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

Just so i dont derail the thread im finished for now but ill leave you with a question. Can the crucifixion be considered enhance interrogation?

reply to post by SchefSalad


I doubt it, I dont remember them trying to get info out of Jesus when they nailed him up on a cross. Plus, he died so it would be homicide.

Though, I bet I could have gotten the Roman soldiers found not guilty, because after all he did resurrect and so that is not technically murder if your victim comes back to live.... I could at least get it knocked down to attempted murder.

But I got a question for you when you were a kid and you used to swim with your buddies and wrestle and hold each other under water, was that considered torture?

[edit on 19-6-2009 by grapesofraft]

Lol try GWB with his coc aine addiction... eat it ... and Cheney shot a guy in the face... game over accident ... yeah so ill pose a question as idiots deal with firearms lightly will smart men operate a weapon safely? ... owned

I dont know about you guys?! But Dick clearly is something we wont find in the future, his methods of political strategy are none other than 'Brilliant!' lol:lol:

www.time.com...

reply to post by topsecretombomb


Cheney is old school for sure.... He was around during the Nixon years and learned what he knows from the most sinister bastards that walked the earth and has surpassed them..... To bad that he is a total sociopath and very good that his kind is limited in number.... If it wasn't for modern medicine that is only available to the ultra rich, nature would have taken its course and we wouldn't have had to put up with his evil ways for all of these decades.

reply to post by hypervigilant


Really now? What sinister stuff has Dick Cheney done in his life? Make me a list if you do not mind.

[edit on 20-6-2009 by grapesofraft]

Originally posted by grapesofraft
reply to post by hypervigilant

 

Really now? What sinister stuff has Dick Cheney done in his life? Make me a list if you do not mind.

You must have been asleep or out of touch with reality to be able to say that you aren't aware which you haven't said now have you..... If you were a person that wanted to be realistic and informed you would do your own investigation, but then you would have to confront reality which is what you have obviously chosen avoid.... Were you even alive in the 60s or even politically aware in the 70s and 80s?..... I am too old to waste my time trying to explain the truth to someone that is intent on believing lies.... I don't really want to play your spin game either, and when if ever I do, I'll tune in to Fox news.

reply to post by hypervigilant


LOL, the default reply for someone who has nothing to back up their claims. Some people amaze me. They just spout off general allegations but then when you press them for details they just bail with some message that you need to do your own research.

If you had anything you would rush to put it in a post. It is easy to accuse but no so easy to back up an accusation.

Besides being guilty of all the charges in your list, I will just answer 1 charge. Illegally violating constitutional rights. This is a quote from Bush prior to the 2004 election. "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution." Bush states that he is required to get a court order. After the election they admitted to doing it all along. The great legal mind who helped justify torture and this policy ( Alberto Gonzalez) defended the eavesdropping before congress by stating that electronic eavesdropping was more common during the presidencies of Washington and Lincoln.

reply to post by BillfromCovina


Before you say they are guilty of all the charges in my list, shouldnt you have a little proof to back it up or are we just supposed to take your word that they are guilty?

Heck why dont we let you decide everyones guilt or innocence based on whatever you read about them on some fring internet website. Just think how much money we would save.

The only problem is that you will have to convict yourself because I just now said you were the one behind 911... prove me wrong. Its on the internet so it must be true.


[edit on 20-6-2009 by grapesofraft]

if they are so innocent why would they want to pardon themselves from war crimes?



it's easy to do legal things when you have the power to change the rules
to make them legal

reply to post by donhuangenaro


They didnt pardon themselves for war crimes, so your point is?

Originally posted by grapesofraft
reply to post by donhuangenaro

 

They didnt pardon themselves for war crimes, so your point is?

but they tried

and that is the proof enough to me

Originally posted by king9072


Perjury.

Screw every god damn thing you listed. We only need one, and it's perjury.

They lied publicly about many, many things, and even under oath. So perjury is the charge. Since you were smart enough to make a thread like this, ill help you out - perjury means lying.

Perjury? That is funny...but since you brought it up...maybe these people can be tried as co-conspirators?????

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Bergler, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


Perjury???? Give me a break!

It's amazing how having Cheney...Limbaugh...Palin...in the title of a thread makes that thread explode! Never fails!

reply to post by grapesofraft


You obviously want attention. In your original post you asked for anything. I gave you 1 item. This was out of the criminal's own mouth. All the crimes and documentation would fill volumes. I did not go to some fringe site. I actually remember. If you need more proof, I am sure you can easily look up both speeches on YouTube and witness the two idiots for yourself.

Originally posted by BillfromCovina
reply to post by grapesofraft

 

You obviously want attention. In your original post you asked for anything. I gave you 1 item. This was out of the criminal's own mouth. All the crimes and documentation would fill volumes. I did not go to some fringe site. I actually remember. If you need more proof, I am sure you can easily look up both speeches on YouTube and witness the two idiots for yourself.

You can lead a horse to water but you cant make it drink.

translate's to you can lead a sheep to INFO but you cant make it believe.

The guy is just trolling, Everybody with an ounce of right and wrong know's that these to asshats are dead wrong

Morally and ethicly you think they are gonna let evidence find its way to user's of an internet forum?

reply to post by Reading


Once again you say they are dead wrong.. wrong about what?

reply to post by BillfromCovina


So where exactly did you get this information that they wire tapped without a court order or some legal way to do it without a court order?

reply to post by grapesofraft

Before you say they are guilty of all the charges in my list, shouldnt you have a little proof to back it up or are we just supposed to take your word that they are guilty?

Detainee Tortured, Says U.S. Official
Trial Overseer Cites 'Abusive' Methods Against 9/11 Suspect

The top Bush administration official in charge of deciding whether to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees to trial has concluded that the U.S. military tortured a Saudi national who allegedly planned to participate in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, interrogating him with techniques that included sustained isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity and prolonged exposure to cold, leaving him in a "life-threatening condition."

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.Crawford, 61, said the combination of the interrogation techniques, their duration and the impact on Qahtani's health led to her conclusion.

"The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent. . . . You think of torture, you think of some horrendous physical act done to an individual. This was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his health. It was abusive and uncalled for. And coercive. Clearly coercive. It was that medical impact that pushed me over the edge" to call it torture, she said.

www.washingtonpost.com...


Torture is illegal. You can't justify it no matter what your reasoning. It has been prosecuted multiple times including the US. You can't call it by another name, nor can you testify on behalf of it's effectiveness to justify it's use. And no, not even the USA is allowed to do it!! Holding the belief that breaking the law in this particular instance was necessary to protect you is a childish excuse. Disregarding one law is disregarding all of them. A country based on the rule of law looks foolish to even suggest it.

They have openly admitted practicing torture. It is clearly written in law both nationally and internationally to be a crime. The fact there has been no indictment is irrelevant and does in no way excuse this crime. Along with what's provided here, the amount of other evidence is staggering! There is PROOF everywhere you look pertaining to war and torture crimes. Only someone in serious denial fails to understand it. The only reason this is debated is to confuse simple minded people that all is well.

So, why don't you stop with the broken record and read up on the actual law? You will see that calling it enhanced interrogation, ticking time bomb, necessary to save lives, or anything else is plainly written in the law not to be a defense. Take up your own challenge and be man enough to come back here and admit the truth.

Why in the hell would you want to defend these people anyway? I am amazed that anyone would take the side of those opposing them? You my friend have battered woman syndrome! Your A-Hole boyfriend keeps beating your azz and you just want to run back and hold him. Amazing!



en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...