FBIFail: No evidence of bomb-making by terror suspect

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Originally posted by: GarfieldtheCat
Don't forget that Torture and waterboarding are illegal, both by federal law, the Geneva Convention, and the UN convention against torture.

That's certainly a second area where there could be a lot of indictments if someone ever had the guts to prosecute this.

So are you admitting torture and waterboarding are separate things? lol

No, but some people *cough* *cough* seem to think they are. It's easier to write it that way, then to have some people *cough* *cough* try to start BS about waterboarding isn't torture.

I hope you aren't referring to me.. because I've made it clear I think waterboarding _IS_ torture. I also think we should use waterboarding on certain terror suspects. And just to be consistent, I agree to be waterboarded if I am caught engaging in acts of terror against another country.

No, it isn't you.
He's probably talking about me, but naturally he misrepresents my stance on the subject and has shown previously that he doesn't have the mental faculties to properly comprehend the argument in the first place. Either that, or he has the mental faculties but allows his emotional viewpoint to supercede any rational thought on the subject.

He's also wrong that waterboarding is illegal under Federal law. No Federal law specifically singles out "waterboarding" as being illegal. That's not to say that waterboarding can't be classified as "torture," which is illegal. But he neglects that there's a judgement call involved in doing so, though he likes to pretend there is no such judgement call, like so many others in here.

btw. If the Dems were against waterboarding as much as they claim they could easily make a law specifically prohibiting waterboarding. They won't, however, because to them, waterboarding is political tool and little more. The only time they tried to pass any such law was when the GOP had a congressional majority and/or they knew Bush would veto any such attempt. Now the Dems have the control. So why don't the pass the law now? With all the previous debate about waterboarding it seems odd they'd just drop such a hot potato and hide it out of sight. Or not, if you realize they were using it as nothing more than political leverage, as a hot button issue, and never had any intent to have waterboarding be illegal. Yellow-bellied assholes.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
So why is Obama's FBI failing, and why are you happy about it? :confused:

Are you a jihadi? Wouldnt surprise me.
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,923
4,494
136
Originally posted by: First
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: woodie1
According to the op all trials should now be held by the media. Judges and juries are no longer needed.
According to you, the Federal Bureau of Imagination no longer needs to present evidence in court.

No actually, he said nothing of the sort. Meanwhile you'd rather take the word of a alleged terrorist's lawyer over the FBI. That's pretty sad, even for a hack like you.

Fixed that for you.

 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
Originally posted by: soulcougher73
Originally posted by: First
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: woodie1
According to the op all trials should now be held by the media. Judges and juries are no longer needed.
According to you, the Federal Bureau of Imagination no longer needs to present evidence in court.

No actually, he said nothing of the sort. Meanwhile you'd rather take the word of a alleged terrorist's lawyer over the FBI. That's pretty sad, even for a hack like you.

Fixed that for you.

Its always ALLEGED when its a terrorist. If U.S. soldiers are accused of any crimes then they are guilty immediately and get immediate condemnation from democrat politicians etc..
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
I don't have to take anybody's word.

I don't know about you guys, but I find it odd that the FBI can't find a single piece of direct evidence (no materials, no explosives, no residue) to link the suspect to the allegations.

Well it looks like you took the word of the defense attorney, doesn't it?

I have no idea if he's innocent or not, but I suspect the attorney has little interest in saying "My client is guilty!" Consequently the statement "I find it odd that the FBI can't find..." to be rather misleading. We don't know what they did or did not find, unless we take the word of the lawyer, eh?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I don't have to take anybody's word.

I don't know about you guys, but I find it odd that the FBI can't find a single piece of direct evidence (no materials, no explosives, no residue) to link the suspect to the allegations.

Well it looks like you took the word of the defense attorney, doesn't it?

I have no idea if he's innocent or not, but I suspect the attorney has little interest in saying "My client is guilty!" Consequently the statement "I find it odd that the FBI can't find..." to be rather misleading. We don't know what they did or did not find, unless we take the word of the lawyer, eh?
The defense attorney didn't address the purchases of bomb-making materials or the e-mails. I wonder what his explanation for those will be?
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: alchemize

Say, who's responsible for those fellas at the FBI?

You mean, Who's Watching Over Who's Watching Over You? :Q ;)

Obama is watching over me! Your hero and traitor in chief!

I've posted my "macros" citing names, dates, quotes, statutory citations and credible references to support charging YOUR thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief, George W. Bush, and his criminal cabal with murder, torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity. Establishing all the elements to convict them of treason is more difficult, but I've posted enough hard facts, legal citations and references to legal authorities to support the charge.

You know I can post the same information again. If I did, all you'd do is piss and moan about me posting another "macro." It wouldn't matter to you that everything in those "macros" is true. Truth has never mattered to you.

If you want to refer to Obama as a traitor, you owe us the same level of proof to support your ridiculous blather. Please post specific acts he has committed that you believe conform to any authoritative definition of "treason," and please include authoritative legal references to support your claims.

If you can't do that, please STFU. At least you'll help to reduce noise pollution.

Would Obama purposely avoiding the war crimes charges against Bush be considered traitorous? What other war crimes is Obama looking the other way on? Obama's continued support of unlimited dentention without trial of Muslim Freedom Fighters, his continuation of the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, his continued slaughter of innocent Iraqi and Afghan citizens, his continued support for the Patriot Act.. A divorce lawyer could convict Obama of treason.

None of that rises to any definition of the crime of treason so until you can define specific acts that constitute treason, please refrain from calling him a traitor.

If you think anything Obama has done constitutes any other crimes do your own damned homework and figure out WHAT crime. Cite statutes and legal authorities to support your claims. That's what I've done in many of my posts.

Meanwhile, I will continue to refer to George W. Bush as YOUR mercifully EX-Traitor In Chief. You know I've done MY homework, and I can support that charge. I have even better evidence to support charges of murder, torture and other war crimes and crimes against humanity against him and his entire butt fucking ugly criminal cabal. I don't have to hand in my paper yet again to prove it.


I hear Judge Judy has an opening in a couple weeks. Perhaps you could bring your proof to her? I still don't understand how copying and pasting a bunch of internet links constitutes ANY sort of proof.. but it may get you a conviction on The Peoples Court.

Jerry Springer might also allow you on. No, actually, that might even cross the line for him.

Yet another non-responsive, non-answer from a non-thinking motor mouth with nothing to say and far too many words to say it. :laugh:
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: alchemize

Say, who's responsible for those fellas at the FBI?

You mean, Who's Watching Over Who's Watching Over You? :Q ;)

Obama is watching over me! Your hero and traitor in chief!

I've posted my "macros" citing names, dates, quotes, statutory citations and credible references to support charging YOUR thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief, George W. Bush, and his criminal cabal with murder, torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity. Establishing all the elements to convict them of treason is more difficult, but I've posted enough hard facts, legal citations and references to legal authorities to support the charge.

You know I can post the same information again. If I did, all you'd do is piss and moan about me posting another "macro." It wouldn't matter to you that everything in those "macros" is true. Truth has never mattered to you.

If you want to refer to Obama as a traitor, you owe us the same level of proof to support your ridiculous blather. Please post specific acts he has committed that you believe conform to any authoritative definition of "treason," and please include authoritative legal references to support your claims.

If you can't do that, please STFU. At least you'll help to reduce noise pollution.

Would Obama purposely avoiding the war crimes charges against Bush be considered traitorous? What other war crimes is Obama looking the other way on? Obama's continued support of unlimited dentention without trial of Muslim Freedom Fighters, his continuation of the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, his continued slaughter of innocent Iraqi and Afghan citizens, his continued support for the Patriot Act.. A divorce lawyer could convict Obama of treason.

None of that rises to any definition of the crime of treason so until you can define specific acts that constitute treason, please refrain from calling him a traitor.

If you think anything Obama has done constitutes any other crimes do your own damned homework and figure out WHAT crime. Cite statutes and legal authorities to support your claims. That's what I've done in many of my posts.

Meanwhile, I will continue to refer to George W. Bush as YOUR mercifully EX-Traitor In Chief. You know I've done MY homework, and I can support that charge. I have even better evidence to support charges of murder, torture and other war crimes and crimes against humanity against him and his entire butt fucking ugly criminal cabal. I don't have to hand in my paper yet again to prove it.


I hear Judge Judy has an opening in a couple weeks. Perhaps you could bring your proof to her? I still don't understand how copying and pasting a bunch of internet links constitutes ANY sort of proof.. but it may get you a conviction on The Peoples Court.

Jerry Springer might also allow you on. No, actually, that might even cross the line for him.

Yet another non-responsive, non-answer from a non-thinking motor mouth with nothing to say and far too many words to say it. :laugh:

I'm just trying to give you the best chance of convicting Bush!
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: alchemize

Say, who's responsible for those fellas at the FBI?

You mean, Who's Watching Over Who's Watching Over You? :Q ;)

Obama is watching over me! Your hero and traitor in chief!

I've posted my "macros" citing names, dates, quotes, statutory citations and credible references to support charging YOUR thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief, George W. Bush, and his criminal cabal with murder, torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity. Establishing all the elements to convict them of treason is more difficult, but I've posted enough hard facts, legal citations and references to legal authorities to support the charge.

You know I can post the same information again. If I did, all you'd do is piss and moan about me posting another "macro." It wouldn't matter to you that everything in those "macros" is true. Truth has never mattered to you.

If you want to refer to Obama as a traitor, you owe us the same level of proof to support your ridiculous blather. Please post specific acts he has committed that you believe conform to any authoritative definition of "treason," and please include authoritative legal references to support your claims.

If you can't do that, please STFU. At least you'll help to reduce noise pollution.

Would Obama purposely avoiding the war crimes charges against Bush be considered traitorous? What other war crimes is Obama looking the other way on? Obama's continued support of unlimited dentention without trial of Muslim Freedom Fighters, his continuation of the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, his continued slaughter of innocent Iraqi and Afghan citizens, his continued support for the Patriot Act.. A divorce lawyer could convict Obama of treason.

None of that rises to any definition of the crime of treason so until you can define specific acts that constitute treason, please refrain from calling him a traitor.

If you think anything Obama has done constitutes any other crimes do your own damned homework and figure out WHAT crime. Cite statutes and legal authorities to support your claims. That's what I've done in many of my posts.

Meanwhile, I will continue to refer to George W. Bush as YOUR mercifully EX-Traitor In Chief. You know I've done MY homework, and I can support that charge. I have even better evidence to support charges of murder, torture and other war crimes and crimes against humanity against him and his entire butt fucking ugly criminal cabal. I don't have to hand in my paper yet again to prove it.


I hear Judge Judy has an opening in a couple weeks. Perhaps you could bring your proof to her? I still don't understand how copying and pasting a bunch of internet links constitutes ANY sort of proof.. but it may get you a conviction on The Peoples Court.

Jerry Springer might also allow you on. No, actually, that might even cross the line for him.

Yet another non-responsive, non-answer from a non-thinking motor mouth with nothing to say and far too many words to say it. :laugh:

I'm just trying to give you the best chance of convicting Bush!

Yet another non-responsive, non-answer from a non-thinking motor mouth with nothing to say and far too many words to say it. :laugh:

Everyone knows I can repost my saved text files proving my charges against your merifully EX-Traitor In Chief, George W. Bush, and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals, war profiteers and general incompetents because I've done it so many times, before. You and other right wingnuts even have a name for my files. You call them "macros."

There's no point in wasting anymore time with a lamer like you until YOU can prove YOUR charges that Obama is a traitor. PUT UP, OR SHUT UP! We'll be waiting.
.
.
< crickets >
.
.
< crickets >
.
.
< :clock: >
.
.
< crickets >
.
.
< crickets >
.
.
< :clock: >
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Originally posted by: jpeyton
-snip-
FBIFail: No evidence of bomb-making by terror suspect

Hahaha You fall 'hook, line and sinker' for the words of a defendants defense lawyer?

Don't expect the rest of to that.

Originally posted by: jpeyton

I don't know about you guys, but I find it odd that the FBI can't find a single piece of direct evidence (no materials, no explosives, no residue) to link the suspect to the allegations.

No, they do have some evidence that we know about (and have seen).

He purchased the 3 components necessary for a bomb etc.

You seem to expect that the FBI will release all of their evidence now, that they will be trying in the media instead of court.

So far, they've needed to produce only enough to get an indictmet - which they got.

After this to come to trial we may see more, particularly if the defense shares what they find out in the discovery phase.

As even many left types who've critisized the other 'busts' have said - this was guy in the operational phase (which is quite different than the other so-called plots) and this looks serious. The fact the FBI hasn't been able to find the bomb-making chemicals has been a concern of theirs from the outset (when this case was announced). So, it's waaay to early to denounce this plot as some kind of over-zealous FBI blunder where an innocent guy is slandered etc.

Fern
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: alchemize

Say, who's responsible for those fellas at the FBI?

You mean, Who's Watching Over Who's Watching Over You? :Q ;)

Obama is watching over me! Your hero and traitor in chief!

I've posted my "macros" citing names, dates, quotes, statutory citations and credible references to support charging YOUR thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief, George W. Bush, and his criminal cabal with murder, torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity. Establishing all the elements to convict them of treason is more difficult, but I've posted enough hard facts, legal citations and references to legal authorities to support the charge.

You know I can post the same information again. If I did, all you'd do is piss and moan about me posting another "macro." It wouldn't matter to you that everything in those "macros" is true. Truth has never mattered to you.

If you want to refer to Obama as a traitor, you owe us the same level of proof to support your ridiculous blather. Please post specific acts he has committed that you believe conform to any authoritative definition of "treason," and please include authoritative legal references to support your claims.

If you can't do that, please STFU. At least you'll help to reduce noise pollution.

Would Obama purposely avoiding the war crimes charges against Bush be considered traitorous? What other war crimes is Obama looking the other way on? Obama's continued support of unlimited dentention without trial of Muslim Freedom Fighters, his continuation of the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, his continued slaughter of innocent Iraqi and Afghan citizens, his continued support for the Patriot Act.. A divorce lawyer could convict Obama of treason.

None of that rises to any definition of the crime of treason so until you can define specific acts that constitute treason, please refrain from calling him a traitor.

If you think anything Obama has done constitutes any other crimes do your own damned homework and figure out WHAT crime. Cite statutes and legal authorities to support your claims. That's what I've done in many of my posts.

Meanwhile, I will continue to refer to George W. Bush as YOUR mercifully EX-Traitor In Chief. You know I've done MY homework, and I can support that charge. I have even better evidence to support charges of murder, torture and other war crimes and crimes against humanity against him and his entire butt fucking ugly criminal cabal. I don't have to hand in my paper yet again to prove it.


I hear Judge Judy has an opening in a couple weeks. Perhaps you could bring your proof to her? I still don't understand how copying and pasting a bunch of internet links constitutes ANY sort of proof.. but it may get you a conviction on The Peoples Court.

Jerry Springer might also allow you on. No, actually, that might even cross the line for him.

Yet another non-responsive, non-answer from a non-thinking motor mouth with nothing to say and far too many words to say it. :laugh:

I'm just trying to give you the best chance of convicting Bush!

Yet another non-responsive, non-answer from a non-thinking motor mouth with nothing to say and far too many words to say it. :laugh:

Everyone knows I can repost my saved text files proving my charges against your merifully EX-Traitor In Chief, George W. Bush, and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals, war profiteers and general incompetents because I've done it so many times, before. You and other right wingnuts even have a name for my files. You call them "macros."

There's no point in wasting anymore time with a lamer like you until YOU can prove YOUR charges that Obama is a traitor. PUT UP, OR SHUT UP! We'll be waiting.
.
.
< crickets >
.
.
< crickets >
.
.
< :clock: >
.
.
< crickets >
.
.
< crickets >
.
.
< :clock: >

Seems to me like you have a lot of time to waste on me. Obama is a traitor because he refuses to press for charges against GWB, a known traitor (Which you have proven), and continues Bush's illegal wars, indefinite holding of peaceful freedom fighters, and has yet to close the torture chamber known as Gitmo.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: alchemize

Say, who's responsible for those fellas at the FBI?

You mean, Who's Watching Over Who's Watching Over You? :Q ;)

Obama is watching over me! Your hero and traitor in chief!

I've posted my "macros" citing names, dates, quotes, statutory citations and credible references to support charging YOUR thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief, George W. Bush, and his criminal cabal with murder, torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity. Establishing all the elements to convict them of treason is more difficult, but I've posted enough hard facts, legal citations and references to legal authorities to support the charge.

You know I can post the same information again. If I did, all you'd do is piss and moan about me posting another "macro." It wouldn't matter to you that everything in those "macros" is true. Truth has never mattered to you.

If you want to refer to Obama as a traitor, you owe us the same level of proof to support your ridiculous blather. Please post specific acts he has committed that you believe conform to any authoritative definition of "treason," and please include authoritative legal references to support your claims.

If you can't do that, please STFU. At least you'll help to reduce noise pollution.

Would Obama purposely avoiding the war crimes charges against Bush be considered traitorous? What other war crimes is Obama looking the other way on? Obama's continued support of unlimited dentention without trial of Muslim Freedom Fighters, his continuation of the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, his continued slaughter of innocent Iraqi and Afghan citizens, his continued support for the Patriot Act.. A divorce lawyer could convict Obama of treason.

None of that rises to any definition of the crime of treason so until you can define specific acts that constitute treason, please refrain from calling him a traitor.

If you think anything Obama has done constitutes any other crimes do your own damned homework and figure out WHAT crime. Cite statutes and legal authorities to support your claims. That's what I've done in many of my posts.

Meanwhile, I will continue to refer to George W. Bush as YOUR mercifully EX-Traitor In Chief. You know I've done MY homework, and I can support that charge. I have even better evidence to support charges of murder, torture and other war crimes and crimes against humanity against him and his entire butt fucking ugly criminal cabal. I don't have to hand in my paper yet again to prove it.


I hear Judge Judy has an opening in a couple weeks. Perhaps you could bring your proof to her? I still don't understand how copying and pasting a bunch of internet links constitutes ANY sort of proof.. but it may get you a conviction on The Peoples Court.

Jerry Springer might also allow you on. No, actually, that might even cross the line for him.

Yet another non-responsive, non-answer from a non-thinking motor mouth with nothing to say and far too many words to say it. :laugh:

I'm just trying to give you the best chance of convicting Bush!

Yet another non-responsive, non-answer from a non-thinking motor mouth with nothing to say and far too many words to say it. :laugh:

Everyone knows I can repost my saved text files proving my charges against your merifully EX-Traitor In Chief, George W. Bush, and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals, war profiteers and general incompetents because I've done it so many times, before. You and other right wingnuts even have a name for my files. You call them "macros."

There's no point in wasting anymore time with a lamer like you until YOU can prove YOUR charges that Obama is a traitor. PUT UP, OR SHUT UP! We'll be waiting.
.
.
< crickets >
.
.
< crickets >
.
.
< :clock: >
.
.
< crickets >
.
.
< crickets >
.
.
< :clock: >

Seems to me like you have a lot of time to waste on me. Obama is a traitor because he refuses to press for charges against GWB, a known traitor (Which you have proven), and continues Bush's illegal wars, indefinite holding of peaceful freedom fighters, and has yet to close the torture chamber known as Gitmo.

I don't mind calling you out for the liar that you are. Seems to me you have a lot of time to waste bullshitting everyone with your right wingnut lies instead of actually managing to establish that you're telling the truth. But that's what you always do, post, after post, after post.

That's the standard I set for myself when I post that your merifully EX-Traitor In Chief, George W. Bush, and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals actually are guilty of those crimes. The fact that you haven't done the same when you claim Obama is a traitor means only one of two things:

1. You're an incompetent fool, and you're unable to find such evidence.

2. You're a blatant liar, and no such evidence exists.

Which is it? :confused:

In either case, until you can support your charge by defining specific acts he has committed that constitute treason, including statutory citations and credible supporting links to evidence and credible authorities, you just drive your own credibility deeper into negative numbers. PUT UP, OR SHUT UP! We'll be waiting.
.
.
< crickets >
.
.
< crickets >
.
.
< :clock: >
.
.
< crickets >
.
.
< crickets >
.
.
< :clock: >
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: alchemize

Say, who's responsible for those fellas at the FBI?

You mean, Who's Watching Over Who's Watching Over You? :Q ;)

Obama is watching over me! Your hero and traitor in chief!

I've posted my "macros" citing names, dates, quotes, statutory citations and credible references to support charging YOUR thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief, George W. Bush, and his criminal cabal with murder, torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity. Establishing all the elements to convict them of treason is more difficult, but I've posted enough hard facts, legal citations and references to legal authorities to support the charge.

You know I can post the same information again. If I did, all you'd do is piss and moan about me posting another "macro." It wouldn't matter to you that everything in those "macros" is true. Truth has never mattered to you.

If you want to refer to Obama as a traitor, you owe us the same level of proof to support your ridiculous blather. Please post specific acts he has committed that you believe conform to any authoritative definition of "treason," and please include authoritative legal references to support your claims.

If you can't do that, please STFU. At least you'll help to reduce noise pollution.

Would Obama purposely avoiding the war crimes charges against Bush be considered traitorous? What other war crimes is Obama looking the other way on? Obama's continued support of unlimited dentention without trial of Muslim Freedom Fighters, his continuation of the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, his continued slaughter of innocent Iraqi and Afghan citizens, his continued support for the Patriot Act.. A divorce lawyer could convict Obama of treason.

None of that rises to any definition of the crime of treason so until you can define specific acts that constitute treason, please refrain from calling him a traitor.

If you think anything Obama has done constitutes any other crimes do your own damned homework and figure out WHAT crime. Cite statutes and legal authorities to support your claims. That's what I've done in many of my posts.

Meanwhile, I will continue to refer to George W. Bush as YOUR mercifully EX-Traitor In Chief. You know I've done MY homework, and I can support that charge. I have even better evidence to support charges of murder, torture and other war crimes and crimes against humanity against him and his entire butt fucking ugly criminal cabal. I don't have to hand in my paper yet again to prove it.


I hear Judge Judy has an opening in a couple weeks. Perhaps you could bring your proof to her? I still don't understand how copying and pasting a bunch of internet links constitutes ANY sort of proof.. but it may get you a conviction on The Peoples Court.

Jerry Springer might also allow you on. No, actually, that might even cross the line for him.

Yet another non-responsive, non-answer from a non-thinking motor mouth with nothing to say and far too many words to say it. :laugh:

I'm just trying to give you the best chance of convicting Bush!

Yet another non-responsive, non-answer from a non-thinking motor mouth with nothing to say and far too many words to say it. :laugh:

Everyone knows I can repost my saved text files proving my charges against your merifully EX-Traitor In Chief, George W. Bush, and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals, war profiteers and general incompetents because I've done it so many times, before. You and other right wingnuts even have a name for my files. You call them "macros."

There's no point in wasting anymore time with a lamer like you until YOU can prove YOUR charges that Obama is a traitor. PUT UP, OR SHUT UP! We'll be waiting.
.
.
< crickets >
.
.
< crickets >
.
.
< :clock: >
.
.
< crickets >
.
.
< crickets >
.
.
< :clock: >

Seems to me like you have a lot of time to waste on me. Obama is a traitor because he refuses to press for charges against GWB, a known traitor (Which you have proven), and continues Bush's illegal wars, indefinite holding of peaceful freedom fighters, and has yet to close the torture chamber known as Gitmo.

I don't mind calling you out for the liar that you are. Seems to me you have a lot of time to waste bullshitting everyone with your right wingnut lies instead of actually managing to establish that you're telling the truth. But that's what you always do, post, after post, after post.

That's the standard I set for myself when I post that your merifully EX-Traitor In Chief, George W. Bush, and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals actually are guilty of those crimes. The fact that you haven't done the same when you claim Obama is a traitor means only one of two things:

1. You're an incompetent fool, and you're unable to find such evidence.

2. You're a blatant liar, and no such evidence exists.

Which is it? :confused:

In either case, until you can support your charge by defining specific acts he has committed that constitute treason, including statutory citations and credible supporting links to evidence and credible authorities, you just drive your own credibility deeper into negative numbers.

Oh shit! You got me there! If I pick either one I am screwed! How did I ever get sucked into this quagmire. You are a true intellectual giant. I'm quitting the interweb.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Oh shit! You got me there! If I pick either one I am screwed! How did I ever get sucked into this quagmire. You are a true intellectual giant.

The truth... At last! :light:

I'm quitting the interweb.

Promises, promises, promises. :D

But if you can't keep your word on that, at least try to back what you say with some proof.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,390
29
91
Originally posted by: Harvey

That's the standard I set for myself when I post that your merifully EX-Traitor In Chief, George W. Bush, and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals actually are guilty of those crimes. .

Come now Harvey, lets put your money where your mouth is. Why don't you run that macro that conclusively proves Bush to be a murderer and traitor down to the Attorney General's office and demand charges be filed. You can do it! You can then report back what the AG thinks of your "proof" by letting us know if they filed those charges.

It's a slam dunk, right? So what do you have to lose? Give it a shot, it's only your ego on the line. Surely that should be a small sacrifice to ensure justice is served!
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Harvey

That's the standard I set for myself when I post that your merifully EX-Traitor In Chief, George W. Bush, and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals actually are guilty of those crimes. .

Come now Harvey, lets put your money where your mouth is. Why don't you run that macro that conclusively proves Bush to be a murderer and traitor down to the Attorney General's office and demand charges be filed. You can do it! You can then report back what the AG thinks of your "proof" by letting us know if they filed those charges.

It's a slam dunk, right? So what do you have to lose? Give it a shot, it's only your ego on the line. Surely that should be a small sacrifice to ensure justice is served!

Done! In fact, done awhile ago. Note the date -- 4/25/09. I may even have posted about it at the time, but it dosen't matter. I wrote:

From: "Harvey Rubens" <*****@*****.com>
To: <AskDOJ@usdoj.gov>
Subject: PLEASE Prosecute Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, Rumsfeld, et al.
Date: Sat 04/25/09 06:54 PM

Dear Mr. Attorney General,

I believe that sufficient evidence exists in the public domain to support the conclusion that there is probable cause to prosecute George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, Donald Rumsfeld and many more from the Bush adminstration for multiple felonies.

The recently released OLC memos and the 2002 report from S.E.R.E support charges of torture and other crimes against humanity. That is what we common citizens know. I am certain you have more information on the subject.

I believe there is sufficient evidence to support two alternate theories to charge them with murder for the death of every American troop who has died in Iraq.

1. Under Federal and most state statutes, one definition of murder is committing an act in callous, reckless or wanton disregard or depraved indifference for the safety of others that, in fact, causes the death of another.

One foreseeable consequence of war is death... in fact, as we know, many deaths. Starting a war based on countless lies would constitute an act in callous, reckless or wanton disregard or depraved indifference for the safety of others that, in fact, causes the death of another.

2. I believe the charge could also be supported under the "felony-murder" rule. There is no question that the Bush administration lied to Congress and to the American people to gain support for his
plans to invade Iraq.

Under 18 USC 1001, lying to Congress, even when not done under oath is a
felony.

TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I - CRIMES CHAPTER 47 - FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS

Sec. 1001. Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully -

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; 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. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.

As above, death is a foreseeable consequence of war which would satisfy any requirement for linkage between the lie and the resulting deaths.

I believe many of the Bush administration could be successfully prosecuted for domestic spying because some of their acts predate subsequent statutes and Presidential orders attempting to insulate them from such charges, many of which are of questionable legality.

I believe one could make a strong case for charging them with treason for their gross violations of their oaths of office to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." I understand that would be a more difficult charge to sustain, both legally and politically.

There is no reason for our laws if they are not to be applied evenly and fairly to all of our citizens. Prosecuting those members of the Bush administration who committed these crimes, up to and including those at the very top, is the only way to prove to ourselves and to the world community that we really are who we say we are and that we really uphold
the values we have announced as our own.

Failiure to pursue these matters would mock and denegrate our Constitution, our laws and those who have fought and died to defend and preseve them for over two hundred years, and it would announce to the world that we are the worst of hypocrites, and the words of our leaders are not to be trusted.

Please, please, please do NOT hesitate to uphold the law of the land.

Sincerely,

Harvey Rubens
Sherman Oaks, Ca.
*****@*****.com

I'm not in control of the DOJ, but Attorney General Holder hasn't ruled out pursuing your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief, George W. Bush, and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals, war profiteers and general incompetents for their crimes.

I made the effort so it has nothing to do with MY ego. But the Bushwhackos egos, along with yours and the rest of the right wingnuts will sure be shot to shit when it happens. When it does, I'll be tossing back an extra margarita to celebrate. :cool:
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,390
29
91
Originally posted by: Harvey

I'm not in control of the DOJ, but Attorney General Holder hasn't ruled out pursuing your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief, George W. Bush, and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals, war profiteers and general incompetents for their crimes.

I made the efrort so it has nothing to do with MY ego. But the Bushwhackos egos, along with yours and the rest of the right wingnuts will sure be shot to shit when it happens. When it does, I'll be tossing back an extra margarita to celebrate. :cool:

I'm sure that most of the contry is quite relieved that you are not in control of the DOJ. Horrifying is too weak a description of what a Harvey controlled DOJ portrays given your psychotic behavior here. Anyway.........Regardless of whether or not Holder has or has not ruled out prosecuting Bush, it would appear that your "proof" isn't quite the slam dunk that you present it to be, otherwise they would have no choice to prosecute when presented with *real* evidence of a crime.

I don't know what that says about Holder's DOJ or Bush, but I do think it speaks volumes about the quality of your so-called "proof". Please keep proclaiming you've got the "proof" and I'll keep reminding you that your "proof" was recycled with the click of a mouse, and perhaps even an automated reply.

I really have nothing personally invested with regard to Bush's guilt or innocence other than mere amusement witnessing the antics you and other silly lefties engage in when the conversation turns to Bush, so my ego will remain undamaged regardless of the outcome. Either I continue to be amused, or Bush is convicted of a crime he committed. I don't see a down side either way.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: Corn

I really have nothing personally invested with regard to Bush's guilt or innocence other than mere amusement witnessing the antics you and other silly lefties engage in when the conversation turns to Bush, so my ego will remain undamaged regardless of the outcome. Either I continue to be amused, or Bush is convicted of a crime he committed. I don't see a down side either way.

The children are so easily amused. :laugh:
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Corn
Originally posted by: Harvey

I'm not in control of the DOJ, but Attorney General Holder hasn't ruled out pursuing your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief, George W. Bush, and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals, war profiteers and general incompetents for their crimes.

I made the efrort so it has nothing to do with MY ego. But the Bushwhackos egos, along with yours and the rest of the right wingnuts will sure be shot to shit when it happens. When it does, I'll be tossing back an extra margarita to celebrate. :cool:

I'm sure that most of the contry is quite relieved that you are not in control of the DOJ. Horrifying is too weak a description of what a Harvey controlled DOJ portrays given your psychotic behavior here. Anyway.........Regardless of whether or not Holder has or has not ruled out prosecuting Bush, it would appear that your "proof" isn't quite the slam dunk that you present it to be, otherwise they would have no choice to prosecute when presented with *real* evidence of a crime.

I don't know what that says about Holder's DOJ or Bush, but I do think it speaks volumes about the quality of your so-called "proof". Please keep proclaiming you've got the "proof" and I'll keep reminding you that your "proof" was recycled with the click of a mouse, and perhaps even an automated reply.

I really have nothing personally invested with regard to Bush's guilt or innocence other than mere amusement witnessing the antics you and other silly lefties engage in when the conversation turns to Bush, so my ego will remain undamaged regardless of the outcome. Either I continue to be amused, or Bush is convicted of a crime he committed. I don't see a down side either way.

I know there is prima facie evidence for US and International Law actions regarding the adventure into Iraq.
There is some evidence of other US and International Law violations but it requires one to be able to convince a grand jury to indict in the US, while I think Spain has already started that process.
I think the US attorney firings is not something Justice can get an indictment on. I think the OLC memos on torture etc. is another issue that UNLESS Justice can find someone to confirm that OLC was ordered to render an opinion to support the Presidential want regarding torture that too will not find an indictment. I think the Valarie Plame issue is also asleep and pretty apt to stay that way. And a few other transits to illegality are also beddy bye.
End of the day, the only thing that can really stick to Bush, et. al. are the variety of crimes flowing from the 2003 Iraqi fiasco. That can easily get to an indictment but to jump the hurdle of reasonable doubt... with all the insulation up to the top... not likely in the US and the International Community won't move on it... so... I doubt anyone will be convicted if indicted.

BUT!!! There can be no doubt regarding the Iraqi invasion and the means by which it occurred. Blair and Bush Conspired, no doubt! Again, Prima Facie evidence is sorta self evident. You have to refute that kind of evidence or it stands as truth.

 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
We had a right to invade Iraq the second they broke the cease-fire and aggresively fired on our jets patrolling the No-Fly-Zone.

People who debate the legality of the war can do so until their heads turn blue. You dont have to agree with something for it to be true.

The same way NK or SK could end the armistice if provoked.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: OCguy

We had a right to invade Iraq the second they broke the cease-fire and aggresively fired on our jets patrolling the No-Fly-Zone.

People who debate the legality of the war can do so until their heads turn blue. You dont have to agree with something for it to be true.

The same way NK or SK could end the armistice if provoked.
[/quote]

BULLSHIT! The Bushwhackos didn't put that forth as their "reason" for starting their war of LIES. You remember... It was non-existent WMD's, including non-existent uranium from Niger and non-existent mobile chemical weapons labs and on... and on... and on...

As of 09/20/09, 4,345 American troops have died and tens of thousands more Americans are wounded, scarred and disabled for life in that war of LIES.
rose.gif
:(

And that's before we get to HUNDREDS of thousands of dead, wounded and displaced innocent Iraqi civilians.

And that's before remembering that it also cost the U.S. trillions of dollars in current and future expenses.

But we don't have to debate your consumate mis-statements, understatements and total ignorance of history, yet again. Do your own homework if you really forget that much reality. :roll:
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: OCguy
We had a right to invade Iraq the second they broke the cease-fire and aggresively fired on our jets patrolling the No-Fly-Zone.

People who debate the legality of the war can do so until their heads turn blue. You dont have to agree with something for it to be true.

The same way NK or SK could end the armistice if provoked.

Sorry, but you have to examine the UN Charter. Enforcement of the no fly zone does not allow an invasion. It simply allows the parties to enforce the zone and shoot down the aircraft.
We tried to get a resolution to invade but we were turned down. That draft included the various bad things Iraq was doing like the inspectors and the fly zone and more.. We invaded on the Defensive aspect of the Charter as we so stated to the UN and International Community... We really did do that.

The US cannot invade a Sovereign nation with out UN Resolution to do that. It must be explicit, as the UN said!
Aside from the Prima Facie evidence we also have the Res Ipsa Loquitur maxim. They are not the same and give the US a hard rock against which it sits in defense of the invasion.

Edit: For edification: "The difference between the two is that prima facie is a term meaning there is enough evidence for there to be a case to answer. Res ipsa loquitur means that because the facts are so obvious, a party need explain no more."

BTW, we tried to get authority under UN Res 1441 and about 6 others to invade but were turned down and that resulted in the floating of the draft resolution that we pulled when we saw we couldn't get enough players to have it passed..


 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
Originally posted by: LunarRay

Sorry, but you have to examine the UN Charter. Enforcement of the no fly zone does not allow an invasion. It simply allows the parties to enforce the zone and shoot down the aircraft.
We tried to get a resolution to invade but we were turned down... We invaded on the Defensive aspect of the Charter as we so stated to the UN and International Community... We really did do that.

The US cannot invade a Sovereign nation with out UN Resolution to do that. It must be explicit, as the UN said!
Aside from the Prima Facie evidence we also have the Res Ipsa Loquitur maxim. They are not the same and give the US a hard rock against which it sits in defense of the invasion.

Edit: For edification: "The difference between the two is that prima facie is a term meaning there is enough evidence for there to be a case to answer. Res ipsa loquitur means that because the facts are so obvious, a party need explain no more."


Huh? Our jets were being fired on.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: OCguy
Originally posted by: LunarRay

Sorry, but you have to examine the UN Charter. Enforcement of the no fly zone does not allow an invasion. It simply allows the parties to enforce the zone and shoot down the aircraft.
We tried to get a resolution to invade but we were turned down... We invaded on the Defensive aspect of the Charter as we so stated to the UN and International Community... We really did do that.

The US cannot invade a Sovereign nation with out UN Resolution to do that. It must be explicit, as the UN said!
Aside from the Prima Facie evidence we also have the Res Ipsa Loquitur maxim. They are not the same and give the US a hard rock against which it sits in defense of the invasion.

Edit: For edification: "The difference between the two is that prima facie is a term meaning there is enough evidence for there to be a case to answer. Res ipsa loquitur means that because the facts are so obvious, a party need explain no more."


Huh? Our jets were being fired on.

Please tell us how that justified anything other than returning fire and taking out any ground based weapons that fired on them... which is what happened.

It STILL did not justify the invasion under the U.N. mandate. And it STILL wasn't among the myriad LIES spewed by your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal. :|
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: OCguy
Originally posted by: LunarRay

Sorry, but you have to examine the UN Charter. Enforcement of the no fly zone does not allow an invasion. It simply allows the parties to enforce the zone and shoot down the aircraft.
We tried to get a resolution to invade but we were turned down... We invaded on the Defensive aspect of the Charter as we so stated to the UN and International Community... We really did do that.

The US cannot invade a Sovereign nation with out UN Resolution to do that. It must be explicit, as the UN said!
Aside from the Prima Facie evidence we also have the Res Ipsa Loquitur maxim. They are not the same and give the US a hard rock against which it sits in defense of the invasion.

Edit: For edification: "The difference between the two is that prima facie is a term meaning there is enough evidence for there to be a case to answer. Res ipsa loquitur means that because the facts are so obvious, a party need explain no more."


Huh? Our jets were being fired on.

I know.. and I understand and feel as you do about it all... The issue to me is the legality of it all. You could look at it this way; the fact that Iraq fired on the US aircraft and the other violations of 1441 should have been enough to get UN Security Counsel to go with an invasion but Russia and France and a bunch others would not go for it. We needed 9 without a veto of the majors. I think I'd have voted for invasion at that point but if you have to play by the rules you do.