Bush Claims More Powers Than King George III

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by kdial1

 

While I agree that Georgey poo here has broken many laws (except voiding the Geneva Convention which he had the right to do) I don't think we can exactly .. just yet .. say that he was worse then George the Third.

No one said he was worse, they said he had more power.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by kleverone

 

If we are going to act as the world police, then we should at least respect international law. It's called setting an example for the rest of the world to follow.

Please ... explain to me what "International Law" is..

Show me the "laws" ..

Show me the legislator that put them in place..

Show me WHO enforces said laws.....

Just, you know, show me International Law. Liberals love to banter on and on about International Law like it exist, so it should be easy to prove???

You act as if there is a higher power that has to enforces these agreements for them to be real? Are you the kid in school who only obeyed the rules if someone was around to enforce them?

You better believe that if we keep it up, China and Russia would be more than happy to step up and enforce these laws that you dismiss so easily.

Show me the law that says you have to pay taxes........then don't pay them and see what happens.

These are not the same laws created for individuals they are created as a guideline of morality to keep countries in line. It is simply up the the other Countries to enforce them, and it's people like you who talk smack and don't ever expect anyone to call us out, simply because "we can't show you a law"

That is called hiding behind semantics, sure you can do it...I just doubt that you will like the response you get.



[edit on 29-5-2008 by kleverone]

reply to post by kleverone

You act as if there is a higher power that has to enforces these agreements for them to be real?

Well .. ahem .. your kinda missing the point mate.

OK you got a Law. What makes it a Law? Specifically you know, a Law? Enforcement.

A law is a "rule" so to speak, that is created through some sort of entity. This entity could be a single person (dictatorship) or it could be a voted body (legislature). To make it a binding Law, or rule, there must be a way to enforce said rule. If the US Government says "It's illegal to ride your bike on a highway" it means nothing, I can go ride my bike on the high way all day long is I so please. Unless a cop stops me and removes me from the highway.

Second part of a Law is there must be a consequence to the law.. the enforceing body, backed by an institution must have some form of punishment. I ride my bike on the highway, I get fined, jailed, tasered, it doesn't matter what, so long as something happens. Else I tell the cop to screw off and ride on my marry lil way.

If the US is bound by a "law" be it International or even self imposed (which makes no sense logically) there must be a consequence for breaking it, and there must be a entity to enact that punishment.

America establishes a "form of International Law" by enacting it's own foreign policy unto others. For instance, Iraq had WMD's. Didn't matter if they did or not, it doesn't matter.. so long as we say they do they are guilty of breaking OUR imposed rule. We had the power to man handle them, force the international community to back us and essentially did as we please.

Take Israel for example. They have nukes. No one is going to try and take them away, because they have the world's 3rd strongest Army. So who can force them to do something? Britain and the US can, but politically and strategically that makes no sense at all. They however have the power to impose THEIR own rules unto others, simply because they are stronger.

Think of it this way. All the World is Anarchy.

You have hundreds of little states, big countries and countless Nations.

However, there is NO overhead governing force that governs all these Countries. And the Countries have a hard time controlling the Nations.

So who decides who gets to make the rules, break the rules, or ignore them entirely? Survival of the fittest comes into play. A small Country cannot tell a big Country what to do. Imagine Jamaica imposing world wide sanctions on America.. mm, don't think that would fly. Now America could impose sanctions against Jamaica with the flick of a pen.

Then there is something called a Treaty. A treaty, which must be agreed upon by the law making body of the US Government, is essentially a international agreement (or interstate) that says "this is the standard". Like the Nuclear None Proliferation Treaty.

But.. we CAN break it. We can just one day op not to follow it.. no one can force any Country to bend it's ways to the ways of another, unless the Country that is imposing this is stronger and can risk war. Hence, we can force Iran to abide by the NNPT because we could dismantle their government in a few weeks. However, we cannot force countries like India, China, Russia, Pakistan, France, Britain or Israel. Because strategically it is not feasible. It's possible, not probable.

Very few treaties are ever followed, by the way.

Are you the kid in school who only obeyed the rules if someone was around to enforce them?

I was the kid in school who only obeyed the rules if someone was there, yes. I am not going to impose rules unto my self now am I? Take the fun out of life, that would.

You better believe that if we keep it up, China and Russia would be more than happy to step up and enforce these laws that you dismiss so easily.

No, they wouldn't actually. China's military is mostly ground troops. At the time of the first Gulf War Iraq had the Worlds fourth largest army. It was decimated because it was mostly ground troops. Men with guns, standing in formation against superior technology = massacre. Russia can hardly play ball in their own back yard without catching # for everything they do. Why the hell do you think they could "force" anything from the US government?

Especially since both countries break the same treaties we do.

Show me the law that says you have to pay taxes........then don't pay them and see what happens.

Perfect example of an Imposed Law. There does not need to be anything written, because a structured entity with the force there to enact a punishment tells me I have to pay my taxes.

That is called hiding behind semantics, sure you can do it...I just doubt that you will like the response you get.

Well when you get done showing me "International Law" you can show me the force that is supposed to enact a punishment on America for breaking these mystical Laws of yours.

PS: If you can't prove a law exist, it quite simply does not exist. There is no gray, it is black and white.

[edit on 5/29/2008 by Rockpuck]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Amnesty International?

Since when were they authorized to set US policy.

The one thing that impressed me about Bush in that interview is the way he took command of it and kept Lauer on the defensive.

I also like how articulate he was and how he refused to waiver under Lauer's repeated attempts to trip up the president.

This is not the president we see in the sound bites on David Letterman.

This is not the president that liberals love to ridicule, although the ridicule continues even in the face of evidence that Bush is a strong leader.

The Bush in that interview is the kind of man we needed to put terrorists around he world on the run and to retreat into caves in remote parts of the world.

This is the kind of man who refused stand by while our enemies planned and executed even more attacks on the US.

Bush is my kind of president.

Approval ratings won't amount to a hill of beans in twenty, thirty, or forty years from now.

Harry Truman was thought to be one of the worst presidents in history until somewhere in the 70s or 80s, when his administration was examined in a more dispassionate way by historians.

When the hate-filled bloggers have found something more important to do with their lives and when the journalists have other prey in their sites, it will be the evidence that will be examined by objective historians, far removed from the emotions of our time who will understand just how strong a leader GW Bush is.

Leadership is not a popularity contest.

[edit on 2008/5/29 by GradyPhilpott]

With all due respect to your opinion GP;

The question of whether an international body such as Amnesty International can set US policy is a bit of a stretch. Simply because they have a stated mission:

Amnesty International (USA) website

"... focused on preventing and ending grave abuses of the rights to physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and expression, and freedom from discrimination, within the context of its work to promote all human rights."

and have a considerable membership within the USA gives them, at the very least, the same freedom to express their misgivings (as an organization recognized within the US) as anyone else in this country. I don;t think you can eliminate the validity of the concern because the organization bears the word "international' in it, any more than you can assign governmental authority to a bank by placing the word 'Federal' in the title.

The interview is clearly exemplary of the Bush Administration methodology for dealing with it's own transgressions ... decry them as invalid, irrelevant, immaterial, and inappropriate. The technique works like a charm during campaigning when the object is to minimize criticisms and move on to the next 'issue' - but once in office - you know 'doing the actual job' - you must expect and be obliged to deal with the objections in a more meaningful manner than - "na na na I'm not listening to you, na na na!"

The actual voice of the people so rarely gets addressed by this president that it is disheartening to hear him use sophistic 'campaigning' techniques to skirt responsibility for a decision he took. He frequently repeats the meme "attack your families", invoking the fear demon that ran out of steam long ago for in my opinion the majority of this nation.

The problem with his presidential style is simple. He seems to behave as if the nation were 'his' property, and he shouldn't have to answer for anything once he has 'decided'. I don't think that's part of leadership, that's more part of 'ruling.'

If you think that you can attribute some positive traits based on this 'interview' I might note the body language tells a tale of its own. The reporter was obviously cautious and did his best to pursue the claim 'within the law' mentioned by Bush. I'm not sure 'trip him up' is an accurate representation of what the interviewer was attempting to do - The difference being that he was attempting to interview him - Bush wanted to simply make a statement and be done with it - no exchanges, no amplifications, no enhancements to the 'statement'. Clearly we disagree on the merits of Bush's 'argumentative style' here.

I also disagree that Bush is "the kind of man we needed to put terrorists around he world on the run...," etc. Frankly, I believe from your prior postings (which I enjoyed thoroughly by the way), you have confronted the infamouse list of Osama bin Laden's "objectives" regarding his 'operations' mostly all of which have come true with some apparent assistance from us. Yet the incredible sacrifice's for our 'safety' that this president and his cabinet have extracted from us have yielded virtually nothing more than marginal success - and even then - only theoretically - since what the media reports is highly suspect at this point in history.

Speaking of history. I am not concerned with whether apologists will be able to cast a kinder gentler light on the actions of George Bush, my country is suffering now and we can foresee future suffering based on his policies and actions. Future history is something for the philosophers and poets to consider, NOT leaders of nations.

[edit on 29-5-2008 by Maxmars]

Originally posted by kleverone
If we are going to act as the world police...

This is another example of how far the corrupted government violates the very same Supreme Law of the Land (ie: the Constitution) even against the very same Oath/Affirmation that legally binds them to obey it.
There's nothing in the Constitution that "authorizes" any Branch or Office in government to act as World Police. Since the government's "powers" are explicit, directly specified & strictly limited, then the government must abide by those terms...Not grab at new powers, not violate terms that exist, not act beyond what powers are specified.

"Executive Orders" are a means to usurp Legislative Powers, "Sovereign Immunity" is a means to usurp the power of Judiciary to apply Justice, "Executive Privilege" is a smokescreen to grab other powers from their rightful places, the Patriot Act violates the Bill of Rights, the US membership in the United Nations violates the limitations on treaty-making powers (at best, we could have some sort of Associates Treaty, but not any official Membership)...How many more examples need to be shoved down the collective Public throats before the People as a whole realize that the government is full of criminals?

For example, from Maxmar's quote:

Originally posted by Maxmars
The question of whether an international body such as Amnesty International can set US policy is a bit of a stretch. Simply because they have a stated mission:
Amnesty International (USA) website

"... focused on preventing and ending grave abuses of the rights to physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and expression, and freedom from discrimination, within the context of its work to promote all human rights."

This sounds like something that's within the US government's power to make treaties...As long as Amnesty International "laws" do not violate Constitutional Laws, then certain specified AI's terms can be enforced within the USA by treaty. However, treaties made by the USA cannot be enforced as valid if any terms of that treaty violate Constitutional Law...Such treaties are illegal.
For example, Bush claims the power to suspend the Geneva Conventions...But the terms of the Geneva Conventions are directly "in-line" with the terms of the Constitution, so they should be enforced by legal USA Treaty...By merely claiming the power to suspend the Conventions, Bush is committing the crime of "conspiracy to violate a legal treaty" & if he actually violates any terms of the Conventions, then he becomes a criminal who has actually violates Constitutional Law & the treaty itself.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
OK you got a Law. What makes it a Law? Specifically you know, a Law? Enforcement.

Point taken...But then again, when the US government violates Constitutional Law, where's the enforcement mechanism? Answer: The People. After all, the peaceful method for holding government accountable for criminality is in the First Amendment (The Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances).

But what happens when the government either ignores or (even worse) applies sanctions against those who present Petitions? That's when the Second Amendment becomes vastly important...Remember how the English nobles were able to get the King to sign the Magna Carta? The nobles used threat of arms.
Remember what happened when King George violated the Magna Carta against the original English Colonies in North America, even after numerous Petitions of Grievances were sent to England? The colonists actually used the force of arms (The War of Independence).

The problem today is that the People have failed to enforce the Constitution on the government, even though the People are the enforcement mechanism...The government will continue to violate the Supreme Law of the Land up until the People enforce it.

It is quite obvious by now, or at least it should be, that this so-called government "by the people, for the people" does not exist and has not existed for many years. The only real comfort that we, the younger generation, can take from all of this is that it did not start with us but was allowed to happen by the American Citizens of old. The founding fathers warned us of such treachery by the political and banker scum of this world as is evident in the OP's Jefferson quote about the banks. When creating the Constitution they knew exactly what they were doing and had themselves, their children and THE PEOPLE in mind.

Now, that former utopian country, that grand idea of a country has been lost and does not exist. It is my opinion that this country should have revolted years ago!! It almost happened once but the Federal Government showed us that States Rights never existed in the first place by destroying the Confederate States of America!!

The rule of law no longer exists in this country or in the mind of the Resident of the White House; past, present and future!! GWB is definitely a horrible President and not deserving of an office once held by the likes of Washington and Jefferson but we must understand that this mess did not start with him. A previous post on this thread talked about the International Laws that exist for everyone to follow, the ones that the US ignores. I'm talking about the laws set forth by the Nuremburg trials after WWII that were agreed upon by all the powers of the world which condemned the Nazi war crimes. The United States has not followed those laws since they were created which means that every President, and their cabinets, that we've ever had since WWII should have been tried for war crimes based on those laws and the US defined standard of what terrorism really is!!

If you watch this video and others where Noam Chomsky discusses terrorism and how the US is a major sponsor of this kind of activity, then you will have a better understanding.

video.google.com...

or this one....

video.google.com...


Cheers!
Purduegrad05

The worst of all is the purpose where Bush used all his power for. Bush left the war against Al Qaeda in favour for an unnecessary war of choice in Iraq. Today there are just 30,000 US troops fighting the real thread in Afghanistan, where 160,000 troops are fighting an unnecessary war of choice. Iraq was not a real thread: they did not do 9/11 and they did not have any WMD’s.
The real enemies to US national security can still walk in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan....
They can still plot terrorist attacks….
And they can still recruit new terrorists….

I wonder what would have happened if Bush sent 160,000 troops to fight in the Afghan mountains instead of in Iraq…

Further, Bush devided the rest of the world instead of uniting the world against terrorism.



[edit on 30-5-2008 by lightyears]

George W Bush's purpose was to convert the USA to a fascist state or destroy it. He has gone far in accomplishing both goals of his masters.

I believe the McLellan defection is far more important than U.S. Americans realise. At this moment I am not expecting the U.S. Federal elections to take place in the way that they are scheduled. I pray to be very wrong on this suspicion.

reply to post by Pellevoisin


Wrong. The basic law of political and Human nature is this:

A leader will never act illogically.

All the world is governed by this law of nature. Bush may be a Fascist. He may be a cross dressing homosexual with a fetish for goats for all I know. But everything he does he does through logic and reasoning.

It may not be YOUR logic or reasoning, but it is what it is. He is not working to undo the country, to convert it for malicious purposes, but rather every thing he does he does because he thinks that is the best thing for the country.

Take for instance if I where the the President I would close the borders and suspend all immigration. Some people would be outraged. I would say it's for the betterment of the nation. You can't deny that while I may be wrong in some peoples eyes, I thought it out rationally and logically and I used that to guide my actions.

Hitler didn't kill Jews and others simply because he didn't like them. He truly, honest to God thought they caused the German's troubles. He truly thought that by getting rid of them, or moving them out of the way Germany would be better. He essentially murdered millions of people through a rational and logical way.

Now you can say fine, morally Bush is wrong. Morality is a perception that is not shared across the board. Some say the war was morally wrong, some would say war is not a moral dilemma. It's all perception.

Understand this, and you will understand that supposed irrational behavior is rational, and that self determination is all Bush needs, not imaginary "masters". There are no masters. Only those who don't understand Humanity.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Pellevoisin

 

Understand this, and you will understand that supposed irrational behavior is rational, and that self determination is all Bush needs, not imaginary "masters". There are no masters. Only those who don't understand Humanity.

Your post was written like a true freemason. Not one idea and not one declaration of fact is true. Furthermore, your gloss on Hitler is as misguided as it is outrageous. But again, a post worthy of freemason it was indeed.

reply to post by Purduegrad05


I believe the problem with this country is the people have no idea what the constitution of the united states was written for and probably less than 90 percent of them have any idea what it says.If you stop people on the street and ask them about the bill of rights how many could get beyond the first two?For as long as the people remain ignorant of these documents we will be forced to suffer our elected officals swearing thier oaths to it then ignoring it.It is these documents that made this country the envy of the world and until we return to them we will have people the likes of george bush and nancy pelosi.

reply to post by Pellevoisin


Eh?

Just telling you what I learned while studying international relations and government histories of Northern Europe mate.

Didn't mean to act all "Freemason like"?

Ah well, no pleasing the ignorant..

i dont know what to say...the governemnt is out of control

i wish we could get some help



edit=but i did want to bump this thread cause it could use a little more attention imo

[edit on 31-5-2008 by Skipper1975]

reply to post by spines

Originally posted by dgtempe
oh yea. no resistance at all. If anything, they provide aide and comfort to Bush and Cheney and are fully prepared to continue their agenda.

Agreed. Bush & Clinton were originally responsible for "stacking the courts" as far as it took to support the agenda. So this mans that, with a King in the President's Office, we've been subjugated by the very same type of "monarchial kingdom" that we fought a War of Independence from 2-1/4 centuries ago.

Originally posted by kleverone
He keeps saying within the law...Who's law? Not Amnesty International.

And certainly not within the Constitutional Law at the very root of America either. In effect, America, as a nation, has been cut away from its very roots.

Originally posted by GrayFox
Why are people letting him get away with it?

Because the very same corporations that "guide" political policy are the ones who "censor" the truth & provide smokescreens in mainstream media to blind the People...A little dictatorship can go a long way.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Leadership is not a popularity contest.

Nor does "leadership" have a place in the Constitutional Republic of America. The People established the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land (Just read the Preamble)...The People being the "employer," the Constitution as the "contract of employment" & the Government Officers as the "employees" acting within the terms of the contract. In short, Government Offices should be for public servants, not "leaders."

Originally posted by spines
Although the real blame lands on the American public. We were scared and we were lied to...but we failed to do out job as a population.

That's right...Even the Supreme Law of the Land is pointless unless it has an "enforcement mechanism." Bush relies on the Executive Branch to enforce his law, but the Constitution relies on the People for enforcement.
"The People...are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our freedoms."--Thomas Jefferson.

Our planet has developed a slight eccentricity in its orbit...Caused by Founding Forefathers of the Constitutional Republic of America spinning in their graves...

we the people are the final law of Every country, and the law is lax until the living situations are unbearable. There is no bill of rights in america anymore, and many of our freedoms are taken away. Government and big business have set the laws up to take everything away from the middle class and give it to the rich, and this will last until the middle class is gone. however, rest assured that they are sowing the seeds of their own destruction.
Once the middle class is gone it will be evident to all the crimes of the rich elite, and one thing the lower class will have a lot of is guns. When people here have little left to lose, they will react just as oppressed peasants of all nations react, with violent revolution. Difference being, in the US, we have the right to bear arms, and there are many many many of us. Yes, there is a powerful national guard and military here, but they will be split when that day comes, between fighting their family's and fighting their government. Now we can wait until that day comes....or perhaps we can start local. Put people in local elections, governor, mayor, and start there overhauling city and state regulations. Organize people who believe as we do, take over city council then use that to allocate taxes and freedoms to the people just within your city or state, and maybe it can spread from there. Minimize the rampant corruption and use taxes from lottery proceeds to pay for everyone's education the way they do in Georgia, where everyones first bachelors degree is paid for by the state. Tax industry much more and use those taxes to fund healthcare for people, and get locals involved in government. This is what i plan to try. It seems impossible to take on our massive national government and corporations, but perhaps local government is not so daunting a task. start small. People in states can pull mayors or governers out of power, can vote legitimately, can install people of THEIR choice (and not the medias or corporations golden boys). can even vote their heroes and actors into office! Lets start small!
and remember, "those who make peacefull revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable"....violent revolution IS an option. Lets just hope its not our ONLY option.

reply to post by GradyPhilpott


Well said. I Don't know why most of the American Public hates Bush. Sure he started a long war, makes laws out of accordance. But hes trying to help America. I'm sure each one of you could do better. Right?

Let me explain something to you. I wasn't born in America, but I for one would die for this country. I support Bush all the way, because he is a strong leader, who says that hes doing the greater good. The country that I was born in, is no where near America in terms of Politics. Please, listen to me, be proud of the country you live in. Show support for your country. Bush is trying to do good for the country, but you all think hes trying to control us, expand America's imperialism, or what ever.

I'm sick and tired of all this negativity. For god's sake, if you don't like the president, and you've never sat down and talked to him. What kind of person are you? You all follow the crowd, hate Bush. Be independent for your countries sake.

When has a good leader ever been praised at the moment he was in charge? Hitler had more support than he could handle when he came into office. They didn't hate him until the last years of the War. Seeing how Bush has phenomenal support, hes not doing his job well.