• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The Bill of Wrongs

LeadMagnet

Platinum Member
Article

10. Attempt to Get Death Penalty for Zacarias Moussaoui
Long after it was clear the hapless Frenchman was neither the "20th hijacker" nor a key plotter in the attacks of 9/11, the government pressed to execute him as a "conspirator" in those attacks. Moussaoui's alleged participation? By failing to confess to what he may have known about the plot, which may have led the government to disrupt it, Moussaoui directly caused the deaths of thousands of people. This massive overreading of the federal conspiracy laws would be laughable were the stakes not so high. Thankfully, a jury rejected the notion that Moussaoui could be executed for the crime of merely wishing there had been a real connection between himself and 9/11.

9. Guantanamo Bay
It takes a licking but it keeps on ticking. After the Supreme Court struck down the military tribunals planned to try hundreds of detainees moldering on the base, and after the president agreed that it might be a good idea to close it down, the worst public relations fiasco since the Japanese internment camps lives on. Prisoners once deemed "among the most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the earth" are either quietly released (and usually set free) or still awaiting trial. The lucky 75 to be tried there will be cheered to hear that the Pentagon has just unveiled plans to build a $125 million legal complex for the hearings. The government has now officially put more thought into the design of Guantanamo's court bathrooms than the charges against its prisoners.

8. Slagging the Media
Whether the Bush administration is reclassifying previously declassified documents, sidestepping the FOIA, threatening journalists for leaks on dubious legal grounds, or, most recently, using its subpoena power to try to wring secret documents from the ACLU, the administration has continued its "secrets at any price" campaign. Is this a constitutional crisis? Probably not. Annoying as hell? Definitely.

7. Slagging the Courts
It starts with the president's complaints about "activist judges," and evolves to Congressional threats to appoint an inspector general to oversee federal judges. As public distrust of the bench is fueled, the stripping of courts' authority to hear whole classes of cases?most recently any habeas corpus claims from Guantanamo detainees?almost seems reasonable. Each tiny incursion into the independence of the judiciary seems justified. Until you realize that the courts are often the only places that will defend our shrinking civil liberties. This leads to ...

6. The State-Secrets Doctrine
The Bush administration's insane argument in court is that judges should dismiss entire lawsuits over many of the outrages detailed on this very list. Why? Because the outrageously illegal things are themselves matters of top-secret national security. The administration has raised this claim in relation to its adventures in secret wiretapping and its fun with extraordinary rendition. A government privilege once used to sidestep civil claims has mushroomed into sweeping immunity for the administration's sometimes criminal behavior.

5. Government Snooping
Take your pick. There's the NSA warrantless eavesdropping program wherein the president breezily authorized spying on the phone calls of innocent citizens, in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The FBI's TALON database shows the government has been spying on nonterrorist groups, including Quakers, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and Veterans for Peace. The Patriot Act lives on. And that's just the stuff we know about.

4. Extraordinary Rendition
So, when does it start to become ordinary rendition? This government program has us FedEx-ing unindicted terror suspects abroad for interrogation/torture. Khalid El-Masri, a German citizen, was shipped off to Afghanistan for such treatment and then released without charges, based on some government confusion about his name. Heh heh. Canadian citizen Maher Arar claims he was tortured in Syria for a year, released without charges, and cleared by a Canadian commission. Attempts to vindicate the rights of such men? You'd need to circle back to the state-secrets doctrine, above.

3. Abuse of Jose Padilla
First, he was, according to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, "exploring a plan to build and explode a radiological dispersion device, or 'dirty bomb,' in the United States." Then, he was planning to blow up apartments. Then he was just part of a vague terror conspiracy to commit jihad in Bosnia and Chechnya. Always, he was a U.S. citizen. After three and a half years, in which he was denied the most basic legal rights, it has now emerged that Padilla was either outright tortured or near-tortured. According to a recent motion, during Padilla's years of almost complete isolation, he was treated by the U.S. government to sensory and sleep deprivation, extreme cold, stress positions, threats of execution, and drugging with truth serum. Experts say he is too mentally damaged to stand trial. The Bush administration supported his motion for a mental competency assessment, in hopes that will help prevent his torture claims from ever coming to trial, or, as Yale Law School's inimitable Jack Balkin put it: "You can't believe Padilla when he says we tortured him because he's crazy from all the things we did to him."

2. The Military Commissions Act of 2006
This was the so-called compromise legislation that gave President Bush even more power than he initially had to detain and try so-called enemy combatants. He was generously handed the authority to define for himself the parameters of interrogation and torture and the responsibility to report upon it, since he'd been so good at that. What we allegedly did to Jose Padilla was once a dirty national secret. The MCA made it the law.

1. Hubris
Whenever the courts push back against the administration's unsupportable constitutional ideas?ideas about "inherent powers" and a "unitary executive" or the silliness of the Geneva Conventions or the limitless sweep of presidential powers during wartime?the Bush response is to repeat the same chorus louder: Every detainee is the worst of the worst; every action taken is legal, necessary, and secret. No mistakes, no apologies. No nuance, no regrets. This legal and intellectual intractability can create the illusion that we are standing on the same constitutional ground we stood upon in 2001, even as that ground is sliding away under our feet.

Article


This list of the Bushy administration trampling on the Constitution and Bill of Rights sickens me. I wish I could do more than just vote against them and write letters.
 
where is the mention of poor osama's miserable living conditions ? and zawahiri ? we've put these medically-frail old people on the run, forced them to scavenge in
the wastelands of the northwest territories, and for what ? surely our scum-libs can spare a tear or two for internatonal law and All-The-World's-People that our aweful
nation has oppressed.
 
It's not like Bush needs to worry about his legacy because of his civil rights abuses. His spot as the worst president of the United States in recent history is assured based on Iraq alone.
The morons who voted for him also assured their legacy as "the dumbest generation" 😀
 
LeadMagnet, thanks for the reminder.

People like syzygy make it clear how many Americans don't really understand or value our civil rights. It's tough to pick between criticizing his responding without actually addressing any of the issues in the OP in a weak shot of sarcasm, or the larger issue that he's not at all concerned with any violation of rights.

Or, I could note his dismissal of all international law; or his well thought-out argument of "scum-libs", or the complete lack of relevance of his attempt at the analogy with bin Laden.

To him, the civil rights of the OP and bin Laden not being given a comfy hotel suite are all the same thing; he can't tell the real issues from the nonsense he made up.

I'm afraid that appreciation for civil rights is a learned appreciation, and many Americans have not learned it.
 
Originally posted by: syzygy
where is the mention of poor osama's miserable living conditions ? and zawahiri ? we've put these medically-frail old people on the run, forced them to scavenge in
the wastelands of the northwest territories, and for what ? surely our scum-libs can spare a tear or two for internatonal law and All-The-World's-People that our aweful
nation has oppressed.

They are known bad guys...surely even you can understand the difference between putting Osama bin Laden on the run and sending a possibly innocent person to another country to be tortured.
 
Bush did a good job of making the Executive branch the only meaningful part of the government. He made Congress a pet, entertaining and willing to do tricks at his bidding. He marginalized the courts by claiming that they were not necessary and had no authority to even question his acts.

Time to restore checks and balances folks.
 
Originally posted by: syzygy
where is the mention of poor osama's miserable living conditions ? and zawahiri ? we've put these medically-frail old people on the run, forced them to scavenge in
the wastelands of the northwest territories, and for what ? surely our scum-libs can spare a tear or two for internatonal law and All-The-World's-People that our aweful
nation has oppressed.




I doubt it, but go ahead if it makes you feel better.

:roll:
 
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Bush did a good job of making the Executive branch the only meaningful part of the government. He made Congress a pet, entertaining and willing to do tricks at his bidding. He marginalized the courts by claiming that they were not necessary and had no authority to even question his acts.

Time to restore checks and balances folks.

Actually, I don't think that's it at all. What happened during the past 6 years has not been in terms of broad areas of responsibility of the various branches of government, it's been far more about the individuals in those branches. Bush is certainly a President who likes to test and push the limits of the power of the Presidency, and the Republican Congress has been perfectly content to let him (and the Democrats didn't do much more). But with a new congress, and in two years with a new President, I'm confident we'll see something else entirely. For all the noise about it, Bush hasn't damaged our democracy in any meaningful way...HE'S been fairly unpleasant as President, but the effects will be gone soon after he leaves.
 
Originally posted by: Craig234
LeadMagnet, thanks for the reminder.

People like syzygy make it clear how many Americans don't really understand or value our civil rights. It's tough to pick between criticizing his responding without actually addressing any of the issues in the OP in a weak shot of sarcasm, or the larger issue that he's not at all concerned with any violation of rights.

Or, I could note his dismissal of all international law; or his well thought-out argument of "scum-libs", or the complete lack of relevance of his attempt at the analogy with bin Laden.

To him, the civil rights of the OP and bin Laden not being given a comfy hotel suite are all the same thing; he can't tell the real issues from the nonsense he made up.

I'm afraid that appreciation for civil rights is a learned appreciation, and many Americans have not learned it.

The only civil right a huge amount of Americans care about is to get theirs and fvck everyone else. It's not ignorance, it's not complacency, it's pure selfishness. If they're not personally being detained, it doesn't matter if we beat a few suspicious-looking foreigners to death over made-up charges. It's someone else's problem.
 
If you ask an FBI agent why 9/11 is not listed under Bin Laden he will give you a straight answer. There is no evidence linking him to 9/11. Period.

proof

I'm making this point to point out the hypocricy of governments everywhere that accuse people of crimes they have no evidence of and use it against them. Then uses people's fear to justify their actions.

There is a favorite saying for the naive. If you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to be afraid of.

I think the evidence speaks volumes in itself.
 
Originally posted by: Aelius
If you ask an FBI agent why 9/11 is not listed under Bin Laden he will give you a straight answer. There is no evidence linking him to 9/11. Period.

proof

I'm making this point to point out the hypocricy of governments everywhere that accuse people of crimes they have no evidence of and use it against them. Then uses people's fear to justify their actions.

There is a favorite saying for the naive. If you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to be afraid of.

I think the evidence speaks volumes in itself.
Edit - I'm wrong too - both pages are 'current' one under 'most wanted' and one under 'terrorists'. But I'll leave the rest of the text. Surprisingly, the pages appear to have been updated in November 2001, and not again afterwards.

Before you get crapped on, you have linked an incorrect page - here is the FBI's current page for bin laden, which can be reached in two clicks from the main page:

link

As far as I can see, there is no difference in the text, and there is definitely no mention of 9/11.
 
Originally posted by: Aelius
If you ask an FBI agent why 9/11 is not listed under Bin Laden he will give you a straight answer. There is no evidence linking him to 9/11. Period.

proof

I'm making this point to point out the hypocricy of governments everywhere that accuse people of crimes they have no evidence of and use it against them. Then uses people's fear to justify their actions.

There is a favorite saying for the naive. If you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to be afraid of.

I think the evidence speaks volumes in itself.
So you are saying Osama had nothing to do with 9-11?
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Aelius
If you ask an FBI agent why 9/11 is not listed under Bin Laden he will give you a straight answer. There is no evidence linking him to 9/11. Period.

proof

I'm making this point to point out the hypocricy of governments everywhere that accuse people of crimes they have no evidence of and use it against them. Then uses people's fear to justify their actions.

There is a favorite saying for the naive. If you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to be afraid of.

I think the evidence speaks volumes in itself.
So you are saying Osama had nothing to do with 9-11?

I think what he's saying is that if you DO care to say that Osama had something to do with 9/11, you'd probably better be prepared to present proof, and that there doesn't appear to be any.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Aelius
If you ask an FBI agent why 9/11 is not listed under Bin Laden he will give you a straight answer. There is no evidence linking him to 9/11. Period.

proof

I'm making this point to point out the hypocricy of governments everywhere that accuse people of crimes they have no evidence of and use it against them. Then uses people's fear to justify their actions.

There is a favorite saying for the naive. If you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to be afraid of.

I think the evidence speaks volumes in itself.
So you are saying Osama had nothing to do with 9-11?

Well, would you trust me or the FBI to tell you that 😉
 
Originally posted by: Aelius
If you ask an FBI agent why 9/11 is not listed under Bin Laden he will give you a straight answer. There is no evidence linking him to 9/11. Period.

proof

I'm making this point to point out the hypocricy of governments everywhere that accuse people of crimes they have no evidence of and use it against them. Then uses people's fear to justify their actions.

There is a favorite saying for the naive. If you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to be afraid of.

I think the evidence speaks volumes in itself.
this is where your side loses its credibility and rational people begin to believe that you have overdosed on tinfoil...
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Aelius
If you ask an FBI agent why 9/11 is not listed under Bin Laden he will give you a straight answer. There is no evidence linking him to 9/11. Period.

proof

I'm making this point to point out the hypocricy of governments everywhere that accuse people of crimes they have no evidence of and use it against them. Then uses people's fear to justify their actions.

There is a favorite saying for the naive. If you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to be afraid of.

I think the evidence speaks volumes in itself.
this is where your side loses its credibility and rational people begin to believe that you have overdosed on tinfoil...

I'd tend to agree, but this topic has gotten me thinking: what direct evidence do we have that implicates Osama, SPECIFICALLY, in 9/11? I'm not saying there isn't any, in fact I'd tend to assume that given the vivacity with which he is accused of culpability, that damning evidence must exist. But if there's one thing the current administration has taught us, it's that assuming there is evidence is a grevious mistake. So could you provide me with some documentation of said evidence, if only to put my (not ill-founded) suspicions to rest?
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Aelius
If you ask an FBI agent why 9/11 is not listed under Bin Laden he will give you a straight answer. There is no evidence linking him to 9/11. Period.

proof

I'm making this point to point out the hypocricy of governments everywhere that accuse people of crimes they have no evidence of and use it against them. Then uses people's fear to justify their actions.

There is a favorite saying for the naive. If you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to be afraid of.

I think the evidence speaks volumes in itself.
this is where your side loses its credibility and rational people begin to believe that you have overdosed on tinfoil...



Your side is the one in charge of the FBI PAGES.. wussup.. they don't have the faith to put WTC and 9/11 on his most wanted page?

You could tell me you did something but saying you did it and having evidence are two different things.
 
Originally posted by: LeadMagnet
Article

10. Attempt to Get Death Penalty for Zacarias Moussaoui
Long after it was clear the hapless Frenchman was neither the "20th hijacker" nor a key plotter in the attacks of 9/11, the government pressed to execute him as a "conspirator" in those attacks. Moussaoui's alleged participation? By failing to confess to what he may have known about the plot, which may have led the government to disrupt it, Moussaoui directly caused the deaths of thousands of people. This massive overreading of the federal conspiracy laws would be laughable were the stakes not so high. Thankfully, a jury rejected the notion that Moussaoui could be executed for the crime of merely wishing there had been a real connection between himself and 9/11.

9. Guantanamo Bay
It takes a licking but it keeps on ticking. After the Supreme Court struck down the military tribunals planned to try hundreds of detainees moldering on the base, and after the president agreed that it might be a good idea to close it down, the worst public relations fiasco since the Japanese internment camps lives on. Prisoners once deemed "among the most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the earth" are either quietly released (and usually set free) or still awaiting trial. The lucky 75 to be tried there will be cheered to hear that the Pentagon has just unveiled plans to build a $125 million legal complex for the hearings. The government has now officially put more thought into the design of Guantanamo's court bathrooms than the charges against its prisoners.

8. Slagging the Media
Whether the Bush administration is reclassifying previously declassified documents, sidestepping the FOIA, threatening journalists for leaks on dubious legal grounds, or, most recently, using its subpoena power to try to wring secret documents from the ACLU, the administration has continued its "secrets at any price" campaign. Is this a constitutional crisis? Probably not. Annoying as hell? Definitely.

7. Slagging the Courts
It starts with the president's complaints about "activist judges," and evolves to Congressional threats to appoint an inspector general to oversee federal judges. As public distrust of the bench is fueled, the stripping of courts' authority to hear whole classes of cases?most recently any habeas corpus claims from Guantanamo detainees?almost seems reasonable. Each tiny incursion into the independence of the judiciary seems justified. Until you realize that the courts are often the only places that will defend our shrinking civil liberties. This leads to ...

6. The State-Secrets Doctrine
The Bush administration's insane argument in court is that judges should dismiss entire lawsuits over many of the outrages detailed on this very list. Why? Because the outrageously illegal things are themselves matters of top-secret national security. The administration has raised this claim in relation to its adventures in secret wiretapping and its fun with extraordinary rendition. A government privilege once used to sidestep civil claims has mushroomed into sweeping immunity for the administration's sometimes criminal behavior.

5. Government Snooping
Take your pick. There's the NSA warrantless eavesdropping program wherein the president breezily authorized spying on the phone calls of innocent citizens, in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The FBI's TALON database shows the government has been spying on nonterrorist groups, including Quakers, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and Veterans for Peace. The Patriot Act lives on. And that's just the stuff we know about.

4. Extraordinary Rendition
So, when does it start to become ordinary rendition? This government program has us FedEx-ing unindicted terror suspects abroad for interrogation/torture. Khalid El-Masri, a German citizen, was shipped off to Afghanistan for such treatment and then released without charges, based on some government confusion about his name. Heh heh. Canadian citizen Maher Arar claims he was tortured in Syria for a year, released without charges, and cleared by a Canadian commission. Attempts to vindicate the rights of such men? You'd need to circle back to the state-secrets doctrine, above.

3. Abuse of Jose Padilla
First, he was, according to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, "exploring a plan to build and explode a radiological dispersion device, or 'dirty bomb,' in the United States." Then, he was planning to blow up apartments. Then he was just part of a vague terror conspiracy to commit jihad in Bosnia and Chechnya. Always, he was a U.S. citizen. After three and a half years, in which he was denied the most basic legal rights, it has now emerged that Padilla was either outright tortured or near-tortured. According to a recent motion, during Padilla's years of almost complete isolation, he was treated by the U.S. government to sensory and sleep deprivation, extreme cold, stress positions, threats of execution, and drugging with truth serum. Experts say he is too mentally damaged to stand trial. The Bush administration supported his motion for a mental competency assessment, in hopes that will help prevent his torture claims from ever coming to trial, or, as Yale Law School's inimitable Jack Balkin put it: "You can't believe Padilla when he says we tortured him because he's crazy from all the things we did to him."

2. The Military Commissions Act of 2006
This was the so-called compromise legislation that gave President Bush even more power than he initially had to detain and try so-called enemy combatants. He was generously handed the authority to define for himself the parameters of interrogation and torture and the responsibility to report upon it, since he'd been so good at that. What we allegedly did to Jose Padilla was once a dirty national secret. The MCA made it the law.

1. Hubris
Whenever the courts push back against the administration's unsupportable constitutional ideas?ideas about "inherent powers" and a "unitary executive" or the silliness of the Geneva Conventions or the limitless sweep of presidential powers during wartime?the Bush response is to repeat the same chorus louder: Every detainee is the worst of the worst; every action taken is legal, necessary, and secret. No mistakes, no apologies. No nuance, no regrets. This legal and intellectual intractability can create the illusion that we are standing on the same constitutional ground we stood upon in 2001, even as that ground is sliding away under our feet.

Article


This list of the Bushy administration trampling on the Constitution and Bill of Rights sickens me. I wish I could do more than just vote against them and write letters.



I guess Lincoln was the worst President then in your eyes.
 
Why didn?t you mention the Supreme Court expanding eminent domain to include a states right to TAKE your property, give you whatever price THEY feel is fair, and then give YOUR property to a private company in which they will profit from the property that was previously yours.

Walmart being able to legally steal my property seems like it should be on the list.
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Aelius
If you ask an FBI agent why 9/11 is not listed under Bin Laden he will give you a straight answer. There is no evidence linking him to 9/11. Period.

proof

I'm making this point to point out the hypocricy of governments everywhere that accuse people of crimes they have no evidence of and use it against them. Then uses people's fear to justify their actions.

There is a favorite saying for the naive. If you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to be afraid of.

I think the evidence speaks volumes in itself.
this is where your side loses its credibility and rational people begin to believe that you have overdosed on tinfoil...
No, this is where the brainwashed and the perpetually duped close their minds, shrieking "OBL did it, he did, He Did, HE DID!", because that's what that handsome fella on the Tee Vee told 'em. More thoughtful and objective people, people like Slash196, for example, will instead question why we believe OBL did it, what evidence do we have, and who provided it? After the Iraq WMD fiasco -- "we KNOW where they are", "mushroom cloud", "thousands of liters", "these are facts, not assertions" -- one would think most Americans would take the declarations of the government and the mainstream (a/k/a corporate) media with a bag of salt. Some people have short attention spans, however.

For myself, I have little doubt OBL was involved with 9/11 at some level. I am curious about the evidence we have about his role, and whether he was truly the mastermind, "only" the financier, or potentially even less*. It wouldn't be the first time the powers that be used a high-profile target as a boogeyman, scapegoat, or both. OBL was the ideal choice. What is the evidence against OBL? Where does it come from? How do we know it is reliable?



*To head off the usual, "I see only black and white" duhversionary replies, that does not in any sense suggest OBL was a good guy. If he was involved in any way, he needs to be taken out. (Where is OBL, by the way?) With that out of the way, how about you focus on the point, just for the sheer novelty of it: "What is the evidence against OBL? Where does it come from? How do we know it is reliable?"
 
Not to lend any credence to the usual right-wing nutjobs, too set in their preconceptions to dare question anything our government says, however there was a video released in which OBL basically incriminates himself.
 
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Not to lend any credence to the usual right-wing nutjobs, too set in their preconceptions to dare question anything our government says, however there was a video released in which OBL basically incriminates himself.
As I understand it, however, that's only true if you accept the official, U.S. government-endorsed translation. Some claim the translation is inaccurate in spots, and that OBL's comment acknowledged 9/11, maybe even applauded it (don't remember the details), but did not claim responsibility for it. I don't know where the truth lies which is why I'd like to see more of the evidence and understand its sources.


Edit: there are also people who claim at least some of the OBL tapes are forgeries. That seems far-fetched to say the least, but I suppose anything is possible.
 
Back
Top