It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Just because you disagree with Xcathdra’s interpretation that doesn’t make “laws irrelevant.” I agree with almost none of Xcathdra’s opinions and I believe that, according to the law, the Bush administration is guilty of several violations.
Originally posted by NadaCambia
Laws are irrelevant, therefore your argument is bunk.
Xcathdra has mentioned the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), but perhaps some more information is needed.
Originally posted by byteshertz
Perhaps you can show me where the USA has declared war - because last time I checked it hasnt.
SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION – Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
Originally posted by K8sarvesbarkooh
I like this post very much. I think it speak volumes about he different types of activism.
I'd like to see a forum for the Planning of Demonstrations. And a forum for the Record of Demonstrations.
Originally posted by buster2010
Originally posted by Xcathdra
Originally posted by vermonster
Ron Paul for President in 2012.
No Electronic Voting Machines.
Paper ballots only.
Dicky Cheney/Rumsfeld rot in your self created hell. Mr Trump, you too.
Code pink, I love you.
You just summed up my argument..
A repeat of the hanging chad fiasco? No thanks
Did Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld break ay domestic or International laws?
Can your speech be restricted while on Private Property?
I gave you that case because you kept arguing about freedom of speech and it doesnt matter where you are you can do and say what you want. I can pull up the court rulings on yelling fire in a crowded theatre if you want.
The recurring theme among most is the concept that the moment we sign a treaty, that the treay is absolute and cannot be changed / touched / refined, which is not true - it can. The deeper argument is the push to move away from laws of a country to international law without adequate regard for how those laws work if they are enforced over domestic laws.
I mean, there was even a court case that was going to go against the BUSH FAMILY, for creating an estimated $17 Billion in forged federal notes. This and the ENRON investigation went up in smoke in Building 7, a month before some Bush family members would need to go to federal prison. Just one of the many coincidences in this group.
No FOIA requests necessary. As VitriolAndAngst has pointed out, they have already admitted to many things that are violations of domestic and international law.
Originally posted by Lightrule
Absolutely, but to clarify my above response, FOIA requests are made all the time in regards to getting the documents needed to prove once and for all that yes they did break many domestic and international laws. That is why these requests are ignored.
The reason, in my opinion, has more to do with political will and courage, or lack thereof, than the courts or the law. Obama cares more about his public image and perception at home than the rule of law. And this will most likely be true for whoever is president next as well.
Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
The REASON Bush and Cheney and his gang of crooks were not thrown in prison, or sent to a firing squad, probably has more to do with the rampant internal Domestic spying (which is also non-Constitutional, regardless of the Fascists who have been appointed to the Supreme Court making law out of their collective rears).
In so holding, we necessarily reject the Government's assertion that separation of powers principles mandate a heavily circumscribed role for the courts in such circumstances. Indeed, the position that the courts must forgo any examination of the individual case and focus exclusively on the legality of the broader detention scheme cannot be mandated by any reasonable view of separation of powers, as this approach serves only to condense power into a single branch of government. We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens.
The D. C. Circuit ruled Common Article 3 inapplicable to Hamdan because the conflict with al Qaeda is international in scope and thus not a “conflict not of an international character.” That reasoning is erroneous.