It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Report: Bush Lawyer Said President Could Order Civilians to Be 'Massacred'

page: 2
49
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by converge


Maybe the Department of Justice should change its name to something that more accurately describes the things that go on there and they support.


Here's a few ideas for the new name for the Dept of Justice:

Department of Poor Judgement
Department of Justice, Not! (this would be easy, just slap a comma and a Not! anywhere it says DOJ.)
Dept of Hand Slappers
Those Wasically Wabbits
Grumpy Old Men (and Women)

And finally-no disrespect to bowlers or King Crimson intended:

The League of Ordinary Gentlemen (why be masc/fem sensitive? we're stomping all over Lady Liberty, we can also step on her toes too....



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by converge


Unbelievable. These people set the guidelines for torture, believed the President had the power to massacre civilians and in the end they will only be guilty of displaying “poor judgment.”

Maybe the Department of Justice should change its name to something that more accurately describes the things that go on there and they support.



Maybe we just need to take a closer look at WHO is in the department and WHERE they came from.





Regent University School of Law, founded by televangelist Pat Robertson to provide "Christian leadership to change the world," has worked hard in its two-decade history to upgrade its reputation, fighting past years when a majority of its graduates couldn't pass the bar exam and leading up to recent victories over Ivy League teams in national law student competitions.

But even in its darker days, Regent has had no better friend than the Bush administration. Graduates of the law school have been among the most influential of the more than 150 Regent University alumni hired to federal government positions since President Bush took office in 2001, according to a university website.

www.boston.com...




posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by December_Rain
 


Phew!

I thought you were serious for a second!

Blimey...i was about to mislay my marbles and go ape.



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by SeeingBlue
 


There aren't just a "few."

It's too deep, and no one knows enough to do anything at this point, because all we have to go on is the media.

You can only dismantle through the inside.



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by December_Rain
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Guess MR O'Reilly needs to see this video



Guess he still feels bu#thurt being targeted by 4Chan Anons



[edit on 20-2-2010 by December_Rain]


so..um...which one is worse?
bill oreally (an adult) spouting off his nonsense, which he gets paid to do or this potty mouthed little girl who is obviously parroting her so called parents beliefs. they should be ashamed of themselves.

this little girl and the american public share one thing in common. they are both victims due to their ignorance.



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by rcwj1975
The articles main bases is that the FORMER president COULD have wiped out entire towns...did he?

The article focuses on a DOJ report about the actions and opinions given and written by certain people that ultimately led to the implementation of policies. No one is talking about President Bush. You are.



Then it seems like they realized he DIDN'T do that, so they focus on the "torture" aspect.

You make it seem as this report is a political witch hunt. If that is your insinuation it's a very unfortunate one—if you had read the Newsweek article I linked up to paragraph 4 you would have realized that the inquiry that resulted in this report started long before there was a democrat in the White House.

The report, more than four years in the making, is filled with new details into how a small group of lawyers at the Justice Department, the CIA, and the White House crafted the legal arguments that gave the green light to some of the most controversial tactics in the Bush administration's war on terror.

You are apparently commenting on the Newsweek article and not the report itself and what is said in it. If you think the problem is the source here's The Washington Post article about the report.

It would be more useful if you focused on what the report says rather than what an article reporting on the DOJ report says.



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Poor judgement? That doesn't even approach it.

And it is stuff like this, not to mention the illegal invasion of Iraq...wipe taping without the legally required measures...the stuff just goes on...

Is why the Democrats and quite a few conservatives and Republicans objected to the bush junior administration.

Of course the GOP and right like to forget about things like this...which goes to the heart of right wing conservative ideals.



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Why does this not surprise me? I mean did they not already have a hearing before bush left office for his impeachment and charges against him? Nothing will come out of this trust me...



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Star and Flag!

I just wish the average person would realize from president to president nothing really changes, the new boss is just like the old boss. My 2 cents
.



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by CleverNameHere
reply to post by SeeingBlue
 


There aren't just a "few."

It's too deep, and no one knows enough to do anything at this point, because all we have to go on is the media.

You can only dismantle through the inside.


We aren't helpless, hell it's because us they have power. It's because us they have somebody to control. If we all decided to stop participating you can forget about a terrorist attack or hacking, because if the People didn't play their part the system wouldn't work.



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
How many times have I heard BUSH state his first goal was to protect the safety of citizens as used to justify trampling the constitution? I think that was his only excuse. Now we find out he is seeking advise on whether he had the ability to massacre citizens?

These attorneys should be disbarred. Just because a President follows an attorney ill advice does not get them out of the loop of consequences. Talk about a conspiracy to commit high crimes.


Well fortunately for the Bush Administration, they've already pardoned themselves from litigation of any potential war crimes.

www.democraticunderground.com...

Isn't that convenient?



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 05:55 PM
link   
I AM OUTRAGED! what gets me is that people stand by the US government without thinking for themselves. Tell me something please people......what is the difference to killing thousands of people in order to protect homeland security, and to kill thousands of people in order to defeat the terrorist.

Before you (passive) answer and make a complete fool out of yourself think about the question.

It makes me mad! that people can turn a blind eye to this, out of sight out of mind.....yeah until its your village next.



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by yasny
An interesting thought crossed my mind while reading this thread, or perhaps ironic is a better word. Didn't Janet Reno set the precedent for this at Waco?


Probably. Interesting thought you have there. I wonder if anyone besides myself has pondered it?



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by rcwj1975

Originally posted by antonia

It's being posted because the OP is interested in it. I don't see how it's taking heat of anyone. It's just an acknowledgment of something that happened not an excuse for Obama.


I am not worried about the member posting it, its the timing of the article from Newsweek. The articles main bases is that the FORMER president COULD have wiped out entire towns...did he? Then it seems like they realized he DIDN'T do that, so they focus on the "torture" aspect. The thing is, why didn't the article state that the current administration hasn't done anything to change what their bitching about?


I don't know if the OP can do anything about what Newsweek wrote about Bush. But, you do have a point.



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   
 




 



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by john124

Bush Lawyer Said President Could Order Civilians to Be 'Massacred'


Start with the Jew hating members here.......


Huh...?


Originally posted by December_Rain
reply to post by converge
 

If you don't like Bush, according to Lord Sean Hannity, you are a commie, hippie, socialist, and a fascist.


Nevertheless, kinda funny is people like Sean Hannity are labeling people who don't like Bush as fascist when they themselves fit the profile of fascism to a 't'. (Something I don't really need to mention here since it's already pretty obvious and well-known.)

I don't care though. I still listen to him and Rush Limbaugh and all the others. I don't necessarily agree with everything they say but I listen to them regardless.



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Folks I may be wrong but I thought American Troops shot striking workers in the 1930's.



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Well, I think they were talking about massacring American citizens. As far as villages go, wasn't there some village named Fallujah that was pretty much massacred because they dared to fight back against the Decider's "civilian contractors"?

The thing is, these people only THINK they are bullet proof. THey are not. Literally.

AND, they only have power because WE give it to them. If everyone would pull their heads out of the sand, it wouldn't matter how many times they pardon themselves or issue reports stating what they are doing is ok. I bet Marie Antoinette issued reports stating the people should eat cake, and she turned out to not be guillotine proof. Hmmmm?

[edit on 20-2-2010 by CaptChaos]



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Sorry folks the event I was thinking about was the Ludlow massacre. Woodrow Wilson sent in the troops to stop the fighting between the union members and the Colorado National Guard.



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptChaos
Well, I think they were talking about massacring American citizens. As far as villages go, wasn't there some village named Fallujah that was pretty much massacred because they dared to fight back against the Decider's "civilian contractors"?
[edit on 20-2-2010 by CaptChaos]


Not once, twice. It was horrific to see. My husband was in Iraq both times the city was attacked (not in that area though). He saw some of the footage on Iraqi TV (Al Jezzera sp?) and told me about it. When I looked it up myself, I actually cried. Bodies just laid out on their football field, men , women, little kids, babies. Bodies in a freezer. If that wasn't a massacre, well I don't know what one is.

[edit on 20-2-2010 by antonia]




top topics



 
49
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join