OT: Death penalty appropriate punishment, Bugliosi implies ....
Peter Fokes
For Oswald if he had lived, yes .... but also President Bush if found
guilty of Bugliosi's charges.
Whew.
Has Vince lost it?
PF
yeuhd
juries sentence convicted murderers to death, not the Governor, who is
obligated to carry out the sentence. Unlike governors in many states,
the Texas Governor cannot independently issue a pardon or sentence
commutation.
When the entire appeals process has been exhausted, the Governor of
the State of Texas still may have a limited power to grant clemency to
the prisoner. In capital cases, the Governor has the constitutional
authority to grant an offender one 30-day reprieve of a scheduled
execution without a recommendation from the Texas Board of Pardons and
Paroles. Upon recommendation from the Board, the Governor may grant
one or more reprieves in a capital case for any period of time that
does not exceed the period recommended by the Board members.
Peter Fokes
So if Bush is tried by Bugliosi in Texas and wins a conviction, then
Bush is a goner, eh? Unless Obama pardons him?
PF
billc...@live.com
Not really. As I understand it, if the Texas Board of Pardons and
Paroles voted to grant Bush a pardon then the governor would be able
to do so. And he certainly would since Bush paved his way into the
governorship. Only in Texas, the Jackass was reelected with 39% of
the vote.
I have my doubts that he could convict Bush in Texas, whose past
governors have been known to trade pardons for mules or cash.
Bill Clarke, who has never voted for a Bush.
yeuhd
>
> So if Bush is tried by Bugliosi in Texas and wins a conviction, then
> Bush is a goner, eh? Unless Obama pardons him?
He's a goner. Mad Dog Bugliosi always gets his man.
John McAdams
wrote:
Apparently. He actually starts the essay this way:
<quote on>
With respect to the position I take about the crimes of George Bush, I
want to state at the outset that my motivation is not political.
Although I've been a longtime Democrat (primarily because, unless
there is some very compelling reason to be otherwise, I am always for
"the little guy"), my political orientation is not rigid.
<quote off>
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
yeuhd
I'm puzzled. How does that particular quotation indicate that Bugliosi has
"lost it"?
Peter Fokes
>
>I'm puzzled. How does that particular quotation indicate that Bugliosi has
>"lost it"?
I assume you are referring to the article at this page:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vincent-bugliosi/the-prosecution-of-george_b_102427.html
And my comments:
For Oswald if he had lived, yes .... but also President Bush if found
guilty of Bugliosi's charges.
Whew.
Has Vince lost it?
Do you believe, as Bugliosi implies in this article, that Bush should
be executed if found guilty of Bugliosi's charges?
PF
yeuhd
that he gave. I am curious why he thought that particular quotation
indicated that Bugliosi had "lost it". The quotation seemed like the
least controversial part of the article.
Peter Fokes
Ok.
You snipped out his reply (not sure why) so I assumed you were
responding to a recent post of mine.
PF
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
Five stars just for your voting record!!!
JB
John Blubaugh
> On Mon, 19 May 2008 12:51:31 -0400, Peter Fokes<jp...@toronto.hm>
> wrote:
>
>
> >For Oswald if he had lived, yes .... but also President Bush if found
> >guilty of Bugliosi's charges.
>
> >Whew.
>
> >Has Vince lost it?
>
> Apparently. He actually starts the essay this way:
>
> <quote on>
>
> With respect to the position I take about the crimes of George Bush, I
> want to state at the outset that my motivation is not political.
> Although I've been a longtime Democrat (primarily because, unless
> there is some very compelling reason to be otherwise, I am always for
> "the little guy"), my political orientation is not rigid.
>
> <quote off>
>
> .John
>
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Pagehttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
This is the first time I have given you five stars!!
JB
cdddraftsman
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bill I'll have you know I voted for GWB 6 times ! He's one of the
great presidents of all time "He didn't do nothing , but thats what we
needed done" .
I have his portrait on my wall next to FDR , LBJ and Nixon !
tl
John McAdams
>
>I'm puzzled. How does that particular quotation indicate that Bugliosi has
>"lost it"?
>
It shows he's deluded, since hatred of George Bush *is* political.
John McAdams
wrote:
>On 20 May 2008 01:30:04 -0400, yeuhd <Needle...@gmail.com> wrote:
This whole line of discussion is absurd.
You don't claim that the president is a "criminal" just because you
disagree with his policies.
This is known as Bush Derangement Syndrome, and Bugliosi has a bad
case.
John McAdams
wrote:
>On May 19, 10:09=A0pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 May 2008 12:51:31 -0400, Peter Fokes<jp...@toronto.hm>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vincent-bugliosi/the-prosecution-of-geo...
>>
>> >For Oswald if he had lived, yes .... but also President Bush if found
>> >guilty of Bugliosi's charges.
>>
>> >Whew.
>>
>> >Has Vince lost it?
>>
>> Apparently. =A0He actually starts the essay this way:
>>
>> <quote on>
>>
>> With respect to the position I take about the crimes of George Bush, I
>> want to state at the outset that my motivation is not political.
>> Although I've been a longtime Democrat (primarily because, unless
>> there is some very compelling reason to be otherwise, I am always for
>> "the little guy"), my political orientation is not rigid.
>>
>> <quote off>
>>
>> .John
>>
>> The Kennedy Assassination Home Pagehttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
>This is the first time I have given you five stars!!
>
>
Then you probably didn't understand the post.
The point of my quote was that Buglioso is both suffering from Bush
Derangement Syndrome, and badly deluded about his own motives.
yeuhd
claviger
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vincent-bugliosi/the-prosecution-of-geo...
>
> guilty of Bugliosi's charges.
>
> Whew.
>
> Has Vince lost it?
>
> PF
Peter,
I voted for his father twice and for W twice. I think W's mother is a
great lady and his wife is a lovely person. If he lied about Iraq he
should go to prison for a long time, and let him think about the soldiers
and civilians who died every day for the rest of his life. I have always
liked Dick Cheney and have a lot of admiration for Condolissa Rice. If
they were a party to this deception they too should serve time in prison.
In fact everyone who conspired in this deception should serve time in
prison. I'm sick and tired of lying politicians who know what's best for
us. Evidently they are an infestation of both political parties. A pox on
both their houses.
However, it may be the case Saddam Hussein's scam was so good he fooled
everybody, including British and Israeli intelligence too. We know for a
fact he had WMDs and used them against the Kurds, killing women and
children without remorse. International observers verify over 40 Kurdish
villages were gassed. If Hussein depleted his inventory of mustard gas it
makes sense he would try to replenish his stockpile by producing more. The
UN confirmed Iraqi missiles were fitted with modifications to carry
chemical warheads. Did Hussein's bluff backfire on him?
As Bugliosi well knows he must prove intent. If he prosecuted every
politician for stupidity most of them would be in prison. As Mark Twain
once said, "There is no inherently criminal class in America, except
Congress."
David Von Pein
Perhaps John McAdams was employing a little tongue-in-cheek'ism and
reverse psychology....i.e., feigning agreement with Peter that Vince has
"lost it", even though the first paragraph of VB's article (which I assume
is also the first page of Vince's May 2008 book "THE PROSECUTION OF GEORGE
W. BUSH FOR MURDER") is a quote that is actually very sane and rational
(unless you feel that Democrats are NEVER, ever really "for the little
guy"). ;)
John McAdams
wrote:
The passage I quote is not at all sane and rational.
Bugliosi is either lying or badly deluded.
People who want to put Bush on trial for "crimes" are very political.
In fact, they are leftist yahoos.
David Von Pein
More on Bugliosi's Bush book, including a video and a short audio
clip:
David Von Pein
>>> "You don't claim that the president is a "criminal" just because you disagree with his policies. This is known as Bush Derangement Syndrome, and Bugliosi has a bad case." <<<
I guess I was wrong....no "tongue-in-cheek'ism" from .john there. (I
don't think anyway.)
BTW, John Mc., what makes you think Bugliosi is accusing Bush of being
a criminal "just because [he] disagree[s] with his policies"?
That's not at all what VB is doing in his Bush book.
VB is saying that Bush could, indeed, be "prosecuted" for murder in
virtually all 50 states (if not EVERY state) due to the (so-called)
fact (?) that Bush "lied" to Congress and, hence, to America about the
reasons for starting the war in Iraq. (A hard "lie" to prove, though,
in a courtroom setting, I would imagine.)
What do "policies" have to do with it at all?
I'm stumped.
Anthony Marsh
And people who wanted to impeach Clinton for having sex are right-wing nuts.
Anthony Marsh
Show us the weapons of mass destruction.
> As Bugliosi well knows he must prove intent. If he prosecuted every
> politician for stupidity most of them would be in prison. As Mark Twain
> once said, "There is no inherently criminal class in America, except
> Congress."
>
>
>
>
Having said all that, try to argue your way out of the fact that you are
a right winger.
John Blubaugh
> I've never voted for a Bush either. Can I get five stars?
Done!!!
JB
Anthony Marsh
What state can prosecute a President for anything? Are you thinking of a
perjury charge such as Clinton?
David Von Pein
TONY MARSH SAID:
>>> "And people who wanted to impeach Clinton for having sex are right-wing nuts." <<<
>>> "Try to argue your way out of the fact that you are a right winger." <<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
I've gotten to the point where I truly don't even know the difference
between the terms "right wing" and "left wing" anymore. And more
importantly, to me, I really couldn't care less. I don't think I have
ever in my life used those terms to describe a person and his/her
beliefs.
Categorizing people and putting them into convenient "right" vs.
"left" compartments is something that has always seemed so silly to
me. As if someone who has been labelled "right wing" couldn't possibly
have leanings toward the "left" on occasion--and vice versa. It's just
silly, IMO.
I favor Vince Bugliosi's position ---
"My political orientation is not rigid." -- VB
John McAdams
wrote:
>
>
>
He can say that, but the evidence is that he's entirely deranged when
the subject is George Bush.
billc...@live.com
I didn’t vote for him when he was elected governor either. Can I get
6 stars?
Bill Clarke
David Von Pein
TONY MARSH ASKED:
>>> "What state can prosecute a President for anything?" <<<
DAVID VON PEIN THEN SAID:
Evidently all 50 states can do just exactly that very thing -- "prosecute
a President". Although it's quite possible that Vince is talking about any
"prosecution" of Bush only taking place AFTER he leaves office on January
20, 2009.
That could very well be the case....and if any such "prosecution" should
occur (which is doubtful, IMO), it's certainly likely to only occur after
Bush becomes an ex-President.
But, then too, maybe Tony Marsh thinks Vincent Bugliosi, a seasoned
lawyer, is lying his ass off when he said the following in the video
linked below (regardless of when any potential "prosecution" of Bush
should take place):
"In the book ["The Prosecution Of George W. Bush For Murder"] I lay
out the legal architecture for the case against Bush, all of the evidence
of guilt against Bush, and the jurisdiction to prosecute him. ....
"I've set forth in my book the jurisdictional basis for the Attorney
General in each of the fifty states--plus the hundreds upon hundreds of
district attorneys in counties within the state--to prosecute George Bush
for the murder of any soldier or soldiers from their state or county who
were killed in Iraq fighting George Bush's war." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi;
2008
John McAdams
wrote:
>
>
You don't put a president on trial for murder because you disagree
with his policies.
And the fact that you *seriously* disagree doesn't change that.
Bugliosi is urgine bananna republic politics.
John Blubaugh
I would give you six if it was possible!!!
JB
Anthony Marsh
>
> TONY MARSH ASKED:
>
>>>> "What state can prosecute a President for anything?" <<<
>
> DAVID VON PEIN THEN SAID:
>
> Evidently all 50 states can do just exactly that very thing -- "prosecute
> a President". Although it's quite possible that Vince is talking about any
> "prosecution" of Bush only taking place AFTER he leaves office on January
> 20, 2009.
>
> That could very well be the case....and if any such "prosecution" should
> occur (which is doubtful, IMO), it's certainly likely to only occur after
> Bush becomes an ex-President.
>
>
> But, then too, maybe Tony Marsh thinks Vincent Bugliosi, a seasoned
> lawyer, is lying his ass off when he said the following in the video
> linked below (regardless of when any potential "prosecution" of Bush
> should take place):
>
He is fantasizing.
>
> "In the book ["The Prosecution Of George W. Bush For Murder"] I lay
> out the legal architecture for the case against Bush, all of the evidence
> of guilt against Bush, and the jurisdiction to prosecute him. ....
>
> "I've set forth in my book the jurisdictional basis for the Attorney
> General in each of the fifty states--plus the hundreds upon hundreds of
> district attorneys in counties within the state--to prosecute George Bush
> for the murder of any soldier or soldiers from their state or county who
> were killed in Iraq fighting George Bush's war." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi;
> 2008
>
No one in his right mind has ever supposed that a President can be
prosecuted for soldiers dying, not even Lincoln.
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>
>>>> "What state can prosecute a President for anything?" <<<
>
>
> "prosecute a President".
>
Evidently? Based on what? You are just taking Bugliosi's word on
everything just because you fell in love with him?
> Or do you think Bugliosi, a seasoned lawyer, is lying his ass off when
> he said this in the video linked below?:
>
He is fantasizing.
>
>
> "In the book ["The Prosecution Of George W. Bush For Murder"] I
> lay out the legal architecture for the case against Bush, all of the
> evidence of guilt against Bush, and the jurisdiction to prosecute
> him. ....
>
>
> "I've set forth in my book the jurisdictional basis for the
> Attorney General in each of the fifty states--plus the hundreds upon
> hundreds of district attorneys in counties within the state--to
> prosecute George Bush for the murder of any soldier or soldiers from
> their state or county who were killed in Iraq fighting George Bush's
> war." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; 2008
>
>
pjsp...@aol.com
> On 22 May 2008 03:51:11 -0400, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>
Is this what it's come down to--the President hiding behind the Pinochet
defense? The reality is that holding executives accountable for their acts
is democracy in its purest form, and that letting criminal acts slide
because they were committed in the name of national security, or at the
urging of a President who can pardon himself (as Nixon apparently
believed) is democracy in its impure banana republic form.
SO, if Bugliosi can make a case that Bush broke laws, let him make it.
It's what the American people need to hear. I just hope he looks the
issues in the eye, and doesn't just put out another prosecutor's brief.
I've been looking through Reclaiming History again lately and have
concluded that the book was far worse than I thought the last time I went
through it.
My first take was that it was a well-done prosecutor's brief, with a few
major mistakes My second take was that it included some fairly-well
rounded arguments, and was informative as long as one didn't assume one
was getting the "whole" story. My most recent take is that Bugliosi is so
in love with himself and his ability to argue anything that he took a
number of shortcuts, and deliberately misrepresented aspects of the case
to deceive his readers.
If he does this in the Bush book, you can bet your sweet bippy some
Republican attack dogs are gonna Dan Rather him before the month is out.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "You don't claim that the president is a "criminal" just because you disagree with his policies. This is known as Bush Derangement Syndrome, and Bugliosi has a bad case." <<<
>
>
> I guess I was wrong....no "tongue-in-cheek'ism" from .john there. (I
> don't think anyway.)
>
> BTW, John Mc., what makes you think Bugliosi is accusing Bush of being
> a criminal "just because [he] disagree[s] with his policies"?
>
> That's not at all what VB is doing in his Bush book.
>
> VB is saying that Bush could, indeed, be "prosecuted" for murder in
> virtually all 50 states (if not EVERY state) due to the (so-called)
> fact (?) that Bush "lied" to Congress and, hence, to America about the
> reasons for starting the war in Iraq. (A hard "lie" to prove, though,
> in a courtroom setting, I would imagine.)
>
He is wishing. He is fantasizing. He is not stating a fact.
Anthony Marsh
> On 20 May 2008 01:30:04 -0400, yeuhd <Needle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm puzzled. How does that particular quotation indicate that Bugliosi has
>> "lost it"?
>>
>
> It shows he's deluded, since hatred of George Bush *is* political.
>
One need not HATE in order to prosecute a war crime.
Anthony Marsh
Breaking US laws should not be the test. It is violating the US
constitution and breaking International laws which should apply. What
right did the US have to try and execute German and Japanese war
criminals? Curtis LeMay observed that if the US had lost the war, he would
have been hanged for war crimes. The only ones prosecuted are the losers.
Anthony Marsh
> On May 19, 11:51 am, Peter Fokes<jp...@toronto.hm> wrote:
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vincent-bugliosi/the-prosecution-of-geo...
>>
>> For Oswald if he had lived, yes .... but also President Bush if found
>> guilty of Bugliosi's charges.
>>
>> Whew.
>>
>> Has Vince lost it?
>>
>> PF
>
> Peter,
>
> I voted for his father twice and for W twice. I think W's mother is a
> great lady and his wife is a lovely person. If he lied about Iraq he
> should go to prison for a long time, and let him think about the soldiers
> and civilians who died every day for the rest of his life. I have always
Not to get too philosophical on you, but why it is a big difference that
Bush lied? Presidents ALWAYS lie and soldiers and civilians always die.
> liked Dick Cheney and have a lot of admiration for Condolissa Rice. If
> they were a party to this deception they too should serve time in prison.
> In fact everyone who conspired in this deception should serve time in
> prison. I'm sick and tired of lying politicians who know what's best for
> us. Evidently they are an infestation of both political parties. A pox on
> both their houses.
>
It's never a matter of them knowing what's best for US. That is the last
consideration. It is a matter of them knowing what the ruling class wants.
More money, more oil, more drugs, more power. We are only cattle to be
milked and slaughtered for meat.
> However, it may be the case Saddam Hussein's scam was so good he fooled
> everybody, including British and Israeli intelligence too. We know for a
> fact he had WMDs and used them against the Kurds, killing women and
> children without remorse. International observers verify over 40 Kurdish
Yes, he HAD WMD and used them. Then he got rid of them. You are not
permitted to ask how and where.
> villages were gassed. If Hussein depleted his inventory of mustard gas it
> makes sense he would try to replenish his stockpile by producing more. The
> UN confirmed Iraqi missiles were fitted with modifications to carry
> chemical warheads. Did Hussein's bluff backfire on him?
>
No, it doesn't. He got rid of everything. Remember how he sent his jets to
Iran for safekeeping in the First Gulf War?
David Von Pein
>>> "He [VB] is wishing. He is fantasizing. He is not stating a fact." <<<
Is Tony Marsh a seasoned lawyer now?
Interesting.
What law school did you graduate from, Anthony?
I'm just curious to know how you can know so much more about the fine
points of the law than 73-year-old former LA Deputy DA Vincent T.
Bugliosi?
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "He [VB] is wishing. He is fantasizing. He is not stating a fact." <<<
>
>
> Is Tony Marsh a seasoned lawyer now?
>
No, and that was not my point.
> Interesting.
>
> What law school did you graduate from, Anthony?
>
Music school. Boston Conservatory of Music.
> I'm just curious to know how you can know so much more about the fine
> points of the law than 73-year-old former LA Deputy DA Vincent T.
> Bugliosi?
>
Bugliosi does not state the fine points of the law. He rants.
John McAdams
wrote:
>
>>>> "You don't claim that the president is a "criminal" just because you disagree with his policies. This is known as Bush Derangement Syndrome, and Bugliosi has a bad case." <<<
>
>
>I guess I was wrong....no "tongue-in-cheek'ism" from .john there. (I
>don't think anyway.)
>
>BTW, John Mc., what makes you think Bugliosi is accusing Bush of being
>a criminal "just because [he] disagree[s] with his policies"?
>
>That's not at all what VB is doing in his Bush book.
>
Actually, yes is it.
If he thought the war in Iraq was a good idea, he would never make
such arguments.
It's absurd to prosecute a president because you think he made the
wrong decision in going to war.
>VB is saying that Bush could, indeed, be "prosecuted" for murder in
>virtually all 50 states (if not EVERY state) due to the (so-called)
>fact (?) that Bush "lied" to Congress and, hence, to America about the
>reasons for starting the war in Iraq. (A hard "lie" to prove, though,
>in a courtroom setting, I would imagine.)
>
>What do "policies" have to do with it at all?
>
>I'm stumped.
>
>
See above.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
David Von Pein
>>> "If he thought the war in Iraq was a good idea, he would never make
such arguments." <<<
And what kind of person (or idiot) would ever think that going to war is a
"good idea"?
Anybody thinking that way just lost my vote in the "humanity" election.
John McAdams
wrote:
>
>>>> "If he thought the war in Iraq was a good idea, he would never make
>such arguments." <<<
>
>
>And what kind of person (or idiot) would ever think that going to war is a
>"good idea"?
>
Oh, people like Abe Lincoln, FDR, Truman, LBJ, Bush, Sr. (twice),
Reagan (in Grenada), and so on.
>Anybody thinking that way just lost my vote in the "humanity" election.
Then you must be a pacifist.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
David Von Pein
>>> "Then you must be a pacifist." <<<
Oh goodie....another label to contend with.
Okay, yes, I guess I'm a "pacifist".
Actually, just a person who thinks that all wars are so incredibly
stupid.
David Von Pein
>>> "Oh goodie....another label to contend with." <<<
But, then too, having thought about my above comment for a moment or two,
I realize that I certainly have labelled a fair share of CTers as "kooks"
in my day. So who the hell am I to gripe about people "labelling" other
people 'this' or 'that'?
So, I guess I'm a "hypocrite" now, too. And, according to several CTers
I've conversed with, I'm also a "Disinfo Specialist". So, I guess "labels"
can be fun too.
(And the "specialist" part is also good for the morale.)
<g>
Anthony Marsh
> On 25 May 2008 23:28:24 -0400, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>>> "If he thought the war in Iraq was a good idea, he would never make
>> such arguments." <<<
>>
>>
>> And what kind of person (or idiot) would ever think that going to war is a
>> "good idea"?
>>
>
> Oh, people like Abe Lincoln, FDR, Truman, LBJ, Bush, Sr. (twice),
> Reagan (in Grenada), and so on.
>
The first three Presidents you mentioned hated war and were opposed to it.
John McAdams
wrote:
>
>
Pacifists generally don't mind being called "pacifists." In fact,
they embrace the label.
But I take it you think Chamberlain, and not Churchill, was on the
right track.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
> I'm puzzled. How does that particular quotation indicate that Bugliosi has
> "lost it"?
>
The idea that a sitting President can be prosecuted for war crimes is
nuts and anyone who proposes it is nuts.
yeuhd
But Bugliosi does *not* say a sitting president. He says quite
clearly: after Bush leaves office.
Peter Fokes
Received my copy today.
It took just a few days when ordered from Chapters
www.chapters.indigo.ca in Canada, but www.amazon.ca informed me
delivery would take 2 months!
I'm a quarter of the way through Sorenson's Counselor and Bugliosi
book next on my list.
1,200 Taliban escaped from a prison in Afghanistan yesterday in a
"surge" by militants.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080613.wafghan14/BNStory/International/home
Never could understand why the powers that be in D.C. chose Iraq
rather than Afghanistan. Made no sense. Canadians fighting and dying
in Afghanistan. Not Iraq.
Maybe Bugliosi's new book can set me straight.
PF
Anthony Marsh
Makes perfect sense. Iraq has more oil than Afghanistan. Iran is next as
it also has a big share of the oil. The Neocons are nothing more than
organized crime. No lofty ideals, just punks. They just pulled off the
biggest bank heist in history. Their greed is driven by the price of
prostitution. With the top call girls commanding $100,000 per hour, these
slugs need billions of dollars where they used to sneak by with millions
of dollars.
Anthony Marsh
Yeah, right. So Bugliosi next wants to prosecute Lincoln? They guy is
just nuts anyone associated with him is also nuts.
yeuhd
> Never could understand why the powers that be in D.C. chose Iraq
> rather than Afghanistan. Made no sense. Canadians fighting and dying
> in Afghanistan. Not Iraq.
Washington chose Iraq rather than Afghanistan for what? The U.S.
invaded both countries.
Canada opted out of the coalition that invaded Iraq.
David Von Pein
>>> "The idea that a sitting President can be prosecuted for war crimes is nuts and anyone who proposes it is nuts." <<<
Bugliosi's not proposing that at all. And he never was proposing such a
thing. He's proposing Bush be prosecuted only after he leaves the safety
of his oval-shaped room.
I guess Vince B. just better hope McCain doesn't win. At least there's a
chance that a Democrat won't pardon the guy.
Anthony Marsh
Bugliosi claims he is not a right-wing nut. So, has he endorsed Barack
Obama?
yeuhd
> Bugliosi claims he is not a right-wing nut. So, has he endorsed Barack
> Obama?
Where did anyone ever accuse the author of "The Betrayal of America:
How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our
President" and "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder" of being
a right-wing nut? Not to mention his misty-eyed chapters on the
Kennedy legacy that open and close "Reclaiming History".
And how does: not being a right-wing nut = endorsing Barack Obama?
Anthony Marsh
> On Jun 15, 4:21 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Bugliosi claims he is not a right-wing nut. So, has he endorsed Barack
>> Obama?
>
> Where did anyone ever accuse the author of "The Betrayal of America:
> How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our
> President" and "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder" of being
> a right-wing nut? Not to mention his misty-eyed chapters on the
> Kennedy legacy that open and close "Reclaiming History".
>
I did. And I called him a liar, to his face.
> And how does: not being a right-wing nut = endorsing Barack Obama?
>
Not being a right-wing nut as in being a flaming Liberal who would
naturally endorse Barack Obama, who would never be endorsed by a
right-wing nut.
yeuhd
> Not being a right-wing nut as in being a flaming Liberal who would
> naturally endorse Barack Obama, who would never be endorsed by a
> right-wing nut.
What about someone who is neither a "right-wing nut" nor a "flaming
Liberal"?
paul seaton
"yeuhd" <Needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1f185f73-6a70-4f56...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
[You are going to confuse Tony with this kind of fine distinction]
Peter Fokes
<paulNOse...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
Alexander Hamilton wrote:
"Arbitrary imprisonments have been, in all ages, the favorite and most
formidable instruments of tyranny."
Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, reiterated the Court's
finding in Rasul v. Bush that although Cuba retains technical
sovereignty over Guantánamo, the United States exercises complete
jurisdiction and control over its naval base and thus the Constitution
protects the detainees there. Kennedy rejected "the necessary
implication" of Bush's position that the political branches could
"govern without legal restraint" by locating a U.S. military base in a
country that retained formal sovereignty over the area. In his
dissent, Chief Justice Roberts flippantly characterized Guantánamo as
a "jurisdictionally QUIRKY OUTPOST."
Kennedy worried that the political branches could "have the power to
switch the Constitution on or off at will" which "would lead to a
regime in which they, not this Court, say 'what the law is.'" "Even
when the United States acts outside its borders," Kennedy wrote, "its
powers are not 'absolute and unlimited' but are subject 'to such
restrictions as are expressed in the Constitution.'"
Thus, Kennedy observed, "the writ of habeas corpus is itself an
indispensable mechanism for monitoring the separation of powers."
Indeed, habeas corpus was one of the few individual rights the
Founding Fathers wrote it into the original Constitution, years before
they enacted the Bill of Rights.
"The test for determining the scope of [the habeas corpus] provision,"
Kennedy wrote, "must not be subject to manipulation by those whose
power it is designed to restrain."
Seems a straightforward opinion, yet the court was divided 5-4.
And we speak of mere mortals understanding fine distinctions?
lol
One presidential candidate responded:
"The Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one
of the worst decisions in the history of this country."
The other candidate responded:
The court's decision is "an important step toward re-establishing our
credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a
false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus."
A host of a FOX news show urged the President to ignore the Court.
Wow.
Going out by stepping on the foot that got ya there!
Fine distinctions everywhere!
TURN UP THE CONTRAST PLEASE.
lol
PF
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>On 17 Jun 2008 16:22:22 -0400, "paul seaton"
><paulNOse...@paulseaton.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"yeuhd" <Needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1f185f73-6a70-4f56...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>On Jun 16, 11:12 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Not being a right-wing nut as in being a flaming Liberal who would
>>> naturally endorse Barack Obama, who would never be endorsed by a
>>> right-wing nut.
>>
>>What about someone who is neither a "right-wing nut" nor a "flaming
>>Liberal"?
>>
>>[You are going to confuse Tony with this kind of fine distinction]
>
>Alexander Hamilton wrote:
>
>"Arbitrary imprisonments have been, in all ages, the favorite and most
>formidable instruments of tyranny."
Excuse me:
The following is part of an article here:
http://www.alternet.org/rights/88402/?page=1
start ....
>
>Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, reiterated the Court's
>finding in Rasul v. Bush that although Cuba retains technical
>sovereignty over Guantánamo, the United States exercises complete
>jurisdiction and control over its naval base and thus the Constitution
>protects the detainees there. Kennedy rejected "the necessary
>implication" of Bush's position that the political branches could
>"govern without legal restraint" by locating a U.S. military base in a
>country that retained formal sovereignty over the area. In his
>dissent, Chief Justice Roberts flippantly characterized Guantánamo as
>a "jurisdictionally QUIRKY OUTPOST."
>
>
>Kennedy worried that the political branches could "have the power to
>switch the Constitution on or off at will" which "would lead to a
>regime in which they, not this Court, say 'what the law is.'" "Even
>when the United States acts outside its borders," Kennedy wrote, "its
>powers are not 'absolute and unlimited' but are subject 'to such
>restrictions as are expressed in the Constitution.'"
>
>Thus, Kennedy observed, "the writ of habeas corpus is itself an
>indispensable mechanism for monitoring the separation of powers."
>Indeed, habeas corpus was one of the few individual rights the
>Founding Fathers wrote it into the original Constitution, years before
>they enacted the Bill of Rights.
>
>"The test for determining the scope of [the habeas corpus] provision,"
>Kennedy wrote, "must not be subject to manipulation by those whose
>power it is designed to restrain."
end ......
>
>
>Seems a straightforward opinion, yet the court was divided 5-4.
>
>And we speak of mere mortals understanding fine distinctions?
>
>lol
>
>One presidential candidate responded:
>
>"The Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one
>of the worst decisions in the history of this country."
>
>The other candidate responded:
>
>The court's decision is "an important step toward re-establishing our
>credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a
>false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus."
>
>A host of a FOX news show urged the President to ignore the Court.
>
>
>Wow.
>
>Going out by stepping on the foot that got ya there!
>
>Fine distinctions everywhere!
>
>TURN UP THE CONTRAST PLEASE.
>
>
>lol
>
>
>
>PF
>
>
PF
Anthony Marsh
In this case we are talking about a specific individual. Lots of fair
weather Liberals became conservatives when they became rich.
Anthony Marsh
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vincent-bugliosi/the-prosecution-of-george_b_102427.html
>
> For Oswald if he had lived, yes .... but also President Bush if found
> guilty of Bugliosi's charges.
>
> Whew.
>
> Has Vince lost it?
>
More false charges. Bugliosi does not call for the death penalty for
Bush. He just points out the irony that while SOME do call for the death
penalty, Bush has been a leading proponent for the death penalty.
>
> PF
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>