| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
TRUTH
Moderate Poster
Joined: 15 Feb 2006
Posts: 376
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:38 pm Post subject: Could Bush Be Prosecuted for War Crimes? |
 |
|
The extent to which American exceptionalism is embedded in the national psyche is awesome to behold.
While the United States is a country like any other, its citizens no more special than any others on the planet, Americans still react with amazed surprise at the suggestion that their country could be held responsible for something as heinous as a war crime.
From the massacre of more than 100,000 people in the Philippines to the first nuclear attack ever at Hiroshima to the unprovoked invasion of Baghdad, U.S.-sponsored violence doesn't feel as wrong and worthy of prosecution in internationally sanctioned criminal courts as the gory, bload-soaked atrocities of Congo, Darfur, Rwanda, and most certainly not the Nazis -- most certainly not. Howard Zinn recently described this as our "inability to think outside the boundaries of nationalism. We are penned in by the arrogant idea that this country is the center of the universe, exceptionally virtuous, admirable, superior."
Most Americans firmly believe there is nothing the United States or its political leadership could possibly do that could equate to the crimes of Hitler's Third Reich. The Nazis are our "gold standard of evil," as author John Dolan once put it.
But the truth is that we can, and we have -- most recently and significantly in Iraq. Perhaps no person on the planet is better equipped to identify and describe our crimes in Iraq than Benjamin Ferenccz, a former chief prosecutor of the Nuremberg Trials who successfully convicted 22 Nazi officers for their work in orchestrating death squads that killed more than one million people in the famous Einsatzgruppen Case. Ferencz, now 87, has gone on to become a founding father of the basis behind international law regarding war crimes, and his essays and legal work drawing from the Nuremberg trials and later the commission that established the International Criminal Court remain a lasting influence in that realm.
Ferencz's biggest contribution to the war crimes field is his assertion that an unprovoked or "aggressive" war is the highest crime against mankind. It was the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 that made possible the horrors of Abu Ghraib, the destruction of Fallouja and Ramadi, the tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths, civilian massacres like Haditha, and on and on. Ferencz believes that a "prima facie case can be made that the United States is guilty of the supreme crime against humanity, that being an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation."
Interviewed from his home in New York, Ferencz laid out a simple summary of the case:
"The United Nations charter has a provision which was agreed to by the United States formulated by the United States in fact, after World War II. Its says that from now on, no nation can use armed force without the permission of the U.N. Security Council. They can use force in connection with self-defense, but a country can't use force in anticipation of self-defense. Regarding Iraq, the last Security Council resolution essentially said, 'Look, send the weapons inspectors out to Iraq, have them come back and tell us what they've found -- then we'll figure out what we're going to do. The U.S. was impatient, and decided to invade Iraq -- which was all pre-arranged of course. So, the United States went to war, in violation of the charter."
It's that simple. Ferencz called the invasion a "clear breach of law," and dismissed the Bush administration's legal defense that previous U.N. Security Council resolutions dating back to the first Gulf War justified an invasion in 2003. Ferencz notes that the first Bush president believed that the United States didn't have a U.N. mandate to go into Iraq and take out Saddam Hussein; that authorization was simply to eject Hussein from Kuwait. Ferencz asked, "So how do we get authorization more than a decade later to finish the job? The arguments made to defend this are not persuasive."
Writing for the United Kingdom's Guardian, shortly before the 2003 invasion, international law expert Mark Littman echoed Ferencz: "The threatened war against Iraq will be a breach of the United Nations Charter and hence of international law unless it is authorized by a new and unambiguous resolution of the Security Council. The Charter is clear. No such war is permitted unless it is in self-defense or authorized by the Security Council."
Challenges to the legality of this war can also be found at the ground level. First Lt. Ehren Watada, the first U.S. commissioned officer to refuse to serve in Iraq, cites the rules of the U.N. Charter as a principle reason for his dissent.
Ferencz isn't using the invasion of Iraq as a convenient prop to exercise his longstanding American hatred: he has a decades-old paper trail of calls for every suspect of war crimes to be brought to international justice. When the United States captured Saddam Hussein in December 2003, Ferencz wrote that Hussein's offenses included "the supreme international crime of aggression, to a wide variety of crimes against humanity, and a long list of atrocities condemned by both international and national laws."
Ferencz isn't the first to make the suggestion that the United States has committed state-sponsored war crimes against another nation -- not only have leading war critics made this argument, but so had legal experts in the British government before the 2003 invasion. In a short essay in 2005, Ferencz lays out the inner deliberations of British and American officials as the preparations for the war were made:
U.K. military leaders had been calling for clear assurances that the war was legal under international law. They were very mindful that the treaty creating a new International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague had entered into force on July 1, 2002, with full support of the British government. Gen. Sir Mike Jackson, chief of the defense staff, was quoted as saying "I spent a good deal of time recently in the Balkans making sure Milosevic was put behind bars. I have no intention of ending up in the next cell to him in The Hague."
Ferencz quotes the British deputy legal adviser to the Foreign Ministry who, in the lead-up to the invasion, quit abruptly and wrote in her resignation letter: "I regret that I cannot agree that it is lawful to use force against Iraq without a second Security Council resolution … [A]n unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression; nor can I agree with such action in circumstances that are so detrimental to the international order and the rule of law."
While the United Kingdom is a signatory of the ICC, and therefore under jurisdiction of that court, the United States is not, thanks to a Republican majority in Congress that has "attacks on America's sovereignty" and "manipulation by the United Nations" in its pantheon of knee-jerk neuroses. Ferencz concedes that even though Britain and its leadership could be prosecuted, the international legal climate isn't at a place where justice is blind enough to try it -- or as Ferencz put it, humanity isn't yet "civilized enough to prevent this type of illegal behavior." And Ferencz said that while he believes the United States is guilty of war crimes, "the international community is not sufficiently organized to prosecute such a case. … There is no court at the moment that is competent to try that crime."
As Ferencz said, the world is still a long way away from establishing norms that put all nations under the rule of law, but the battle to do so is a worthy one: "There's no such thing as a war without atrocities, but war-making is the biggest atrocity of all."
The suggestion that the Bush administration's conduct in the "war on terror" amounts to a string of war crimes and human rights abuses is gaining credence in even the most ossified establishment circles of Washington. Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion in the recent Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ruling by the Supreme Court suggests that Bush's attempt to ignore the Geneva Conventions in his approved treatment of terror suspects may leave him open to prosecution for war crimes. As Sidney Blumenthal points out, the court rejected Bush's attempt to ignore Common Article 3, which bans "cruel treatment and torture [and] outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment."
And since Congress enacted the Geneva Conventions, making them the law of the United States, any violations that Bush or any other American commits "are considered 'war crimes' punishable as federal offenses," as Justice Kennedy wrote.
George W. Bush in the dock facing a charge of war crimes? That's well beyond the scope of possibility … or is it?
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/38604 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jane
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Aug 2005
Posts: 312
Location: Otley, West Yorks, England
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 5:06 pm Post subject: Nazis |
|
|
| Quote: | | Most Americans firmly believe there is nothing the United States or its political leadership could possibly do that could equate to the crimes of Hitler's Third Reich. The Nazis are our "gold standard of evil," as author John Dolan once put it. |
As many of your will already know, but I'm posting this as some people might not (I was astounded when I first heard this!). Many "Nazis" were taken straight over to work in America (if they weren't there already!) after the Second World War in order to help the Americans with "vitally important work" such as making nuclear weapons! This was called "Project Paperclip."I tried to post something here from a BBC website that didn't sound "too mad" yet how can you when its all mad?!!
I've heard of this before and thought it sounded ridiculous but now I can believe it:
| Quote: | | Added to this, the large number of still-secret Paperclip documents has led many people, including Nick Cook, Aerospace Consultant at Jane's Defence Weekly, to speculate that the US may have developed even more advanced Nazi technology, including anti-gravity devices, a potential source of vast amounts of free energy. Cook says that such technology "could be so destructive that it would endanger world peace and the US decided to keep it secret for a long time". |
Full article:
Project Paperclip: Dark side of the Moon
By Andrew Walker BBC News
| Quote: | Sixty years ago the US hired Nazi scientists to lead pioneering projects, such as the race to conquer space. These men provided the US with cutting-edge technology which still leads the way today, but at a cost. The end of World War II saw an intense scramble for Nazi Germany's many technological secrets. The Allies vied to plunder as much equipment and expertise as possible from the rubble of the Thousand Year Reich for themselves, while preventing others from doing the same. The range of Germany's technical achievement astounded Allied scientific intelligence experts accompanying the invading forces in 1945. Wernher von Braun: Nasa icon and former SS officer
Supersonic rockets, nerve gas, jet aircraft, guided missiles, stealth technology and hardened armour were just some of the groundbreaking technologies developed in Nazi laboratories, workshops and factories, even as Germany was losing the war. And it was the US and the Soviet Union which, in the first days of the Cold War, found themselves in a race against time to uncover Hitler's scientific secrets. In May 1945, Stalin's legions secured the atomic research labs at the prestigious Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in the suburbs of Berlin, giving their master the kernel of what would become the vast Soviet nuclear arsenal. US forces removed V-2 missiles from the vast Nordhausen complex, built under the Harz Mountains in central Germany, just before the Soviets took over the factory, in what would become their area of occupation. And the team which had built the V-2, led by Wernher von Braun, also fell into American hands. Crimes Shortly afterwards Major-General Hugh Knerr, deputy commander of the US Air Force in Europe, wrote: "Occupation of German scientific and industrial establishments has revealed the fact that we have been alarmingly backward in many fields of research. "If we do not take the opportunity to seize the apparatus and the brains that developed it and put the combination back to work promptly, we will remain several years behind while we attempt to cover a field already exploited." Thus began Project Paperclip, the US operation which saw von Braun and more than 700 others spirited out of Germany from under the noses of the US's allies. Its aim was simple: "To exploit German scientists for American research and to deny these intellectual resources to the Soviet Union." Arthur Rudolph: "100% Nazi"
Events moved rapidly. President Truman authorised Paperclip in August 1945 and, on 18 November, the first Germans reached America. There was, though, one major problem. Truman had expressly ordered that anyone found "to have been a member of the Nazi party and more than a nominal participant in its activities, or an active supporter of Nazism militarism" would be excluded. Under this criterion even von Braun himself, the man who masterminded the Moon shots, would have been ineligible to serve the US. A member of numerous Nazi organisations, he also held rank in the SS. His initial intelligence file described him as "a security risk". And von Braun's associates included: · Arthur Rudolph, chief operations director at Nordhausen, where 20,000 slave labourers died producing V-2 missiles. Led the team which built the Saturn V rocket. Described as "100 per cent Nazi, dangerous type". · Kurt Debus, rocket launch specialist, another SS officer. His report stated: "He should be interned as a menace to the security of the Allied Forces." · Hubertus Strughold, later called "the father of space medicine", designed Nasa's on-board life-support systems. Some of his subordinates conducted human "experiments" at Dachau and Auschwitz, where inmates were frozen and put into low-pressure chambers, often dying in the process. All of these men were cleared to work for the US, their alleged crimes covered up and their backgrounds bleached by a military which saw winning the Cold War, and not upholding justice, as its first priority. And the paperclip which secured their new details in their personnel files gave the whole operation its name. Sixty years on, the legacy of Paperclip remains as vital as ever. With its radar-absorbing carbon impregnated plywood skin and swept-back single wing, the 1944 Horten Ho 229 was arguably the first stealth aircraft. The Stealth bomber: Based on a 1944 German design
The US military made one available to Northrop Aviation, the company which would produce the $2bn B-2 Stealth bomber - to all intents and purposes a modern clone of the Horten - a generation later. Cruise missiles are still based on the design of the V-1 missile and the scramjets powering Nasa's state-of-the-art X-43 hypersonic aircraft owe much to German jet pioneers. Added to this, the large number of still-secret Paperclip documents has led many people, including Nick Cook, Aerospace Consultant at Jane's Defence Weekly, to speculate that the US may have developed even more advanced Nazi technology, including anti-gravity devices, a potential source of vast amounts of free energy. Cook says that such technology "could be so destructive that it would endanger world peace and the US decided to keep it secret for a long time". But, while celebrating the undoubted success of Project Paperclip, many will prefer to remember the thousands who died to send mankind into space. |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4443934.stm
_________________
Romans 12:2 Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.
http://www.wytruth.org.uk/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leiff
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 509
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
'Cook says that such technology "could be so destructive that it would
endanger world peace and the US decided to keep it secret for a long
time".'
'The Brave New World of Scalar Electromagnetics
I guess the first thing to try to comprehend is that a "new" kind of
electromagnetic (EM) wave has been discovered in the empty vacuum of
space which, when engineered, can be an inexhaustible supply of energy
in great magnitude at any place in the universe. The word "new" is in
quotes because the discovery really goes back to Nikola Tesla and his
discovery of what he called "radiant energy." It is also not "new"
because the Russians (KGB) have been working on this technology for
over 30 years and have weaponized these "new" longitudinal scalar
waves to a great degree.
Some Immediate Implications
The implications of successful engineering of the longitudinal waves
are enormous, and will change the world as we know it, one way or
another. Among other things, these discoveries mean that:
1. The solutions to the energy crisis and the "oil problem" are in
hand. These oil wars are unnecessary. There is endless energy available
freely from the domain of time.
2. Unbelievably powerful weapons are not only possible, but are already
operating in several nations. The many powers of these weapons are
unprecedented and mind-boggling.
3. The cure of diseases such as cancer and AIDS, in fact nearly any
disease, has become possible within a few years of sufficient funding.
Everyone can be made healthy and stay healthy.
4. Mind control on a mass scale has now become possible, and the
machines to do it are already in place in certain nations. It has
become possible to mentally enslave whole populations with the twist of
a few dials.'
http://www.prahlad.org/pub/bearden/scalar_wars.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
navyseal2009
Minor Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ok first off its alot easier to sit in the UK and type all kinds of conspiracy theorys. but take it from someone who actualy lives in the U.S. Bush has not commited any war crimes, he may not be the greatest president but a war crimnal no. Now as to the war in iraq we are completly justified and we didnt have to sit around and wait for th U.N to make a descion . Why you ask. Because simply put we have the military power needed to do it |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
navyseal2009
Minor Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| oh and project paperclip are you kidding me thats the dumbest thing ive ever heard |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Newspeak International
Validated Poster
Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 1158
Location: South Essex
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| navyseal2009 wrote: | | oh and project paperclip are you kidding me thats the dumbest thing ive ever heard |
C'mon it's on the BBC's website so it must be true NS! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Newspeak International
Validated Poster
Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 1158
Location: South Essex
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| navyseal2009 wrote: | | ..... as to the war in iraq we are completly justified and we didnt have to sit around and wait for th U.N to make a descion . Why you ask. Because simply put we have the military power needed to do it |
To attack Iraq on what grounds?
We'd really like to know your answer to justify the carnage going on over there,from someone "who knows" in the States?
NI |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kbo234
Validated Poster
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| navyseal2009 wrote: | | Now as to the war in iraq we are completly justified |
On second thoughts, comment removed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leiff
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 509
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hey Navy Seal
Is it true that your HQ (Navy Seals Lair) is in the shape of a swastika? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Some stuff kind of relevant to this posted to the scholars forum. The video is interesting, but wordy etc.
=============
The Supreme Court- Disbanded!?!?
This is my first post here, so I will try to heep it nice and simple,
not waste anyones time if this topic has already been expounded apon.
I have been aware of the coverup of 9-11 since the very first days
after, but I have been in some sort of denial- without a community like
this I even began to wonder if I had completely lost my mind, if I had
experienced a paranoid break with reality.
The recent supreme court decision of Hamden VS. Rumsfeld, and the
resultant reaction (or lack thereof) by the media and the bush
administration served to galvanize me into action.
If you have not read the 80 page opinion of the court, then I URGE
everyone here to do just that. It is available on the supreme court
website.
The supreme court has essentially ruled that the entire "war on
terror"- to the extent that it violates the constitution, the body
of common law, or the common articles of the Geneva Conventions- is
illegal and must end immediately.
Let me repeat that in even simpler terms: The supreme court has, in the
clearest terms they could muster, named George Bush and his cronies as
the war criminals they have become. (at least if they dont immediately
cease and desist- the decision is unclear as to retroactivity, although
since the court was merely confirming a previously existant body of law,
i am not sure they even need to specify retroactivity)
And yet, the media is silent. Bush claims that the Hamden vs. Rumsfeld
case actually supports Guantanimo and all his other secret prisons and
spy programs. Still the media is silent.
Now it apears that this decision may blow over, since even alternative
media has dropped the ball on this one.
The supreme court, the highest court in the land, has ruled against the
neocon agenda and we must support them!
Five out of nine of the Justices have sided with truth and morality but
IF THIS DECISION GETS IGNORED THE SUPREME COURT MIGHT AS WELL DISBANDED.
We will have lost one of the last bastions of goodness in our federal
government, and we will be one step closer to a permanent police state.
Currently, the supreme court is out on a 3 month recess and I wonder how
many of those five will return, or will one find reason to retire or
have a sudden heart attack? Bush only needs one more friendly justice in
the court and he controlls it.
Please read the decision and if you happen to have legal expertise
please post your analasys here, even if you disagree with my reading of
the court's opinion.
Thanks to all who read this, seek truth, and do something about it.
|
Re: The Supreme Court- Disbanded!?!?
Link
to pdf file here
Edited by: katncandy
at: 7/10/06 9:11 am
|
Re: The Supreme Court- Disbanded!?!?
The only mention of the alternate repercussions of the Hamdan decision
that I've read appeared very short, basically stating something like
"this is important, this could possibly challenge other assumptions
of power that the government has accepted," but nothing more.
I'd like to see the footage of Justice Stevens ripping apart Alito's (I
think it was his) statement or argument or whatnot. Apparently the
90-something year-old WWII veteran tore into that whipper-snapper's BS
excuses and justifications.
|
Re: The Supreme Court- Disbanded!?!?
Yeah, in certain sections the authors seem to be speaking out directly
to the american people as if they knew that they would be ignored by the
president, by congress, and by the "free" press.
The court knows, just as we do, that if the current administration can
simply ignore this decision by the highest court of the land then they
will be able to ignore any future decisions as they choose. The supreme
court will then be effectively disbanded. If this happens then we will
have lost one of our last methods of redress with the executive branch.
I believe that the court was vividly aware of this when they wrote this
80 page opinion and that is why they went so far beyond simply ruling on
the merits of the Hamden case, instead expounding for page after page on
the many ways in which bushes actions and the actions of his
administrations amount to crimes of war under the geneva conventions AND
the US Constitution.
The justices have risked their lives in doing this, and we must not let
it fall on deaf ears. The Court has just begun a three month recess
(immediately after the Hamden decision) and I would be surprised if all
five of the Justices return in the fall. If bush gets to nominate just
one more justice then he will have a majority and we lose this
oportunity- forever.
|
Re: The Supreme Court- Disbanded!?!?
This defies words. I've posted this around a bit to get the word out.
|
Re: The Supreme Court- Disbanded!?!?
www.c-span.org/homepage.a...veDays=365
Panel discussion at Georgetown University regarding the case...I'm
watching it now. I wish I could get the actual supreme court hearing.
|
Re: The Supreme Court- Disbanded!?!?
Just a little more info I learned...
According to Neal Katyal, Lead Plaintiff Attorney for the case (and
registered bad-@#%$), the military tribunals have indicted TEN people,
and have tried no one. On top of that, 95% of evidence used in the
trials are detainees statements obtained through, well, torture.
|
Re: The Supreme Court- Disbanded!?!?
prisonplanet has covered this pretty well, but you're right, it's been
pushed under the rug. not a surprise since the MSM is complicit in the
9/11 coverup.
bottom line, we dont need the ussc to tell us Bush and his cronies are
some of the biggest criminals in american history. it helps to have it
on paper though........patriot
|
Re: The Supreme Court- Disbanded!?!?
Wow! thanks for the C-span link steve!
This totally confirms my interpretation of the document!
third speaker (rick vasquez, starting on about 26 minutes into the
video) is where it starts to get really juicy! This could throw the
entire neocon agenda into jeapardy!
This HAS to become common knowledge!
|
Re: The Supreme Court- Disbanded!?!?
The next speaker goes on to say that "anyone who has participated
in it has committed a federal felony" punishable by life in prison
or.... death.
He said it, not me.
|
| |
Re: The Supreme Court- Disbanded!?!?
that happened to me as well, this may happen with Firefox as rtsp
protocol is usually handled by Real Player.
Solution?
rtsp://video.c-span.org/archive/sc/sc063006_scotus.rm
or
http://video.c-span.org/archive/sc/sc063006_scotus.rm
or
video.c-span.org/archive/sc/sc063006_scotus.rm
or
rtsp://video.c-span.org/archive/sc/sc063006_scotus.rm <--- paste into
Replayer...
Edited by: imgstacke
at: 7/10/06 1:49 pm
|
Re: The Supreme Court- Disbanded!?!?
My wife and I listened to "The New Yorker"'s Jane Mayer being
interviewed on NPR's "Fresh Air" as we drove across Wyoming.
www.npr.org/templates/sto...Id=5535251
The person in question is David Addington.
He is Cheney's Chief of Staff and longtime principal legal advisor. The
policies that the Supreme Court struck down were principally authored by
Addington. Mayer said that the article was hard to research because
everyone is VERY afraid of David Addington. Karl Rove is nothing
compared to this guy. The Supreme Court's ruling is very much a personal
slap to him. He won't just let it slide.
THE HIDDEN POWER
The legal mind behind the White House’s war on terror.
by JANE MAYER
Issue of 2006-07-03
Posted 2006-06-26
The
Hidden Power
The first three paragraphs of a long article:
Quote:
On December 18th, Colin Powell, the former Secretary of State, joined
other prominent Washington figures at FedEx Field, the Redskins’
stadium, in a skybox belonging to the team’s owner. During the
game, between the Redskins and the Dallas Cowboys, Powell spoke of a
recent report in the Times which revealed that President Bush, in his
pursuit of terrorists, had secretly authorized the National Security
Agency to eavesdrop on American citizens without first obtaining a
warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as required
by federal law. This requirement, which was instituted by Congress in
1978, after the Watergate scandal, was designed to protect civil
liberties and curb abuses of executive power, such as Nixon’s
secret monitoring of political opponents and the F.B.I.’s
eavesdropping on Martin Luther King, Jr. Nixon had claimed that as
President he had the “inherent authority� to spy on people
his Administration deemed enemies, such as the anti-Vietnam War
activist Daniel Ellsberg. Both Nixon and the institution of the
Presidency had paid a high price for this assumption. But, according
to the Times, since 2002 the legal checks that Congress constructed to
insure that no President would repeat Nixon’s actions had been
secretly ignored.
According to someone who knows Powell, his comment about the article
was terse. “It’s Addington,� he said. “He
doesn’t care about the Constitution.� Powell was
referring to David S. Addington, Vice-President Cheney’s chief
of staff and his longtime principal legal adviser. Powell’s
office says that he does not recall making the statement. But his
former top aide, Lawrence Wilkerson, confirms that he and Powell
shared this opinion of Addington.
Most Americans, even those who follow politics closely, have probably
never heard of Addington. But current and former Administration
officials say that he has played a central role in shaping the
Administration’s legal strategy for the war on terror. Known as
the New Paradigm, this strategy rests on a reading of the Constitution
that few legal scholars share—namely, that the President, as
Commander-in-Chief, has the authority to disregard virtually all
previously known legal boundaries, if national security demands it.
Under this framework, statutes prohibiting torture, secret detention,
and warrantless surveillance have been set aside. A former
high-ranking Administration lawyer who worked extensively on
national-security issues said that the Administration’s legal
positions were, to a remarkable degree, “all Addington.�
Another lawyer, Richard L. Shiffrin, who until 2003 was the Pentagon’s
deputy general counsel for intelligence, said that Addington was “an
unopposable force.�
Chris
Edited by: SteelGarden
at: 7/11/06 6:11 am
|
Re: The Supreme Court- Disbanded!?!?
This stuff really gets to me. I have it now and will take it with to DC.
Please come along and help present this along with the tons of other
transgressions proving that the government is not what we think it is.
I am going to DC on Sept 11 to start to gather the angered Americans and
educated them to all the frauds and lies. Come along and help. I cannot
do this alone. Information like this has to be there. We need to do
this.
Stop the parades and get to the Assembly. This can only happen once,
lets go.
www.911citizenscourt.com
People's Grand Jury Sept 11,
DC
|
911
Eyewitness News
|
Rick Siegel
|
Re: The Supreme Court- Disbanded!?!?
I would love to join the group going to DC on september 11. Is there a
list of those attending that I should sign onto, or will we all just
show up?
If anyone else is driving from or through central Indiana I would love
to share a rental car.
|
Re: The Supreme Court- Disbanded!?!?
no need to sign a list, the only one's that would have any interest
would be our counter-intelligence friends.
I am bring the topic up in conversations amongst the circles am in. I
may not be a very visable person locally but people have always listened
to what I say on any topic. The awareness level amongst the public is
still very low... But people's eyes light up when they here that a large
protest is going to go down on the 9/11/06.
RE: the SCOTUS
I thought the ruling reaffirmed the seperation of powers and handed the
authority back to the congress where it belonged. Unfortunetly they are
not going to do anything until September...
Are there any documents/quotes from the adminstration concerning how
they see the ruling? I have not been following this as deeply as I
should.
|
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alkmyst
Moderate Poster
Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 177
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:41 pm Post subject: Geopolitics for Rednecks |
|
|
navyseal2009 wrote:
| Quote: | | Bush has not commited any war crimes, he may not be the greatest president but a war crimnal no. Now as to the war in iraq we are completly justified and we didnt have to sit around and wait for th U.N to make a descion . Why you ask. Because simply put we have the military power needed to do it |
Navyseal2009 is probably a recent graduate of the Texas A&M course on Global Politics for Rednecks. Jeff Foxworthy would be real proud of ya, Bubba.
Now you'd better get in yer truck and go sink a beer or three before your draft papers arrive on the doormat of yer trailer.
Just one word of advice, boy... pack some extra underwear; cos yer gonna get an opportunity to see just how tight you can squeeze those sphincter muscles when you're in downtown Baghdad....and my guess is, it ain't gonna be tight enough!
Then when (or if) you get back home, write again and tell us that George W. Bush ain't committed no war crime.
May God forgive them ....even though those sick Mothers know exactly what they are doin'!
Last edited by alkmyst on Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:44 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Abandoned Ego
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 288
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:42 pm Post subject: FAO Navy seal. |
|
|
For the attention of navy seal and all other interested parties.
Should Bush and Blair be charged with War crimes ?
Well, courtesy of a link found either on here or some similar site, I was linked to a google video of a great man called Rob Newman.
To paraphrase him.
Those Nazis who carried the can at the Nurembourg trials -(Those who weren't recruited into the NSA which later became the CIA courtesy of PROJECT PAPERCLIP) - were charged with
Conducting a premeditated pre-emptive war of Aggression.
Now anyone who KNOWS their stuff about the WMD LIES should draw the obvious conclusion that this is precisely what BUSH and BLIAR did.
Whens the first hearing ? Soon I hope ! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PercyPenguin
Minor Poster
Joined: 31 May 2006
Posts: 23
Location: So, how did you write elastic man?
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| No one has got hold of Henry Kissinger yet, so I am afraid the chances of W being done for war crimes are nil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
navyseal2009
Minor Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| In response to the numerous bashings. First I may not know all the little details of the war but it is still easier to sit over there and type all sorts of stupid stuff .Second yes we were wrong about the WMDs ill admit it. But the threat that saddam did have WMDs was great enough that we needed to do somthing to make sure he could not use them if he had them. But lets face it, it was only a matter of time before the crazy arabs did somthing else that would cause us to level the region . In response to Newspeak International if it was said on the news it must be true. Are you kidding me the news lies all the time even over here. And to all you american bashers whining about somthing or another, Did you know that what England did during world war I is why the arabs hate us. You guys promised them freedom if they rebelled aginst the arab princes who ruled them. But when they rebelled you guys didnt give them their freedom and thats why they dont like us nor do they trust us. And to the people making fun of Bush because they seem to think it offends me, I dont care, so save the space for people who have intelligent things to say ive already said that he may not be the greatest president but a war crimnial no. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
navyseal2009
Minor Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| one more thing to consider if we had found weapons every single one of you would be singing a completly different tune |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Newspeak International
Validated Poster
Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 1158
Location: South Essex
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
navyseal, my news comment was tongue in cheek, as we all know by now
the media by and large, are not covering the news as they should be.
You will not find many allies for the "war on terror" on this forum.
If you look around this site you will see "all those little details" you mention you may not know, may be answered.
If you are truly in the dark and you do this, beware it's not a comfortable watch.
Peace
NI |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leiff
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 509
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
navyseal, you can't tell us anything about the evidence for WMD in Iraq as it was our illustrious leader who cooked up the 'dodgy dossier' which made the fictitious case for WMD in the first place.
The people alive in Britain today cannot be held responsible for actions taken after WWI. Just because we share the same nationality with some of the evil oligarchs in the world today, it doesn't mean that we agree with or support them.
One more thing for you to consider is that we didn't find any WMD in Iraq. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| navyseal2009 wrote: | | one more thing to consider if we had found weapons every single one of you would be singing a completly different tune |
Not quite. I didnt give a damn about WMD. I thought they WOULD find some, or at least plant some. I was against the war because it was about Israel, contracts, control of resources and turning Iraq in to a basketcase nation, fit to be the staging post for future wars of aggression. So how about you stop presuming that "every single one of us" is brain dead enough to be unable to see past the arguements that we're meant to fall for.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Actually, come to think of it, what is your motive for being here Navyseal? Are you just here to blow off some of that thick-neck steam you've obviously built up or have you come here to actually learn anything? I feel pretty certain it is not the latter. I've seen your type before on forums, you interject in the middle of a valid and interesting conversation with hate speech and rhetoric that, as i'm sure you're aware, gets people going, and the original nature of the topic is lost.
I've only just joined here but i can feel certain that you WILL NOT change anyones mind here unless you come backed up with KNOWLEDGE and FACTS. Likewise, you have already made your little mind up on these matters so why bother? Why not just spew your nonsense somewhere where you'll be thanked.
| navyseal2009 wrote: | | oh and project paperclip are you kidding me thats the dumbest thing ive ever heard |
Nuff said for f**k sake.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Newspeak International
Validated Poster
Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 1158
Location: South Essex
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So much for my softly, softly approach\0/
I just see it as this guy may be genuinely in the dark, and the first post that catches his eye is the attack on his president.
We would have known soon enough,so why the rush to condemn?
Just a thought!
N |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeh maybe ur right. Sorry, but i'm damn sure i know this Navyseal2009 guy from somewhere. I'm CERTAIN ive read some crazy neo-con ramblings by a guy called Navyseal.
I guess i'm just sick of trying to get through to people who are either following some kind of agenda or are so hopelessly doped up by the system that they'll never be reached.
I'd far rather expend my energies on those who show signs of reason and critical thinking. Once those people are converted, they become true fighters for the cause.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Newspeak International
Validated Poster
Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 1158
Location: South Essex
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Strange for NS to come in on a war post,as opposed to a conspiracy
angled post.
Which makes me think he may be genuine,at least give the benefit of the doubt to start with at least!
He could have become a friend eventually, but he may be frightened off now.
N |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
navyseal2009
Minor Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Well thank you for at the very least the benifit of the doubt. and even though as you people said i will not find any allies on the war on terrorisim i belive its the war in iraq you are thinking of. because terroisim reaches even you people in the UK(london bus and subway bombing). Now as far as iraq goes You are completly right we did not WMDs. but if saddam did have them do you relly think anyones safe from a dictator that gassed his own people. But back to the topic should bush be convicted of war crimes no. And heres why I am convinced that bush did belive he had WMDs and he was infact looking out for his country. misguided mabe but a war crimnal hardley. But also as i stated before its alot easier to type what you would or wouldnt do then actualy do it. as far as calling me a nazi please save the space for intelligent conversation because im pretty sure even you dont belive im a nazi as we both now what the nazis belived and did |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
navyseal2009
Minor Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| side note: the info bush recived may have been faulty becuse of your intelligence people. but it was what was presented to him by an ally who has and hopefully will continue to be exstremly helpful as far as batteling terriosts are concerned |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Newspeak International
Validated Poster
Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 1158
Location: South Essex
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OK ns, have you looked at the mass of information on this site?
I think not.
If you continue on this path even I will ignore you! as you haven't taken in the basic premise of the truth.
The fact that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition, negates any questions you may have on any subject pertaining to the war on Iraq, or anywhere else for that matter.
Look at the evidence.
NI |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
navyseal2009
Minor Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 10:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ok i tried to be nice but i cant take it anymore. You morons you complete and total morons did you miss the two massive 747s crash into the side of the f***ing buildings. controlled demolition my ass. why in the hell would we do that to ourselves. Are you that stupid to think we would do that to ourselves . i tried to be open when i came to this site i thought you people might disscus intelligent things. do you relly think a 110 story(fact) building built in 1966(fact) could withstand a 180 ton(fact) airplane carrying 241 140 litres of airplane fuel(fact). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
navyseal2009
Minor Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 10:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
*** note not a boeing 747 but a 767***
my mistake |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Newspeak International
Validated Poster
Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 1158
Location: South Essex
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think you'll find the towers were built in the early seventies,and could withstand multiple impacts of 707's,which were the largest of their kind at the time.
The aircraft that crashed into the towers were 757's, not 747's
NI
edit: insults removed
Last edited by Newspeak International on Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:52 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Newspeak International
Validated Poster
Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 1158
Location: South Essex
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You're mistake twice!!
Have a look at the evidence |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dodgy
Minor Poster
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 78
Location: Newcastle
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| navyseal2009 wrote: | | do you relly think a 110 story(fact) building built in 1966(fact) could withstand a 180 ton(fact) airplane carrying 241 140 litres of airplane fuel(fact). |
Yes they could(fact).
They were designed to be able to withstand multiple 707's hitting them.
Read this: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html - then come back to argue your point.
*edit - jinxed!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
