What is Digg?133 Comments
- inactive, on 07/15/2008, -10/+94------------------"WHAT LAW WAS BROKEN, LIBS??????"----------------------
Uh, lets see, President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales have committed violations and subversions of the Constitution of the United States of America in an attempt to carry out with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes and deprivations of the civil rights of the people of the United States and other nations, by assuming powers of an imperial executive unaccountable to law and usurping powers of the Congress, the Judiciary and those reserved to the people of the United States, by the following acts:
1) Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law; carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of over one hundred thousand Iraqis, and thousands of U.S. G.I.s.
2) Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war.
3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties were unavoidable.
4) Instituting a secret and illegal wiretapping and spying operation against the people of the United States through the National Security Agency.
5) Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently changing its government by force and assaulting Iraq in a war of aggression.
6) Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, kidnappings, secret and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of prisoners to obtain false statements concerning acts and intentions of governments and individuals and violating within the United States, and by authorizing U.S. forces and agents elsewhere, the rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
7) Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda about the conduct of foreign governments and individuals and acts by U.S. government personnel; manipulating the media and foreign governments with false information; concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment concerning acts, intentions and possession, or efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction in order to falsely create a climate of fear and destroy opposition to U.S. wars of aggression and first strike attacks.
8) Violations and subversions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, both a part of the "Supreme Law of the land" under Article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, in an attempt to commit with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes in wars and threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and others and usurping powers of the United Nations and the peoples of its nations by bribery, coercion and other corrupt acts and by rejecting treaties, committing treaty violations, and frustrating compliance with treaties in order to destroy any means by which international law and institutions can prevent, affect, or adjudicate the exercise of U.S. military and economic power against the international community.
9) Acting to strip United States citizens of their constitutional and human rights, ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to counsel, without charge, and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the Executive of a citizen as an "enemy combatant."
10) Ordering indefinite detention of non-citizens in the United States and elsewhere, and without charge, at the discretionary designation of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Defense.
11) Ordering and authorizing the Attorney General to override judicial orders of release of detainees under INS jurisdiction, even where the judicial officer after full hearing determines a detainee is wrongfully held by the government.
12) Authorizing secret military tribunals and summary execution of persons who are not citizens who are designated solely at the discretion of the Executive who acts as indicting official, prosecutor and as the only avenue of appellate relief.
13) Refusing to provide public disclosure of the identities and locations of persons who have been arrested, detained and imprisoned by the U.S. government in the United States, including in response to Congressional inquiry.
14) Use of secret arrests of persons within the United States and elsewhere and denial of the right to public trials.
15) Authorizing the monitoring of confidential attorney-client privileged communications by the government, even in the absence of a court order and even where an incarcerated person has not been charged with a crime.
16) Ordering and authorizing the seizure of assets of persons in the United States, prior to hearing or trial, for lawful or innocent association with any entity that at the discretionary designation of the Executive has been deemed "terrorist."
17) Engaging in criminal neglect in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, depriving thousands of people in Louisiana, Mississippi and other Gulf States of urgently needed support, causing mass suffering and unnecessary loss of life.
18) Institutionalization of racial and religious profiling and authorization of domestic spying by federal law enforcement on persons based on their engagement in noncriminal religious and political activity.
19) Refusal to provide information and records necessary and appropriate for the constitutional right of legislative oversight of executive functions.
20) Rejecting treaties protective of peace and human rights and abrogation of the obligations of the United States under, and withdrawal from, international treaties and obligations without consent of the legislative branch, and including termination of the ABM treaty between the United States and Russia, and rescission of the authorizing signature from the Treaty of Rome which served as the basis for the International Criminal Court.
more when I have time... - obliviousfool, on 07/15/2008, -4/+82Here's the reasons as I see them.
1) Congress is complicit.
2) A majority of the members of congress could be considered war profiteers.
3) Congress is afraid. (see the anthrax letters)
4) Congress has been compromised. (see NSA wiretapping)
Congress knew what was coming and what direction it would go, and they decided to play along. The fact that the game got out of hand doesn't change the fact that most of them were playing the game from the very start. - rearlgrant, on 07/15/2008, -7/+50Any member of Congress that doesn't support impeachment condones this Administration and its behavior.
- jeremyduffy, on 07/15/2008, -4/+37I'm ashamed to admit that I hadn't consider this before.. But it makes perfect sense. Even if they didn't get prosecuted for their involvement or lack thereof, it might end their LUCRATIVE congressional gig.
- ZeroOrDie, on 07/16/2008, -6/+27Bush fought the law and Bush won!
- mikelieman, on 07/16/2008, -1/+22Let me summarize all that for you.
Violations of 18 USC 371 and 18 USC 1001. - Hangly, on 07/16/2008, -4/+21It's absolutely repulsive that everyone is wringing their hands about this and not doing anything. What a bunch of pussies we all are. Yes, I realize I'm not doing anything either. I guess I could volunteer to be the first person to charge the bayonets except I'm nowhere near the US right now.
Goddamn I'm itching for a fight. Maybe its time to come home. - dunktim, on 07/16/2008, -4/+16What a shocker. No one in Congress has any balls to stop him. The King is free to do what he wants while the common people eat *****.
- Waiting2awake, on 07/16/2008, -2/+12Psst - it doesn't matter what majority, or minority, or numbers between Republicans and democrats - they are the same thing. Two management teams, vying for Slavery Incorporated.
- vanguardanon, on 07/16/2008, -1/+11As I read this I kept thinking to myself, "I wish Obama was different. He voted for FISA."
:-( - blankoboy, on 07/16/2008, -1/+10Not pussies. Partners in crime.
- blankoboy, on 07/16/2008, -2/+11Bush breaks laws + Congress lets him get away with it = Congress just as guilty as Bush.
PROSECUTE THEM ALL! *****. - inactive, on 07/16/2008, -1/+9That's why a two-party system is not good, for any country.
- an0nymous, on 07/16/2008, -2/+9The really screwed up part is that the Opposition party, our only legislative outlet to speak opposing views has been so thoroughly corrupted. Steny Hoyer, Jay Rockefeller, they're as bad as Cheney.
At least Cheney's open about his opinions repellent and ill-advised as they are. - wilywondr, on 07/16/2008, -3/+10Follow the $
http://www.maplight.org/
http://www.opensecrets.org/ - mattcarreiro, on 07/16/2008, -4/+10how much of a majority do the dems have to have before they grow some balls and drop the hammer on the "2 presidents one constitution" ***** goin on in the whitehouse?
- skoles, on 07/16/2008, -3/+9The terms "Republican" and "Democrat" have no real meaning nowadays. There are people from both sides that go against the perceived grain of their party for the good & the bad.
We should really be looking at electing good people and weeding out the deceitful and bad. - SAc0balt, on 07/16/2008, -1/+6Wrong. There are still good people in congress. If you think every single person there is corrupt, then you're a fool. The majority may be corrupt, but not every single member. Also, number 4 doesn't imply that they are good people. If anything, I think obliviousfool was pointing out that with wiretapping and the like in place, the questionable activities of those in congress who ARE corrupt can be easily used against them, should they have a sudden attack of conscience.
- uselessexpert, on 07/16/2008, -2/+7The answer to that is easy: OUR CONGRESS IS FULL OF A BUNCH OF PUSSIES!
Just look at the FISA bill that was just passed.
Everyone is always blaming Bush for this and for that, but at the same time our elected officials (congressman and senators) are the ones signing off on all the ***** Bush wants done, so they are much at fault also. - mashedpotatoes, on 07/16/2008, -2/+7It's called "accessory to the crime". Bush robbed the bank but Congress drove the car.
- spongya77, on 07/16/2008, -1/+6It always blew my mind that politicians are required to enforce the laws. If those son of a bitches broke the laws (and they did) then a completely non-political enforcement agency should be charged to put those bastards to jail, to trial, and under the noose.
Politicians are never to be trusted with anything; especially not with the enforcement of the law. - lamiaconfitor, on 07/16/2008, -1/+6No, no, shut up! Generic B.S. is not allowed here.
- BlacklabelSAR, on 07/16/2008, -0/+4So you are not for the checks and balances that this country was founded on? What if a president that you did not agree with ignored congress to "get things done"?
Eh? - Peko, on 07/16/2008, -1/+5I think "non-corrupt" versus "corrupt" is oversimplified and does not do the discussion justice.
I'm very confident there is a range of corruption. Some politicians are extraordinarily corrupt, some are somewhat corrupt, some are only slightly corrupt.
I'd agree with the statement that almost all politicians are at least a little bit corrupt but I would also append that some politicians are still clean enough to do a good job, on the whole. Not very many, I expect. - salinemist, on 07/16/2008, -1/+5That's funny, Congress didn't let Clinton get away with acting like a mob boss.
- fuckingusername, on 07/16/2008, -4/+8you won't hear this on CNN or Faux News or any other media outlet besides the internet
How Odd! - junkwheel, on 07/16/2008, -1/+5Exactly.
And ANY wording they use to try and word their asses around it is useless.
Including "It would be a long drawn out process which would not result in impeachment and he's leaving soon anyway".
***** what? - Waiting2awake, on 07/16/2008, -3/+7Until the common people get off their computers and march to the WH, congress, the RNC and DNC and escort these people to some holding cell until such a time that a hearing can be held to determine whether they have committed treason.
It is, as it always has been, in the hands of the American populace. - founderofpork, on 07/16/2008, -2/+6This is so correct and so thorough that it would be pretty impossible for even the most rabid neo-con to mount a coherent defense.
If even ONE of these TWENTY accusations is true, shouldn't the president and vice president be impeached?
Now, for the conservatives out there, imagine that a Democratic president was accused of 20 different impeachable offenses. Would you be crying for his/her impeachment? I know I would, because I believe that no one in this country is above the law. Why is the situation different when a president of your chosen political party is in office? - banderwocky, on 07/16/2008, -1/+4They are just protecting their own. The upper echelon of society.
- lamiaconfitor, on 07/16/2008, -1/+4The vary branch that congress and the president are attacking may be our last salvation... that is the way the government was designed. support Judges, that is the last resort...
- merlinus, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3Crimes:
1) They used false and misleading intelligence to start wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
2) They have violated the Constitution by holding US citizens without charges
3) They have violated the Constitution by tapping our calls without warrants
4) They have violated the Geneva Conventions by waging wars of aggression for profit
5) They have violated the Geneva Conventions by torturing enemy combatants in Abu Ghraib.
6) They have committed financial crimes against the American people by devaluing our dollar.
7) The outing of an undercover identity is a capital crime under US law.
Incompetences (at best):
1. GOP Congressional majority gone
2. Tanked the dollar's value
3. Unprecedented red ink in federal budget
4. US/Iraq quagmire
5. US recession & inflation
6. Then skedaddled out of town.. :-) - Aadain, on 07/16/2008, -1/+4The problem is that Congress is the only legal body that can enact impeachment/arrest Bush & his cronies. The only legal thing the US citizens can do is pester their representatives in Congress to go after Bush, which this article points out is very unlikely if downright impossible for most of them. Short of a military coup or a nation wide people's rebellion*, we are stuck for the time being. During the next election cycle though, everyone should vote for the challenger in order to get these corrupt incumbents out of our government. Until them, we are screwed.
*Why do you think we have the 2nd amendment? Its the final check against a totally corrupt government. - Peko, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2Not that I disagree with out - I quite certain you're right.
Is there other historical evidence of a similar sitution? Powerful state, 2 party system for a reasonably long period of time?
Bonus points for "anti-competitive" acts executed with collusion of the 2 party system.
Extra bonus credit - possible comparision/exploration of number of parties, homogeny of parties, and "corruption index". - inactive, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2Congress not only drove the car; they bought the guns and ski masks, too.
- TheDeepFriar, on 07/16/2008, -2/+4All but Paul and Kucinich*
- DooM, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2I was actually just thinking about the guy up above who recommended mass marches choking off the capital and essentially shutting down the city.
And I'd still be tempted to disagree with your point that violence is essential - I mean how long have 'insurgents' in Iraq been conducting violence against our military with really no effect other than increasing military presence?
At the end of the day I would see a violent uprising as a way for the government to divert attention away from the aims of whatever group undertaking it and on their actions instead - that would enable them to even further torch the constitution and rape the general populace.
Interesting thoughts, tho. - spongya77, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3...just lying about a blowjob was enough...
- TheDeepFriar, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3how unfortunately normal....... :/
- pe5t1lence, on 07/16/2008, -3/+5You forgot increasing the governments, and hence congress', power.
- Memitim, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3"blackhawks, M16s, rocket launchers and tanks"
Manned by whom? Our husbands, wives, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, friends, and neighbors. Those who dwell in the halls of our government would be taking their lives in their hands by ordering our troops to turn against us en masse.
Two hundred years ago, governments could execute large-scale suppression of the populace by gathering troops from select portions of the population and mobilizing with little warning. This allowed rapid suppression by bringing an organized force into conflict with small bands of poorly organized and prepared opposition groups that were viewed as inferior. The modern American military is composed of a cross-section of the entire nation, with the smallest portion coming from the politicos who would give those orders, and any attempt to engage in a large-scale maneuver against the American people would be broadcast around the planet seconds after the first shot was fired. It's a whole different ballgame, alright, but the odds have actually been shifted into the people's favor. - BlacklabelSAR, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2"good Americans"..is that like "good Germans"?
- RabidAngel, on 07/16/2008, -2/+4They committed crimes. They are retroactively trying to protect their collective asses. They are corrupt beyond repair. We are all allowing this to happpen.
End of story. - Peko, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3Doom,
Maybe you're operating under the same presumption I once was. If you're thinking about Gandhi as an example of nonviolence, he was, but there were definitely violent independence groups /also/ acting in india at the time. (That's the part I didn't know, oh, 4 months ago or so)
Nonviolence is great, go for it. Organize, organize, organize. But violence has long been a very successful part of a state revolution.
If "violence" is required for a significant change in the US government (I really hope it isn't) I hope it's in the form of highly annoying civil disobedience/sabotage. I'm thinking the guys who stand up to apaches with their 22s are more stupid than heroic. - DooM, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3The 2nd Amendment is useless as a 'rebellion' tool in the modern world - 200 years ago the military was using mostly the same weapons as the farmers and cannons were easy enough to steal and use. You go ahead and take your .45 up against blackhawks, M16s, rocket launchers and tanks and see how long your rebellion lasts.
Non-violent resistance is the only way to 'rebel' against a government gone awry. - Intercon, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3Your point is what, exactly? Of course there are many things kept from the eyes of the American people. Let's take Pearl Harbor for instance. What was kept from the citizens of the United States was the fact that the Navy Admirals and the President knew ahead of time that the attack was going to happen, AND THEY LET IT HAPPEN.
Your caveat about citizens being out of the loop and not having all the information might be true, but you seem to be suggesting that this somehow justifies the actions of this administration's crimes. It does not, and you are foolish to suggest otherwise.
The problem facing the populace is an administration that has cloaked virtually all its activities in unprecedented levels of secrecy, Secrecy that the American people can't afford since it is not the interests of its citizens that this government is pursuing abroad, but rather the interests of the coporations that support Bush and Co.; namely, war profiteers.
As to expanding the power of the Executive Branch, you make it seem like they are simply pushing one way, while the other branches push the other way, as in a rugby scrum. However your analysis of the situation exposes thinking too complex to support such a simplistic view. In order for Congress to make decision's about our nation's actions abroad, they need to be told the truth by the Executive Branch. What we have seen is a systematic misinformation campaign that began with Congress and continued across the media. While everyone in that chain is culpable to some degree, the buck stops with Bush, and he and his team committed treason when they cooked the intelligence and lied to Congress and the nation.
Secrecy has no place in a democracy that seeks peace as its highest goal. - SilverBlade2k, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3Congress and everyone in government has been bought and paid for long ago.
- obliviousfool, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks
After 9/11, but before the passage of the patriot act, letters containing anthrax were mailed to the offices of all the major news outlets, and the offices of two top-ranking democratic senators, Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy. They opposed the patriot act. Five people died. 22 people were made ill.
Later it was discovered that the strain, spore count, and chemical traits of the anthrax meant that it must have originated from a US army lab. The widow of the first person to die in the attacks, Robert Stevens, has sued the US for their negligent storage of deadly anthrax. That case is still in the courts.
The case has never been solved, and it is seldom talked about, but it obviously scared the living ***** out of congress. I'll leave it up to you to decide who intended to do the scaring and why. - zerobriers, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2His point is the kind that when you read it, the weird things that were happening make sense.
Also, I love the argument that they did nothing wrong. Immunity is always given to an innocent party, right? -
Show 51 - 100 of 134 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is