will Bush get sued for his crimes????

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • cykoe6
    Confirmed User
    • Apr 2005
    • 4499

    #31
    Originally posted by IllTestYourGirls
    Congress could pass a law saying it was legal to throw babies of bridges it does not mean those laws are constitutional. Congress had no constitutional authority to sign off on the Iraq war. Congress has no constitutional authority to sign off on FISA.
    The way the system works is thus:

    Congress passes a law saying it is legal to throw babies off the bridge.

    President uses his executive powers to implement said law.

    The law is challenged by the "Association Of Old Women Against Throwing Babies Off A Bridge".

    The case is stuck down by the courts.

    The executive branch no longer implements the law.

    Many members of congress and the president are replaced via election because the policy of allowing people to throw babies off the bridge is seen as a very bad policy.

    The new regime gets busy making sure no babies are being thrown off any bridges.

    That is how a constitutional republic operates.



    In a banana republic it is done differently:

    Charismatic populist leader gets elected on a platform of "change" and helping "the oppressed."

    The new leader starts rounding up his old political enemies and opponents accusing them of "war crimes" and "crimes against the people".

    The mob is whipped into a frenzy by lurid allegations of corruption and abuse of power.

    Previous regime leaders are imprisoned or exiled.

    Charismatic leader solidifies his support as it becomes increasingly dangerous to be considered his enemy.

    Charismatic leader starts to increase the scope of his authority for the purpose of defending the people against the "oligarchs" and "counter revolutionaries" who stand in the way of "change".

    Elections are postponed as their is fear that certain "entrenched power" elements will try to thwart the "will of the people".

    Charismatic leader continues to lead unopposed as the only true representative of the people.



    Unfortunately for the idiot left their little Maoist circle jerk will probably have to wait as most people prefer to live in a civilized society as opposed to a third world dictatorship.
    бабки, шлюхи, сила

    Comment

    • IllTestYourGirls
      Ah My Balls
      • Feb 2007
      • 14311

      #32
      Originally posted by cykoe6
      The way the system works is thus:

      Congress passes a law saying it is legal to throw babies off the bridge.

      President uses his executive powers to implement said law.

      The law is challenged by the "Association Of Old Women Against Throwing Babies Off A Bridge".

      The case is stuck down by the courts.

      The executive branch no longer implements the law.

      Many members of congress and the president are replaced via election because the policy of allowing people to throw babies off the bridge is seen as a very bad policy.

      The new regime gets busy making sure no babies are being thrown off any bridges.

      That is how a constitutional republic operates.



      In a banana republic it is done differently:

      Charismatic populist leader gets elected on a platform of "change" and helping "the oppressed."

      The new leader starts rounding up his old political enemies and opponents accusing them of "war crimes" and "crimes against the people".

      The mob is whipped into a frenzy by lurid allegations of corruption and abuse of power.

      Previous regime leaders are imprisoned or exiled.

      Charismatic leader solidifies his support as it becomes increasingly dangerous to be considered his enemy.

      Charismatic leader starts to increase the scope of his authority for the purpose of defending the people against the "oligarchs" and "counter revolutionaries" who stand in the way of "change".

      Elections are postponed as their is fear that certain "entrenched power" elements will try to thwart the "will of the people".

      Charismatic leader continues to lead unopposed as the only true representative of the people.



      Unfortunately for the idiot left their little Maoist circle jerk will probably have to wait as most people prefer to live in a civilized society as opposed to a third world dictatorship.

      I think we both agree.

      Comment

      • kahell
        Confirmed User
        • Aug 2005
        • 292

        #33
        charge Bush with genocide

        Comment

        • pocketkangaroo
          Confirmed User
          • Jan 2005
          • 8452

          #34
          Originally posted by DaddyHalbucks
          It was a smart move.

          It was a provision buried in another law. It was to prevent a partisan witch hunt. GWB was protecting himself against idiots who would go after him not because he committed crimes, but because they didn't like his policies.

          Actually, idiots like...
          So it's a smart move to sidestep around the checks and balances our founding fathers setup? Seems you don't have much respect for them.

          Comment

          • pocketkangaroo
            Confirmed User
            • Jan 2005
            • 8452

            #35
            Originally posted by cykoe6
            The Supreme Court makes decisions about what is constitutional not a bunch of Red Guards on a message board. Good faith disagreements about the application of law are not war crimes. Bush had legal authorization for all of his actions. He had congressional approval for the Iraq invasion. Congress has signed off on every major move he has made (including FISA).

            There is legitimate disagreement about the applicability of various laws when it comes to enemy combatants who don't fight under a the flag of a Geneva signatory. Personally I have no interest in non-US citizens engaged in hostile military actions receiving Habeas Corpus protections under US law. I have this silly notion that US constitutional provisions are applicable to US citizens. I guess that makes me a war criminal as well.
            For the most part, you are correct. He covered his bases there. But the breaking of the laws of the Geneva Convention could be an issue. As well as the illegal wire tapping. Those I believe were the two biggest ways people could have gotten back at him. But he was smart to add measures to bills stating that the laws didn't apply to him.

            Comment

            • $5 submissions
              I help you SUCCEED
              • Nov 2003
              • 32195

              #36
              http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-475.ZS.html

              In Cheney v. District Court, the Supreme Court hinted where, perhaps, the line between executive accountability and presidential prerogatives might be drawn in legal proceedings against the nation's only two elected executive branch officials: the president and the vice president.

              Comment

              • StickyGreen
                .
                • Oct 2003
                • 13076

                #37
                When will people realize that Bush isn't necessarily responsible... he's just a fucking puppet who does what he's told...

                People need to dig deeper.
                Refer Cam Girls and Take Home 10% of Everything They Make For Life

                Comment

                • aniloscash
                  Confirmed User
                  • Oct 2008
                  • 1161

                  #38
                  presidential pardons. but can he pardon himself? You have to believe theres going to be a very large list. can you pardon someone who isnt charged with a crime yet?
                  Got Milf Traffic Contact Me ICQ 473236446
                  j (at)anilos (dot)com
                  http://www.aniloscash.com

                  Comment

                  • directfiesta
                    Too lazy to set a custom title
                    • Oct 2002
                    • 30135

                    #39
                    Originally posted by DaddyHalbucks
                    It was a smart move.

                    It was a provision buried in another law. It was to prevent a partisan witch hunt. GWB was protecting himself against idiots who would go after him not because he committed crimes, but because they didn't like his policies.

                    Actually, idiots like...
                    witch hunt like the one for the famous BJ that Bill received .... I would pardon that way faster then getting thousands of Americans killed
                    I know that Asspimple is stoopid ... As he says, it is a FACT !

                    But I can't figure out how he can breathe or type , at the same time ....

                    Comment

                    • kahell
                      Confirmed User
                      • Aug 2005
                      • 292

                      #40
                      all the victims who died in war of Iraq (US soldiers ,Iraq people) should pursue war crimes against Bush!

                      Comment

                      • WarChild
                        Let slip the dogs of war.
                        • Jan 2003
                        • 17263

                        #41
                        Originally posted by kahell
                        all the victims who died in war of Iraq (US soldiers ,Iraq people) should pursue war crimes against Bush!
                        Just Bush though? What about the congress that voted to give bush authority to go to war in Iraq?
                        .

                        Comment

                        • AnalProbe
                          pain in the Ass
                          • Jan 2004
                          • 3727

                          #42
                          Find some time... and watch this...

                          All will become clear... they begin with religion, then 911 and then the financial and power structures in the world. It's best to see it completely... It's very confronting :

                          http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...eitgeist&hl=en

                          Comment

                          • ottyhotties
                            Confirmed User
                            • May 2005
                            • 188

                            #43
                            Originally posted by kahell
                            all the victims who died in war of Iraq (US soldiers ,Iraq people) should pursue war crimes against Bush!
                            Then we should prosecute the congressman and senators who funded the Iraq War all these years too should we not? Bush can't just magically create bullets by executive order can he, or pay for them without a Congress? Sucks too the country was ready for "change" and now Obama who as a Senator voting to fund the war and buy all those bullets which ultimately killed all those Iraqis will now have to be prosecuted.

                            That's why we don't prosecute official acts! In January the Bush administration is for the history books not the courts.

                            Comment

                            • PSSuperstars
                              Confirmed User
                              • Jan 2006
                              • 1477

                              #44
                              Originally posted by StickyGreen
                              When will people realize that Bush isn't necessarily responsible... he's just a fucking puppet who does what he's told...

                              People need to dig deeper.
                              Dig deeper to where, exactly?
                              and don't go quoting Zeitgeist or something.

                              Dig deeper to where?
                              Porn's Best Kept Secret : PSOCash.com : Make Money Promoting Phone Sex in Members Areas, TGPs, and MORE! : Lifetime 30% Payout
                              Best Webcam Referral Payouts

                              Comment

                              • iMind
                                Confirmed User
                                • Nov 2007
                                • 937

                                #45
                                Originally posted by PSSuperstars
                                Dig deeper to where, exactly?
                                and don't go quoting Zeitgeist or something.

                                Dig deeper to where?
                                Watch the bush years.

                                http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/docplayer_doczone.html

                                Comment

                                Working...