Newsweek: Rumsfeld, Ashcroft Could Soon Face Legal Jeopardy
By Susie Madrak Monday Dec 29, 2008 6:30amIt would be good to see them face charges for their torture policies. We can only hope the new administration feels the same. (h/t Avedon):
In early December, in a highly unusual move, a federal court in New York agreed to rehear a lawsuit against former Attorney General John Ashcroft brought by a Canadian citizen, Maher Arar. (Arar was a victim of the administration's extraordinary rendition program: he was seized by U.S. officials in 2002 while in transit through Kennedy Airport and deported to Syria, where he was tortured.) Then, on Dec. 15, the Supreme Court revived a lawsuit against Donald Rumsfeld by four Guantánamo detainees alleging abuse there—a reminder that the court, unlike the White House, will extend Constitutional protections to foreigners at Gitmo.
Finally, in the same week the Senate Armed Service Committee, led by Carl Levin and John McCain, released a blistering report specifically blaming key administration figures for prisoner mistreatment and interrogation techniques that broke the law. The bipartisan report reads like a brief for the prosecution—calling, for example, Rumsfeld's behavior a "direct cause" of abuse. Analysts say it gives a green light to prosecutors, and supplies them with political cover and factual ammunition. Administration officials, with a few exceptions, deny wrongdoing. Vice President Dick Cheney says there was nothing improper with U.S. interrogation techniques—"we don't do torture," he repeated in an ABC interview on Dec. 15. The government blamed the worst abuses, such as those at Abu Ghraib, on a few bad apples.
High-level charges, if they come, would be a first in U.S. history. "Traditionally we've caught some poor bastard down low and not gone up the chain," says Burt Neuborne, a constitutional expert and Supreme Court lawyer at NYU. Prosecutions may well be forestalled if Bush issues a blanket pardon in his final days, as Neuborne and many other experts now expect. (Some see Cheney's recent defiant-sounding admission of his own role in approving waterboarding as an attempt to force Bush's hand.)
Constitutionally, Bush could pardon everyone involved in formulating and executing the administration's interrogation techniques without providing specifics or naming names. And the pardon could apply to himself. Such a step, however, would seem like an admission of guilt and thus be politically awkward. Even if Bush takes it, civil suits for monetary damages could still proceed; such cases, though hard to win, are proliferating. Yet most legal scholars argue that a civil suit would not the best approach here. Neuborne calls it an "excessively lawyer-centric" strategy and says judges are extremely reluctant to award damages in such cases. Conservative legal experts like David Rifkin (who served in the Reagan and first Bush administrations) argue that no accounting is necessary, since the worst interrogation techniques, like waterboarding, have already been abandoned and Obama is expected to make further changes.
A growing group of advocates are now instead calling for a South African-style truth and reconciliation commission. Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, says that although "we know what went on," "knowledge and a change in practices are not sufficient: there must be acknowledgment and repudiation as well." He favors the creation of a nonpartisan commission of inquiry with a professional staff and subpoena power, calling it "the only way to definitively repudiate this ugly chapter in U.S. history."
But for those interested in tougher sanctions, one other possibility looms. Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights and author of "The Trial of Donald Rumsfeld," points out that over 20 countries now have universal jurisdiction laws that would allow them to indict U.S. officials for torture if America doesn't do it itself.
A few such cases were attempted in recent years but were dropped, reportedly under U.S. pressure. Now the Obama administration may be less likely to stand in their way. This doesn't mean it will extradite Cheney and Co. to stand trial abroad. But at the very least, the threat of such suits could soon force Bush aides to think twice before buying plane tickets. "The world is getting smaller for these guys," says Ratner, "and they'll have to check with their lawyers very carefully before they travel." Jail time it isn't—but it may be some justice nonetheless.
Login or Register to post comments.
"t would be good to see them face charges for their torture policies. We can only hope the new administration feels the same."
Don't hold your breath. Obama will probably cite the need to reach out to those Americans who supported Rumsfeld and Ashcroft and the need for the nation to look forward not back. After some of Obama's picks and the Rick Warren thing I ain't holding too much hope about Obama going after the criminal thugs of the Bush regime.
When asked by ABC host George Stephanopoulos if top level Bush administration officials would be prosecuted for mandating prisoner abuse, Biden said that he and Obama would be “focusing on the future,” adding “I think we should be looking forward, not backwards.”
2 1/2 min video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwQlK0WsMyw&eu...
Why can't politicans look forward AND backwards at the same time?
I'll give the Obama administration 4-6 months to review the lawlessness of the Bush administration. If they decide to pass, I'll give up on my political passions.
I may give them a bit longer...then I'll go underground and fade away from society, and tell the US Politicians to suck my taint meat as I'm leaving.
that's quite an invitation:)
And not many, mind you, get such an invite!
With Bob?
"Why can't politicans look forward AND backwards at the same time?"
because doing so would require a democrat to have a spine with the constitution of something other than jelly.
Where have I heard that before?
Could it have been from the veep-elect in a veep-debate with veep wannabe Palin!
Past is Prologue must be one of them "inoperative statements" now, right?
"If they decide to pass, I'll give up on my political passions."
Join many of your gay and lesbian brothers and sisters many of whom already have given up on their political passions after having worked to get Obama elected having him kick sand in their faces over Rick Warren. I voted for the guy but at this point I don't think I will be ready to help catch him when the reich wing pushes him off the cliff.
I've had Bush and the GOP kick sand in my face for most of the past decade now Obama's seems to be moving toward doing the same thing. Now his administration is hinting they won't go after the Bush thugs and Pat Robertson is estatic for what he's seen thus far from Obama. Now that's some change I can believe in!
If all it took to get you to give up the fight for equity and justice for gay people was Rick Warren then the reich wing is certainly grateful. I don't like Warren either but the reality is that is only delivering an invocation, not assuming a cabinet post or any other meaningful political position where he could translate his twisted ideology into policy.
Getting pissed off and quitting because of this incident does not help the cause in any way---it is an impediment.
Remember that nothing worthwhile is easy and persistance is ultimately omnipotent. That's why Dr. King didn't say f--k this crap after he was pelted with bricks and death threats by his enemies. He know that his cause was far too important to let any opposition deter him.
Personally, I am going to keep fighting for equality for all and nothing will deter me until we have achieved our goal. I have had enough of prejudice, judgment, and hate and it is time to take an affirmative stand right now. Even if we don't achieve our goal in my lifetime than I will feel comforted that we at least carried on the cause of justice for others to assume when we are gone. What's right is right and Rick Warren and his judgmental minions don't represent a roadblock to me. They are only a nuisance to be overcome.
Please lend a hand instead of pointing a finger, we do need everyone's help.
We can't leave the country in hands of those who would destroy it...gotta keep fighting for what's right.
Besides...
I really have no idea how to go "underground" anyway. ;)
Exactly the scenario! Obama said when McCain canceled his campaign to "solve the banking crisis that a President needs to be able to multi-task". Well here is an opportunity to do just that. I worked several months on the campaign and will give-up my enthusiasm if we pass on upholding the rule of law
or an ounce of integrity is fully aware that these men are criminals of the highest order, so the only real question is: will those that have the ways and means to put these men on trial act, or not?
And that depends to a large extent on what we citizens do.
So get busy folks!
You miss the point, the only people that have the ways and means are the same group who committed these heinous crimes. If you check carefully the incoming administration you will not be surprised to find people who are friends and colleagues of Mr "MADE-OFF" and others of a similar ilk.
You live in a Crookocracy not a Democracy. Beware!!!
Until bushes punk ass can not pardon them!
Good point....unless bush pre-pardons them.
If they're not charged yet?
I believe if the Hague put Bush and Cheney and company up for Crimes Against Humanity and other War Crimes, the upcoming administration I believe has to honor the arrest warrant, whether Bush pardoned those implicated or not. Am I mistaken?
BUt I damn sure would love to find out!
extradition treaties.
Here come the war criminals!
Keep writing your congress-persons and senators, keep pressure on everyone including the upcoming Obama administration to uphold the letter of the law. Republicans should be able to appreaciate that, shouldn't they?
If there was no major groundswell of anger over what the Bushies were doing WHEN THEY WERE DOING IT, I can't see a groundswell after they've left office. Nothing will happen. Luckily for them most people will be worrying about their next paycheck. If I was more conspiratorial-minded I would say they set up the economy to tank just as they would be leaving. It's just another way to cover their tracks.
survive day-to-day. I doubt many have the physical strength left to hurl a pair of shoes at any of these f*ckers.
There was marches, the TV never put them on the TV.You know, If they did put them on TV, people would go. Just like bush, said NO PICTURES OF GI's in FLAG DRAPED COFFINS COMMING BACK FROM bushs war.You have to know where to go to see what is going on in the real-world. Try BBC, and Mexico TV.
The MSM puts no truth on diaplay, be it the wall street demonstrations or the anti-war demonstrations.
Should be illegal...I mean the severity of the crimes should outweigh the Presidents ability to pardon that many damn people...
I mean if he pardons everyone in one fell swoop...that should be an indicator to the HAGUE (you guys paying attention over there?) that the entire administration is so crooked, as to make Nixons crimes pale in comparison.
There was a treaty governing war crimes that the US did not sign, I believe. Can anyone help me?
I hate...really hate how this countries "leaders" are so hypocritical...protecting our military against war crimes, but goin after everyone else.
Fuckers.
Gotta be an even playing field, ya know?
boosh decided unilaterally not to honor them.
But he hasn't signed alot of treaties in my recollection...
Any treaty signed by any president and approved by congress.
Only traitors torture, period.
There was a reporter on one of the Sunday shows some weeks back. He said that a group was going to be put together from both sides of the aisle and it would work sort of like the 9-11 commission did. He said they will also have subpoena power. They will be looking into all the things about the Iraq invasion, torture etc.
I hope to hell he knew what he was talking about.
Like, uh, Joe Lieberman and John Boehner...cool.
...and we know what a great job the 9/11 commission did.
...even "remotely" or "sort of like" the 9/11 investigation, will be a joke.
For starters, to be "sort of like" the 9/11 investigation, you would have to wait for 400 days or so before even beginning the investigation.
The 911 commission was run by a bunch of bush cronies, the report is a joke, Not on thing said about buld#7.
After anyone leaves office there is a seeming moratorium on commenting on the administration for several months, then there are the revels that show up with the first books by low ranking officials. The idea that someone will show evidence of true criminality is slim since the ones that have perpetrated the crimes will have the cover of Top Secret for the next generation or so. But there will be a show of the person without the spin that has covered them up.
I will bet money that the first thing to be reveled of Bush is that he was a slobbering drunk most of the time with his handlers having to sober him up on the most important moments of his administration.
Constitutionally, Bush could pardon everyone involved in formulating and executing the administration's interrogation techniques without providing specifics or naming names. And the pardon could apply to himself. Such a step, however, would seem like an admission of guilt and thus be politically awkward.
Politcally awkward? These guys make the Sicilian mafia look like chumps. They don't give a shit if it's politically awkward. It's what they've done for a living the past eight hellish years. It's called IN YOUR FACE, PLANET EARTH.
Now if even one of these murderous, genocidal bastards was brought to trial I might actually (Gasp) renew my faith in humanity and get this horrible feeling that there is no Karma, no God, no humanity out of my head. I've been wearing this feeling like a spiked hairshirt traveling around the world as an American since 2000.
May justice prevail, and soon. I have to believe that somebody somewhere on this planet has the guts to do the right thing and punish these bastards. I've waited too long to give up now.
of them? Not the bushies, not for one second! They'd enjoy setting precedent!
"... Prosecutions may well be forestalled if Bush issues a blanket pardon in his final days ..."
I do not believe this whole idea of "blanket pardons" by a U.S. president is constitutional.
I don't believe the creators of the U.S. Constitution intended the Pesidential Pardon as a anything more than the president having the power to check the Legislative and Judicial branches of government in cases where unfair laws or poor jurisprudence resulted in excessive or unnecessary penalties.
It goes against everything the Constitution stands for to believe that the intent of the creators were to allow a president to break the law with impunity, the only recourse being impeachment. Don't get me wrong. Impeachment is important and in the case of Bush and Cheney, Congress has been negligent in not impeaching either of these crooks.
But the idea that a sitting president can authorize crimes and then on his last day pardon those who committed them, and then leave office is absurd.
To be complete here, I don't believe the pardon of Nixon by Ford of "any crimes committed" was constitutional either. A pardon doesn't mean you're innocent of a crime. By definition if you have been convicted you are guilty of a crime. That a pardon erases the conviction and lifts any penalty applied does not make the pardoned person innocent.
So it is key that their be a conviction before there can be a pardon. In America, one is "supposed" to be innocent until proven guilty. Innocent means no crime committed. Guilty means crime committed and said crime becomes pardonable by the U.S. president.
Nixon was never convicted so his pardon had no meaning, other than it was never challenged. There in lies the point. If Bush attempts to blanked pardon his whole administration, then that action has to be challenged in the courts all the way to the Supreme court. I find it unfathomable that the court believes that the creators intended the presidential pardon to permit the Executive branch to break the law with impunity.
"This doesn't mean it will extradite Cheney and Co. to stand trial abroad." This may be the key sentence in the entire post. It is also a prime example of American Exceptionalism at its finest [or worst]. Obama and his people have brushed aside the logical query as to whether the Bush administration would be prosecuted by stating that they have no intention to do that but perhaps they may get around to it during their second administration. But as the first sentence indicates, the last thing that Obama and the Democrats desire is for Americans [!] to stand trial for their war crimes and their crimes against peace and their crimes against humanity. And it would appear that if the rest of the world does not like that, then the U.S. will mete out their own brand of justice [see Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.] as the Israelis are now doing to innocent Palestinian civilians.
A angery epissle frum Levin and McCane -
I haz it!
Never wil I birn off any-buddyz jenitills agin!
Dik Chaine
dont look for the obummer administration to go after these war criminals , or to restore your constitution, it wont be done because obummer has plans to complete the bush doctrine, obummer and his bumfuck side kick biden have allready declared that irans the enemy and that afganistans a good war and they intend to further americas agression there just like bush would, now wouldnt the money spent in afganistan be better spent here in america ? instead of filling more coffins with american boys and girls? or more graveyards in afganistan ? and that old bullshit defence of obummers supporters , but hes not president yet so how can you bitch about his intentions now wont get it, these are his stated plans ,
I wish Kucinich stood a chance of getting elected. I'm so tired of voting for the lesser of two.
Kooch is the man!
Add me to the list, too!
I knew Obama wasn't the one for me when he voted for telecom immunity after promising he'd fillibuster to keep it from passing. He was still campaigning, though hadn't won the Democratic nomination at that point.
Kucinich seems to not really give a damn if he "votes with the party" but instead sticks to his promises and integrity. I can't IMAGINE him voting for something unconstitutional.
Kucinich is the kind of statesman that really upsets the politicians in DC...if it weren't for that fatal UFO BS he has hangin over his head, he would be taken more seriously...personally I could care less if he claimed to have been abducted, but the MSM made him look a fool.
If Obama wants to get the US back in good standing with the world, He needs to bring out ALL the crimes the bush w/h did in the 8 years. The American people and the people of the world need to see if he is a MAN of CHANGE, or will he look the other way. In the end bush WILL PARDON ALL of his assholes buds. I cant see why there is any one who thinks bush is nothing but a asshole. Just look at OUR COUNTRY. Then look back 9 years and tell me we are better off now. Bill gets a BJ and they want to F*#k him, bush,2 wars,@ a cost of $11 billion a month, bet its much more) still going,for what. the dollar is not worth shit. his walstreet buds get Billions over a weekend, Unions get F*#ked. MILLIONS OF JOBS IN CHINA,BUSH SAYS, OUTSOURCING IS GOOD FOR OUT COUNTRY.( do we make any thing here). Top 10 things Obama needs to do.
#1. End the WAR. save the country $11 billion a month
#2. NO tax credits for employers who have there home office in other countries, and move out of the USA.
#3. Start a jobs program FOR AMERICANS ONLY
#4. PASS A LAW, IF YOU ARE NOT AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, YOU CAN NOT BUY LAND IN THE US.
#5. Have the Att Gen file charges on ALL war Criminals, dem or repugs
#6. STOP the walstreet FREE MONEY. help home owners First.
#7. Health Care. STOP the Insurance Co from F*#King the working CLASS.
#8. Repeal bush TAX INCREASE(2005) on people making $75,000 to $150,000. YES bush did this, look it up
$9. hanadie,limbaought and other assholes like them get a free ride to live in China.
#10. The Press, New Papers, TV, must only report TRUE FACTS. if you are cought putting out bullshit, you go to jail,JUST THE TOP PEOPLE.
Everyone knows that Bush, Cheney, Libby, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, and Gonzales broke the law.
If we are such a pansy-a## nation that we are going to sit on our fat a##es and watch these criminals walk off into the sunset without us, the citizens of this great nation, having OUR day in court, IF THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO, then the U.S. is finished.
what do you propose? We voted for a guy who promised change, and change to me meant accountability, and thus far it's looking like chump change is what were going to get from an Obama administration.
the U.S. is finished. (as we
knowknew it)Obama needs to look forward AND back. Fixing this mess while going after those responsible is the right thing to do and other than the 28 percenters who will never embrace him anyway no matter whathttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjxzmaXAg9E the majority of Americans would back him to the hilt.
Most Americans want the punishment to fit the crime. Obama was elected with a mandate to fix this mess and to go after those responsible. Bush is polling lower than hepatitis C, most Americans would like to see Bush and his band of thugs punished for their crimes. Obama was elected with a mandate in part to do this. Many people I know who voted for Obama said electing someone who would go after BushCo for their crimes and the damage they've done to America was one of their biggest reasons for voting for a Democrat and they knew by voting for McCain BushCo would get off scott free.
This is the third day of Israel's assault on Gaza, but I haven't seen any posts about it on C&L.
Why the silence?
Too much criminal activity from the conservatives and the zionists, too little time.
...and Obama has been on vacation all weekend in Hawaii.
....from all of her bending.
C&L has time and bandwidth for a main post about Laura Bush's outrage that her hubbie was "assaulted" by two loafers thrown by a "liberated" Iraqi journalist...
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/lau...
... so where is the time and bandwidth for a main post about a real assault on 1.5 million captive people by a US proxie armed by $3 billion annual US taxpayer dollars? An assault-- a war crime-- that apparently both Bush and Obama are "greenlighting". When the Israelis run low on bombs and bullets, the "neutral" US will be rearming them.
None of the C&L blog contributors has anything to say about this? Really?
Just saying. Just wondering why.
If Bush isn't killing middle easterners directly he's killing them through Israel.
Less than a month to go before Jan 20th. So much death and destruction left to spearhead and too little time.
Steve
Excellent question. Could it be because Obama has pledged his allegiance to AIPAC and Israel while like every other American president [with the possible exception of Carter] has ignored how the Palestinians have been oppressed by the Israelis? Over 300 innocent Palestinians have been slaughtered by Israeli bombs yet C&L has refrained from condemning Israeli aggression. For shame.
the current Justice Department was used to 'legalize' much of this farce, including Fitzgerald. the bodies will remain buried.
whats this I hear about the presidents power to revoke these pardons?
I happened to watch the arguements live (I think it was CSPAN ) regarding the Arar case. The government arguement was laughable. They tried to say that he was detained as an "Illegal Immigrant" because he was traveling through US airspace and that while on the ground, he was illegally in this country.
I just love and can't get enough (duh!) of all this crooksnliars reporting on apartheid israel's carnage in the Gaza. Great stuff (if I could find it).
The world's biggest criminal and terrorist nation, israel, does it's usual and y'all ignore it completely?
Until his Majesty speaks first.
Has Obama commented yet? ...or did he go to the beach again this morning?
When stupid fucks like you use terms such as "Majesty", anything you say afterwards is meaningless because you've made your real point.
Hannity owes you a Christmas present.
JoePenn
Lenin's Tomb has done an outstanding job of covering Israel's murderous attacks against innocent Palestinian civilians.
The Israeli Genocide of the Palestinian People is the most divisive issue in the American Democratic Party today, as divisive as the issue of slavery was 150 years ago.
Hillary Clinton and Al Franken both enthusiastically cheerled the Israeli slaughter of Lebanese Civilians during the summer of 2006.
I wish we could purge the Israel-Firsters from the American Democratic Party, but that would just as certainly turn the reins of power back to the Republicans as did the 1860 split in the Democratic Party over slavery.
What to do? I don't know.
The British - with the later (World War Two)assistance of American and German antisemites - put the Zionists and the Palestinians on a collision course at the end of World War One, and we see the tragedy played out today.
Headlines always say Israel defends, or Israel retaliates...never Israel started this crap. Latest news is, Israel is killing Palestinian women and children with American military hardware. How fitting.
Why can't the new congress pass a statute that would rescind all pardons bestowed by a president under very limited circumstances, and make it retroactive, rescind all pardons for obviously unlawful acts committed by the administration under the authority of the outgoing president or any other president who might follow?
The founding fathers NEVER intended for the presidential pardon privilege to apply to felonious acts by a president and his administration.
...gone wrong with our country that the founding fathers NEVER intended...
...take for example way back in 1913 when the Federal Reserve Act was passed.
"Founding Fathers" were upper class rich white guys that cared for nothing but their own class, much as the latest political clans do. Putting something down on paper, does not mean they actually intended what they wrote. Just like today, the rich white guys were looking out for their own class of buddies. Why do Americans classify the "founding fathers" as some kind of nobility to be lumped into the same category as bible thumping christians talking about the apostles? Does anyone really think that a bunch of rich white guys today would care about anyone except themselves and their buddies? Why would they a few hundred years ago?
The American "rich white guys" who were feuding with other british "rich white guys" ...inadvertently wrote a pretty good constitution, not perfect but...
I wish they had wrote "Freedom from Religion" insted of "Freedom of Religion" ...but people make mistakes I guess....
that they did have a pretty good bunch of papers (constitution), but I'm always amazed at the way Americans treat them like they are some kind of royalty. Wasn't that what escaping from British rule was partly about? The only other nation on earth that talks like this, are the British when speaking of their monarchy. The monarchy that does nothing but suck taxpayer's wallets dry. It's just something I find very curious. I've never encountered any Canadians that talk about our "founding fathers" the same way Americans do. Hell, I've never heard any Canadians speak about a former leader, like Americans do JFK.
Trudeau maybe
Not many. Most hated the guy, even though they voted for him.
The original British North America Act was passed in Westminster (Our "Constitution", made by a bunch of Lords-- in the U.K.). We didn't exactly have "Founding Fathers."
As someone that took one year of Canadian history at university (history major)-- nothing happened.
I liked Trudeau. I was just a kid, but... He did make our bedrooms safe.
We were rich back then, too, because we had Trudeau. (see what I did there???)
in case you missed it down there
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_...
Our constitution now resides in Canada thanks to Trudeau
Mon, 12/29/2008 - 08:30 — Milquetoast
I wish they had wrote "Freedom from Religion" insted of "Freedom of Religion" ...but people make mistakes I guess....
_________________________________________________________________
My understanding is your former statement was how it was initially written. But they knew they needed public approval, since they were bypassing the states entirely by rewriting the Constitution instead of correcting the Articles of Confederation as they were sent there to do.
The founding fathers were VERY passionate about the governance of the new United States of America and were quite familiar with governance that had burdened people in the past. That was why America had the Revolutionary War, to get out from under the thumb of kings and to become as self-governing as possible.
Everybody tries to keep the self-governing principles pure by referring to the many comments and discussions of the founding fathers, even if the beneficial principles are weakened by this or that political wave. The principles have been strengthened by becoming more inclusive, though we still have a way to go. It's all we can do, keep trying to stick to the best that is old and incorporate the best that is new without destroying our structure or foundation.
America is in a Constitutional crisis and had better seriously fight to restore its best principles. That includes prosecuting criminals, no matter if they are our president and his administration.
Not trying to offend, but you know this how? Cuz somebody wrote that somewhere? It's like someone trying to say that Obama (or any leader) thinks this, this or this. How do you know? You really don't. You project what you hope you know.
And yet people talk about the "founding fathers", JFK, and the Kennedys as if they were royalty.
Like I said, I just find it curious. Every country has some kind of human rights or constitution, but nowhere is it used so much to discuss everything as it is in the US. It's like you all have to keep reminding yourself that you have rights. For proof, read this paper.
...of British Royalty all over your money? I find that curious!
I know I have a silver mapleleaf coin with a picture of Queen Elizabeth!
Americans would never put a picture of foriegn royalty on our money!
or allow the Federal Reserve to print money for us with pictures like that!
you are correct. There is British royalty on the money. For the life of me, I don't know why. But we don't continually say, "well the Queen thinks..." or "our founding Queen/King did not intend"....Or "our constitution says we have x-right to do this..."....as for the currency? I'm not really sure why her mug is still on it. There are really no ties, other than pretend formalities to the Motherland. Most are just plush political appointments to party cronies. Nothing more. They have no power to do anything.
After the stunt Michaëlle Jean just pulled on us I'm not sure I fully agree with you. Time to send the Governor General Packing if you ask me.
We are a Constitutional Monarchy, and she (Elizabeth II) is our head of state. Largely she acts as figurehead only, but she does, in fact, have real powers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_...
Our constitution now resides in Canada thanks to Trudeau
Agreed. The original comment was about "Canadian Founding Fathers", which were the Brits in British Parliament (no doubt with some input from the, then, colony.) Elizabeth II is still our sovereign leader.
Define sovereign leader
We Americans just allow a fascist asshole ruin this country...
But no foreign royalty on our money by gawd!
Snarkasm
LOL If bush and his ilk would have decided to put daffy duck on your cash there nothing you could do about it, you guys control nothing at the moment. I can only hope that Obama will make it right for you, and restore confidence in the US. But I'm not going to hold my breath
What kind of coin could we impress the image of boosh on?
.
"I know I have a silver mapleleaf coin with a picture of Queen Elizabeth!
Americans would never put a picture of foriegn royalty on our money!"
Actually, Canada belongs to the British Commonwealth of Nations. Queen Elizabeth IS Canada's sovoireign head of state.
that is not entirely acurate
I think the US constitution was the first, or one of the first and this is why Americans are so proud of it and because it was earned at the price of a war with the empire at the time people are still vigilant to this day to keep their hard earned freedoms. It's silly to keep calling them founding fathers, I agree with you. I prefer to call them the framers.
The "founders" and the "framers" are not the same people, though there was some overlap, depending on the definition. At any rate, the intentions of the framers is what Americans and the courts have looked to time and time again in making decisions about law.
Actually, I wish we had a legal historian reading right now. I suspect that the presidential pardon was initially because they had no detailed description of how the Supreme Court would work, and hardly any mention of any kind of appelate system. The third article on the courts is also the shortest.
And it may've been where officials were caught doing something wrong against the Executive Branch, and the EB was being magnanimous, not protecting their own asses.
Rep. Nadler (D-NY) Calls for an Investigation of Bush Administration Officials
More at link.
Shouldn't a public confession result in an immediate arrest warrant?
...that whole ME mess will be on the front pages and Cheney, Bush, et al will slink off into oblivion while the rest of the world is focused on fending off a WWIII conflagration. Perfect timing...no??
And, as I noted above, there is no more divisive issue within the American Democratic Party than the Israeli Genocide of the Palestinian People.
Israel-Firsters, like Hillary Clinton and Al Franken, are cheerleaders for the genocide, while many of the rest of us see Israel as the rogue state and her leaders as War Criminals on a par with Hitler and Bush.
Yes. Perfect timing.
Isn't there already an international arrest warrant out for chainey? I think it's for the kidnapping a extreme rendition of a German citizen.
But I thought the warrants were issued by France.
France and Germany both opposed the war in Iraq.
However, such is the nature of rumors; the details get fuzzy.
Can George Bush pre-pardon his cronies and henchmen to prevent them from being sued or charged criminally by other countries?
What an absurd question. Of course he can't do that.
Right?
Unless the incoming president of the United States decides to deny all other countries the right to pursue legal remedies against members of the outgoing administration.
But Barack Obama (a former constitutional law professor) wouldn't ever do a thing like that.
Right?
Right?
Bush has attempted to write his avoidance of criminal prosecution into law:
And more here:
=====
Other countries don't seem very impressed:
Just the fact that he did things like this to try to avoid prosecutions for his 2003 Iraq war is evidence of his guilt. I wonder if he thinks this crap up on his own or if someone is coaching him on how to be a smart war criminal. I think Bush Sr. and his inner circle still advise W Bush on what to do. It's all in the family for these gangsters.
It's good to see international action for Bush's crimes against humanity. Let's hope it continues until something solid happens.
this bill was originated by Gonzalez and spoon-fed to Jesse Helms. I read early-on that memos were leaked from Bush's Justice Department where some of them were very worried about being prosecuted for war-crimes in relation to the legal advice they gave Bush. I doubt that Bush originated the bill himself, though he certainly would have wanted it for protection against prosecution.
of foresight...
Somebody's fantasy, Court Indicts Bush on High Treason Charge
By Bart Garzon
Published: July 4th, 2009
Great spoof, and looks authentic, too.
similar for Palin (troopergate, billing for RNC clothes, etc) and send it to her. Bet she'd fall for it...
.
I read in Calitics.com that Senator Barbara Boxer is making noises about supporting an independent commission to investigate abuses ( http://www.calitics.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=... )--They are asking for words and donations to encourage her to go farther.
"It would be good to see them face charges for their torture. We can only hope the new administration feels the same."
Again and for the record:
Never never never going to happen.
No punishment for war crimes? Say the skeptics. Many refuse to believe that.
and again: Never had it, never will.
There's always a first time.
Prosecute these bastards!
You're either a nation of laws or you aren't.
They have Blackwater.
Login or Register to post comments.