1. Leaking classified information by disclosing the identity of Valerie Plame to reporters.
This violates the National Security Act of 1947:
"Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agents intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
2. Lying to Congress: passing false information about Iraq's WMD capacities.
George Bush and Dick Cheney passed false information to Congress about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities, to wit, their possession of chemical weapons, biological weapons, and delivery systems. Furthermore, George Bush and Dick Cheney passed false information to Congress by falsely stating that Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States and that military action was therefore necessary. This violates 18 USC 1001.
3. Extraordinary renditions.
George Bush and Dick Cheney authorized the arrest and transporting of prisoners to secret jails in Morocco, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and Eastern Europe for detention and torture without trial. Obvious violation of the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution.
4. Detentions without trial.
George Bush and Dick Cheney detained thousands of people at Guantanamo Bay without the possibility of trial and without access to effective counsel. Also violates the Sixth Amendment.
5. Torture.
George Bush and Dick Cheney either ordered or caused other foreign countries to perform torture on suspects illegally detained under sections 3 and 4 of these articles. Eighth Amendment, prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment, infringed.
6. Misappropriation of funds.
George Bush and Dick Cheney diverted funds from Afghanistan to Iraq as documented in Bob Woodward's "Plan of attack" and failed to notify Congress of such appropriations. This violates the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998:
"The President shall notify the congressional committees specified in section 634A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 at least 15 days in advance of each obligation of assistance under this section in accordance with the procedures applicable to reprogramming notifications under section 634A."
7. Bombing Iraq without Congressional approval.
George Bush and Dick Cheney authorized over 21,000 bombing missions on Iraq without Congressional approval before passage of the Iraq War Resolution in October 11th, 2002. Article I of the Constitution states: "To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water."
8. Conspiracy to pass false information.
George Bush and Dick Cheney conspired to pass false information about the nature of the intelligence on Iraq to the US Congress in conjunction with British Prime Minister Tony Blair for the purposes of triggering a war with Iraq as documented in the Downing Street Minutes. Violation of 18 USC 1001, as mentioned earlier.
9. Lying about Niger connection.
George Bush and Dick Cheney lied to Congress at the State of the Union and elsewhere by falsely stating that Iraq had procured that infamous yellowcake uranium from Niger. Again, 18 USC 1001.
10. Contempt of Congress.
George Bush and Dick Cheney showed a contempt of Congress by stating their intentions to violate laws passed by Congress or cause others to do so over 750 times. 750! There are no laws for this "Do as I say, not as I do" President.
11. Illegal wiretaps.
George Bush and Dick Cheney repeatedly bypassed the court system by ordering wiretaps without authorization from judges and without obtaining a warrant. This is a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which bars illegal searches and seizures.
12. Concealment of the existence or nature of Domestic Intelligence Programs.
George Bush and Dick Cheney concealed the nature and extent of the JPEN program, used for the purpose of domestic intelligence. This infringes on 18 USC 1505.
13. Destruction of Evidence.
George Bush and Dick Cheney destroyed evidence in conjunction with Plamegate. Again a violation of 18 USC 1505, prohibiting obstruction of investigations.
14. The use of white phosphorus in Iraq.
George Bush and Dick Cheney authorized the use of white phosphorus in Iraq in November 2004 during the Fallujah offensive. Violates the U.S. Army Field Manual, chapter 5, section 3:
"(4) Burster Type White phosphorus (WP M110A2) rounds burn with intense heat and emit dense white smoke. They may be used as the initial rounds in the smokescreen to rapidly create smoke or against material targets, such as Class V sites or logistic sites. It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets."
1) Richard Armitage leaked the identity of Valerie Plame to reporters. Which wasn't a problem, considering she wasn't even a covert agent at the time.
2) They used information provided to them by the CIA, the NSA, MI6, and practically every intelligence agency in the world. Perhaps angling it around WMDs was, ultimately, a bad idea (a better idea would have been concerning Hussein's violation of the UN resolutions, or his horrible human rights record), but using faulty intelligence is hardly the same as lying.
3) The Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens.
4) The Constitution only applies to U.S. citizens.
5) The prisoners at Guantanamo sure must enjoy their glazed orange chicken...they certainly get a lot of perks there. And it's a very large stretch of the imagination to assume that the actions of soldiers in Abu Ghraib were ordered by the President/VP to torture prisoners (especially considering that the military was investigating the situation and aiming to punish the wrongdoers already).
6) The same Bob Woodward who only identified one out of the 75 sources he claimed to interview in that book. Yeah, that sounds real credible. Different source please.
7) www.whitehouse.gov/news/r...002-2.html
Although not the same as a full declaration of War, you can hardly say Bush went to Iraq without Congressional approval.
8) The same Downing Street Memos that cost Dan Rather his job? "Fake but accurate?" Please. Those have been debunked.
9) About those Niger documents...they were forged.
Do you take payment in euros?
10) Proof? And considering how downright acidic most of Congress has been to this administration, I'd be in contempt of them as well.
11) Now we're getting into iffy legal language. The Fourth Amendment prohibits searches and seizures, but does it prohibit surveillance? And has there been a confirmed report of these wiretaps being used on a single U.S. citizen? Especially considering that these wiretaps were implemented for the purpose of monitoring overseas communications with known Al Qaeda/terrorist-supporting entities?
12) I may just be sleepy, but I can't quite see what:
Quote:
Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or
Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress
Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.
Has to do with JPEN.
13) Destroyed evidence? When? (And stop acting as if Plamegate was a scandal. It was a perversion of justice; Fitzgerald knew that Armitage leaked Plame's name, and that Plame wasn't even a covert agent! He should've stopped right there.)
14) So? The U.S. did not sign on to protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons, which (pIII, that is) designated incendiary weapons as illegal to use against civilians or in civilian-populated areas (which is kind of hard, as - since the terrorists don't fight in uniform - the guys we're fighting are ALL technically civilians).
Never understood why it's okay to blow a guy up or shoot him full of holes or shank him with a bayonet, but burning him is somehow wrong. Nor do I understand why you don't criticize the terrorists for beheading living people with dull knives or for using white phosphorous in IEDs (just to be fair, you know. /sarc).
Go to bed, Ultra.
1-14: you rarely cite sources, and you cite the constitution frequently, which does not apply to terrorists aiming to kill you and everyone you love that are citizens of other countries.
Edit: You too, Bat, you're all cranky and whiny.
I have issues with number 14, WP was not used against civilians and the type they were using is relatively harmless.
you rarely cite sources
Look who's talking.
you cite the constitution frequently, which does not apply to terrorists aiming to kill you and everyone you love that are citizens of other countries.
The Constitution is often characterized by Americans as the DNA of their society, a sacred document that makes America what it is. It was intended to apply to all human beings under the jurisdiction of the United States. And just because someone has been deemed a terrorist and locked up without charge or trial by an utterly corrupt and unaccountable administration, does not make them a terrorist, and it certainly does not deprive them of their most basic rights.
For example, here's a case of an Iranian family, including their nine-year-old Canadian son, that was snatched by US authorities in Puerto Rico and held prisoner for months in a Texas jail. They were travelling to Canada seeking asylum. Are they terrorists? Were they seeking to kill you and everyone you love? Did they deserve the treatment they received? This is just one of literally hundreds of cases of US authorities detaining innocents. Ever heard of Maher Arar, the Canadian software engineer who was extraordinarily renditioned by US authorities to Syria and brutally tortured for months on end before finally being released without so much as an apology from the American government?
Several Iranians entering US territory on false passports. Hey, that sort of thing has happened before (though, none were Iranian iirc)! You know what they did that time? They took a few classes at a flight school, no landing lessons needed.
So Syria tortured the guy. I'm sure Bush ordered that. Anyway, no, I never had heard of this, so I'm going to refrain fron forming any opinion on the matter. I will say this, though, the RCMP did apologize to him, and apparently his name was on a terrorist watch list.
Hey, should Bush apologize for fighting back against people who declare war on us, too?
Several Iranians entering US territory on false passports. Hey, that sort of thing has happened before (though, none were Iranian iirc)! You know what they did that time? They took a few classes at a flight school, no landing lessons needed.
Boy, it sure is a good thing the DHS is busy rounding up all those nine-year-old Iranian-Canadians. They're a menace for sure.
I will say this, though, the RCMP did apologize to him
The RCMP was only an accessory to the crime through laziness, negligence, and inattention to detail. The operation was planned and carried out exclusively by US authorities, who have refused to participate in the inquiry. They have yet to so much as acknowledge any wrongdoing, and maintain that they were within their right to pull an innocent man off a plane and turn him over to foreign authorities, knowing full well that he would be tortured.
and apparently his name was on a terrorist watch list.
That does not make Maher Arar a terrorist, nor does it justify the crimes inflicted upon him.
Hey, should Bush apologize for fighting back against people who declare war on us, too?
Did Maher Arar declare war on the United States? What about little Kevin and his parents? Or Brandon Mayfield, who was wrongly implicated in the 2004 Madrid bombings and jailed for two months without charge, as a result of a disastrous FBI investigation?
Cyc, didn't they release them after a month or two BECAUSE of the kid? Sheez.
My only other reply: Okay, I admit, being on a terrorist watch list doesn't make you a terrorist. We should let everyone on the list freely around, right?
Oh wait. That's what it's for.
SX, would Canada be justified in detaining you without trial because you are an American and look what happens when you let Americans run around? You seem to be very accepting of brutalizing people because of their nationality (or perhaps doing minor offenses like false passports or non-offenses like being on a list). Cycle cited examples of serious human rights violations. Excuses only go to show why it's important to respect human rights in any case, including terrorism, because those detainees are very often not terrorists.
Tossing around "only for U.S. citizens" in regards to human rights is very foolish long term.
Quote:
Richard Armitage leaked the identity of Valerie Plame to reporters. Which wasn't a problem, considering she wasn't even a covert agent at the time.
Not this again. Even if she wasn't covert (which is debateable), the spies she was involved with, particularly through the fake business that was outed, were.
Quote:
(a better idea would have been concerning Hussein's violation of the UN resolutions, or his horrible human rights record)
Except then people could easily point at other targets that should be higher priorities for invasion by that argument. Or that Hussein (under U.S. threats) was starting to comply with inspectors.
Quote:
Niger documents
What a dirty trick. Of course, it could be considered dirtier to ignore the forgery and abuse power against the people who out it.
I never said brutalizing was okay. Don't put words in my mouth.
I never said it was because he was Canadian. I could care less what country they're from: Should we only keep track of people on the terror watch list if they're from the Middle East? A lot of terrorist leaders (Osama included, iirc) have education in the United States. Should we ignore people on the list - which is designed specifically NOT to do that! - just because of where they're from or where they've been?
Quote:
We should let everyone on the list freely around, right?
Yes. Why? Because this is the goddamned United States Of America, greatest country in the world; not a freakin' dictatorship where the government is allowed to snap you up off the streets on a crime you haven't committed/never even thought about committing. Last I heard, we went to Iraq to overthrow Saddam, not emulate him.
But hey, so long as we feel a false sense of security, who cares about a few essential Constitutional freedoms?
Quite frankly, this administration has done more to embolden terrorists than any other in written history. They martyr the terrorists killed by our army and convince civvies affected by our "war of terror" to help strike back at the BIG BAD US that killed their parents/offspring/family pet. But hey, it's all okay, because FOX NEWS SAYS WE'RE WINNING YAY!
It isn't just Fox News. I've spoken, in person, with people that have been to Iraq (Yes, recently, damn you.) Apparently, only 35% of civilians think the US should leave. More dislike the fact that they're in a war at all, but almost all express surprise when told how the American Media portrays the war as going. The majority are optimistic, feel life is improving, happy, and feel that the current strife is just an obstacle to be overcome, not a drastic huge disaster as See BS News would tell you.
Quote:
I never said brutalizing was okay. Don't put words in my mouth.
Brutalizing doesn't just mean torture. I'm referring to ignoring human rights in general.
Quote:
I never said it was because he was Canadian. I could care less what country they're from: Should we only keep track of people on the terror watch list if they're from the Middle East?
Actually I misread what you said and thought you were saying it was ok because they were from Iran. However, are you saying it's ok because they had false passports? You are defending suspension of constitutional rights. If the country they're from doesn't matter then citizenship is not the issue, so what is the excuse for doing so? And if you say that non-citizenship does excuse it, then you are arguing on nationality.
Having a false passport is a crime.
Maybe they should have charged those people with that crime, then, rather than detaining them for an extended period without charge on vague terrorism suspicions.
People: *try to illegally enter a country, coming from a country that has openly stated that they are prepared to fight said country, and is currently developing nuclear material against the UN and the US and practically everyone else*
You: THAT'S NOT A SUSPICIOUS THING AT ALL.
It is suspicious, but it is not grounds for literally kidnapping someone and holding them without charge. Especially when one of them is a child.
Alright. And what should our government (that, by the way, is perfect and can't make mistakes) have done, instead?
(For the record, terrorists have used children as 'shields' before. Successfully.)
SX, you're trying to get a clear answer for whether we should shoot through small children to kill terrorists?
Simple, you wait till the kid is NOT a shield anymore. Screwing with small helpless things is very assholish and makes us no better than the people we're fighting.
~Tobe
And what should our government (that, by the way, is perfect and can't make mistakes) have done, instead?
This was not a mistake. This is just one in a long series of deliberate actions that have become standard operating procedure for dealing with suspicious brown people. They should have done what any other civilized customs agency would have: informed the authorities in their home country and promptly sent them back to where they came from.
You simply don't seem to understand the idea that suspicion is not grounds for imprisonment, and that imprisonment without charge is a crime in and of itself, one considerably more heinous than falsified documents.
(For the record, terrorists have used children as 'shields' before. Successfully.)
When did rationalizing the government's wrongdoing become the American way?
...I didn't mean literally a shield, Rico.
