How Should George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and their direct accomplices be tried?

[Troubadour]

This question is not as academic as you might imagination, coming from either direction. The UN Security Council would be alarmed seeing a permanent member's head of state dragged into an international court previliously limited to 3rd world strongmen, and the precedent a conviction would set for their own interests is unlikely to be tolerated. The amount of pressure on such proceedings to conclude quickly and favorably for the defendants would be enormous, and probably effective given the somewhat ambiguous nature of the international courts. I see little alternative but to have the trials be 100% American, and where the defendants are civilians, 100% civilian. However, despite all proprieties and forms being strictly observed, I would say it would have to occur outside the normal system and involve a special tribunal - it cannot be presided over by men appointed by or affiliated with the defendants in any way, shape, or form, to a large degree of separation.

[jafar00]

International Court of law. Their actions affected the whole world in many ways and they should be made to answer for it.

[micfranklin]

I put International Criminal Court because of what Jafar said, but they should also go to a federal criminal court because they screwed over the U.S. pretty badly too.

Too bad they won't get tried though. If they put it on TV I'd Tivo it.

[Go Fish]

For what? Aww, fuck it, I'm reporting this one.

[Troubadour]

International Court of law. Their actions affected the whole world in many ways and they should be made to answer for it.

True, but would bringing them to the Hague be wise? The integrity of the international criminal court has never been seriously tested, as far as I know, and none other than Russia and China would have a profound interest in undermining the proceedings. If Bush could be dragged before the Hague, so could Putin and Chinese leaders - it would represent a tectonic power shift they'd be unlikely to sit by and watch happen. Were the case tried in the United States, however, we would only have to contend with the Republican Party - a far less formidable problem than Russia and China.

Probably the best solution would be an American tribunal for treason and other crimes directly against the United States, followed by international and individual national prosecutions for charges of a global nature. But having an American prosecution and conviction first would be crucial - it would (somewhat) allay the fears of Russian and Chinese leaders, since the indictment would be against someone already convicted by their own state, and it would also go a great distance in restoring American honor. We would have prosecuted them ourselves first, not just passively yielded them to the justice of others.

I put International Criminal Court because of what Jafar said, but they should also go to a federal criminal court because they screwed over the U.S. pretty badly too.

The US federal courts have been deeply corrupted, and there is no way that any Reagan, Bush 1, or Bush 2 appointees (and even some Clinton appointees) presiding over the case would fail to do everything in their power to destroy it. Since they know they would be greatly rewarded by the GOP for doing so, and the negative repercussions would be minimal, they would arbitrarily exclude key evidence, sustain meritless objections, overrule obviously justified objections, and give defense attorneys free reign of the courtroom (pretty much the only time Republicans are ever on the side of defense attorneys). And most of the way through the trial, if all their shenanigans didn't appear to be leading the jury toward the intended outcome, the GOP's minions would simply orchestrate some nonsense, request a mistrial, and be instantly granted one. All of which is assuming the judge in question doesn't simply dismiss the case from day one, grand jury indictment or not. To have a serious and remotely fair trial, there would have to be an ad hoc tribunal modeled on Nuremberg.


Too bad they won't get tried though. If they put it on TV I'd Tivo it.

Don't be so certain.

For what?

What they've done, obviously. Stupid question.


Aww, **** it, I'm reporting this one.

To whom, Homeland Security? LMAO

[ViolaLee]

International Criminal Court. Just like any other war criminal in the world.

[Troubadour]

International Criminal Court. Just like any other war criminal in the world.

My question should probably have been "Which trial should come first?"

[Go Fish]

Your post is unmitigated libel, submitted with a clear (and seemingly proud) spirit of hate and mendacity. It seems your sole point is to indulge a personal pleasure in speaking ill of President Bush and taking it to such teeth-grinding depths of ridiculousness that (if I didn't know better) I would almost suspect your post was a Conservative parody of democrat attitudes. To display such absolute and completely unjustifiable hatred toward a man of such incredible character is beyond insane, but I appreciate the ongoing confirmation that the right is pure and absolute evil.

[preservanation]

Your post is unmitigated libel, submitted with a clear (and seemingly proud) spirit of hate and mendacity. It seems your sole point is to indulge a personal pleasure in speaking ill of President Bush and taking it to such teeth-grinding depths of ridiculousness that (if I didn't know better) I would almost suspect your post was a Conservative parody of democrat attitudes. To display such absolute and completely unjustifiable hatred toward a man of such incredible character is beyond insane, but I appreciate the ongoing confirmation that the right is pure and absolute evil.Yea, Buddy!
Transference is the nebulous tactic of the left.
Once that is understood the truth becomes much clearer.

[Buck Laser]

I think a special prosecutor should first investigate their activities in the US to see if there are chargeable offenses here. I suspect that a goodly sector of the population would object to the International Criminal Court being the first to investigate or to try them.

If they're found guilty of crimes against humanity, it would be ironic justice to have them confined in Guantanamo--though it might just provide an excuse for keeping it open. Abu Ghraib would be OK.

But remember: investigation and trial first. I don't want any more Americans held in prison without charges the way this administration has. Anyone know where Mr. Padilla is?

[Troubadour]

Your post is unmitigated libel, submitted with a clear (and seemingly proud) spirit of hate and mendacity. It seems your sole point is to indulge a personal pleasure in speaking ill of President Bush and taking it to such teeth-grinding depths of ridiculousness that (if I didn't know better) I would almost suspect your post was a Conservative parody of democrat attitudes. To display such absolute and completely unjustifiable hatred toward a man of such incredible character is beyond insane, but I appreciate the ongoing confirmation that the right is pure and absolute evil.

If the best you can do is plagiarize my comments with the nouns and adjectives switched, don't bother. I can just buy a parrot.


I think a special prosecutor should first investigate their activities in the US to see if there are chargeable offenses here.

There would certainly be a need to characterize the exact list of charges, but there is no question of charges generally and hasn't been since early 2002.


I suspect that a goodly sector of the population would object to the International Criminal Court being the first to investigate or to try them.


Good point. That could undermine domestic prosecutions, which is why it's important the US prosecute first.


But remember: investigation and trial first. I don't want any more Americans held in prison without charges the way this administration has. Anyone know where Mr. Padilla is?


I believe he was transferred by the regime into the justice system to avoid Supreme Court review of the case. Their torture and indefinite detention of an American citizen had the potential to derail their activities generally so they dumped him into the system and washed their hands. About the only reason his case didn't spark a civil war is that he's a Muslim and a street criminal.

[Go Fish]

Sure I am. I asked what you think they should be tried for, and you admitted that you didn't have an answer.
I only joined in because this is the single most-stupid thread I've ever encountered on this board. I'll start helping you highlight this fact whenever you start to run out of steam. I've got your back.
You're doing things which I can't do, and don't think for a minute that I don't appreciate it.

[David]

Sure I am. I asked what you think they should be tried for, and you admitted that you didn't have an answer.
I only joined in because this is the single most-stupid thread I've ever encountered on this board. I'll start helping you highlight this fact whenever you start to run out of steam. I've got your back.
You're doing things which I can't do, and don't think for a minute that I don't appreciate it.

I must say, I agree. Troubadour, you're a joke. :madlaugh:

Plenty of things to attack President Bush on and plenty of less stupid ways to do it.

[Easy90]

I think they are just children fantasizing Fish... Let them play...taking them seriously enough to be angry at them only encourages the behavior...which is, of course, simply BDS... (Bush Derangement Syndrome.)

[Trish]

I


There would certainly be a need to characterize the exact list of charges, but there is no question of charges generally and hasn't been since early 2002.





Oh really? And what would those "general" charges be? And since there is "no question" of those charges why haven't they already been filed? Mmmmmmmmmm????

You know wishful thinking doesn't make law.

[PatrickHenry]

Well...there won't be any trial...

But if an evidentiary process were allowed which could enter ALL the evidence, then allow a judgement by a jury, I would favor a Federal trial.

Even then I would likely be more satisfied with the results of a kangaroo court and summary execution without appeal for those bloodthirsty bastards.

This thread illustrates two of my favorite dreams/themes. Both are applicable wthout regard for the party who holds the White House.

They are :
1. Federal recall elections
2. A Presidential Special Prosecutor installed at the same moment as the inauguration, empowered by subpoena to investigate every single action of the President and bring him (or her) to justice.

[Troubadour]

Sure I am.

Sure you are what?


I asked what you think they should be tried for

Which left me with two possibilities - either you actually didn't know, or it was simply a childish taunt intended to brag and gloat over the law's inability to hold Bush accountable. Since neither could be called giving you the benefit of the doubt, I decided to let you clarify where your question was coming from, and you've done so clearly.


and you admitted that you didn't have an answer.

No, I simply laughed at your silly attempt to pretend the question hasn't been settled. Holocaust deniers, Creationists, and Bush apologists all rely on the same tactics. I haven't been coming here long enough to say for certain, but my experiences elsewhere are pretty clear on this: Anyone who asks what you've asked has asked it and gotten answered dozens of times before, and simply ignored what they were told. Like little volunteer tobacco company executives.

I must say, I agree. Troubadour, you're a joke. :madlaugh:


Whatever you say, pal.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/sock_puppet.jpg


Plenty of things to attack President Bush on


I'm not interested in criticizing him or his henchmen - he, they, and their supporters don't listen to other people's views, and never have. My primary concern is that they be held accountable for their crimes.


and plenty of less stupid ways to do it.
[/quote]

What exactly are you talking about?

Oh really? And what would those "general" charges be?

They've been torturing people since 2002, which is covered under numerous different criminal statutes (e.g., torture, aggravated assault, attempted murder, war crimes, etc.), and also their illegal arrests and indefinite detentions are covered by kidnapping and unlawful arrest laws. Attempts to hide tortured prisoners from inspectors represent both obstruction of justice and witness tampering. Official meetings where these policies were hashed out and created, which they publicly admit occurred, call for conspiracy charges, and would make any deaths that resulted from them capital premeditated murder. Then there's the vast panoply of money crimes, largely involving war profiteering, money laundering, fraud, and theft, which I agree need an investigation to be properly hashed out, but even those crimes were committed practically in public, with only the fine details kept secret. Of course, then we have aggressive war and conspiracy to commit same. A charge of treason against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice (at very least) would almost certainly be justifiable, even within the strict constitutional criteria for that charge.


And since there is "no question" of those charges why haven't they already been filed? Mmmmmmmmmm????


Are you asking me why Bush's own appointees haven't prosecuted him?


You know wishful thinking doesn't make law.

The law is clear, as are the crimes, as are the guilt of the criminals in question. All that remains is to reflect these facts officially by pursuing prosecution, and convincing a jury, judge, or tribunal that the gathered information satisfies the standard of evidence (as it already easily does). Until that occurs, grave injustices remain unanswered.

[Trish]

Sure you are what?



Which left me with two possibilities - either you actually didn't know, or it was simply a childish taunt intended to brag and gloat over the law's inability to hold Bush accountable. Since neither could be called giving you the benefit of the doubt, I decided to let you clarify where your question was coming from, and you've done so clearly.



No, I simply laughed at your silly attempt to pretend the question hasn't been settled. Holocaust deniers, Creationists, and Bush apologists all rely on the same tactics. I haven't been coming here long enough to say for certain, but my experiences elsewhere are pretty clear on this: Anyone who asks what you've asked has asked it and gotten answered dozens of times before, and simply ignored what they were told. Like little volunteer tobacco company executives.



Whatever you say, pal.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/sock_puppet.jpg



I'm not interested in criticizing him or his henchmen - he, they, and their supporters don't listen to other people's views, and never have. My primary concern is that they be held accountable for their crimes.




What exactly are you talking about?



They've been torturing people since 2002, which is covered under numerous different criminal statutes (e.g., torture, aggravated assault, attempted murder, war crimes, etc.), and also their illegal arrests and indefinite detentions are covered by kidnapping and unlawful arrest laws. Attempts to hide tortured prisoners from inspectors represent both obstruction of justice and witness tampering. Official meetings where these policies were hashed out and created, which they publicly admit occurred, call for conspiracy charges, and would make any deaths that resulted from them capital premeditated murder. Then there's the vast panoply of money crimes, largely involving war profiteering, money laundering, fraud, and theft, which I agree need an investigation to be properly hashed out, but even those crimes were committed practically in public, with only the fine details kept secret. Of course, then we have aggressive war and conspiracy to commit same. A charge of treason against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice (at very least) would almost certainly be justifiable, even within the strict constitutional criteria for that charge.



Are you asking me why Bush's own appointees haven't prosecuted him?



The law is clear, as are the crimes, as are the guilt of the criminals in question. All that remains is to reflect these facts officially by pursuing prosecution, and convincing a jury, judge, or tribunal that the gathered information satisfies the standard of evidence (as it already easily does). Until that occurs, grave injustices remain unanswered.[/QUOTE]


SAYING these things happened and being able to PROVE them are totally different things. You or any number of people can SAY that these crimes have occurred until the cows come home. Unless you have evidence which proves that crimes were committed, what you SAY isn't worth spit. Legally - if you can't PROVE it, it simply didn't happen. And that's the way it works for ALL American citizens - including the President.

[Pookie]

Well, maybe this is wishful thinking, I guess. However, we must realize that there have been no formal charges leveled, and until that happens (which I doubt) everything else is simply academic.
We may see things wrong, but until they are charged, it's not going to happen.
Purrs,
Pookie

[NDNdancer]

I voted for international although I know there's no chance. I know there will be charges filed internationally which would have the effect of keeping them in the US. I hope the ongoing investigations result in federal charges being filed.

[Troubadour]

SAYING these things happened and being able to PROVE them are totally different things.

None of the main facts are disputed, they simply deny the law applies to them. They've even coined a blunt little Orwellian phrase for their doctrine - "Inherent Authority." In other words, they assert the powers of the presidency exist in a magical spiritual realm beyond the petty reach of written laws, and therefore anything they do is legal by definition. It cannot be overstated how insane and criminal these people are.


Legally - if you can't PROVE it, it simply didn't happen. And that's the way it works for ALL American citizens - including the President.

Again, the regime doesn't dispute the main charges, they simply deny that laws apply to them - a claim no judge would tolerate. They (and I think you) are aware of this, and aware that even the fairest possible trial would be virtually guaranteed to result in a conviction given what they've already admitted publicly. So your only recourse is this farcical chicanery where they argue with the definition of "torture" and "human being" and you pretend to have not picked up a newspaper in 8 years. It's disgusting and shameful.

[Buck Laser]

Sure I am. I asked what you think they should be tried for, and you admitted that you didn't have an answer.
I only joined in because this is the single most-stupid thread I've ever encountered on this board. I'll start helping you highlight this fact whenever you start to run out of steam. I've got your back.
You're doing things which I can't do, and don't think for a minute that I don't appreciate it.

Fish, in my understanding of the US criminal justice system, you investigate, find facts, and if the facts warrant, file charges. Until a trial and verdict, no one can be judged guilty. But there is a whole shitpot full of things to be investigated about Bush and his presidency. For starters, I'd suggest that we investigate the following:

1. Just how much influence did Bush 1 exert to get his son a place in the NG?
2. What does the actual official record reveal about Bush's NG service? Was he actually AWOL? If so, what were the circumstances?
3. What actually happened in the 2000 election? Why did the Supreme Court rule so strictly along partisan lines in aborting the recounts?
4. What is the nature of the relationship between the Bush family and the Saudi royal family? And why did members of the royal family get a free pass back to Arabia?
5. Why were most of the 9/11 hijackers Saudis?
6. Why did Bush switch suddenly from going after Obama to going after Saddam? There were contrarian intelligence reports all along disputing the presence of WMDs in Iraq.
7. Why has so much money gone totally unaccounted for in Iraq?

I could go on and on, Fish, but you get the idea. There are valid questions that have to be asked and answered. I am of the strong opinion that there is criminal negligence and malfeasance rampant in this administration to a degree unparalleled since the Reagan days. And time will tell.

[apdst]

1. Just how much influence did Bush 1 exert to get his son a place in the NG?

Let's just say, purely for the sake of argument, that Bush Sr. did influence the placement of George W. in the ANG. There's no crime there. If it were, it would certainly fall under the statute of limitations. Strike number one.


2. What does the actual official record reveal about Bush's NG service? Was he actually AWOL? If so, what were the circumstances?

He wasn't AWOL. We know he wasn't AWOL because he was never reported as AWOL. Even if he was AWOL, it would fall under the statute of limitations. Strike number two.

3. What actually happened in the 2000 election? Why did the Supreme Court rule so strictly along partisan lines in aborting the recounts?

If it's ok to investigate The SCOTUS over the 2000 election, then it would be just as ok to investigate it for upholding Roe v. Wade. Strike number three.

4. What is the nature of the relationship between the Bush family and the Saudi royal family? And why did members of the royal family get a free pass back to Arabia?

A free pass? What free pass? Is the Saudi Royal Family suspected in a crime?

5. Why were most of the 9/11 hijackers Saudis?

The same way you would explain that the other five were from Egypt, UAE and Lebanon: Muslims are bad people.

6. Why did Bush switch suddenly from going after Obama to going after Saddam? There were contrarian intelligence reports all along disputing the presence of WMDs in Iraq.

The intel claiming the absence of WMD's was no more credible than the intel claiming the existance of WMD's.

7. Why has so much money gone totally unaccounted for in Iraq?

Well, it would appear that someone in Iraq lined his, or her, pocket. THAT'S who you need to go after.

I think you should keep going on and on, because of the seven you posted only one equates to even a half ass crime; even then, you can't really put Bush on trial for it.

[micfranklin]

Oh and let's not forget my two favorite disappointments: bankrupting the country thereby screwing up the dollar and a piss-poor reaction to Hurricane Katrina but a super-quick one to the tsunami.

[apdst]

Liberals love to beat a dead horse. Ya'll stil haven't figured that no matter how hard you baet him, he still isn't going to get up and go anywhere.

It's funny how the economy was just fine, till The Democrats took over in Congress.

[firefox]

No impeachments will happen, but if they did, I say ship 'em to Iraq and let the locals have their way with them.

[micfranklin]

It's funny how the economy was just fine, till The Democrats took over in Congress.

$9 trillion in debt and a failing dollar system because of this war is not what I would call fine.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Something for you to "mull" over.....

http://www.uscourts.gov/rules/newrules4.html

http://www.uscourts.gov/rules/Evidence_Rules_2007.pdf


I can't believe people aren't marching to washington yet.....

[micfranklin]

They all are probably like "fuck it," because his terms almost over anyway.

[Buck Laser]

Muslims are bad people.

So, apdst, I've abstracted the core of your argument for you. I thought everybody ought to see. I'm sure most of the Usual Suspects will agree with you, but I just wanted to highlight it for some who might miss it.

For the record, apdst is also the person who said "we can't have a black president."

[apdst]

$9 trillion in debt and a failing dollar system because of this war is not what I would call fine.

The national debt has nothing to do with the economy. Consumer's aren't going to stop spending money because of the national debt and consumer activity is was fuels the economy.

So, apdst, I've abstracted the core of your argument for you. I thought everybody ought to see.

You said it, not me.

[Buck Laser]

Muslims are bad people.

You said it, not me.

[micfranklin]

The national debt has nothing to do with the economy. Consumer's aren't going to stop spending money because of the national debt and consumer activity is was fuels the economy.

Oh really? The why is our dollar so weak? Is a debt that high something to be proud of?

[Buck Laser]

Bush might even be regarded favorably by a small majority of the American people.:rolleyes:

[Osborn F. Enready]

The reason the debt is so high is because Americans lost the education about what happens to their dollars when they leave their hand, when used to purchase something.

You buy from China.... your money goes into the China war machine, not into their peoples pockets. They are communist, hence their people have no rights, no property that can't be taken away, no freedom that can't be removed at whim of some abstract imperial majority.

You buy from Americans, that money goes to Americans, who spend that money in your communities, your businesses, your services, therfore improving YOUR economy.

I am all for free trade with nations that share our respect for individual rights.
I am totally against free trade with nations that imprison their workers, and deny their workers rights, their people freedom.

How long until the U.S. government proposes to buy its military hardware from china?
Can we beat China, if we have to go to war with them, using equipment they sold us?
(think back to how the U.S. sells of its old "war goods")

[micfranklin]

Bush might even be regarded favorably by a small majority of the American people.:rolleyes:

Unfortunately that small majority doesn't ever get wake-up calls.

[DamnYankee]

You buy from Americans, that money goes to Americans, who spend that money in your communities, your businesses, your services, therfore improving YOUR economy.

You are exactly right. And you might find that the product is of better quality. It will cost more, but in the long run, the product last longer than the average ChiCom made garbage.

[namguy]

International Court of law. Their actions affected the whole world in many ways and they should be made to answer for it.

Their revolting, devoid of all that's moral, their totally demented.

[Buck Laser]

You are exactly right. And you might find that the product is of better quality. It will cost more, but in the long run, the product last longer than the average ChiCom made garbage.
So let's see...can I buy some American-made tires for my bike? How about an American-made camera? No? Well then, maybe I'll go buy some American grown oranges? What? They come from Chile? Ah, well, I can trust my good old Dodge Caravan, can't I? But I open the hood and it says "Made in Canada" right there by the radiator cap?

Oh, good! I'll just go down to Wal-Mart and get some good ol' American made goods...Yeah, right. :sick: So tell me where I can get all this good American made stuff, Yankee.

I've talked about the "buy locally" idea for foodstuffs on DF, and damn if some libertarian "free traders" didn't accuse me of being a collectivist librul. Just cain't win for losing, can I? Yankee, I really need those bike tires, quick--tell me where I can get 'em.

[Go Fish]

Just figured I'd chip in on this socialist circle-jerk.

Now that you rabid Bush-haters have out-vented one another, how about identifying one fucking thing that every fucking ACLU lawyer has been unable to prosecute thus far? Your jawboning simply highlights your detachment from reality and your ignorance of things most Americans take for granted. Things such as common sense, the rule of law, and truth.
The reason that President Bush has not been subjected to whatever punishments your sick, perverted, pro-Islamic brains can dream up is because he WAS right, IS right, and quite simply sees you fringe loons in the same light that I do.
Scream and rage all you want. The real world doesn't need you. Your fucking sadistic fantasies are not grounded in reality, and the nation has important matters to address. You're pissed off at Bush because you think your life sucks and it's his fault?
GIMMEE A FUCKING BREAK! Your lives sucked before Bush was elected and they will no matter who wins this next one. (It's gonn'a be McCain, so you may as well pack your shit into those vacuum bags you bought on QVC and head to Canada like you promised to last time.) I use my boot-camp duffle bag and two flight bags for carrying all of my belongings across the Canadian border, and I burned them years ago. I'm staying, because I love this country enough to wait for you whiny turds to leave. I'm the guy who will be holding the door when you shuffle out.
I'm sure that there is a poster in someone's office somewhere which has the words "Your Attitude Determines Your Altitude". Raise your hand if you bought it. If an admittedly pro-American president pisses you off, then carry your ass. As for postulating on his imaginary punishment for imaginary crimes, I'm going to be your imaginary cellmate.

[namguy]

So let's see...can I buy some American-made tires for my bike? How about an American-made camera? No? Well then, maybe I'll go buy some American grown oranges? What? They come from Chile? Ah, well, I can trust my good old Dodge Caravan, can't I? But I open the hood and it says "Made in Canada" right there by the radiator cap?

Oh, good! I'll just go down to Wal-Mart and get some good ol' American made goods...Yeah, right. :sick: So tell me where I can get all this good American made stuff, Yankee.

I've talked about the "buy locally" idea for foodstuffs on DF, and damn if some libertarian "free traders" didn't accuse me of being a collectivist librul. Just cain't win for losing, can I? Yankee, I really need those bike tires, quick--tell me where I can get 'em.

Stero equipment, some of the very best is made here, the remainder of what I would consider part of some of the best is made in England. Japan makes good stero equipment but not like it's made here, at least that's how it was at one time. I wouldn't even consider buying any type of audio equipment at Wal-Mart, nothing, zero. I don't like doing any business with them but anymore, at least around here, they're getting to be the only show in town!

[Go Fish]

Who changed the title of this thread, and why?

[davo]

I put down the military tribunal option, as it would serve as poetic justice in a way. However, a US civilian court would be fine.

I wouldn't pick an international court, as I believe in the principle of national sovereignty. However, heads need to roll over the decision to invade Iraq; as this was an act of treason against the best interests of the United States itself.

[Buck Laser]

Stero equipment, some of the very best is made here, the remainder of what I would consider part of some of the best is made in England. Japan makes good stero equipment but not like it's made here, at least that's how it was at one time. I wouldn't even consider buying any type of audio equipment at Wal-Mart, nothing, zero. I don't like doing any business with them but anymore, at least around here, they're getting to be the only show in town!
Yeah, but isn't the US made stereo equipment ultra high end? I know there are a great many outstanding craftsmen in America, who build everything from musical instruments to bicycles to furniture and boats. But their stuff costs too much for any but the affluent or even more affluent.

And despite the fact that the best bike builders in the world are in the US, most of the components are made in other parts of the world. I owned a bike shop in the 80s, and the best cheap bikes at the time came from Taiwan. They were cheap, and the quality control was the best I ever saw. Bikes from no other country could even come close.

[namguy]

Yeah, but isn't the US made stereo equipment ultra high end? I know there are a great many outstanding craftsmen in America, who build everything from musical instruments to bicycles to furniture and boats. But their stuff costs too much for any but the affluent or even more affluent.

And despite the fact that the best bike builders in the world are in the US, most of the components are made in other parts of the world. I owned a bike shop in the 80s, and the best cheap bikes at the time came from Taiwan. They were cheap, and the quality control was the best I ever saw. Bikes from no other country could even come close.

True, concerning stero equipment, if one doesn't get the high end equipment, or at least the elevated standard equipment, it's a waste of money, anymore I don't even trust the elevated standard stuff.

Bikes, I like Fugi & Trec.

[Buck Laser]

True, concerning stero equipment, if one doesn't get the high end equipment, or at least the elevated standard equipment, it's a waste of money, anymore I don't even trust the elevated standard stuff.

Bikes, I like Fugi & Trec.
I've been a cyclist for most of my life, and owned a bike shop in DeKalb, IL in the 80s. Right now, I'm trying to reduce the number of bikes I have. I'm down to a Bill Boston custom built I got in 1975, and a 1950s Rene Herse updated by Bill in the mid 90s. Also, I have a 1936 Schwinn Superior project bike that I've been restoring for about ten years. I sold my Schwinn Paramount racing bike last year.

[namguy]

I've been a cyclist for most of my life, and owned a bike shop in DeKalb, IL in the 80s. Right now, I'm trying to reduce the number of bikes I have. I'm down to a Bill Boston custom built I got in 1975, and a 1950s Rene Herse updated by Bill in the mid 90s. Also, I have a 1936 Schwinn Superior project bike that I've been restoring for about ten years. I sold my Schwinn Paramount racing bike last year.

I road mostly mountain bikes, I was into it big time in the late 80's, I no longer bike. I have a small wood shop in my basement, taught myself wood working, now it's a business and takes up a lot of my time, especially spring & autumn. People want this fancy decor, well that takes time, like inlays and abstract styles.

[Buck Laser]

I road mostly mountain bikes, I was into it big time in the late 80's, I no longer bike. I have a small wood shop in my basement, taught myself wood working, now it's a business and takes up a lot of my time, especially spring & autumn. People want this fancy decor, well that takes time, like inlays and abstract styles.

I'm a wood carver. I've made a few small pieces of furniture, but I really love the carving. My biking is pretty severely limited owing to various health problems, but I do hope to do a couple more extended tours. Back to carving--one of these days, I'll post some pix of my carvings.

[namguy]

I'd love to see your carvings, when you get time send them along.
Thank you.

I tried carving, I don't have a touch for it, same with drawing, I can't drae neither.

[Troubadour]

Well, it looks like we can safely report some consensus results on this poll: Apparently there is overwhelming support for trying George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and their accomplices primarily before the Hague, rather than in US courts/tribunals or some multinational ad hoc tribunal. However, the other options combined have almost as much support, which we can guess is attributable to uneasiness on the part of some toward international bodies. I quickly concluded that I should have been more careful in asking the question, since obviously some of their crimes are of a strictly domestic nature and would need American trials, but I am still confident that the poll accurately reflects people's thoughts on this.

At the same time, I don't think most respondents (to the poll) put much thought into the question - for instance, if it's to be an international trial, that would make it politically very difficult even for a favorable US government to cooperate, which might limit the evidence that could be gathered. The defendants could make claims the prosecution would be unable to investigate or disprove. But, generally speaking, the poll indicates to me that people would be more or less happy with some form of justice taking place for these two savage murderers and their accomplices.

[preservanation]

But, generally speaking, the poll indicates to me that people would be more or less happy with some form of justice taking place for these two savage murderers and their accomplices.
So we're now convicting people on consensus of a poll?
This is why some on the left scare the bejesus out of me.
Holy Shit!

I worry for all on this earth if some are given the reigns of power and are able to enact their scary "rule by stick" agenda.

[Elrathin]

Actually Pres, you and the right should embrace a trial for Bush and Cheney. Afterall, if they are found innocent, they cannot be tried again for the same crime.

[preservanation]

Actually Pres, you and the right should embrace a trial for Bush and Cheney. Afterall, if they are found innocent, they cannot be tried again for the same crime.So lets just haul the entire populating in front of a judge just to clear them???
And I thought we condemned McCarthyism long ago.
The only difference between McCarthy and some on the left is that Joe had the legal ability to do what he did and that he was actually right about Communist infiltration.
Some of these discussions just goes to show that he didn't go far enough.

[preservanation]

Here's a prime example from Suedanim...Incompetence and malfeasance, high treason is the legacy of George Bush and Dick Cheney. I hope and pray to live to see their asses nailed to the wall for the DEATHS of innocent thousands, including thousands of Americans.Selective at best.
This is ideologically, politically and partisan agenda driven.
If this was not the case some should call for every modern American Presidents "asses nailed" but they don't.
Why is that?

I'm not sure if this antipathy extends out from Republicans to America as a whole as well, but I have my suspicions...

[Troubadour]

So we're now convicting people on consensus of a poll?

I am sometimes at a loss when confronted with just how far outside of reality some people live, so I'm going to explain this very carefully and hope you will do me the courtesy of reading it with equal care: This poll regards the manner in which George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and their accomplices should be tried for their crimes - in other words, in what venue the evidence against them should be officially aired, so that they can present their own case and the justice system can make a determination. While it is ethically reasonable to withhold judgment pending a trial, that does not appear to be your position: Your position is that Bush cannot even be accused until a trial has already concluded! That is a circular, Twilight Zone, inverse-Kafka version of justice that any dictator would happily apply to themselves. "I cannot be charged until convicted, cannot be accused until charged, and cannot be investigated until I confess!" War is peace, slavery is freedom, same old story with the same old diseased, demonic people attacking civilization.

Actually Pres, you and the right should embrace a trial for Bush and Cheney. Afterall, if they are found innocent, they cannot be tried again for the same crime.

The one thing the right sees with crystal, rational clarity is its own interests, and they know Vlad the Impaler has a better shot at acquittal than George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. That is, they would know that if they knew who Vlad the Impaler was. After committing their crimes in public, bragging about them, and practically daring anyone to hold them accountable, there isn't a lot their defense attorneys could do for them: An avalanche of procedural objections; pompous insistence that no mere mortal has a right to try the Holy Ones; laughable attempts to exclude all possible evidence, assassinate the character of thousands of witnesses, and question the authenticity of their own official press releases. And then it would just devolve into childish antics - shouting at the judge, calling down "God's wrath" on America for "betraying" them, and insisting they would be "vindicated by history." People like that always say the same things when brought to trial, and I can't wait to hear them repeated.

[preservanation]

This poll regards the manner in which George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and their accomplices should be tried for their crimes You are citing as fact things which are not in evidence.
You can't indite people without evidence in America...yet.
I have a feeling that you want to prosecute Bush and Cheney because you don't agree with them.
This is not only unconstitutional, but Stalinist.

If this is what some on the left have in store for the future of America, be prepared for a fight.
I think I finally figured out what the left-wing radical politicians are refering to when they say "I want to change America.
Thanks for the insight!

[namguy]

The damage has already been done, and bush and his bunch are history in another nine months. He's untouchible, let's bear in mind the Tri-Lateral gang that he's a member of.

Yes, justicefully, morally and criminally he should be tried, but there's no justice to be had here, only law after law, and there's no law he broke that would bring him to trial.

[Troubadour]

You are citing as fact things which are not in evidence.

They are in evidence, and have been for years.


You can't indite people without evidence in America...


Nor can you hold them indefinitely without trial, or torture them - two of the charges against him.


I have a feeling that you want to prosecute Bush and Cheney because you don't agree with them.


I want to prosecute them because they committed the worst crimes in the history of the United States.


This is not only unconstitutional, but Stalinist.


Thank you informing us that the Constitution is unconstitutional and Stalinist. We appreciate your input. Now, press 1 for English, press 2 for German.


If this is what some on the left have in store for the future of America, be prepared for a fight.


Let's be clear here - you're vowing armed insurrection if George W. Bush is prosecuted?

[apdst]

Nor can you hold them indefinitely without trial, or torture them - two of the charges against him.

Can't do it to American citizens, but we can do it to anyone else.

I want to prosecute them because they committed the worst crimes in the history of the United States.

And the crimes, are?

Let's be clear here - you're vowing armed insurrection if George W. Bush is prosecuted?

I think he's vowing armed insurrection if the Liberals start prosecuting everyone they don't like. I couldn't agree more. It's alerady illegal to display a hangman's noose in public. Soon as the Libbos take our guns, and have us sucking from nothing but the government tit, they can do to us whatever they like.

[Troubadour]

Can't do it to American citizens

Jose Padilla is an American citizen.


but we can do it to anyone else.


No, you can't.

1. The US Constitution establishing our government gives it no power to commit torture, and requires official suspension of habeas corpus through approved processes before indefinite detention can legally occur.

2. The Bill of Rights stipulates restrictions on the US government - it does not stipulate a special class of people to whom rights are limited, or that all others can be dealt with at the pleasure of the President.

3. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which bans torture, was approved by the Senate through the treaty process, and is the law of the land.

4. The Geneva Conventions applies to all prisoners taken in battle until a tribunal designates them as "unlawful combatants" - it is not sufficient for commanders in the field or a President to designate them as such by default.

5. The Uniform Code of Military Justice prohibits torture, and allows no exceptions.

6. Even if the torture occurs off of US soil, the conspiracy to commit it occurred in Washington, DC. Torture and conspiracy to commit torture are illegal in the United States and in the District of Columbia.


I think he's vowing armed insurrection if the Liberals start prosecuting everyone they don't like.


We wouldn't dream of prosecuting everyone we don't like, just the criminals.


Soon as the Libbos take our guns, and have us sucking from nothing but the government tit, they can do to us whatever they like.

Torture, illegal spying, and indefinite detention without trial you support wholeheartedly, but welfare and gun control you think is a conspiracy to impose totalitarianism. Yep - can't get more Republican than that.

[preservanation]

We wouldn't dream of prosecuting everyone we don't like, just the criminals.And to neatly close that loop, you propose to criminalize your political opposition, ie...people you don't like.
This circular logic might work on fifth graders who's mind has been turned into silly putty through outcome based education, but Americans like me, Apdst and many many others will not curl up into the fetal position and let you take our country, founding principals, God given rights nor or freedoms away from us with out a fight.
That should be very clear.

[Troubadour]

And to neatly close that loop, you propose to criminalize your political opposition


No, you propose to decriminalize crime by your political allies.


ie...people you don't like.


It's true, I don't like criminals. Maybe you do, I wouldn't know.


This circular logic might work on fifth graders who's mind has been turned into silly putty through outcome based education


This is incoherent, sputtering gibberish.


but Americans like me, Apdst and many many others will not curl up into the fetal position and let you take our country, founding principals, God given rights nor or freedoms away from us with out a fight.
That should be very clear.

I will not listen to a torture advocate speak of freedom or our nation's founding principles. Your leaders are traitorous, murderous criminals, and they will be brought to justice.

[preservanation]

=Troubadour]Your leaders are traitorous, murderous criminals, and they will be brought to justice.
How should George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and their accomplices be tried? How wide is your scope?
Who do you consider 'accomplices'?
Do you think that all in the administration, the repubs in congress who voted for the war and those who helped carried out the mission should be tried for murder as well?

It seems to me that you just admitted the point I've, and others, have been making on a number of threads here... And to neatly close that loop, you propose to criminalize your political opposition, ie...people you don't like.

It's true, I don't like criminals. Maybe you do, I wouldn't know.
The logical connection you make here is stunning.
In your own words you have made the connection between your political opposition and criminals with no other mitigating factors such as...proof of a crime.
This is on big reason why folks who hold your fascist views should never be allowed the reigns of power.
The potential for abuse is monumental.
What's curious to me is that you trumpet this for all to hear.
If you guys were smart you would take Saul Alinsky's tact and cloak yourself until people trust you...then drop the boom.
For all the lies, it confuses me why this would be the thing you actually want to tell the truth about.
Not very savvy, if you ask me.

[Troubadour]

How wide is your scope?

As wide as the law - no more, no less.


Who do you consider 'accomplices'?


An accomplice is someone who directly, knowingly participates in the commission of a crime, but does not directly commit the crime itself - e.g., acting as lookout or driver for an armed robbery. This is distinct from an "accessory," which is someone who deliberately assists the commission of a crime without actually playing a role in its immediate commission, such as knowingly lending someone your car so they can commit a robbery. Actually, there are more "principals" in the relevant crimes than just Bush and Cheney, but I was using "accomplices" as shorthand for all involved principals, accomplices, and accessories. E.g., Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, etc. would be principal defendants; accomplices would be those who directly participated without directly carrying out the crimes (e.g., a torture camp commander who never directly ordered torture or participated in planning it); and accessories would be other officials who knowingly assisted the crimes in nontrivial ways (e.g., granting clearances, providing materiel, falsifying documents, etc. etc.). As always, in each case the crime would have to meet the evidence standards required by law, the relevance standards as required by law, and show the defendants knew what they were doing. I.e., a supply sergeant is not going to be indicted for sending chains to Gitmo - he would have no way of knowing whether they're being used legitimately or to torture prisoners. An air base commander who approves falsifying records to avoid showing that a kidnapped terrorism suspect had been flown through would, however, be regarded as an accessory.


Do you think that all in the administration, the repubs in congress who voted for the war and those who helped carried out the mission should be tried for murder as well?

No. Beyond a certain point, it's demanding too much of people to expect them to be vigilant and thoughtful enough to go against their entire environment. Truman felt that it would be foolish to punish the average German soldier for Nazism, and I agree - normal people are just not that aware of the large-scale consequences of their actions. The top Pentagon brass should be obvious for indictment, as well as the combatant commanders involved in Iraq, with mid-level officers treated on a case-by-case basis. Intelligence people are a more thorny issue, but might as well leave the thorns for when we have the rose. The private contractors, however, would need to go down hard even if the war wasn't a crime: The level of fraud has just barely been scratched at the surface, and every attempt to investigate it has been hampered and shut down by regime intransigence. My impression is that, in all likelihood, the Iraq war has engendered the largest case of embezzlement and fraud in the recorded history of the world. Halliburton took its money - just how much, we don't actually know - and promptly moved its corporate HQ to Dubai where US federal investigators won't be able to subpoena their records. And, of course, Halliburton is just one of countless contractors.

Anyway, as to the votes of elected representatives - I would be quite happy if every single person who voted for the war resigned and never held political office again, but that won't happen - and I'm not so mindless as to think a Democrat who capitulated out of weakness is morally the same as a Republican who vehemently propagandized the drive to war out of sheer corruption or madness. There is an awesome difference, so unless by some miracle people on both sides who lent their vote to that horror are held accountable, I'm not going to call on Democrats to empower those directly responsible for the war by conducting internal purges. However, one of the biggest reasons I support Barack Obama (aside from just thinking Hillary incompetent) is that he has always been against the war (as have I), while she has never even acknowledged her vote a mistake.


In your own words you have made the connection between your political opposition and criminals with no other mitigating factors such as...proof of a crime.

The facts are not in dispute, pres. I've told you this before, and you just haven't listened: They don't dispute the acts they're accused of, only that they are subject to American law. They have argued incessantly that the Presidency (and Vice-Presidency, whenever Cheney feels it convenient) exists beyond the laws that establish it, in some magical way that causes it to have "inherent authorities" that mere laws and constitutions cannot restrain. And they do not recognize any limit to these "inherent authorities." Bush and his people declare themselves beyond American law, openly. And you side with them, "preservanation."


This is on big reason why folks who hold your fascist views should never be allowed the reigns of power.

Doublespeak gibberish.


The potential for abuse is monumental.
What's curious to me is that you trumpet this for all to hear.
If you guys were smart you would take Saul Alinsky's tact and cloak yourself until people trust you...then drop the boom.
For all the lies, it confuses me why this would be the thing you actually want to tell the truth about.
Not very savvy, if you ask me.

More doublespeak gibberish. It isn't that you post this unmitigated nonsense that bothers me - it's that you have such a low opinion of other people that you think someone will be influenced who doesn't already agree with you. Such a waste.

[preservanation]

Actually, there are more "principals" in the relevant crimes than just Bush and Cheney, but I was using "accomplices" as shorthand for all involved principals, accomplices, and accessories. E.g., Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, etc. would be principal defendants; accomplices would be those who directly participated without directly carrying out the crimes (e.g., a torture camp commander who never directly ordered torture or participated in planning it); and accessories would be other officials who knowingly assisted the crimes in nontrivial ways (e.g., granting clearances, providing materiel, falsifying documents, etc. etc.)...The top Pentagon brass should be obvious for indictment, as well as the combatant commanders involved in Iraq, with mid-level officers treated on a case-by-case basis.That's a pretty broad scope...But since you provided the proof I asked for, such as this...The facts are not in dispute, pres. I've told you this before, and you just haven't listened: They don't dispute the acts they're accused of, only that they are subject to American law. They have argued incessantly that the Presidency (and Vice-Presidency, whenever Cheney feels it convenient) exists beyond the laws that establish it, in some magical way that causes it to have "inherent authorities" that mere laws and constitutions cannot restrain. And they do not recognize any limit to these "inherent authorities." Bush and his people declare themselves beyond American law, openly. And you side with them, "preservanation."...it should be a slam-dunk.

But then I read this...
The private contractors, however, would need to go down hard even if the war wasn't a crimeIs this a mistake, or am I interpreting it incorrectly?
Are you saying that there is a chance that the war is legal?

Whatever the case...Please submit the mountains of irrefutable evidence you provided above of criminal activity and intent by Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, those who directly participated without directly carrying out the crimes, accessories who knowingly assisted the crimes in nontrivial ways, private contractors and air base commanders who approve falsifying records to Pelosi and the DOJ for immediate prosecution. It is your civic duty to do so.
Woodward and Bernstein would be proud.

EDIT: This reminds me of of one of Aesop's Fables, but in reverse.
Remember the Fox and the Grapes?
The fox couldn't get the grapes hanging high in a tree, so he concluded they were sour and didn't want them anyway.
Troubadour can't get at Bush (or a thousand other people it seems), so for that reason he concludes that they all must be guilty and just wants them more.

[Troubadour]

That's a pretty broad scope...

No, it's quite conservative.


But since you provided the proof I asked for, such as this......it should be a slam-dunk.


The regime is aware of that - which is why they destroy evidence and refuse to cooperate with investigations.


Are you saying that there is a chance that the war is legal?


No. And I have no idea where the question is coming from.


Whatever the case...Please submit the mountains of irrefutable evidence you provided above of criminal activity and intent by Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, those who directly participated without directly carrying out the crimes, accessories who knowingly assisted the crimes in nontrivial ways, private contractors and air base commanders who approve falsifying records to Pelosi and the DOJ for immediate prosecution.


Nancy Pelosi is aware of the evidence, and also aware that a half-Republican Senate would never convict regardless of the evidence - so it is her judgment (wrong, in my view) that impeachment would thus serve no purpose. The alleged DOJ is also aware of the evidence, being part of the Bush regime and party to many of the crimes in question, and your claim that I should beseech Bush to approve his own prosecution when he will not even respect a subpoena just demonstrates the unlimited lunacy and hypocrisy of totalitarian mentalities.


It is your civic duty to do so.
Woodward and Bernstein would be proud.


Once again, I'm required to account for Republican illiteracy and incomprehension by repeating myself: The regime does not dispute its actions, only the right of the American people to hold them accountable in court. They assert their authority is not subject to the Constitution or any other law they don't make up as they go along.


EDIT: This reminds me of of one of Aesop's Fables, but in reverse.
Remember the Fox and the Grapes?
The fox couldn't get the grapes hanging high in a tree, so he concluded they were sour and didn't want them anyway.
Troubadour can't get at Bush (or a thousand other people it seems), so for that reason he concludes that they all must be guilty and just wants them more.

Basically you're gloating that people you identify with get away with murder. You're practically bragging about it, in the exact same way they do. One minute you're wagging your rear-end at the American people saying "Nyeh, nyeh, nyeh, you can't get us! You can't get us! We'll do whatever we want to anyone we want, and you can't do nuthin' about it!" And the next you're fantasizing about liberal conspiracies to end a Constitution your people don't even recognize, projecting endemic right-wing evil on to its own victims and gleefully spewing fake moral outrage at insanely imagined crimes while rejecting even the reality of documented, undisputed real ones. There is not a single, solitary ounce of morality, rational thought, or any of the other values of American civilization in your posts: They are tailor-made obscenities whose sole purpose is defending the impunity and privilege of a treasonous criminal elite.

[preservanation]

The regime is aware of that - which is why they destroy evidence and refuse to cooperate with investigations.So let me get this straight...Your actual proof of criminal acts by all these thousands of people you want to indite is that you don't have any evidence and the administration refuses to participate in a partisan witch-hunt?
Is that it?
Hooo Boy, and I thought Mccarthyism was dead.
You guy make him look like Clarence Darrow.

[Troubadour]

So let me get this straight...Your actual proof

Is that the crimes are publicly documented, and in some cases openly admitted by the perpetrators. That is so far beyond sufficient to launch official investigations to gather details for trial that denying it automatically labels one a liar.


of criminal acts[/B] by all these thousands of people you want to indite is that you don't have any evidence and the administration refuses to participate in a partisan witch-hunt?

So once again, your position is that because Bush won't indict HIMSELF or his accomplices, undisputed facts and de facto public confessions are insufficient to demand he and they be put on trial. Just say it plainly: You're on their side, and don't care what they did.


Is that it?
Hooo Boy, and I thought Mccarthyism was dead.
You guy make him look like Clarence Darrow.

Your posts are idiotic and pointless.

[preservanation]

All me and others are asking for is proof.
If there was proof, don't you think the Dem controlled House would indite?
If the do have proof of criminal acts and impeachable offenses but refuse to prosecute, they should be indited as well for abetting and obstruction.
So you can add Pelosi and all other dems in Congress to your growing list of folks to be prosecuted in the Troubadour Inquisition.
But since it seems that the absence of proof is all the proof you need, continue your rant.

[Troubadour]

All me and others are asking for is proof.

And you've received it repeatedly. Beyond that, I will not be dragged into debating Holocaust denial tactics.


If there was proof, don't you think the Dem controlled House would indite?

This statement has been repeatedly addressed, and the response repeatedly ignored. You are trying to flood the thread with cut-and-pasted script posts.


If the do have proof of criminal acts and impeachable offenses but refuse to prosecute, they should be indited as well for abetting and obstruction.

Cowardice in office is not a crime - just a disgrace.


So you can add Pelosi and all other dems in Congress to your growing list of folks to be prosecuted

Exactly whose fault is it that the regime keeps committing new crimes?


in the Troubadour Inquisition.


A legal investigation does not become an "Inquisition" because you support the criminals being investigated.


It since it seems that the absence of proof is all the proof you need, continue your rant.

Your posts are pure Holocaust denial tripe.

[preservanation]

A legal investigation does not become an "Inquisition" because you support the criminals being investigated.It does when it becomes a with-hunt.

[Troubadour]

It does when it becomes a witch-hunt.

Well then, feel free to complain if that happens. For now, the Bush regime sits on a throne of impunity above the law, beyond investigation or accountability of any kind, and I insist as an American that the Constitution of the United States have its day in court with those bastards. When that occurs, then you can recite your Little Red Book of RNC press releases and call it a "witch hunt."

[preservanation]

and I insist as an American that the Constitution of the United States have its day in court with those bastards.
I see you're not vying for a seat on the jury.

[Troubadour]

I see you're not vying for a seat on the jury.

Oh, but you sure are, LOL. Explain to the judge how public confessions aren't enough evidence to even have a trial.

[preservanation]

Oh, but you sure are, LOL. Explain to the judge how public confessions aren't enough evidence to even have a trial.
No, you see...calling a defendant a bastard even before the trial would automatically disqualify you from the jury for bias.
What a surprise!

[Elrathin]

Pres, you do know you're equivalently arguing to a wall right? hehehe

[preservanation]

Pres, you do know you're equivalently arguing to a wall right? hehehe
Is that why my forehead is sore?
I now feel as if I have been the butt of a very cruel joke...damn, how embarrassing!

I'm going back to pissing up a rope...at least then I get some relief!
LOL

[namguy]

I agree, I'm sick of hearing of all this president bull shit.

[Troubadour]

No, you see...calling a defendant a bastard even before the trial would automatically disqualify you from the jury for bias.
What a surprise!

Even if I hadn't, I would be disqualified for knowing too much about the case - jurors are not supposed to have detailed knowledge of the case before the trial. Now, clearly that would be no barrier to you serving on the jury - but openly supporting the actions being indicted as crimes would tend to disqualify one from deciding the case.

I agree, I'm sick of hearing of all this president bull shit.

Yeah, I'm tired of him too. :)

[Phyxius]

Is this a mistake, or am I interpreting it incorrectly?
Are you saying that there is a chance that the war is legal?

There's a chance that purple polka-dotted monkeys are going to start flying out of your butt, preserve. About the same chance this war has of ever being legal or right... http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a176/Hasatude5150/tomato.gif

[preservanation]

There's a chance that purple polka-dotted monkeys are going to start flying out of your butt, preserve. About the same chance this war has of ever being legal or right... http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a176/Hasatude5150/tomato.gifThe war being 'right' has always been a legitimate topic of discussion, and the point is moot. There is a strong argument that is was not.
However the legality of it has been established beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I know you disagree, and I've heard all the arguments so you can spare me the reams of MediaMatters nonsense.
We will just disagree on that.:love:

[Phyxius]

How should George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and their accomplices be tried?

Trial by ordeal - Ordeal of cold water.

It's just... poetic... :ponder:

[namguy]

There's a chance that purple polka-dotted monkeys are going to start flying out of your butt, preserve. About the same chance this war has of ever being legal or right... http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a176/Hasatude5150/tomato.gif

I agree 100% with you

[Wndrtch]

They should be tried in the court of Public Opinion, and nothing more.

Like it or not, the President DOES have the Constitutional right to deploy troops, and Congress DOES have the right to authorize the use of force, even if they are idiots. You had a chance to get rid of the guy in 04, but you blew it by nominating a bore like John Kerry.

[namguy]

They should be tried in the court of Public Opinion, and nothing more.

Like it or not, the President DOES have the Constitutional right to deploy troops, and Congress DOES have the right to authorize the use of force, even if they are idiots. You had a chance to get rid of the guy in 04, but you blew it by nominating a bore like John Kerry.

".....had a chance to get rid of the guy in 04..."

The voting public, I don't weather to cry or laugh at them.

[Wndrtch]

".....had a chance to get rid of the guy in 04..."

The voting public, I don't weather to cry or laugh at them.

Thank you for eloquently representing the Obama elitist viewpoint of the American electorate.

[namguy]

Thank you for eloquently representing the Obama elitist viewpoint of the American electorate.

I don't consider him an elitist, but if that's the word you have to use in describing how I feel about my life, then use it....and use it again and again and again, until Obama get's in the White House.

[Wndrtch]

I don't consider him an elitist, but if that's the word you have to use in describing how I feel about my life, then use it....and use it again and again and again, until Obama get's in the White House.

Aerosmith made a song for that...


It's called "Dream On" :thumbsup:

[namguy]

Aerosmith made a song for that...


It's called "Dream On" :thumbsup:

Who's to say it's a dream.
As voters we, and have been basing our vote for quite a number of years now, on who's the lesser of two evils. It's no longer who is the best man...does the 'best man' for the job exist anymore? Whom would you like to see in the White House?

This election coming up is a conseratives worst nightmare, no matter who makes it.

[preservanation]

Who's to say it's a dream.
As voters we, and have been basing our vote for quite a number of years now, on who's the lesser of two evils. It's no longer who is the best man...does the 'best man' for the job exist anymore? Whom would you like to see in the White House?

This election coming up is a conseratives worst nightmare, no matter who makes it.As long as the Dems keep with their current crop of leftist anti-American military socialist nonsense candidates such as what they offer with the front-runner..Ye shall wander in the wilderness.
Bill Clinton ran as a centrist.
Take a page...

[namguy]

As long as the Dems keep with their current crop of leftist anti-American military socialist nonsense candidates such as what they offer with the front-runner..Ye shall wander in the wilderness.
Bill Clinton ran as a centrist.
Take a page...

Opinions vary.

[vladward8]

Yea, Buddy!
Transference is the nebulous tactic of the left.
Once that is understood the truth becomes much clearer.

Some say the 'Embargo Weapon' wiped out half a million kids under five years of age and another half million aged and infirm...is this untrue? If it is true do you view it as a crime? :madlaugh:

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

Nader cites 5 counts for Impeachment.
http://www.pr.com/press-release/85836

[brien]

Where is the international movement to do this? This is merely a figment of the imagination of those who "wish" these things to be true. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. What a waste of a thread. Come back when the indictments are a reality...

[namguy]

There's not going to be none.

Men love to believe in lies.

[brien]

There's not going to be none.

Men love to believe in lies.

My point exactly..

[Wndrtch]

Nader cites 5 counts for Impeachment.
http://www.pr.com/press-release/85836

Nader wears the same size tin-hat as Ron Paul.

[PatrickHenry]

Tin hats is a reference to someone's unrealistic views, I presume.

But Nader's accusations ring true. Referring to Cheney/Bush

They violated the UN Charter. They didn’t get a declaration of war from Congress.
They violated The Geneva Conventions. They’re systematic torturers. That’s been well documented by the press, and that violates federal law. It violates the constitution. It violates the U.S. Army and the Geneva Conventions.
They arrested thousands of Americans and put them in jail without charges; habeas corpus down the drain.
they’ve spied on thousands, maybe millions of people without warrants and that’s a five year jail term under FISA Act.
[George W. Bush] signed eight hundred signing statements when he signed bills into law, more than all other Presidents combined, in effect saying, ‘I’ll decide whether I’m going to obey this law or not.’

[preservanation]

Trial is not the issue.
Punishment should be severe.

[Rage]

This question is not as academic as you might imagination, coming from either direction. The UN Security Council would be alarmed seeing a permanent member's head of state dragged into an international court previliously limited to 3rd world strongmen, and the precedent a conviction would set for their own interests is unlikely to be tolerated. The amount of pressure on such proceedings to conclude quickly and favorably for the defendants would be enormous, and probably effective given the somewhat ambiguous nature of the international courts. I see little alternative but to have the trials be 100% American, and where the defendants are civilians, 100% civilian. However, despite all proprieties and forms being strictly observed, I would say it would have to occur outside the normal system and involve a special tribunal - it cannot be presided over by men appointed by or affiliated with the defendants in any way, shape, or form, to a large degree of separation.

I think we should disband the UN, and not care what other countries have to say. Why are they being tried again?

[Troubadour]

I think we should disband the UN

Most of the dictators in the world would agree.

and not care what other countries have to say.

Not caring is not a policy, it's a personality trait of a sociopath. Is that your vision of the United States?

Why are they being tried again?

Why are who being tried again?

[preservanation]

Originally Posted by Rage
I think we should disband the UN

Most of the dictators in the world would agree.
Are you kidding?
Why would they disband themselves?

The United Nations has become a weapon and a shield for the world's dictators.
Not all dictators are the same. Some are no more than thugs. While hiding behind their guns and goons, they murder their captive citizens, condone torture (and a few even approve slavery and rape), and loot their country's wealth and resources for personal gain, for power, for an ideology, or for a religion. Of the many such thugs since 1945, the list would include Saddam Hussein of Iraq, Idi Amin of Uganda, Pol Pot of Cambodia, and recently deposed Charles Taylor of Liberia Now we have such ruling thugs as General Than Shwe of Burma, Fidel Castro of Cuba, General Teodoro Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea, Ayatollah Ali Hoseini-Khamenei of Iran, Colonel Muammar al-Qadhafi of Libya, Kim Chong-il of North Korea, King Fahd Al Saud of Saudi Arabia, General Umar al-Bashir of Sudan, Bashar al-Asad of Syria, Saparmurat Niyazov of Turkmenistan, General Yoweri Museveni of Uganda, and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, to mention some of the worst of them. These and the other thugs, along with the more moderate, but sympathetic and collaborative dictators, dominate the UN and now defeat its mission. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COMM.11.10.03.HTM

Angola, Cameroon, Guinea, Pakistan and Syria are just a few of the countries who are not considered free.
Your contention is preposterous.

[Rage]

There is no need for a UN or anything like that. When you think about it, people lie, and they do what they want to. Just because they do what they want under their flag or the UN flag doesn't make a bit of difference.