. After the Red Cross report becomes public, an Obama administration will not stand in the way of justice.

Feith, Yoo, cheneys COS, Haynes, rumsfeld, Ashcroft all better planned on never leaving the country.

Again, bush is not stupid. bush will pardon or try to pardon himself and the other members of his administration for their involvement in these war crimes. Those pardons will speak a great deal about the fact that bush knows that he has exposure.

You have a more active imagination than Frank Baum!!! I'm sure glad you didn't write the Wizard of Oz though, because your idea of a legal brief is poka dot shorts. :rofl

Yellowdogtexan

07-11-2008, 11:34 PM

Well to be honest I did suspect that your opinion was meaningless and of no import and the fact that your silly opinion showed you to be clueless in regard to legal process(s) did not escape me.Your ignorance on legal issues is amusing. I challenged you to file an amicus brief in the bible distribution case and even gave you the address of the court and the style of the case. Being a coward and blowhard, you ran away from this challenge because you knew that your bullshit would have been laughed at by the court and the lawyers. Your claims are so silly that you are a joke.

BartonX

07-11-2008, 11:44 PM

Well talking to you is like shaking hands with a glove full of peanutbutter, there is little to offer and even less to recommend you. Perhaps if you keep repeating that this time you will eventually know why you were ignored. But I don't have that much confidence in your abilities of deductive reasoning or any reasoning for that matter. :lmao

Yellowdogtexan

07-11-2008, 11:58 PM

Doc

You are the one every one is laughing at. You are so clueless that you are amusing. Again, you are a coward. I called your bluff and you ran away because you know that your claims were stupid. Cowards like you are amusing.

Yellowdogtexan

07-12-2008, 12:04 AM

Back to the topic. This is interesting. The currrent AG got really upset with the concept that a new administration may prosecute both the CIA agents who used torture and the lawyers who wrote the opinions that authorized the use of torture. http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/09/durbin-mukasey/During Attorney General Michael Mukasey’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee today, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) implored Mukasey to make a “clean break” from the Bush administration’s record of allowing possible violations of federal law to go unpunished, urging him to investigate administration officials who authorized torture.

Mukasey responded by saying that he “cannot and should not” prosecute those individuals because such an investigation would focus on what is “politically acceptable” rather than what is “legal”:MUKASEY: Any CIA agent who acted in good faith reliance on an opinion from the Department of Justice cannot and should not be prosecuted because if they are, any opinion from the Department of Justice to anyone on the frontline is totally and completely useless. […]

DURBIN: What about those who authorized that torture?

MUKASEY: I think its the same answer. … I think what lawyers have to do is focus on what’s legal and not be concerned with what is politically acceptable later on. And if we go after them and prosecute them that’s exactly what they will be concerned about.....Torture is not, and has never been, a political issue. The techniques authorized by Bush administration officials are illegal under both U.S. and international law. Less than a year ago, Mukasey himself said the Bush administration’s infamous torture memo was “worse than a sin, it was a mistake.” Mukasey’s refusal to investigate, however, should not be surprising. Like Gonzales before him, Mukasey does not appear to be concerned with holding government officials accountable for their “sins.”The CIA agents who used torture may be prosecuted by a new Obama administration. The attorneys who issued the opinions that authorized the use of torture will also be subject to prosecution. That is why bush will pardon these people on his way out and such pardon will cover bush, cheney, rumsfeld, ashcroft, feith and others.

Yellowdogtexan

07-12-2008, 10:49 AM

Again...NO Authority to sanction anything...just diarrhea of liberal brains!!
I don't trust the Red Cross to keep their own house straight! Nor are they worth a shit in a war zone! Contrary to the claims of this pretend cop who claims to have law enforcment expierence (a claim that I do not believe), the Red Cross is The agency in charge of investigating and reporting on war crimes.
Here is a good article from Countdown with Law Professor Turley set forth why the bushies are guilty of war crimes. Again, the International Committee on the Red Cross is THE international agency in charge of determining if war crimes have been committed and the fact that the ICRC has come down so clearly on this issue is sad. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3PvIFx-WDEbush, cheney, rumsfeld,feith, ashcroft, Yoo, and their ilk will not be able to leave the US after bush leaves office without fear of being tried as war criminals.

I also believe that an Obama administration will not try to block or interfer with such a trial.

Yellowdogtexan

07-12-2008, 07:22 PM

Here is a good analysis by Glenn Greenwald (a good constitutional litigator) http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/12/torture/index.htmlMayer's book reports the following:"Red Cross investigators concluded last year in a secret report that the Central Intelligence Agency's interrogation methods for high-level Qaeda prisoners constituted torture and could make the Bush administration officials who approved them guilty of war crimes."

"A CIA analyst warned the Bush administration in 2002 that up to a third of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay may have been imprisoned by mistake, but White House officials ignored the finding and insisted that all were 'enemy combatants' subject to indefinite incarceration."

"[A] top aide to Vice President Cheney shrugged off the report and squashed proposals for a quick review of the detainees' cases . . .

'There will be no review,' the book quotes Cheney staff director David Addington as saying. 'The president has determined that they are ALL enemy combatants. We are not going to revisit it.'"

"[T]he [CIA] analyst estimated that a full third of the camp's detainees were there by mistake. When told of those findings, the top military commander at Guantanamo at the time, Major Gen. Michael Dunlavey, not only agreed with the assessment but suggested that an even higher percentage of detentions -- up to half -- were in error. Later, an academic study by Seton Hall University Law School concluded that 55 percent of detainees had never engaged in hostile acts against the United States, and only 8 percent had any association with al-Qaeda."

[T]he International Committee of the Red Cross declared in the report, given to the C.I.A. last year, that the methods used on Abu Zubaydah, the first major Qaeda figure the United States captured, were 'categorically' torture, which is illegal under both American and international law".

"[T]he Red Cross document 'warned that the abuse
constituted war crimes, placing the highest officials in the U.S. government in jeopardy of being prosecuted.'" This is what a country becomes when it decides that it will not live under the rule of law, when it communicates to its political leaders that they are free to do whatever they want -- including breaking our laws -- and there will be no consequences. There are two choices and only two choices for every country -- live under the rule of law or live under the rule of men. We've collectively decided that our most powerful political leaders are not bound by our laws -- that when they break the law, there will be no consequences. We've thus become a country which lives under the proverbial "rule of men" -- that is literally true, with no hyperbole needed -- and Mayer's revelations are nothing more than the inevitable by-product of that choice.

That's why this ongoing, well-intentioned debate that Andrew Sullivan is having with himself and his readers over whether "torture is worse than illegal, warrantless eavesdropping" is so misplaced, and it's also why those who are dismissing as "an overblown distraction" the anger generated by last week's Congressional protection of surveillance lawbreakers are so deeply misguided. Things like "torture" and "illegal eavesdropping" can't be compared as though they're separate, competing policies. They are rooted in the same framework of lawlessness. The same rationale that justifies one is what justifies the other. Endorsing one is to endorse all of it.

In fact, none of the scandals of radicalism and criminality which we've learned about over the last seven years -- including the creation of this illegal torture regime -- can be viewed in isolation. They're all by-products of the country that we've become in the post-9/11 era, primarily as a result of our collective decision to exempt our Government leaders from the rule of law; to acquiesce to the manipulative claim that we can only be Safe if we allow our Leaders to be free from consequences when they commit crimes; and to demonize advocates of the rule of law as -- to use Larry Lessig's mindless, reactionary clichés -- shrill, Leftist "hysterics" who need to "get off [their] high horse(s)".

That is the mentality that has allowed the Bush administration to engage in this profound assault on our national character, to violate our laws at will. Our political and media elite have acquiesced to all of this when they weren't cheering it all on. Those who object to it, who argue that these abuses of political power are dangerous in the extreme and that we cannot tolerate deliberate government lawbreaking, are dismissed as shrill Leftist hysterics. ....

Those who have spent the last seven years scoffing at Unserious, Hysterical objections to Bush lawlessness are the very people who have created this climate that they will now pretend to find so upsetting. The "rule of law" isn't some left-wing dogma that is the province of Leftist radicals and hysterics. It's the cornerstone of every civilized and free society, and Jane Mayer's new book is but the latest piece of evidence to prove that.I believe in the rule of law and the fact that the bushies think that they are above the law is simply wrong. bush, cheney, rumsfeld, ashcroft, feith, yoo, Addington and their ilk all need to be held accountable. If that means war crimes trials, then so be it.

Yellowdogtexan

07-13-2008, 10:02 AM

In addition to the report of the Red Cross, a US General has concluded that the US has committed war crimes http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/opinion/13rich.html?_r=1&oref=sloginOn those larger issues, the evidence is in, merely awaiting adjudication. Mr. Bush’s 2005 proclamation that “we do not torture” was long ago revealed as a lie. Antonio Taguba, the retired major general who investigated detainee abuse for the Army, concluded that “there is no longer any doubt” that “war crimes were committed.” Ms. Mayer uncovered another damning verdict: Red Cross investigators flatly told the C.I.A. last year that America was practicing torture and vulnerable to war-crimes charges.both a US general and the Red Cross are very clear that the US committed war crimes. rumsfeld, cheney, bush, feith, addington, Yoo and their ilk are going to have to limit their travels outside the US after bush leaves office.

Yellowdogtexan

07-16-2008, 07:22 AM

Here is a good interview of the author of the book that broke the story on the ICRC report on war crimes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_XeOR_sQA4Addington and others in the bush administration will not be able to travel outside of the US after bush's term is up without risking arrest and trial for war crimes.

Again, these charges are so powerful, that bush has no choice but to issue pardons to himself and the rest of his fellow war criminals or risk prosecution by the Obama adminstration. If bush is stupid and does not issue such pardons, then the Obama administration needs to prosecute each and every one of these war criminals so as to restore the US as a member of the civilized world.

Trueblue

07-16-2008, 07:32 AM

That's why this ongoing, well-intentioned debate that Andrew Sullivan is having with himself and his readers over whether "torture is worse than illegal, warrantless eavesdropping" is so misplaced, and it's also why those who are dismissing as "an overblown distraction" the anger generated by last week's Congressional protection of surveillance lawbreakers are so deeply misguided. Things like "torture" and "illegal eavesdropping" can't be compared as though they're separate, competing policies. They are rooted in the same framework of lawlessness. The same rationale that justifies one is what justifies the other. Endorsing one is to endorse all of it.

In fact, none of the scandals of radicalism and criminality which we've learned about over the last seven years -- including the creation of this illegal torture regime -- can be viewed in isolation. They're all by-products of the country that we've become in the post-9/11 era, primarily as a result of our collective decision to exempt our Government leaders from the rule of law; to acquiesce to the manipulative claim that we can only be Safe if we allow our Leaders to be free from consequences when they commit crimes; and to demonize advocates of the rule of law as -- to use Larry Lessig's mindless, reactionary clichés -- shrill, Leftist "hysterics" who need to "get off [their] high horse(s)".

So true. And many Democrats participated, too. It was as if they bought into the lie that if they objected, they were friends with bin Laden. :mad

Why? Because of shit like happened to Max Cleland and John Kerry, good men who were attacked over nothing they actually did wrong, but over a perception created by the Rovian mindset.

The Dems should have stood up to them.

And the Pubs want, desperately, to do the same to Obama. :mad

Wabash

07-16-2008, 11:23 AM

Your grasp of the written word is limited to 2 syllables or less.

I thought I'd try pictures to aid you with your comprehension skills.

Most of the lower primates are able to respond positively utilizing a system of reward and punishment.

We'll try that next with you wabby.

Don't let me down...I have faith that you can manage this.
you Smells....you don't know jack!!!

Look wabby....it even worked for your master!

http://members.shaw.ca/jmoelaert/Bush%20monkey.jpg
Bush is NOT my master...no one is! Get real for once!
Inappropriate timing and response I suspect the root cause to be sexual inadequacy and a latent mean streak.:LL
There ya go.....

A pretend cop like you should not question the only real authority on this subject. The Geneva Conventions provide tha the International Red Cross is to monitor compliance with the Geneva Conventions.

I trust the judgment and opinion of the International Red Cross compared to a silly person who pretends to have law enforcement expierence. The judgement of the International Red Cross actually carries some weight compared to a silly lay person.
Goes to show what a knows....The Red Cross has fallen on it's face many times over the years......in many war zones, they aren't worth squat....keeping their own house(read graft) in order is a whole different matter!
Like I said they have no authority beyond being snitches for the Left!
bush and cheney will not be able to leave the US after the report of the International Red Cross becomes public. War crimes are treated seriously by the civilized world which the US apparently not a part of any longer.
GIVE IT a REST dog! You are being!

Both the Red Cross and the Geneva Convention are extinct.
Exactly! I think we need a Living Geneva Convention and a Living Red Cross.......:LL

You know, just like some dweebs want a Living Constitution.....Let's start with the GC and RC FIRST!!!!

Wabash

07-16-2008, 11:34 AM

Civilized countries do not commit war crimes. If bush leaves the country after his term is up, he will be arrested and tried for war crimes. After the Red Cross report becomes public, an Obama administration will not stand in the way of justice.
Soooooo much crap from you....soooo much to counter
Feith, Yoo, cheneys COS, Haynes, rumsfeld, Ashcroft all better planned on never leaving the country.
Who the Fuck Cares!!!!!

Again, bush is not stupid. bush will pardon or try to pardon himself and the other members of his administration for their involvement in these war crimes. Those pardons will speak a great deal about the fact that bush knows that he has exposure.
War Crimes have yet to be determined...w/o a court, it is PURE speculation!

The opinion of a silly layperson is meaningless and of no import. No one cares about the opinion of a silly layperson who has no clue about the law or the legal process.
Act your Age!!!

Well to be honest I did suspect that your opinion was meaningless and of no import and the fact that your silly opinion showed you to be clueless in regard to legal process(s) did not escape me.:LL
You'd be correct!

You have a more active imagination than Frank Baum!!! I'm sure glad you didn't write the Wizard of Oz though, because your idea of a legal brief is poka dot shorts. :rofl
Boy howdy!

Your ignorance on legal issues is amusing. I challenged you to file an amicus brief in the bible distribution case and even gave you the address of the court and the style of the case. Being a coward and blowhard, you ran away from this challenge because you knew that your bullshit would have been laughed at by the court and the lawyers. Your claims are so silly that you are a joke.
Give it a rest dog.....you must have some important things to do ...like take out the garbage out for wifey....

Well talking to you is like shaking hands with a glove full of peanutbutter, there is little to offer and even less to recommend you. Perhaps if you keep repeating that this time you will eventually know why you were ignored. But I don't have that much confidence in your abilities of deductive reasoning or any reasoning for that matter. :lmao
Well stated!

Back to the topic. This is interesting. The currrent AG got really upset with the concept that a new administration may prosecute both the CIA agents who used torture and the lawyers who wrote the opinions that authorized the use of torture. http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/09/durbin-mukasey/The CIA agents who used torture may be prosecuted by a new Obama administration. The attorneys who issued the opinions that authorized the use of torture will also be subject to prosecution. That is why bush will pardon these people on his way out and such pardon will cover bush, cheney, rumsfeld, ashcroft, feith and others.
Yada, yada, yada.....the noodge speaks!

Contrary to the claims of this pretend cop who claims to have law enforcment expierence (a claim that I do not believe), the Red Cross is The agency in charge of investigating and reporting on war crimes. They can investigate and report all they want to....that's ALL they can do!
Here is a good article from Countdown with Law Professor Turley set forth why the bushies are guilty of war crimes. Again, the International Committee on the Red Cross is THE international agency in charge of determining if war crimes have been committed and the fact that the ICRC has come down so clearly on this issue is sad. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3PvIFx-WDEbush, cheney, rumsfeld,feith, ashcroft, Yoo, and their ilk will not be able to leave the US after bush leaves office without fear of being tried as war criminals. One man's opinion...

I also believe that an Obama administration will not try to block or interfer with such a trial.

You believe a lot, but can master little...:LL

Wabash

07-16-2008, 11:38 AM

Here is a good analysis by Glenn Greenwald (a good constitutional litigator) http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/12/torture/index.htmlI believe in the rule of law and the fact that the bushies think that they are above the law is simply wrong. bush, cheney, rumsfeld, ashcroft, feith, yoo, Addington and their ilk all need to be held accountable. If that means war crimes trials, then so be it.
Coulda, shoulda, woulda.......Speculation, hearsay and innuendo!!
In addition to the report of the Red Cross, a US General has concluded that the US has committed war crimes http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/opinion/13rich.html?_r=1&oref=sloginboth a US general and the Red Cross are very clear that the US committed war crimes. rumsfeld, cheney, bush, feith, addington, Yoo and their ilk are going to have to limit their travels outside the US after bush leaves office.

See above!

What a BOZO you are...Do you rent yourself out at birthday parties? You'd be Great Comic Relief!

Lone Laugher

07-16-2008, 01:17 PM

Wabash

07-16-2008, 01:44 PM

Wabby....you are responding to stuff that was posted days ago....and nobody with a brain can follow the conversation that you are having with yourself. If your goal is to make no sense...you are succeeding.

Hey Bozo....I did the quotes and responding to said quotes...if you are too feeble to read and understand, tell the AARP, don't coming crying to me!:butt

Lone Laugher

07-16-2008, 01:55 PM

Yeah...and it still makes no sense. You think people care enough about what you have to say to go and look up the context of the "quotes". It is called being delusional.

AARP? You are old enough to be my daddy, gramps.

Wabash

07-16-2008, 02:00 PM

Wabby....you are responding to stuff that was posted days ago....and nobody with a brain can follow the conversation that you are having with yourself. If your goal is to make no sense...you are succeeding.

Yeah...and it still makes no sense. You think people care enough about what you have to say to go and look up the context of the "quotes". It is called being delusional.

AARP? You are old enough to be my daddy, gramps.
Good to know, you can learn a Great Deal from me whippersnapper!
Stay tuned!:LL

Lone Laugher

07-16-2008, 02:15 PM

Yes, Wabby. The fisrt thing that comes to mind when I think of you is "educator". What will our next lesson be about?

Making obvious statements and predictions seem like novelty?

Predicting things that may happen so far into the future that nobody can remember them and I can always be right?

Being despicably racist while pretending not to know it?

Vetting e-mails that I get from friends?

Taking credit for stuff that I didn't create?

Kissing Ringo's ass?

I'm poised awaiting your kind instruction.

Wabash

07-16-2008, 02:43 PM

Lone Laugher

07-16-2008, 03:10 PM

Well, Wabby...I'll hand it to you. You took those little jabs better that I thought you would. There may be hope for you yet.

Wabash

07-16-2008, 06:27 PM

Well, Wabby...I'll hand it to you. You took those little jabs better that I thought you would. There may be hope for you yet.
You know LL, I can tell that you are an intelligent guy...I just rub you the wrong way and vice versa.
I'm a reasonable person and would like to get along with everyone...albeit that is not realistic.
If you would be so kind as to take the time to point out specific things that really piss you off about me, maybe we can reach a more beneficial existence here.
I'm certainly not perfect, or even close....and maybe I just don't see things the way you do, or.........I'm not explaining myself thoroughly.
I think a lot of folks just assume the other person should "get it"....when in fact they haven't.
:)

Lone Laugher

07-16-2008, 07:02 PM

Believe it or not, Wabby....I can't think of anything about you that pisses me off. After all, this is just an anonymous discussion forum. I think I have said before that I enjoy a little verbal sparring now and then. If I didn't, I would probably have less to look forward to when logging on. I think it is clear that I find some of your viewpoints to be disturbing....but they don't cause me to feel anger or anything like that. They just make me shake my head in wonder every so often.

I'm pretty sure that you and I would have no problem sitting down for a few beers ( or whatever you prefer ) and having a lively but civil discussion. We probably have a few things in common that have not come to light as yet. This online format tends to prompt people to take their comments to the extreme....something most people don't do when in a real social situation.

Finally, I think everyone who comes here wants to effect a positive influence in some way. I'll admit that frustration sets in sometimes. It would be nice if...sometimes....once in a blue moon....there was a effort made by one party in a given debate to capitulate when they have been proven wrong.

Yellowdogtexan

07-16-2008, 07:45 PM

Coulda, shoulda, woulda.......Speculation, hearsay and innuendo!!As is normal you are WRONG. The bushies will be investigated if Senator Obama wins. Here are a couple of statements from Senator Obama to consider http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/34236Thank you for contacting me in support of core constitutional principles, such as support for basic civil liberties and opposition to torture and indefinite imprisonment. I strongly agree with these views and you can see that in my record. As a constitutional lawyer, law professor and public servant, I have been clear, consistent and outspoken in defense of these core principles. And I will work hard to restore our constitutional traditions as president.

This Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. When I am president, there will be no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. Our Constitution works, and so does the FISA court. By working with Congress and respecting our courts, I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.

My Administration will once again show the world that we are not a country that ships prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far off countries. That we are not a country that runs prisons which lock people away without ever telling them why they are there or what they are charged with. When I am President, America will reject torture without exception. I will also reject indefinite imprisonment without trial and close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act, and adhere to the Geneva Conventions.

Our Constitution is not a nuisance. It is the foundation of our democracy. I will continue to fight against the assault on our nation’s most treasured document.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama See also http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Barack_on_torture.html
What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.

So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing betyween really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it.
If I was bush, I would be worried if Senator Obama wins in November. If mc :cane wins, it is clear that mc :cane will not do anything and these war criminals will escape.

I am convinced that bush will issue blanket pardons that will include bush's own conduct if Senator Obama wins in November.