'War criminal!': Ron Paul backers crash Cheney-Rumsfeld reunion

Some of you need to calm down. And the ad hominem attacks are really out of line.

Now, regarding NadaCambia’s post—

Originally posted by NadaCambia
Laws are irrelevant, therefore your argument is bunk.

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.

The Department of Justice could start inquiries and prosecutions but the Obama administration doesn’t have political will or courage to do it. So the problem is not with our laws but with politics and our elected officials.

I have to come to Xcathdra’s defense on one point, though—

Originally posted by byteshertz
Perhaps you can show me where the USA has declared war - because last time I checked it hasnt.

Xcathdra has mentioned the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), but perhaps some more information is needed.

According to the War Powers Act there are 3 ways in which military forces can be deployed: “(1) a declaration of war,” “(2) specific statutory authorization,” and “(3) a national emergency.”

There are 2 AUMFs that authorize the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. If you look at their language, both of them include the following or similar language—

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.

Congress has given the President the authorization to deploy the armed forces through statutory authorization.

There are differences between a declaration of war and statutory authorization — namely, the declaration of war triggers more presidential powers — but from the Constitutional requirement point of view — “Congress shall have power to declare war” (Art. I Sec. 8) — I believe that requirement was met for these wars.

Whether the wars are legal in respects to international law and the rules of armed conflict, that is a different matter and they shouldn’t be confused. I, for one, believe that the Iraq war, certainly, from this perspective was not legal.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Wow! Thank you for the bi-lingual response! It put a smile on my face a real one, it was clever.
I also studied law in the US for 4 years and years back passed the Montana BAR.

But my friend you are missing the point. Police officers love to tell everyone "We are all brothers in arms we wear the same uniform...We are one...What happens to one of us affects us all" etc, etc. every chance they get when good work has been done and a chance for good press is there. Now we have a bad situation going on where many officers are not only abusing their power they are abusing the citizens they have swore to protect, this is my beef. Are you getting lumped in with the bad apples? ABSOLUTELY! You deserve nothing less, your job is to protect us, even if it is from your corrupt, abusive cop buddies, you are not doing your job sir. And that I'm sorry to say makes you just as bad as them. If you want to be looked upon with honor and respect within your job I suggest you put your money where your mouth is and get to work.

I'm not naive either, I know that police serve a valuable purpose in society, but only when they are working within the confines of their purpose. I say purpose here and not job because I feel that your job has grown out of the original boundaries of your purpose for existing.

What you do in fact is uphold a series of rules for the good of the company. Make no mistake about it, "countries" are "companies" and the LEGAL SYSTEM they create to replace LAW is born to keep the officers/employees of the company in line. You mistakenly believe that EVERYONE is bound by the laws of your corporation, again this is not the case. Either in the USA or in Canada the systems are exchangeable really.

-Lightrule

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.

Cheney's voice is really weak. He'll likely be dead within 2 years. No way that he's not dying right now, and if they don't find a heart of the guy, he's a goner. The difference in his voice is really startling and I heard it on a clip when he was recently interviewed on a cable talkshow too. It's like someone let all the air out of him. The bitch is that he'll be free of ever having to pay for the death and suffering he's caused the world. Let's hope there's some form of justice in a case like this.

I'm giving myself the medal of defender of the nation honor. It's now the highest honor in the nation because I said so.

You can all come and watch me give myself the award and talk about how great I am.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


bahahahahah!!!!
thats got to be one of the stupidest things ive heard in a while..
"Ron Paul cant get elected"..
"he'll have to win an election"
im srsly dying

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.

Now thas in intresting idea..

reply to post by Lightrule


Yeah I thought you would enjoy that.. I dont give the we are brothers in arms speech when Officers do stupid / illegal stuff, and my traack record in these forums can support that.

As far as the legalities / legal arguments / whatever go, its a forum for the free exchange of ideas and opinions. Many many people dont care for Bush Cheney or Rumsfeld, and I respect that. It doesnt mean that I wont point out mistakes people make when they make claims about those 3 though.

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.

Its rushing in where Angels fear to tread / looking at the problem not before you leap, but while your on the way down.

There are plenty of examples in this thread of people and their misconception on their rights work - whereweheaded is a prime example of that with pain text interpretaton of the Constitution without regard for anything else.

My position in most of the debates that revolve around these types of topics are to take up the opposing argument. People call the trifecta war criminals, and because of that I ask how they come to that conclusion. Most of the responses are not rooted in any manner other than they lied / mislead / ignored etc. Valid opinions for sure, but the supporting arguments are weak / non existant.

What I am looking for, and Aptness understands, is the explanation from A to Z on how the opinion comes about, what factors did the posters use / see to come to their conclusion, and what legal base are they using to officaly support their argument / acusation / charges?

Thats what I look for. Whether you agree with my thoughts is up to you. However, I am not a lawyer, and have stated that many times as well. I have no deisre to be a full time part of that corner of insanity of the system. You obvisouly enjoy it because you chose that profession. I enjoy my profession very much and am happy doing it. I take pride in doing a thorough investigation, making sure all the T's and lower case j's are dotted, and putting forward a case that doesnt leave much room for lawayers to attack / pick apart / call into question / etc.

Anyways.. You are the lawyer and I have no isses with you schooling me in the ways of the legal system. You're the one who gets to deal with the mess that is the courts. Based on the topic of the thread, and the arguments I have made, whats your opinion other than you think I am a thug cop who knows nothing?

Did Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld break ay domestic or International laws?

Can your speech be restricted while on Private Property?

There are 6+ pages of my arguments on those topics.

thoughts?

As a side note I appologize for the crappy response I gave you. Just as a few posters pointed out after I made that post not to group / stereotype all Canadians, I respectfully request the same.

Thanks

reply to post by Xcathdra


I may have lumped you in with the abusers but I only did it to illustrate the point I made in my last post. Your job is to protect us from the sort of abuse we are seeing more and more of from the police these days. This goes hand in hand with the topic of this thread, you are also meant to protect us from corrupt politicians. I'm sure you have heard the saying, one bad apple spoils the bunch, before.

The sad fact however and this has already been said here in this thread, the system is so broken and so twisted that to attempt to use THEIR courts of law against our "leaders" would be pointless, they control every aspect of the court system. You say we need to get an attorney to get the ball rolling? Look at how sad your profession has become (MINE TOO!) your (our) hands are tied in this matter.

Politicians love to sing the "we work for you" song but when 'we the people' try to use the same system they use against us we are flat out ignored. Many requests have been made from regular Joe's all the way to high powered attorneys asking for the documents (through FOIA requests) that would be required to charge these SOBs. Those people were either ignored, ridiculed or worse bullied so that the requests wouldn't happen. What now?

Dick Cheney/Donald Rumfeld/George W. Bush all worked for the people. How many people does it take to hold them accountable? 1? 10? 50? 100? 15,000? 50million? All 300+ million Americans? How many people is it going to take before our police protectors grow a spine and arrest those who the people demand be arrested? Don't you work for the people as well?

You can point a FLIR into a house and based on a glowing hot spot decide that the persons right to personal property be destroyed. Yet hundreds of thousands of Americans are crying foul and your profession doesn't lift a finger. Mine either so really I shouldn't be the one giving you this speech.

Really what I'm trying to say here in the end is... THANK YOU for your service. However you need to be aware that you and your colleagues are screwing the pooch big time in the eyes of the awake populace. We do not see you as a protector of justice any longer but a badge wearing a gun ready to FCUK us with the long DIK of "the law" any chance you get. This has been proven time and time again.

-Lightrule

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


Another great video! This thread just keeps on giving. How can anyone continue to support these war criminals? Videos don't lie. I'm just sitting back and watching these #ssholes make fools of themselves. That video clip alone was enough to bring charges against these lying S.O.B's. Keep up the good work!

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.

peace


s&f

You just summed up my argument..

Thank you.

A repeat of the hanging chad fiasco? No thanks

>> The "hanging chad fiasco" was completely created by the Bush supporters who were trying to stop the recount. Everybody BUT THEM, could tell when someone had "pushed" the hole (which causes a dimple), or a hole fell out (since they are perforated, and some handling can knock them lose. They were masters at creating controversy and the media obliged.

One of the bused in "concerned citizens" is now a Supreme Court judge. The lady who made sure that Bush's police record got lost -- Harriet Myers... well, she ALMOST became a supreme court judge.

The previous VOTING SYSTEM worked perfectly fine -- but the TRICK that would allow misrepresented counting, is that ballots could be checked against a DIFFERENT counties system, and of course, the holes would line up for different candidates.

In Canada, and some civilized areas of Boston USA, they have at least three people from different parties witness and hand count each vote, and they can get through their elections without more than a day wait. As elections scale, the people in each district, who care about their votes can be election monitors. Any dispute can then be easily brought up with some other witnesses.

It's a very simple system and cheap. But we spend Millions to have private companies who GET MORE MONEY, from incumbents -- at least TEN TIMES more than previous election systems.

>> Look, if you THINK that the electronic voting is secure, or remotely provable -- you aren't paying attention. The two guys who programmed the first Diebold system were recruited from prison -- they were serving time for hacking and computer fraud and were on Parole. They ADMITTED to building the systems FOR DIEBOLD so that they could be remotely changed.

A copy of the system's was downloaded years ago, off the website, and a white hat hacker showed that it used three databases -- one to submit the votes, a SEPARATE ONE that could be queried if there is a recount, and a third database they had no idea what the use was for.


>> Anyway, there is quite a track record of fraud and faulty machines - and no paper trail. A good portion of the electorate -- Progressives and Liberals, think that the voting system is rigged. It's set up that it is quite easy, we've had many, many documented "errors", and of course, there is no way to PROVE what the actual voting intent of the citizen was. Go read "blackboxvoting.org" for a few hundred examples.

reply to post by gladtobehere


Evil doesn't have a heart. Cheney never really had one, that's why this device is working so well for him.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Did Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld break ay domestic or International laws?

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. It is also why the records that would be needed to take them down in court are classified and sealed. By the time the American people get a chance to see what they can only suspect they will be long dead and it won't matter. Again I ask, what now?

Can your speech be restricted while on Private Property?

No. End of story. Period. Full Stop. You can be removed from the property but no crime has been committed. Depending on behavior you could maybe argue breach of peace but that would be pretty tough. Trespassing was mentioned and this is possible as well, but considering they probably bought a ticket to the event, they weren't trespassing they paid for access.

Sorry for not answering those above.

-Lightrule

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.

You're comparing a guy in the audience calling someone a War Criminal to someone yelling fire in a crowded theatre? Wow, you have some imagination! I guess after ten years on the Police Force, you need an overactive imagination to keep coming up with those trumped up charges against people. Just kidding, of course.

Instead of that ridiculously corny USA chant, here is the song they should have played while the Bionic Dick was strolling onto the stage.

reply to post by Xcathdra


>> I liked your comments about your philosophy towards police work. Sounds like you aren't one of the bad cops who vent their frustrations and need for authority on the job. Kudos.

However;

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.

>>You sound a bit more reasonable now, than the other responses that, admittedly, I caught the tail end of. But you certainly don't seem to have a grasp of international law.

The GENEVA CONVENTIONS, are not just any treaty -- and using "enemy non-combattant" or "their government did not sign the treaty" -- that's absolute nonsense. The Constitution is the same way; anywhere that the US has a presence, those laws of due process apply -- whether someone is a citizen or not. The Neocons aren't the first group of warmongers who used weasel words to REDEFINE people.

But as soon as someone sets foot on our land -- the CONSTITUTION applies. It is NOT subject to what some other government signs or not -- or the status of the person.

Torture is wrong. It's bad policy. It is NOT legal under the Geneva Conventions. Following the "letter of the law" and not the spirt of it -- well, that only works if everybody else in a position to do something about it, is either as brain dead or corrupt as the people saying it. Which seems to be the state of the Union in the USA. Of course, if Obama pulled us out of Afghanistan, he'd probably last as long as JFK. The President, has to work with the possible, and he isn't really the Leader of America -- he's just more of a Game Show Host to keep our minds off of the G7 summits where the real decisions are made.

>>However, BACK to the discussion as if Law and Justice mattered; An international treaty SUPERSEDES US law -- they are NOT light little suggestions and they are not to be entered into without due process. Bush snuck in a lot of "pseudo treaties" which is pretty Unconstitutional. I know this freaks people out who are worried about the "New World Order" -- but really, Treaties trump local laws. "Diplomatic Immunity" really does mean that it's almost impossible to arrest a foreign ambassador. That's Prima Facia evidence for what I'm talking about. If some town passes a law to launch it's own Nuke -- the state, the fed, all trump that town's ordinance. The Constitution -- if it can be proven to apply -- trumps ALL state and federal rules. And on top of that a TREATY trumps the Constitution. Now, Bush did a lot of "reinterpreting" the Constitutions -- but since the USA is so powerful, and behind the scenes -- all these nation's leaders are compromised by one multinational corporation or another -- they ALL pretty much ignored it. Oil companies wanted back into Iraq, and so BP told the Brits to go along with Bush.

It would have been legal for Russia to invade Washington, for Bush's blatant disregard of many nuclear non-proliferation agreements (like SALT). However, since Bush was doing a great job destroying this country, our adversaries just shrugged and let America have all the rope it needed to hang itself. There was talk of many of these abuses -- but it never showed on CNN or Fox, so, to the public at large, it was not part of "reality." Any documentation, if not part of this "public reality" is a conspiracy theory. And, there are a few investigations of the selling of nuclear secrets to Pakistan via A Q Kahn, and that's how Iran and North Korea got a head start -- but of course, THOSE investigations have gone nowhere.

China, has most of our "Military Industrial Corporations" making them cool stuff in their country these days. One day, people will wake up and realize that we were defeated by cheap trinkets and flat-screen TVs -- nobody had to invade us.

Breaking a TREATY, can be a provocation for war -- that's why treaties are made, so that countries can make agreements so they don't have to go to war over.


>> I really don't care about Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld being PROVEN war criminals. They've admitted it on TV. They at first lied about it, and then they've admitted the "harsh interrogation methods." I could go on a long list of other things they've done, where there is ENOUGH PROOF for a court to start a trial (note, you don't impeach or have a court hearing when there is ENOUGH EVIDENCE -- you impeach and stand trial when there is a crime and a reasonable suspicion).

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).

Now, the Bush administration had a few lawyers, create their own "interpretations" and he also added "signing agreements" to the end of Bills from Congress. A bunch of other compromised people in law enforcement, security and politics, took these signing statements as GOSPEL, and followed them. This is a flagrant breach of his powers and the separation of powers -- but it was likely ALSO possible, because this gang had broken laws and run the White House like a mob.

Cheney still controls what is called his "Executive Hit Squad" and he has admitted they've conducted assassinations and possibly on US soil.

I really don't think that ANY of what they did was for the security of the USA. I see no proof of them doing anything but a power grab. In fact, about a dozen of the top people in the Bush administration, are WANTED in many countries to stand trial -- and the Bush administration had a Diplomatic tour of all these countries, where they negotiated and threatened to put a stop to the requests for Extradition. Yes, countries like Canada, Germany, Columbia to name only a few, had subpoena's and orders to appear in court for many in the Bush administration.


>> These crooks will never see the inside of a courtroom. So me, and everybody like me, are just going to forever call them the WAR CRIMINALS that they are. If these bastards want to refute these "serious charges" -- then let's go to court to prove me wrong. There are thousands of documents of a litany of crimes and abuse of power and things that don't add up. Manufacturing of evidence for war, false imprisonment without charges, a torture policy.

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.

I quit bothering with the "proof" a long time ago. The TV creates a fantasy reality that people seem to adopt as the status quo. I'm somehow immune to the propaganda -- but there are still people who think that there are troops going to war to "Defend America."

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

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.

This is interesting, first I ever heard of it, Please tell us which Bush family members were involved, and other saucy details.

But more interestingly, please expand upon the WTC7 link. What exactly are you implying?

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.

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 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).

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.

The Supreme Court, and the courts in general, get a bad rap, and in most cases, unfairly. Yes, they get many things wrong, but if people studied the cases and read the opinions, I’m sure the majority would be surprised how many things they get right.

The Supreme Court has ruled on several cases regarding the “war on terror” and other related questions, and, almost invariably, rejected most of the government’s arguments and dealt huge blows to the executive branch’s policies. I invite people to look at cases like Rasul v. Bush, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and Boumediene v. Bush.

Here’s one of my favorite passages from Hamdi—

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.

And from Hamdan, where the Court ruled that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to the detainees of the “war on terror”—

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.

Common Article 3 of the Conventions makes clear that people detained “shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith,” and that “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture” or “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment” “shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever.”

I think Xcathdra, like others, defend these policies because they think it’s good policy, they believe it saved lives. Although I have yet to see any credible evidence presented by the executive branch to support that assertion, I guess it’s a legitimate opinion, but even so, that doesn’t negate or mitigate the fact that torture is still illegal, by domestic and international measures.

“The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances.” — Ex Parte Milligan (1866)

hes lucky he didnt get a shoe hurled at him!

I have a morbid desire to meet the people who cheered for Cheney. What kind of twisted and washed mind cheers for him? What kind of rock do you have to live under? How ignorant must a person be to think that Rumsfeld deserves the award?