midnight_devilx

click on one of our sponsors! OR REMOVE ADS

Like it's anything new, eh?

You can read the full article here: http://existentialistcowboy.%%%%%%%...-w-bush-is.html

It has a lot of links, so I don't want to just copy/paste.

enjoy reading

Krasch

Link is not working unfortunately...

midnight_devilx

I can't edit my original post so click HERE

I guess the site it's on is considered spam? Or is banned? I dunno? Any who, click the word "HERE" and it will direct you to the article. Sorry!

EDIT: NEVER MIND, IT'S NOT WORKING. CLOSE/DELETE THREAD. THANKS.

FattyJJ

Here is the complete link, just put them together in the address bar.

edit: we have sites like these banned for a reason. Please don't use them. You may however, copy and paste the article.

midnight_devilx

Yeah, I wasn't sure if it was a banned site (didn't see it in the rules) and I didn't want to do that.

But then I realized, I don't have a star under my name, so I can't post outside links...except in the porn thread, of course...

elfoozo

Well paste the article already. Let's see why Bush is a felon.

midnight_devilx

Friday, July 11, 2008
Federal Judge Ruling: George W. Bush is a Felon

Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of the US District Court in California has ruled that President George W. Bush is a felon. The ruling stems from the case of Al-Harmain Islamic Foundation Inc. v Bush, a case which will now be remembered as making it official that Bush's program of 'warrantless spying' is illegal.

Judge Walker held that the president lacks the authority to disregard the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA -- which means Bush's warrantless electronic surveillance program was illegal. Whether Bush will ultimately be held accountable for violating federal law with the program remains unclear. Bush administration lawyers have fought vigorously -- at times using brazen, logic-defying tactics -- to prevent that from happening. The court battle will continue to play out as Congress continues to battle over recasting FISA and possibly granting immunity to telecom companies involved in the illegal surveillance.

--Suing George W. Bush: A bizarre and troubling tale

The complete story at Sott.net outlines the sorry history of how the Bush administration has defined the law of this nation as well as the laws of common sense and decency to carry out a program that would have made even Richard Nixon or J. Edgar Hoover blush.

It would seem to me that it's now well established that Bush is indictable in a Federal Court. It is also my understanding that any sitting federal judge can now --upon his/her own motion --convene a federal grand jury to investigate Bush's many violations of federal law, not the least of which are US Codes, Title 18, Section 2441, which make Bush subject to the penalty of death for each death of his war of aggression in Iraq.

(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.

--TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 118 > § 2441 § 2441. War crimes

It's easy to find evidences of Bush's tyranny. Here's a headline linked from the article cited above.

Editor's note: This article is part of a Salon investigative series on spying inside the United States by the Bush administration. Research support for the article was provided by the Nation Institute Investigative Fund.

Spying on Americans without warrants, charges based on secret evidence, a small town divided by fear. Welcome to the world of Bush's "specially designated global terrorists."

May 19, 2008 | RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, and ASHLAND, Ore.

One day in March 2004, Soliman Hamd Al-Buthe, a former member of Saudi Arabia's national basketball team and a government official in the city of Riyadh, picked up his phone for an urgent call with two American lawyers in Washington, DC Most of the call concerned a growing confrontation between the US government and the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation in Ashland, Ore., the US branch of a global Saudi Arabian charity organization under investigation for possible links to terrorism. Al-Buthe had been an advisor to Al-Haramain from 1995 to 2002 and was a member of the Oregon foundation's board of directors. Just weeks prior to the call, the foundation -- a respected fixture in the Ashland community run for years by an Iranian-American Muslim named Pete Seda -- had been raided by US law enforcement agents.

--Blacklisted by the Bush government, Tim Shorrock, Salon

It is the Bush administration which has pressed this issue, an issue that has come up, until Bush, just four times in 23 years. But since 911 and the Bush wars for which it is fraudulently cited in justification, Bush has seized upon a Supreme Court ruling of 1953 to justify sweeping authority far beyond anything that could have been envisioned by the courts. Mere mention of two words --'state secrets' --was always enough to get a wink and nod from a federal judge. Things have changted. There is the possibility that George W. Bush is under investigation by a Federal Grand Jury as we write this.

Federal grand juries do two things: They investigate to determine if federal crimes have been committed; and they indict, or bring criminal charges against, those whom the grand jury believes committed federal crimes. To indict, the grand jurors must have probable cause to believe the persons indicted did violate federal criminal law.

Grand juries offer prosecutors several advantages in conducting a criminal investigation, especially a high-profile, factually complicated investigation. For one thing, grand juries operate in secret; this not only gives prosecutors the ability to shield the evidence they are gathering from disclosure to the press and others, it can also encourage people to cooperate with a grand jury. Unless a witness reveals that he or she testified before a federal grand jury, no one ever needs to know that occurred, and since the transcripts of grand jury testimony are secret, no one will know what the witness said. This can be an advantage in an investigation, such as an investigation into terrorism, where witnesses may be afraid of retaliation if they cooperate with investigators.

Grand juries also give prosecutors the power to subpoena witnesses and evidence from around the country and, in some circumstances, from other countries, as well. (Getting evidence from abroad is discussed below.) If federal agents want to interview someone, the person can refuse to speak to them; this is true even if the person is arrested as a material witness, because persons who are arrested can invoke the Miranda rights to silence and to an attorney. The U.S. Supreme Court has held, however, that the Miranda rights are not available to witnesses subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury. Unlike someone being interrogated by federal agents, a grand jury witness not only has not right to silence or counsel, he or she is required to answer questions posed by the prosecutor working with the grand jury and by the grand jurors. A grand jury witness can refuse to answer if he or she can invoke the Fifth Amendment as to a question, but the privilege must be claimed as to each question and the prosecutor can challenge a witness' ability to invoke the privilege.

--Using a Grand Jury to Investigate the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks, Susan Brenner & Lori Shaw

It is against both the letter of the law, logic, and common sense to allow Bush carte blanche to dismiss out-of-hand legal challenges to his various assumptions of dictatorial powers. This is crucial! Bush wars on Iraq, Afghanistan and 'terror' can be shown to be criminal and fraudulent. No other criminal defendant could simply invoke 'executive privilege' in order to have the smoking gun evidence against him thrown out of court. And Bush must no be allowed to do so either!

In this case, the evidence that must be allowed, the evidence that must be weighed by a federal grand jury will prove beyond any shadow of doubt that the panoply of frauds and lies Bush perpetrated upon the sovereign people of the US amount to high treason, mass murder, and war crimes for which US Codes themselves demand the death penalty.





ALL LINKS REMOVED!

Krasch

"Judge Walker held that the president lacks the authority to disregard the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA -- which means Bush's warrantless electronic surveillance program was illegal."

Correct this Canucklehead if he's wrong, but if Bush made the directive to his subordinates to disregard the FISA an Executive Order, doesn't that essentially mean the law is what Bush says it is in this case, regardless of what some judge in California may think?

CD

Which is why he's so dangerous... he thinks and acts like he's better then the law.

___________________________________________

fmb

Executive order is available to every President, not just the current President. In the past, EO has been invoked for even minor things such as forcing many federal agencies to prepare for earthquakes (EO #12699); if Bush made an EO for this, it is legal.

I'm unsure what the process may be to void an EO, but I'm sure the Supreme Court would probably be involved.

Personally, I believe the FISA courts could handle the current situation, even though they were developed for use against different threats in a different time. Why not use the options already in place instead of creating new organizations and systems?

ddoubleez

Lying to congress to go to war is a federal crime.... The only yellowcake in africa, was for bush's bday cake!

Bush is wanted in a number of countries.........

thecowboy

In order to be a felon, the first step is to be prosecuted. The case that is described is a civil case. Bush is being sued by an islamic group in California. The underlying case was dismissed for lack of standing:



Basically, in order to have standing, one needs to show injury, causation, and redressability. This requirement stems from the case or controversy requirement in Article III of the constitution.

As the quoted language above mentions, the case was remanded to the 9th circuit (which includes California) district court for a determination of the preemption question. The district court basically found that President Bush overstepped his bounds of the presidency. Here is the opinion if you want to read it: http://www.eff.org/files/Al-HaraFISA-order.pdf

Does this make President Bush a felon? No. Once again, in order to be a felon you have to be prosecuted in a criminal case. The case would be denoted as U.S. v. Bush, not Al-Haramain Islamic Found., Inc. v. Bush.

What does it mean that Bush overstepped his Presidential authority? First, in my opinion, it means that Congress did not do it's job in preventing this from happening, perhaps by passing a law or filing a lawsuit on its own. It is sad that a group from California, who cannot even establish standing is able to establish that the President of the United States overstepped his bounds.

Also, just because a court found that Bush overstepped his bounds does not automatically mean that he can be prosecuted. Putting aside all issues of Presidential immunity, it will have to be shown that he violated a criminal offense, and did so with some requisite of intent, be it purpose, knowledge, recklessness, or negligence.

Another point: This ruling comes from a federal district court for the northern district of California. This is the lowest level court in the federal system. If Bush wanted to appeal, he would still have the avenues of the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit and the Supreme Court. The ruling made by the judge in this case is by no means final.

One last point: A president overstepping his bounds of authority is not a new issue. Half of my constitutional law class was focused on Presidential authority and many of the cases I read had to do with an overstep by the President that the Supreme Court had to fix. One example off the top of my head is Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer where the Supreme Court held that Eisenhower had overstepped when he ordered some striking workers back to work.

Rather than admonishing the President for doing something that many of his predecessors have done systematically, perhaps we should praise the rule of law and the system of checks and balances that the Framers developed for achieving what is (hopefully) the just and best result for the country.

Krasch

Also to be a felon, wouldn't one have to not only be prosecuted in a criminal case, but CONVICTED?

Note: I'll answer this here and let it go afterward because the other thread is locked. Yes, my political bias is no doubt quite evident, as I've not made any effort to hide it. The difference between myself and someone like Deez (who I respect even though I vehemently disagree with him) is that I don't make a habit of posting videos exhorting others to watch them trying to push my views on others. As a matter of fact, I've never done so. It would be somewhat pointless. If you've read my posts, you already know where I stand and if you disagree you've got every right to...

Commentary over.

joerockhead

If President Bush is a Felon, then Congress is too!!!!

___________________________________________


Visit the worlds best website -
www.badass67.com - Black Sunshine