No Jail Time For Scooter Libby

[Rico]

WASHINGTON - President Bush spared former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby from a 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case Monday, stepping into a criminal case with heavy political overtones on grounds that the sentence was just too harsh.

Bush's move came hours after a federal appeals panel ruled Libby could not delay his prison term in the CIA leak case. That meant Libby was likely to have to report to prison soon and put new pressure on the president, who had been sidestepping calls by Libby's allies to pardon the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.

Full story: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/02/libby.sentence/index.html

[CC1]

I obviously could never serve in government since these guys get convicted because they can't remember every sentance that was discussed in meetings three or four years ago when they have dozens of meetings a day.

I can't remember what I did yesterday! It was a travesty that he was ever indicted in the first place.

With these kinds of witch hunts it is going to be harder and harder to get good people to devote their lives to public service.

Oh, not to mention that Sandy Berger committed real crimes by stealing documents from the National Archives and stuffing them down his pants and socks and hiding them in a nearby construction site, yet he got off scott free with no jail time!!!

[SDG]

It's good to know the right people.

[pelathais]

When it turned out that Richard Armitage was the "leaker" (and not someone within the Whitehouse) the prosecuter said he was not going to file charges against Armitage because it turns out that "leaking" Plame's name wasn't a crime after all.

So my question, "How could Libby have 'obstructed a criminal investigation' if the subject of the investigation was not a crime?"

It's all just a failed coup attempt by Clinton appointees within the CIA and State Department who should have been replaced by the President in January 2001.

[Rico]

When it turned out that Richard Armitage was the "leaker" (and not someone within the Whitehouse) the prosecuter said he was not going to file charges against Armitage because it turns out that "leaking" Plame's name wasn't a crime after all.

So my question, "How could Libby have 'obstructed a criminal investigation' if the subject of the investigation was not a crime?"

It's all just a failed coup attempt by Clinton appointees within the CIA and State Department who should have been replaced by the President in January 2001.


Well, he was convicted of lying to authorities and obstruction. That just means he got in the way of the investigation.

[CC1]

When it turned out that Richard Armitage was the "leaker" (and not someone within the Whitehouse) the prosecuter said he was not going to file charges against Armitage because it turns out that "leaking" Plame's name wasn't a crime after all.

So my question, "How could Libby have 'obstructed a criminal investigation' if the subject of the investigation was not a crime?"

It's all just a failed coup attempt by Clinton appointees within the CIA and State Department who should have been replaced by the President in January 2001.

I agree. I think the Prez made a mistake back in 2001 when he thought he could reach across party lines so he kept some key people from the Clinton admin in power at State and in the CIA.

[chaotic_resolve]

I'm glad the President had the guts to grant clemency to "Scooter." The prison sentance was ridiculously excessive. I'd even argue that the house arrest or supervised whatever be lessened from 2 years to between 12 and 18 months, depending on good behavior.

Now if the President would do the same for the 3 Border Patrol Agents who have been jailed or imprisoned for doing their job, I may get warm fuzzies for the President again.

But he won't . . . cause he wants an open border and doesn't want the BP to enforce the law.

[pelathais]

Well, he was convicted of lying to authorities and obstruction. That just means he got in the way of the investigation.

Yes, however, it was not a criminal investigation as the charge that went to Libby's jury read. Otherwise, why didn't they charge Richard Armitage with a crime? He was they guy everyone was looking for the whole time. Supposedly he was the guy Libby "lied" to "cover up."

Of course, as it turns out even Libby didn't know Armitage was "the source." All Libby did was forget the exact date when he had lunch with Tim Russert two years prior. Remember, in Grand Jury testimony you can't bring in any notes - everything you say has to be just off the top of your head.

It was a game of political "gotcha." People should not be sent to prison for political crimes in the U.S. This whole thing smacks of the gulag system.

[pelathais]

I agree. I think the Prez made a mistake back in 2001 when he thought he could reach across party lines so he kept some key people from the Clinton admin in power at State and in the CIA.

... and in the Justice Department. That's also biting the president right now with the Attorneys General firings.

[Praxeas]

"I respect the jury's verdict," Bush said in a statement. "But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison."

There have to be thousands of excessive sentences all throughout America...it stinks to high places, where the wickness is, that he commute this sentence. Bill Clinton was guilty of the same. This is why so many people don't trust politicians in general

[Praxeas]

Now if the President would do the same for the 3 Border Patrol Agents who have been jailed or imprisoned for doing their job, I may get warm fuzzies for the President again.
.
Wrong class. Wrong side of town. Wrong family. Wrong circle of friends. If he was going to do something like that it should have been done long ago

[Praxeas]

It's good to know the right people.
That's the truth Dan....arncha glad at least one admin likes ya and pulls for ya :party

[pelathais]

There have to be thousands of excessive sentences all throughout America...it stinks to high places, where the wickness is, that he commute this sentence. Bill Clinton was guilty of the same. This is why so many people don't trust politicians in general

I usually agree with all of your posts, my brother! But...

Clinton lied to subvert a civil lawsuit. For that he got an impeachment warrant that was never even tried. Basically a slap on the wrist.

What did Libby do? He forgot when he had lunch with Tim Russert (NBC) and later with Judith Woodward (NYTimes) two years prior to his testimony.

Going into the Grand Jury he had no idea what range the questions would cover - remember, the only person we knew to be involved in the investigation was Bob Novak. So, maybe Scooter looks at his old calendars to see when he talked to Novak over the last few years... And when he gets to the Grand Jury - whamo - they want to know about Russert! ...

To this we must add - the jury foreman is a neighbor and acquaintance of Tim Russert (a prosecution witness!) and refused to disclose that prior to being impaneled... AND, that same jury foreman got a woman who would not go along with him thrown off the jury; so that the case was decided by just 11 jurors.

There's plenty of legal grounds for appeal here, so why the rush to send Scooter to jail? The case isn't even over yet. The wolves just want innocent blood. Is that what America is about?

[Praxeas]

I usually agree with all of your posts, my brother! But...

Clinton lied to subvert a civil lawsuit. For that he got an impeachment warrant that was never even tried. Basically a slap on the wrist.
Clinton should have gotten jail time. The whole thing is about good ole boy politics and it happens on both sides of the coin

What did Libby do? He forgot when he had lunch with Tim Russert (NBC) and later with Judith Woodward (NYTimes) two years prior to his testimony.

Going into the Grand Jury he had no idea what range the questions would cover - remember, the only person we knew to be involved in the investigation was Bob Novak. So, maybe Scooter looks at his old calendars to see when he talked to Novak over the last few years... And when he gets to the Grand Jury - whamo - they want to know about Russert! ...

To this we must add - the jury foreman is a neighbor and acquaintance of Tim Russert (a prosecution witness!) and refused to disclose that prior to being impaneled... AND, that same jury foreman got a woman who would not go along with him thrown off the jury; so that the case was decided by just 11 jurors.

There's plenty of legal grounds for appeal here, so why the rush to send Scooter to jail? The case isn't even over yet. The wolves just want innocent blood. Is that what America is about?


If this is all true, particularly the fact that the foreman is a neighbor and acquantance of Russert, then the trial should never have taken place and should at least be declared a mis-trial. Bush then I think should never have even said what he said about the trial and declared the whole think was wrong and not just say that Scooter was given too excessive a penalty.

[pelathais]

Wrong class. Wrong side of town. Wrong family. Wrong circle of friends. If he was going to do something like that it should have been done long ago

The bitter irony here is that 2 of those border agents were prosecuted by an Arizona based Federal Prosecuter that would later be fired by Bush and Alberto Gonzales for "misconduct" and/or "incompetence."

[CupCake]

WASHINGTON - President Bush spared former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby from a 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case Monday, stepping into a criminal case with heavy political overtones on grounds that the sentence was just too harsh.

Bush's move came hours after a federal appeals panel ruled Libby could not delay his prison term in the CIA leak case. That meant Libby was likely to have to report to prison soon and put new pressure on the president, who had been sidestepping calls by Libby's allies to pardon the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.

Full story: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/02/libby.sentence/index.html

___

Bush and Cheney are the ones who should be behind bars!

[pelathais]

Clinton should have gotten jail time. The whole thing is about good ole boy politics and it happens on both sides of the coin



If this is all true, particularly the fact that the foreman is a neighbor and acquantance of Russert, then the trial should never have taken place and should at least be declared a mis-trial. Bush then I think should never have even said what he said about the trial and declared the whole think was wrong and not just say that Scooter was given too excessive a penalty.

All I've said is info from the standard news sources. As far as the trial "never taking place..." it's too late to unring the bell - but the appeals process is wide open. Usually a defendant gets to put up a bond while his case is on appeal - but not Scooter. Why? He's no flight risk. And he has an excellent chance of getting the case overturned. But no bond? What's going on here?

Bush did and said what he did for 2 reasons: The sentence is commutted, No Pardon - because of the excellent chance Libby has of getting the whole thing thrown out.

Further, about the jury's descision: Bush doesn't want to weaken our faith in "the process" and he doesn't want to raise the hackles of his political enemies.

Basically, the president is a pretty good guy, but he can also be a real ----- sometimes when it comes to standing up for his allies.

[Praxeas]

The bitter irony here is that 2 of those border agents were prosecuted by an Arizona based Federal Prosecuter that would later be fired by Bush and Alberto Gonzales for "misconduct" and/or "incompetence."
What was the misconduct or incompetence? Was it related to the case? If not or even if so, why wasn't there an immediate call for a retrial or mistrial?

[Praxeas]

All I've said is info from the standard news sources. As far as the trial "never taking place..." it's too late to unring the bell - but the appeals process is wide open. Usually a defendant gets to put up a bond while his case is on appeal - but not Scooter. Why? He's no flight risk. And he has an excellent chance of getting the case overturned. But no bond? What's going on here?

Bush did and said what he did for 2 reasons: The sentence is commutted, No Pardon - because of the excellent chance Libby has of getting the whole thing thrown out.

Further, about the jury's descision: Bush doesn't want to weaken our faith in "the process" and he doesn't want to raise the hackles of his political enemies.

Basically, the president is a pretty good guy, but he can also be a real ----- sometimes when it comes to standing up for his allies.
Uh, careful with the language.

Anyways, He should get an appeal

[pelathais]

Bush and Cheney are the one who should be behind bars!

Why? Have you people all been drinking the Kool-Aid?

[CupCake]

Why? Have you people all been drinking the Kool-Aid?

War crimes, lying to the American people.

[pelathais]

What was the misconduct or incompetence? Was it related to the case? If not or even if so, why wasn't there an immediate call for a retrial or mistrial?

It's in quotes because honestly, I don't know. The case by case stuff was never released in detail.

It's just that the whole thing reeks of partisan politics and, as you pointed out, it's usually the people of "the wrong class", etc. that get trampled down.

[Praxeas]

It's in quotes because honestly, I don't know. The case by case stuff was never released in detail.

It's just that the whole thing reeks of partisan politics and, as you pointed out, it's usually the people of "the wrong class", etc. that get trampled down.
I think those agents got the raw end of the deal. I can't believe the suspect got immunity

[pelathais]

War crimes, lying to the American people.

"War crimes?" CupCake, what war crimes have Bush and Cheney committed?

Sure, there's enough policy disagreements that someone could make the case that they should not be re-elected or that their policies should be abandoned. But, "war crimes?" Like what? Specifically.

And can you quote one lie for me that Bush told to the American people, and then one lie that Cheney told. I've heard the charge but never seen any specifics.

[CC1]

War crimes, lying to the American people.

Cupcake,

You have certainly lived up to your screen name in this post. At what point in time did you leave reality and enter lala land?

[CupCake]

"War crimes?" CupCake, what war crimes have Bush and Cheney committed?

Sure, there's enough policy disagreements that someone could make the case that they should not be re-elected or that their policies should be abandoned. But, "war crimes?" Like what? Specifically.

And can you quote one lie for me that Bush told to the American people, and then one lie that Cheney told. I've heard the charge but never seen any specifics.

You don't get out much, it's all over the new as well as the internet, I have found people who wont seek out info for them self really wont listen anyways and a waist of my time.

[pelathais]

You don't get out much, it's all over the new as well as the internet, I have found people who wont seek out info for them self really wont listen anyways and a waist of my time.

Surely if the president was guilty of war crimes you could have rattled off a few for us - but no, not one charge. hmmm...

The same for the charge of "lying to the American people..." If that was true, surely you could have rattled off a single - just a single lie that GWB told.

C'mon. Give us one. You're dodging the challenge here and everyone can see it. Please don't be angry with me, I just want to know what it is that has gotten a fellow believer angry enough to make those kinds of charges. I challenged you on this point because I do "seek out info..." I'm just guessing here, but you don't really know of any war crimes or lies that you can charge the President and VP with, do you? You haven't sought out the info, have you?

Or are you deliberately bringing a false accusation against the President and Vice President of the United States?

[crakjak]

Why? Have you people all been drinking the Kool-Aid?

I remember CupCake for the other forum under a different name, I recognize her radical Anti-Americanism.

[jwharv]

I think the president jumped the gun on this one....................

[pelathais]

What do you mean? That the president commuted too soon?

[jwharv]

What do you mean? That the president commuted too soon?


I think he should have let the appeals process run it's course.........

[pelathais]

Yes, but the court ruled that Libby had to report immediately to prison. No bond. That's only done in extraordinary circumstances or where the defendant is a known flight risk.

All the Dems wanted was to hang Cheney. When it turned out they didn't even have a criminal case at all, they started clamoring for whatever blood they could get. Bush acted to keep Libby from going to jail before the appeals could even be heard. It's for cases like these that presidents and governors have this power. They're supposed to step in when there's a clear miscarriage of justice.

[Pressing-On]

The President did the right thing, IMO.

During his closing arguments, Fitzgerald did what has caused many a prosecutor to get a mistrial: He asked the jury to consider “facts” that had not been placed into evidence or proven in any way.

Bottom line.

Throughout the trial, Fitzgerald insisted that Valerie Plame’s status was irrelevant and that the defense could not use her status in any way. But now that it came time for sentencing, Fitzgerald insisted that her status be considered, and that Mr. Libby be treated as if he’d violated the law he’d never even been charged with.

The judge apparently accepted Fitzgerald’s argument, contrary to all notions of basic fairness.

Bad form!

[Ferd]

if it was me, I would have pardoned Libby and given him a presidential medal of freedom, then gotten the Queen on the phone and gotten her to make him a Baron of the Realm.

Then I would announce a special procecutor to investagate Fitzgerald for procecutoral misconduct. this would include finding out if he abuses animals by eating red meat. It would cost him a billion dollars to fight the charges.

[Ronzo]

I see the title of this thread and I all I can think about is this guy...


http://www.movieprop.com/tvandmovie/reviews/happygilmoreshooter1aa.jpg



SHOOOOTER!!!

[Old Paths]

Hurrah for Libby and the Prez.

[crakjak]

Hurrah for Libby and the Prez.

Amen!!

[Rico]

I wonder if President Bush had his mind made up to commute SL's sentence before he was even convicted.

[RevDWW]

Look I don't mind that Scooter got a prison sentence. But if he was guilty what about a certain President that lied to the Grand Jury and got off Scot free? Politics is a rough game and I care less that a political lackey got pardoned for playing "The Game" then this pardon http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21595. (http://http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21595)

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

I'm glad the President had the guts to grant clemency to "Scooter." The prison sentance was ridiculously excessive. I'd even argue that the house arrest or supervised whatever be lessened from 2 years to between 12 and 18 months, depending on good behavior.

Now if the President would do the same for the 3 Border Patrol Agents who have been jailed or imprisoned for doing their job, I may get warm fuzzies for the President again.

But he won't . . . cause he wants an open border and doesn't want the BP to enforce the law.

The mandate for change was for less Government and we see More Government.

18 months of illegals coming North to all Vote in Nov 2008 and folks like chaotic and BOOMM are disgusted with the Republican Do-Nothing Party. So, we hope a third party emerges and hold our noses voting our conscience. Thousands of others stay home in disgust of GOP and the thought of voting Socialist Democratic.

Easy shoo-in looms for House, Senate, and 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

:blah

[CupCake]

Surely if the president was guilty of war crimes you could have rattled off a few for us - but no, not one charge. hmmm...

The same for the charge of "lying to the American people..." If that was true, surely you could have rattled off a single - just a single lie that GWB told.

C'mon. Give us one. You're dodging the challenge here and everyone can see it. Please don't be angry with me, I just want to know what it is that has gotten a fellow believer angry enough to make those kinds of charges. I challenged you on this point because I do "seek out info..." I'm just guessing here, but you don't really know of any war crimes or lies that you can charge the President and VP with, do you? You haven't sought out the info, have you?

Or are you deliberately bringing a false accusation against the President and Vice President of the United States?

Final Verdict Released
Submitted by administrator on Wed, 2006-09-13 01:27.

Commission Finds President George W. Bush and His Administration Guilty of War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity

The Commission of Inquiry on Crimes Against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration released its final verdict on Wednesday, September 13, 2006.

Find the full text of the verdict in PDF form here.

An unprecedented Commission of Inquiry has found the President of the United States and his administration guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The five-member panel of jurists unanimously found the administration’s actions “shock the conscience of humanity” in five areas – wars of aggression, illegal detention and torture, suppression of science and catastrophic policies on global warming, potentially genocidal abstinence-only policies imposed on HIV/AIDS prevention programs in the Third World, and the abandonment of New Orleans before, during, and after Hurricane Katrina.

A delegation, headed by 27-year CIA veteran Ray McGovern and former US diplomat and retired US Army Reserve Colonel Ann Wright, will deliver the verdict to the gates of the White House at noon today following an 11AM press conference.

THE VERDICT

In their summary, the Commission jurists found that: “Each of these constitutes a shocking crime in itself, and taken together the full horrors are all the more unconscionable. It is also clear that this is an administration that demonstrates an utter disregard for truth and flagrantly lies about the reasons for its actions.

"In arriving at this decision the jurists were particularly alarmed by the degree to which the Bush Administration’s actions in all five indictments were informed by the extreme right. .... although the specific conduct differs among the indictments, the result is the same: human life was debased and devalued by gratuitous acts of violence, torture, narrow self interest, indifference, and disregard."

In arriving at their verdict, the Commission’s panel of jurists examined a wealth of evidence with care and rigor. Consistent standards were employed, with well-established international law referenced where applicable

The panel of jurists consisted of Adjoa A. Aiyetoro, William H. Bowen School of Law, Little Rock; former executive director, National Conference of Black Lawyers (NCBL). Dennis Brutus, former prisoner, Robben Island (South Africa), poet, professor emeritus, University of Pittsburgh. Abdeen Jabara, former president, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. Ajamu Sankofa, former executive director, Physicians for Social Responsibility-NY. Ann Wright, former US diplomat and retired US Army Reserve Colonel.

THE HEARINGS

The Commission’s year-long investigation included five days of public hearings in October 2005 and January 2006 in New York City. The 45 expert and first-hand witnesses included former commander of Abu Ghraib prison Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray, former UN official Denis Halliday, former UN arms inspector Scott Ritter, Guantanamo prisoners’ lawyer Barbara Olshansky, and Katrina survivors.

The verdict’s release comes with war crimes again on front pages following President Bush’s defense of secret prisons, rendition, and practices constituting torture under existing law, his demand that the War Crimes Act be fundamentally weakened, and his threats against Iran.

In a preface to the printed verdict, historian Howard Zinn writes: "The Bush Administration has been following a course, which can only now be described as a series of crimes against humanity. . . . What could be a higher crime than sending the young people of the country into a war against a small country on the other side of the world, which is no danger to the United States, and in fact a war which is condemned by people all over the world and a war which results in, not only the loss of American lives and the crippling of young Americans, but results in the loss of huge numbers of people in Iraq? These are high crimes."


http://www.bushcommission.org/

[CupCake]

David Wallechinsky


Is George Bush Guilty of War Crimes...and Who Cares?


Whenever someone publicly suggests that President Bush and other members of his administration might have committed war crimes, he or she is accused of being a wild, over-the-top extremist. But there is one group of people that has always taken the war crimes charges seriously--the members of the Bush administration themselves. They have good reason for doing so, because they have exposed hundreds of Americans to possible prosecution for violating U.S. law.
From the very beginning of the war against terrorism, George W. Bush and his administration knew that the tactics and techniques they planned to use were illegal according to U.S. law. Rather than reject these tactics and techniques, they prepared a series of convoluted legal rationales that they hoped would protect them from prosecution. In recent weeks, in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez and others have been formulating defenses against possible prosecutions for war crimes and are pressuring Republican members of Congress to pass new laws to protect them.

Full article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-wallechinsky/is-george-bush-guilty-of-_b_26669.html

[CupCake]

Bush Lied to the American People about 9/11 Terrorists' Motives
Bush's lie hides from many Americans the fact that we were attacked by Al-Qaeda because of specific foreign polices and not because we are the"brightest beacon of freedom and opportunity"


THE LIE OF THE CENTURY

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/lieofthecentury.ht

There is tons of info on Bush and his mis doings! Nothing is hidden, the writing on the walls

[CupCake]

I remember CupCake for the other forum under a different name, I recognize her radical Anti-Americanism.

I'm not Anti-Americanism, the fact you support such evil is telling in itself, true Americans will stand up against these doings and defend our rights and freedoms as our Constitution declares ~

Remember it's "WE THE PEOPLE"! Not "WE THE GOVERNMENT"!

[pelathais]

Hey, thanks CupCake, but I think most educated people understand the difference between propaganda like what you have posted, and an actual description of real crimes.

I notice that your posts, despite their length, fail to identify a single war crime committed by President Bush and Vice President Cheney. All you did was cut and paste a bunch of leftist nonsense that says they committed crimes, but even then it fails to actually identify any crime.

And, for your information, the statement "On February 7, 2002, President Bush signed an order denying Geneva Conventions protection to detainees in the War on Terrorism" does not in fact relate to a war crime by the US as your quote suggests.

According to those very same Geneva Conventions, the "detainees" were already guilty of making illegal war. They fought without uniforms and/or insignia and they indiscriminately attacked civilians. The penalty for making illegal war is to be hanged by the neck after your appearance before a military tribunal.

That's what FDR did in WW2 when he caught an "enemy combatant" not in uniform. The combatant was hanged.

According to International Law, every one of these detainees should have been killed on the field in Afghanistan, Iraq and wherever they were captured. The fact that Bush did not order their summary execution shows he has gone way beyond the Geneva Conventions in protecting the sworn enemies of the United States. Protecting the lives of your enemies in wartime may be stupid, but it is not a war crime. Technically, everyone of the "detainees" should have been either hanged or shot on the field. That is what International Law has stated for centuries.

Remember the American patriot Nathan Hale? He removed his army uniform and hid anything he had that would identify him as a soldier in the American Revolution. He then disguised himself as a traveling merchant, passed through British lines and started mapping the King's gun emplacements.

When he was captured he was hanged on the spot. Even Hale knew this was likely and he didn't even protest to his own hanging. He had risked his own life by deliberately violating the Laws of War. The penalty for that has always been either a noose or a bullet; ask Mata Hari of WW1 fame. GWB happens to be more merciful than most of history's military leaders.

Was FDR guilty of war crimes? http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/famcases/nazi/nazi.htm (http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/famcases/nazi/nazi.htm)

Was Abraham Lincoln? http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=612 (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=612)

Here Lincoln argues, in his own words, why the Writ of Habeus Corpus was suspended by him (detainees were held without trial) and why he felt it necessary to hang those opposed Union victory.

So again, post one war crime and tell me one lie that President Bush told to the American people.

You can do this. Just type it out: GWB committed a war crime when he...

[rgcraig]

Pelathais - great post!

[Pressing-On]

Hey, thanks CupCake, but I think most educated people understand the difference between propaganda like what you have posted, and an actual description of real crimes.

I notice that your posts, despite their length, fail to identify a single war crime committed by President Bush and Vice President Cheney. All you did was cut and paste a bunch of leftist nonsense that says they committed crimes, but even then it fails to actually identify any crime.

And, for your information, the statement "On February 7, 2002, President Bush signed an order denying Geneva Conventions protection to detainees in the War on Terrorism" does not in fact relate to a war crime by the US as your quote suggests.

According to those very same Geneva Conventions, the "detainees" were already guilty of making illegal war. They fought without uniforms and/or insignia and they indiscriminately attacked civilians. The penalty for making illegal war is to be hanged by the neck after your appearance before a military tribunal.

That's what FDR did in WW2 when he caught an "enemy combatant" not in uniform. The combatant was hanged.

According to International Law, every one of these detainees should have been killed on the field in Afghanistan, Iraq and wherever they were captured. The fact that Bush did not order their summary execution shows he has gone way beyond the Geneva Conventions in protecting the sworn enemies of the United States. Protecting the lives of your enemies in wartime may be stupid, but it is not a war crime. Technically, everyone of the "detainees" should have been either hanged or shot on the field. That is what International Law has stated for centuries.

Remember the American patriot Nathan Hale? He removed his army uniform and hid anything he had that would identify him as a soldier in the American Revolution. He then disguised himself as a traveling merchant, passed through British lines and started mapping the King's gun emplacements.

When he was captured he was hanged on the spot. Even Hale knew this was likely and he didn't even protest to his own hanging. He had risked his own life by deliberately violating the Laws of War. The penalty for that has always been either a noose or a bullet; ask Mata Hari of WW1 fame. GWB happens to be more merciful than most of history's military leaders.

Was FDR guilty of war crimes? http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/famcases/nazi/nazi.htm (http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/famcases/nazi/nazi.htm)

Was Abraham Lincoln? http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=612 (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=612)

Here Lincoln argues, in his own words, why the Writ of Habeus Corpus was suspended by him (detainees were held without trial) and why he felt it necessary to hang those opposed Union victory.

So again, post one war crime and tell me one lie that President Bush told to the American people.

You can do this. Just type it out: GWB committed a war crime when he...
Good post, Pelathais!

[pelathais]

The "Bush Commission" that you link to is a leftist "commission" purposefully set up by a small group of radicals in NYC on the model of Soviet "commissars."

After the Russian revolution of 1917 and the murder of the Czar and his family, "commissars" and "soviets" were set up to "try" the Russian nobility and landowners for "crimes" against "the people."

Sadly, this led to the deaths of over 20 million innocent lives, one of the worst wholesale slaughters in human history. I find it very sad that you would associate yourself with the likes of Charles C. Kissinger (no relation to the more famous "Henry").

This "commission" did coax the general who was fired for negligently allowing Lindy England's birthday party celebration at Abu Ghraib, to "testify." This "commission" is of such standing that their INTERNIC registration is located in a Mail Boxes Etc. in Brooklyn. Pretty scholarly stuff there, CupCake.

Again, you have failed to tell us one single lie that GWB told to the American people. This has got to be an easy one. C'mon.

"GWB lied to the American people when he said..."

(He's a president, for crying out loud, surely he lied at least once... You're making him look like Mother Theresa!)

[Praxeas]

The "Bush Commission" that you link to is a leftist "commission" purposefully set up by a small group of radicals in NYC on the model of Soviet "commissars."

After the Russian revolution of 1917 and the murder of the Czar and his family, "commissars" and "soviets" were set up to "try" the Russian nobility and landowners for "crimes" against "the people."

Sadly, this led to the deaths of over 20 million innocent lives, one of the worst wholesale slaughters in human history. I find it very sad that you would associate yourself with the likes of Charles C. Kissinger (no relation to the more famous "Henry").

This "commission" did coax the general who was fired for negligently allowing Lindy England's birthday party celebration at Abu Ghraib, to "testify." This "commission" is of such standing that their INTERNIC registration is located in a Mail Boxes Etc. in Brooklyn. Pretty scholarly stuff there, CupCake.

Again, you have failed to tell us one single lie that GWB told to the American people. This has got to be an easy one. C'mon.

"GWB lied to the American people when he said..."

(He's a president, for crying out loud, surely he lied at least once... You're making him look like Mother Theresa!)
Im not a Bush fan by any stretch of the imagination, nor am I a Republican, but that "commission" seemed kinda fishy. Was it an official commission? Who commissioned it? Where the members independent or are they leftists and biased against Bush or even against America in general. Yes Virginia there ARE "Americans" that are against America in general and want to turn it into a socialist communist government. Anyone can form a committee and issue a statement. That does not make Bush guilty. Even if Bush did commit war crimes, he is till innocent according to our laws, until proven guilty in a court of law, not in the court of public or leftist or democrat opinion

[Rico]

I just saw on the news that Congress is going to open an investigation. I really don't see how they can do anything about it. This is something that is within the scope of Presidential power.

[pelathais]

Im not a Bush fan by any stretch of the imagination, nor am I a Republican, but that "commission" seemed kinda fishy. Was it an official commission? Who commissioned it? Where the members independent or are they leftists and biased against Bush or even against America in general. Yes Virginia there ARE "Americans" that are against America in general and want to turn it into a socialist communist government. Anyone can form a committee and issue a statement. That does not make Bush guilty. Even if Bush did commit war crimes, he is till innocent according to our laws, until proven guilty in a court of law, not in the court of public or leftist or democrat opinion

This "commission" that CupCake links to describes itself as a "project of the Not In Our Name Statement of Conscience." According to the group Follow the Money (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_3_55/ai_97347240), the N.O.I.N. group was founded in 2002 just before the Iraq war.

N.O.I.N.'s founding partners include the Revolutionary Communist Party, the All-African Peoples Revolutionary Party, Refuse and Resist!, the International League of Peoples' Struggle, and the National Lawyers Guild, among others. I'll not link to their respective sites but you can google them to get an idea of what kinds of groups they are.

Don't confuse the National Lawyer's Guild (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6162) with a legitimate organization of lawyers. They were founded in the 1930's as a group of apologists for Soviet dictator Josef Stalin. They in fact refused to accept a resolution condemning dictatorship and affirming democracy because they felt that such a stand would be "divisive." Congressman John Conyers is a former member of the Guild.

In a recent report on North Korea, the Guild said, [a comparision] “between North Korea and its lack of policeman, and North America in which armed police in bulletproof vests are commonplace, was more than striking -- it was startling. If the presence or absence of armed policemen is a criterion for a free society then it speaks volumes about the nature of the two societies.” They apparently prefer a North Korean type of society to America.

This group in fact had to create a cover organization because even the Hollywood leftists didn't want to sign their petitions. I have been on their mailing list since 2002 - I "signed" using the sig "Daisy Cutter" and still get their email (Daisy Cutter is the nickname for a huge bomb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLU-82)that is only rarely used, and then to either clear foliage or for the "shock and awe"). Many of my friends also signed using obviously fake names - and they went ahead and used the names!

The "Bush Commission" scored something of a coup when they were able to use their contacts with leftist writer Noam Chomsky to stage some appearances on the M.I.T. campus. After making fools of themselves they have not been able to follow up with much since.

The writer of the article that CupCake quotes (the first post not the Huff Po guy) is Charles Clark Kissinger. Mr. Kissinger is an unapologetic member of the Maoist Revolutionary Communist Party.

My point for CupCake was, especially given the biased nature of her sources, why wasn't she able to give us even a single war crime or a single lie that we could pin on GWB?

I'm not a big fan of GWB myself (remember my infraction?). But if the guy did what he's accused of having done, then he should at least be "infractioned" as well.

However, if these accusations are themselves a bunch of lies, then I ask, what is motivating such vitriolic speech? CupCake?

[Praxeas]

Im not surprised

[CupCake]

Hey, thanks CupCake, but I think most educated people understand the difference between propaganda like what you have posted, and an actual description of real crimes.

I notice that your posts, despite their length, fail to identify a single war crime committed by President Bush and Vice President Cheney. All you did was cut and paste a bunch of leftist nonsense that says they committed crimes, but even then it fails to actually identify any crime.

And, for your information, the statement "On February 7, 2002, President Bush signed an order denying Geneva Conventions protection to detainees in the War on Terrorism" does not in fact relate to a war crime by the US as your quote suggests.

According to those very same Geneva Conventions, the "detainees" were already guilty of making illegal war. They fought without uniforms and/or insignia and they indiscriminately attacked civilians. The penalty for making illegal war is to be hanged by the neck after your appearance before a military tribunal.

That's what FDR did in WW2 when he caught an "enemy combatant" not in uniform. The combatant was hanged.

According to International Law, every one of these detainees should have been killed on the field in Afghanistan, Iraq and wherever they were captured. The fact that Bush did not order their summary execution shows he has gone way beyond the Geneva Conventions in protecting the sworn enemies of the United States. Protecting the lives of your enemies in wartime may be stupid, but it is not a war crime. Technically, everyone of the "detainees" should have been either hanged or shot on the field. That is what International Law has stated for centuries.

Remember the American patriot Nathan Hale? He removed his army uniform and hid anything he had that would identify him as a soldier in the American Revolution. He then disguised himself as a traveling merchant, passed through British lines and started mapping the King's gun emplacements.

When he was captured he was hanged on the spot. Even Hale knew this was likely and he didn't even protest to his own hanging. He had risked his own life by deliberately violating the Laws of War. The penalty for that has always been either a noose or a bullet; ask Mata Hari of WW1 fame. GWB happens to be more merciful than most of history's military leaders.

Was FDR guilty of war crimes? http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/famcases/nazi/nazi.htm (http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/famcases/nazi/nazi.htm)

Was Abraham Lincoln? http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=612 (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=612)

Here Lincoln argues, in his own words, why the Writ of Habeus Corpus was suspended by him (detainees were held without trial) and why he felt it necessary to hang those opposed Union victory.

So again, post one war crime and tell me one lie that President Bush told to the American people.

You can do this. Just type it out: GWB committed a war crime when he...

As I said before, it does not matter what truth your giving, people who wont seek out truth for themselves are not looking!

[pelathais]

As I said before, it does not matter what truth your giving, people who wont seek out truth for themselves are not looking!

What's so sad about your "arguments" Cupcake, is that you haven't told the truth. And, you won't seek out the truth for yourself.

You said the president committed war crimes. I said name one.

You said the president lied. I said, "repeat that lie back to me."

You couldn't even carry your own water. :slaphappy

You fail.
:fireworks

By your own words, and after several lengthy and thoughtful posts, CupCake: GWB has NOT committed any war crimes.

Further, CupCake has testified to this entire forum her own conviction that GWB has NEVER lied to the American people.

Wow! You stick up for the guy more than I do.