| Jul 8 @ 12:35 AM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
Paralegal_at_Law
Posts: 5,068
|
Law is law.
|
|
  |
|
| Jul 8 @ 12:44 AM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
lacyvsq
Posts: 4,304
|
Jurisdiction is what counts...and parties to the contract...
|
| |
|
| Jul 8 @ 12:48 AM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
Paralegal_at_Law
Posts: 5,068
|
Like I said, the law recognizes wars declared and undeclared, and also certain ratified treaties obligate the use of American military force.
Your constitutional arguments I agree with, word for word, the only problem is with your personal views as to the definitions of those constitutional words are at odds with the legal community.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 8 @ 12:50 AM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
Nightowl001
Posts: 4,134
|
Law is law. Until it's overturned, rendered null and void by later legislation and/or statute, amended, annotated, repealed or otherwise made "not law" any longer.
|
| |
|
| Jul 8 @ 12:59 AM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
Paralegal_at_Law
Posts: 5,068
|
Until it's overturned, rendered null and void by later legislation and/or statute, amended, annotated, repealed or otherwise made "not law" any longer.
Conjecture as to its application, and as principled as how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin, but nontheless true in the abstract.
But this is a well-settled area of law, with regard to wars being declared or undeclared.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 8 @ 1:06 AM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
Nightowl001
Posts: 4,134
|
But this is a well-settled area of law So was slavery. Granted, given the influence of those who LIKE the phrase "war, declared or undeclared" over the influence of those paying premiums (often required by state law), I don't look for any major changes in the foreseeable future. But handing down such weighty pronouncements as "Law is law" is a good way to have to end up eating your words. Whether you like it or not, there is nothing in the universe that is static and unchanging. Words written in stone have a way of being worn away over time and under tread.
|
| |
|
| Jul 8 @ 1:07 AM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
lacyvsq
Posts: 4,304
|
Back on topic...
From today's news...Impeach Bush Now
Cotati May Call for Bush's ImpeachmentNinety cities have passed impeachment resolutions, according to the site. Weeks Disappointed McCain Refused to Support Impeachment
Law is law.
Austin, TX was the first of more than a hundred cities to declare the USAPATRIOT act unconstitutional.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 8 @ 1:10 AM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
SweetNapaGuy
Posts: 4,554
|
is a good way to have to end up eating your words.
Para may eat a lot of things (by the bushel...), but he's not big on admitting that he's wrong. So I don't see him eating his words any time soon. No matter how often he's proven to be wrong or twisted.
|
| |
|
| Jul 8 @ 2:08 AM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
Paralegal_at_Law
Posts: 5,068
|
But this is a well-settled area of law So was slavery.
Slavery remains a very well settled and irrevocable area of law, absent a federal constitutional amendment to reverse the present state of the law, which is never going to happen.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 15 @ 2:12 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
lacyvsq
Posts: 4,304
|
How to Create an Angry American
Dennis Kucinich Reintroduces Impeachment July 10
Why the Democrats Won't Impeach Bush
Improbable Collapse: The Demolition of Our Republic
|
| |
|
| Jul 15 @ 2:15 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
nightmare
Posts: 32
|
you no i have visited a few websites, that says 9/11 was an inside job. hey i,m dam crazy, but i don't or cant buy that 9/11 was a inside job. if you do please put the blunt down. try thinking about this straight,
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 15 @ 2:19 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
lacyvsq
Posts: 4,304
|
Watch the videos...they are about impeachment and the War on America...not all about 9/11 being an inside job...
|
| |
|
| Jul 15 @ 2:39 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
nightmare
Posts: 32
|
that would be nice, but not going to happen on impeachment. both sides are in this together. as i hears Jessie venture say last night. politics is like wrestling. after they fight all day they go to dinner together and laugh about us.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 15 @ 2:42 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
lacyvsq
Posts: 4,304
|
Rep. Dennis Kucinich continued his seemingly quixotic crusade to impeach President Bush last week. But with Speaker Pelosi suggesting the House Judiciary Committee may hear his argument, Kucinich might get his day very soon. Kucinich Impeachment Battle No Longer So Quixotic
A single Article of Impeachment of President Bush, which alleges that Mr. Bush sent the nation to war under the false pretenses, will be brought to the floor of the House this afternoon. Its sponsor, U.S. Representative Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH), will rise to refer the bill to the Committee on the Judiciary. Kucinich has long been pressing for Impeachment hearings. He previously introduced 35 articles relating to President Bush and three articles relating to the Vice President.
Kucinich, under the rules of the House governing questions of privilege, read the Impeachment resolution before the House last week. Today the Clerk will officially read it into the record as a bill, it will be given a number and then will be subject to parliamentary motions. If Kucinich is successful, the bill will be referred to committee rather than tabled. Last week Speaker Pelosi, for the first time, indicated an interest in committee hearings on President Bush's abuse of executive power, including the issues that Kucinich raised.
"If it is tabled, I will bring another Impeachment resolution back this week," said Kucinich. "Our Constitution is being destroyed. We are losing our nation to a war based on lies. I am determined to get this bill to committee for a hearing," he said. "The President has conducted the affairs of the nation in a manner which cries out for justice and it is the Constitutional obligation of Congress to check his wanton abuses of U.S. and international law. We have troops whose lives were put on the line because the President told them Iraq was a threat to the United States and it was not. The loss of lives of our troops and of innocent Iraqi civilians is a direct result of the lies this president told to Congress. He must be held accountable."
The Article of Impeachment alleges that President Bush falsely told the nation that it had no other choice to go to war because Iraq was an imminent threat in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and that the President had repeatedly implied that Iraq had abetted al Qaeda in its devastating attack of 9/11. Kucinich, in his Article, cited documents which assert the White House knew the statements were false at the time they were made.
Kucinich Impeachment Resolution Introduced In House With Reading By Clerk Today
|
| |
|
| Jul 15 @ 2:44 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
nightmare
Posts: 32
|
Kucinich, is wasting his time, the rich stick with the rich.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 15 @ 3:09 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
lacyvsq
Posts: 4,304
|
The Murder Trial of George W. Bush?There are those who say that President George W. Bush should be impeached for intentionally overstating the case for war with Iraq and misleading the American public and Congress about the threat of WMD as well as Saddam Hussein's alleged role in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Since then, there have been administration insiders like Richard Clarke and Scott McClellan who've written books confirming these long-held suspicions, providing meticulously detailed accounts of how the Busheviks, as early as January 2001, began their mission to manipulate, misrepresent and manufacture evidence in order to justify an invasion. And then there are those like former criminal prosecutor and best-selling author Vincent Bugliosi who believe mere impeachment is not enough. According to his website, his new book " The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder," is " a tight, meticulously researched legal case that puts George W. Bush on trial in an American courtroom for the murder of nearly 4,000 American soldiers fighting the war in Iraq..." Bugliosi, most famous for prosecuting Charles Manson for the 1969 Tate-LaBianca murders, appeared Friday morning on MSNBC's Morning Joe program with host Joe Scarborough, NBC's Andrea Mitchell and the Boston Globe's Mike Barnicle. Citing reams of documentary evidence to support his contention that Bush should be tried for murder, Bugliosi bases his case not on Bush's false claims of WMD, but rather that the president lied that the WMD posed a grave and imminent threat to the security of the United States, which in turn became the justification for the war.[emphasis added] The Ostroy Report
Bugliosi discusses his book
|
| |
|
| Jul 15 @ 6:09 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
Novalite
Posts: 3,093
|
Bugliosi bases his case not on Bush's false claims of WMD, but rather that the president lied that the WMD posed a grave and imminent threat to the security of the United States,
Ho hum. I suppose he is referring to the NIE that Bush based his decisions on which stated that iraq had all sorts of WMDs and programs going on. I don't recall Bush ever saying Iraq was an 'imminent threat' but do remember something about 'urgent.' Since his case has those two glaring errors as it's base, I doubt it's going very far.
Also, I remember going over this before as well.
Yawn.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 15 @ 6:25 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
lacyvsq
Posts: 4,304
|
I know...Bush did not use the word imminent... but a war not based on imminent threat is considered a war of aggression and Kucinich is alleging in his lastest impeachment attempt that Bush lied to Congress about the urgency of the threat, and had he not lied, Congress would not have authorized military action against Iraq.
Bugliosi has quite a distinctive record btw of actual legal action against criminals.
|
| |
|
| Jul 15 @ 6:41 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America?
|
|
vinnytmd
Posts: 6,004
|
Bugliosi has quite a distinctive record btw of actual legal action against criminals
He prosecuted Charles Manson. Bama Gary could have won that one! 
Do some research. He is a tinfoil wearing goof along the lines of Dennis Kucinich. At least Kucinich admits to having been "VISITED."
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 15 @ 6:44 PM |
More 9/11 Truth? Impeachment? War on America? |
|
lacyvsq
Posts: 4,304
|
Congressman Olver is worried about martial law should Bush/Cheney be impeached. Are there other congressmen worried?
Should we take Congressman John Olver at his word? If so, then what? There are numerous posts in the blogsphere to the effect that Congressman John Olver (D-MA for 17 years), when grilled by angry pro-impeachment constituents as to why in the world he's not pushing for impeachment of Bush & Cheney, said that the real reason for Congressional inaction is that if impeachment was seriously pursued "Bush/Cheney would impose martial law and suspend the '08 elections". This startling revelation has thus far gone virtually unreported in any major media outlet that I can find, but one website and many blogs (especially the impeachment sites) have picked up on it: "Congressman John Olver expressed the prevailing view in government circles when he told twenty of his constituents at a private meeting in Massachusetts on July 5, 2007, that he could not support a movement to impeach Bush. According to an attendee, the reason the Congressman gave was that, “The President would declare a national emergency, institute martial law, and suspend the 2008 elections.” Is there any reason to doubt Congressman Olver's statement? Clearly Bush has granted himself pretty much blanket "authority" to deliver on his threat, under NSPD-51 http://www.ww4report.com/node/3940 to declare a national emergency, impose martial law, etc. whenever he decides there is a "catastrophic emergency" as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions." By the way, NSPD-51 is the same "continuity of government" directive that has all its details "classified", that Congressman DeFazio (D-OR) was flatly denied access to seeing, even though DeFazio has every legal right to see as a member of the House Homeland Security Committee. http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/21/2678 /So this is my question: If all this is true, then isn't the whole '08 election a thinly disguised elaborate charade designed to gloss over the fact that the nation is already under the thumb of a shadowy cabal of treasonous thugs who will stop at absolutely NOTHING to perpetuate their criminal agenda? Think about it. If what Olver says is true, 99% of what passes for "news" is nothing more than moving the deck chairs around on a Titanic with Cheney & the Bush Crime Family at the helm, no matter who ends being "elected president" in Jan. 09.
[Edited on 7/15/2008 7:00 PM]
|
| |
|
|