Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Have Bush/Cheney ever done anything that is actually illegal? Nope!

page: 11
11
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   
President Bush and Vice-President Cheney did nothing criminal beyond possibly some obscure law here or there which they might have broken during their terms in Office. For that matter, everyday which we live and breathe on this Earth, and within this Nation, we in fact break a law or two. There are so many laws, and such little knowledge of them all (To be quite frank).

However, I know what the OP is intending through this thread, and in regards to this particular subject matter I will simply say that President Bush and Vice-President Cheney did what they truly felt was necessary in securing this Nation, and in strengthening it. The only reason that they have received such a bashing, lies within the vast and quickening expanse of the Internet that took place during their Administration, which in turn allowed for all types of dissent against them to not only be expressed, but to also be promoted and spread all over the world. Can you imagine what would have happened to President Clinton if the Internet was in its current form during his entire Presidency? This nation would have become somewhat of a mad house eight years prior to when it did, and I dare say that Clinton's Impeachment would have also actually been carried out in the fullest manner possible.

At the worst, President Bush and Vice-President Cheney were nowhere near as outlaw in nature as President Clinton and his Administration, but generally they have acted well within the power granted to them. People simply wish to label them as "Law Breakers" because they disagree with their politics, which is basically a cop out way of stating that they cannot argue a political point against them.




posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by TheAgentNineteen
 


Thanks for your understanding and support. It just amazes me that if you post what the majority want to hear they will star and flag you to death, even though there is not a bit of proof behind the OP.

Like this thread Cheney tied to theft and possible murder

It gets tons of stars and flags only because it bashes Cheney. Yet their isnt a shred of proof that it is anything more than some guys fantasy.

Also, the hypocrisy of it is crazy. These same people will bash the Alien/Indigo people for not giving proof, but then come on here and not give a shred of proof to back up their elaborate claims. Not that i am saying I believe someone just because they say they are an alient or what not.

[edit on 18-6-2009 by grapesofraft]



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   
These two creeps left a broken country in their wake and if you deny that too you will proven beyond anyone's doubt that you have been living on a different planet or in complete denial of reality.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by hypervigilant
 


How did they leave a broken country in their wake? If you are talking about the economy, there is only so much a President can do to help stimulate the economy. Did Bush create derivatives or cause a global depression single handidly?



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   
No Bush didn't but he was a part of the political machine that created and passed legislation that enabled them. It was Phill Graham who was ousted from the position of campaign manager for McCain that pushed for them. It was Grahams political contrbutors that became the Pioneers and Rangers, that Bush referred to as his base as he joked about the non existing WMDs.....If you can't see this last admiistration as being the most corrupt, destructive and irresponsible in the last 60 years or more you are choosing to not see it..... The people of this country has never in my lifetime been more poorly represented and I am an old man that has seen a lot.



posted on Jun, 18 2009 @ 11:53 PM
link   
The Bush Administration sent 5000 plus American citizenry to their deaths based on lies. Those lies also resulted in thousands of innocent Iraqi lives lost as well. If you cannot see that as a crime against humanity, then you are disgustingly blinded by your partisan bias.

Sadly, these Americans who claim to be the true patriots couldn't give a rats behind about the lives that have been lost since the war began. They are devoid of a conscious, and they truly sicken me.

The previous administration should be tried in the Hague for war crimes.



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Seth Bullock
 




Water boarding may be torture, or it may be enhanced interrogation.



www.washingtonpost.com...
In 1983, federal prosecutors charged a Texas sheriff and three of his deputies with violating prisoners' civil rights by forcing confessions. The complaint alleged that the officers conspired to "subject prisoners to a suffocating water torture ordeal in order to coerce confessions. This generally included the placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or drowning." The four defendants were convicted, and the sheriff was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

As far back as the U.S. occupation of the Philippines after the 1898 Spanish-American War, U.S. soldiers were court-martialed for using the "water cure" to question Filipino guerrillas.


Let's see, from 1898 until present, this has been punished as a crime, yet you still feel the jury is out? Weird!



Oh please. That is a serious oversimplification of a law passed with the Patriot Act and a later law passed with the Protect America Act (with a yes vote from Barak Obama I might add). Both of which are perfectly constitutional. Provide me with the name and case number of an American citizen whose rights were abused under this law by Bush or Cheney personally and then we will talk.



en.wikipedia.org...
For a time, the USA PATRIOT Act allowed for agents to undertake "sneak and peek" searches.[51] Critics such as EPIC and the ACLU strongly criticized the law for violating the Fourth Amendment,[206] with the ACLU going so far as to release an advertisement condemning it and calling for it to be repealed.[207]

In 2004, FBI agents used this provision to search and secretly examine the home of Brandon Mayfield, who was wrongfully jailed for two weeks on suspicion of involvement in the Madrid train bombings. While the U.S. Government did publicly apologize to Mayfield and his family,[210] Mayfield took it further through the courts. On September 26, 2007, judge Ann Aiken found the law was, in fact, unconstitutional as the search was an unreasonable imposition on Mayfield and thus violated the Fourth Amendment.


His name is Brandon Mayfield. His constitutional rights, specifically the fourth amendment, were violated by the USA PATRIOT Act. He was cleared of any wrongdoing and received an apology and $2 million from the US government for their CRIMES committed against him. He is not the only one, there are others.



Again here, it is you that do not understand the facts. As far as congressional approval, you may want to research Public Law 107-243, The Iraq Resolution. You may also want to look at the terms of the 1991 cease fire agreement that halted the first gulf war, and the Iraqi governments' serious noncompliance.



en.wikipedia.org...
The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

International law Further information: United Nations Charter and International law Debate about the legality of the 2003 invasion of Iraq under international law centers around ambiguous language in parts of UN Resolution 1441 (2002).[45] The UN Charter prohibits any war unless it is out of self-defense or when it is sanctioned by the UN security council. If these requirements are not met international law describes it a war of aggression.

John Conyers, Robert Parry and Marjorie Cohn assert that the Iraq war was a violation of the U.N. Charter and as such a war of aggression (a crime against peace) and therefore a war crime.[52] Kofi Annan too has said the war in Iraq is an "illegal act that contravened the UN charter."[53] Some scholars, including Columbia law professor Michael Dorf, have argued that treaties are binding on the U.S. under international law.



en.wikipedia.org...
War of aggression From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search A war of aggression is a military conflict waged absent the justification of self-defense. Waging such a war of aggression is a crime under the customary international law. It is generally agreed by scholars in international law that the military actions of the Nazi regime in World War II in its search for so-called "Lebensraum" are characteristic of a war of aggression.


Use the links here to get a better understanding of this. Basically, everyone else around the world agrees, including most American citizens, the minimal authorization granted them was clearly violated and determined a war of aggression. This was realized by all of them, which sent them scurrying to amend the original docs. and cover their azz. This was easily noticed around the world by everyone other than people like you, Seth?



Face the facts. No one was out there intentionally lying to congress, particularly an upstanding patriot like Colin Powell. Much of what we suspected about Iraqi WMD turned out not to be the case...As far as manufacturing evidence, again show me evidence manufactured personally by or at the behest of Bush or Cheney and we will talk about breaking the law.



en.wikipedia.org...
A study coauthored by nonprofit, liberal journalism organization the Center for Public Integrity found that in the two years after September 11, 2001 the president and top administration officials had made 935 false statements, in an orchestrated public relations campaign to galvanize public opinion for the war, and that the press was largely complicit in its uncritical coverage of the reasons adduced for going to war."


How about 935 of them? Maybe you should face the facts, don't you think? I think I'll stop now. The rest of what I said is also true, but I think you have had enough? Now why don't you pull your pants up and run along home? You are too easy!



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kaytagg
I don't think Hitler ever did anything illegal either. That doesn't mean they aren't monsters of humanity.

Btw, defending torture is inexcusable, imo. Simply no excuse for such a sadistic practice that has yielded no significant results -- other than the ones Cheney says saved the whole world -- but they're classified, so you'll just have to take his word
(It would be funnier if people weren't naive enough to believe it)

Edit to add: OJ Simpson never broke the law when he murdered Nicole. The law, sometimes, gets it wrong. But it's still the law, and according to the law, OJ Simpson is not guilty of murdering his wife.

My point is, whether legal or not, it's still bad for society. Some might even say immoral.

[edit on 17-6-2009 by Kaytagg]


If Torture was sooo bad and "NEVER WORKS" then I wonder why over the last 4000 years, humans keep using torture...

Mabey because it does work?

You people need to rethink your arguments, Stick to Torture is INHUMANE, trying to lie and say it brings in false info makes you all look like idiots.

No need to make up excuses as to why you hate something, stick to the facts please.



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 01:59 AM
link   
I advise everyone to do some research on the downing street memo, Proof that the bush administration lied to get us into a war with Iraq. a recent Senate investigation final report shows how the administration manipulated information to overstate the WMD threat and conjure up a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Quaida that did not exist.



[edit on 19-6-2009 by neil a]

[edit on 19-6-2009 by neil a]



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Mikeyy
 





Mabey because it does work?


It doesn't matter if it works, it's barbaric, inhuman, and unreliable. All forms of torture are also illegal by international law and furthermore torture during armed conflicts is a war crime by those same laws.

The United States does not torture people. We're better than that...or at least I used to think as much.

OP - Everyone's entitled to their own opinion but instead of demanding people bring you proof or evidence you could just browse the site, there are dozens upon dozens of threads supporting both sides of this argument. Of course, I think we all know your mind is already made up anyhow.

[edit on 19-6-2009 by JayTaylor]



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 04:33 AM
link   
He had other commit the crimes - and that, in itself, is a crime. If I hire a hit man to kill or maim someone, I'm also guilty.



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by chiron613
 


Well who exactly did he hire to kill others for him?



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   
You know if people found the evidence of their possibly illegal doing and went to try the the whacked out far right will just say its the left attacking the past administration. So to keep the war-driven right from being pissed off they'd probably let the guilty go. There is absolutely no way to please he right so we have to let criminals and madmen go free.



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by SchefSalad
 


That is preposterous. Nobody throws more of a hissy fit than the left everytime they dont get there way about something. When GW was President the left had a never ending temper tantrum for 8 freaking years.

So if you thought he was guilty and could make a case for it, you wouldnt pursue it because the left is afraid of any sort of conflict with the right and all the left can do is whine and roll around on the floor in a fit of rage?



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   
More out of respect i would think. I would say that the right is usual far too irrational that if the current admin. found evidence like waterboarding they would not say anything because immediately the right would say that it was an attack against their innocent savior. Have Bush/Cheney ever done anything that is actually illegal? Nope.
This isnt a question for opinion, if you've already answered your own question. You I'm sure already have your verdict and that nobody could probably change that. If they did something illegal and the evidence is there than as an american who believes in the laws set by his countrymen we would have no choice but to prosecute them and anyone else involved. A crime is a crime no matter who committed it. I still think that cheney shooting a friend in the face should have required some form of law. If i shot someone in the face i don't expect the 5-0 to just let me go shake my hand [SNIP].

 


MOD NOTE: Please take a moment to review this link, paying particular attention to Section 1b. Thank you.

[edit on 20-6-2009 by TheBorg]



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by SchefSalad
 


Well if someone is going to prosecute them then somebody should come up with some actual proof that either of them broke the law.

Obviously, he shot his FRIEND in the face on accident. He didnt kill him or even hurt him that bad, so why should he be arrested for a minor accident?



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Well i dont know about you but getting shot with a bb gun hurts like crap. Birdshot to the face at close range probably tickled. If there was evidence against them i doubt that it would be made public mostly due to that if they did anything it would make the country look bad and depending on the severity of the crimes it could cause a retaliation against a hypocritical america. Im not saying that they necessarily did anything illegal but if they did it would never see the face of day. Too many problems it would cause. Now enhanced interrogations are immoral and if there weren't loopholes making them legal i would be bold enough to say that that is a guilty crime. From a christian standpoint torture is wrong no matter how you pretty it up. You can put makeup on a pig but its still a pig.



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by SchefSalad
 


Did you ever read the old testament in the Bible.

They used to do all kind of heinous stuff to people and it was all condoned by God as long as you were on his side.



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
yeah well morally do you really feel ok about that statement. There werent other ways of doing it. Look if you think torture is ok than thats your opinion. I personally think that it is not. I would forever turn my back on someone who acted in torturing someone or signing the orders to do so. Torture is torture and if America is supposed to be the good example to the world than i feel that the waterboarding and such have smeared the image of this country. Its a red stain on a white carpet. It sticks out badly.



posted on Jun, 19 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by SchefSalad
 


I never said it was right or wrong. You brought up that a Christian could not be pro-torture. I just pointed out that their God is pro-annihilation of the enemy with almost no limits whatsoever. So do they know more than their God about what is moral?






top topics



 
11
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join