Who's watching over who's watching over you?

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Thanks. Allow me to show how much I respect the in depth critique from one of our resident Bushwhacko ass lickers...



BWHAHAHahahahaha!!!!!! :laugh:

Keep in mind, Harvo, that I'm an Obama asslicker too, much like yourself. The difference is that I can cross that divide whereas you have your head stuck so far up your ass about Bush it will never come out.

And that's precisely why you're such a partisan troll, Harvey. It becomes clearer to people every day in here, or at least clearer to those who didn't, or refused to, recognize it previously. But you're so firmly entrenched in your partisanism that you'll continue down your path of unhinged lunacy until everybody finally has their fill of your over-the-top bullshit and eventually tells you to fuck off.

Better nate than lever, I guess.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Those acts were NOT legal when they were committed. The telcos were granted immunity from civil suits, not from criminal prosecution by the Department of Justice. With any luck, Obama will reinstate the word Justice in that department, and we'll see where they go with the evidence.

We'll need that and a lot more for anything to happen. Obama is going to surprise you "changers". Not going to change much and its clear from his appointees and his agenda's regarding foreign policy interventionism.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Harvey

Those acts were NOT legal when they were committed. The telcos were granted immunity from civil suits, not from criminal prosecution by the Department of Justice. With any luck, Obama will reinstate the word Justice in that department, and we'll see where they go with the evidence.

We'll need that and a lot more for anything to happen. Obama is going to surprise you "changers". Not going to change much and its clear from his appointees and his agenda's regarding foreign policy interventionism.

Oh really, so the promised change that is happening isn't happening?

I'm talking about the withdrawal and the increase in troops on the NW Pakistan border.

I couldv'e sworn it was happening but perhaps you know better?

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Harvey

Those acts were NOT legal when they were committed. The telcos were granted immunity from civil suits, not from criminal prosecution by the Department of Justice. With any luck, Obama will reinstate the word Justice in that department, and we'll see where they go with the evidence.

We'll need that and a lot more for anything to happen. Obama is going to surprise you "changers". Not going to change much and its clear from his appointees and his agenda's regarding foreign policy interventionism.

Oh really, so the promised change that is happening isn't happening?

I'm talking about the withdrawal and the increase in troops on the NW Pakistan border.

I couldv'e sworn it was happening but perhaps you know better?

Hi!

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Harvey

Those acts were NOT legal when they were committed. The telcos were granted immunity from civil suits, not from criminal prosecution by the Department of Justice. With any luck, Obama will reinstate the word Justice in that department, and we'll see where they go with the evidence.

We'll need that and a lot more for anything to happen. Obama is going to surprise you "changers". Not going to change much and its clear from his appointees and his agenda's regarding foreign policy interventionism.

Oh really, so the promised change that is happening isn't happening?

I'm talking about the withdrawal and the increase in troops on the NW Pakistan border.

I couldv'e sworn it was happening but perhaps you know better?

Hi!

Hello! My apologies i think we agreed not to get into discussions after the last round, my bad.

Have a good one.

 

[chucky2]

@ daveschroeder: Please exuse Mac...er, Harvey. You see, his mental state is complete and utter BDS - Bush Derangement Syndrome. This syndrome attacks the rational thought portions of the brain, thereby rendering rational and/or contextual thought impossible. Examples of BDS'rs, such as Harvey, blame their monthly periods on Bush, their stubbed toe on Bush, their lack of erection on Bush, etc. It is quite likely he is suffering from all of these at once, and as such, it's understandable that he's illogically irritable.

Simply put: For BDS'rs like 'Ol Harv, Everything wrong in the world is due to Bush.

It is likely Mac.., sorry, Harvey, will never recover from this mental trauma he's inflicted upon himself. If you read page 9 or 10 of this thread, you will see I gave him an exceedingly simple test to determine his mental faculties, and he completely failed it; incidentally, my dog was able to pass this: I asked him if he'd like a treat or a walk, and he went for the leash...clearly, scruffy isn't suffering from BDS.

As your posts are unusally well written and thought out for ATPN, please keep the above in mind when posting here. Regardless of their position on an issue, I think it's safe to say those reading your posts find them refreshing in their clarity.

:thumbsup:

Chuck

 

[DealMonkey]

Looks like a number of interested parties are trying to figure out exactly what the Bush Admin's been up to for the past few years or so...

ACLU Demands Eavesdropping, Torture Memos From White House

The American Civil Liberties Union is hoping a kinder, gentler Obama administration will disclose secret documents detailing the legal basis for the previous administration's rationale for supporting torture and warrantless surveillance.

The memos are being sought from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, the White House's legal adviser. The Bush administration had refused the ACLU's bid to obtain the documents via a Freedom of Information Act request.

But last week, President Barack Obama announced his administration would roll back the secrecy that surrounded the Bush Administration, and called on government agencies to err on the side of openness and release information whenever possible.

"Releasing the memos would allow the public to better understand the legal basis for the Bush administration?s national security policies; to better understand the role that the OLC played in developing, justifying and advocating those policies; and to participate more meaningfully in the ongoing debate about national security, civil liberties and human rights," the ACLU wrote the Office of Legal Counsel on Wednesday.

The public disclosure of the documents could spread sunshine on whether Bush administration officials should be held legally accountable for their opinions, including those justifying the form of simulated drowning known as waterboarding. And the request comes as the Obama administration heads to court to respond to a civil lawsuit brought by Jose Padilla, who was suspected of plotting to set off a "dirty bomb."

Dawn Johnsen, Obama's choice to head the OLC, wrote in Slate last year that such documentation should be released to the public.

The ProPublica website lists a host of secret Bush administration legal opinions justifying the Bush administration's positions on detainee treatment and warrantless surveillance adopted in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

The Justice Department was not immediately prepared to comment.

The ProPublica site has published the memos already obtained, which should make for some interesting reading. I'll have to check them out more fully:

http://www.propublica.org/special/missing-memos

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: daveschroeder
I know that might seem like a convenient fallback, but really, unless the exercise of that authority under the nexus of Article II and AUMF is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to actually have been illegal or unconstitutional first, and then charges are subsequently brought, I don't really see much happening on that front, except that perhaps a law that greatly clarifies this landscape is now the law of the land.

Well, it would be helpful if we could actually get a court case in front of a judge without claims of national security destroying any chance of reviewing whether Bush's actions were permissible or not. IMHO, article II powers were not meant to be a catch-all for whatever the President would like to do, or whatever laws he would like to ignore.

I guess my only response would be, what if it the circumstances don't change? Can this then be put to rest?

The new administration is reviewing a lot of things right now, and, unless something very surprising is revealed, I think the direction the administration is taking is pretty clear so far. They will likely determine that the previous administration was acting in good faith, even if they might have personally disagreed with the level of aggressiveness under which some of the actions were undertaken.

I don't think it can be put to rest until either Congress or the judicial fully review what happened, how it happened, and whether Bush truly had the authority to do what he did.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Harvey
You've posted lots of bullshit denials, diversions and distractions, but you have yet to post even one link to disprove even one of the charges I listed.

Your charges? LOL, talk about a kangaroo court! Thankfully "your" charges don't mean shit and here it is another day and your Messiah has yet again failed to act on your macro. I guess that makes him a PUTZ too.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Harvey
You've posted lots of bullshit denials, diversions and distractions, but you have yet to post even one link to disprove even one of the charges I listed.

Your charges? LOL, talk about a kangaroo court! Thankfully "your" charges don't mean shit and here it is another day and your Messiah has yet again failed to act on your macro. I guess that makes him a PUTZ too.

Last night I showed my friend this forum and we wanted to take a shot for every instance of "Traitor in Chief" and "Bushwhackos." We concluded we'd have to host a pretty big party and we couldn't take it on just the two of us.

 

[Lemon law]

Well cheer up GWB, maybe Obama will release the GHB papers too that sonny boy has with held, maybe we can get a 2 for one sale. And maybe find out ole GHB was in it up to his eyeballs in Iran contra rather than being out of the loop as GHB claimed.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Those acts were NOT legal when they were committed.

The problem with your argument is that those acts were not definitively illegal either -- as no court has ever been called upon to judge Bush's Article II authorities.

In other words, they existed in the already discussed "gray area" of the law that Dave so eloquently described above. And now, those same programs are legal.

So, the chances of any retroactive judgment in that matter, specifically, are very slim...

EDIT: If you disagree, please cite the specific statutes under which Bush could be prosecuted.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Harvey

You've posted lots of bullshit denials, diversions and distractions, but you have yet to post even one link to disprove even one of the charges I listed.

Your charges? LOL, talk about a kangaroo court!

Huh? I just listed the crimes committed by your Traitor in Chief and his cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals and war profiteers. I didn't make them up, and I didn't commit those acts. THEY did. Their actions are documented.

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have both acknowleded on public TV that they authorized waterboarding.

Do you deny they did that? 😕

Getting back to the topic of this thread, former AT&T tech, Mark Klein has testified under oath that he set up the NSA's data mining facility in Room 641A at 611 Folsom Street in AT&T's facility in San Francisco, and others have since confirmed its existence.

Do you deny it exists? Do you deny it was used? 😕

I won't bother to repost former analyst, Russell Tice's statements about how much of everone's communications were mined. You can go back to my earlier posts to find them if you want. You're welcome to believe him or not, but that would be a determination of fact in any prosecution that arose from the facts and his allegations.

I'm not the one who would file charges based on applicable laws. That's the job of the appropriate Federal and state prosecutors. They won't give a shit about your denials, and they won't be listening when you try to point fingers at others. They will simply document the facts and determine whether their actions warrant proescution.

Thankfully "your" charges don't mean shit and here it is another day and your Messiah has yet again failed to act on your macro. I guess that makes him a PUTZ too.

I repeat... they are not MY charges. But go ahead. Keep on blowing smoke up everyone's ass. Keep on denying your Traitor in Chief and his cabal committed crimes. The facts speak for themselves. NOTHING you say to the contrary and no number of names you call me will change them.

Meanwhile, I don't have to prove anything. I just want the appropriate authorities to examine the facts and the evidence and to prosecute those of either party proven to have commited crimes. I hope you don't have a problem with that.

Or are you opposed to the Constitution and the rule of law? :Q

And thanks for bumping the thread and keeping this very important topic on the first page of the forum. :thumbsup: 😎

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Harvey

You've posted lots of bullshit denials, diversions and distractions, but you have yet to post even one link to disprove even one of the charges I listed.

Your charges? LOL, talk about a kangaroo court!

Huh? I just listed the crimes committed by your Traitor in Chief and his cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals and war profiteers. I didn't make them up, and I didn't commit those acts. THEY did. Their actions are documented.

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have both acknowleded on public TV that they authorized waterboarding.

Do you deny they did that? 😕

Getting back to the topic of this thread, former AT&T tech, Mark Klein has testified under oath that he set up the NSA's data mining facility in Room 641A at 611 Folsom Street in AT&T's facility in San Francisco, and others have since confirmed its existence.

Do you deny it exists? Do you deny it was used? 😕

I won't bother to repost former analyst, Russell Tice's statements about how much of everone's communications were mined. You can go back to my earlier posts to find them if you want. You're welcome to believe him or not, but that would be a determination of fact in any prosecution that arose from the facts and his allegations.

I'm not the one who would file charges based on applicable laws. That's the job of the appropriate Federal and state prosecutors. They won't give a shit about your denials, and they won't be listening when you try to point fingers at others. They will simply document the facts and determine whether their actions warrant proescution.

Thankfully "your" charges don't mean shit and here it is another day and your Messiah has yet again failed to act on your macro. I guess that makes him a PUTZ too.

I repeat... they are not MY charges. But go ahead. Keep on blowing smoke up everyone's ass. Keep on denying your Traitor in Chief and his cabal committed crimes. The facts speak for themselves. NOTHING you say to the contrary and no number of names you call me will change them.

Meanwhile, I don't have to prove anything. I just want the appropriate authorities to examine the facts and the evidence and to prosecute those of either party proven to have commited crimes. I hope you don't have a problem with that.

Or are you opposed to the Constitution and the rule of law? :Q

And thanks for bumping the thread and keeping this very important topic on the first page of the forum. :thumbsup: 😎

I noticed you dodged Palehorses charge to you: provide which statutes he could be charged under. Quit with your macro'd generalities. Be specific. You know, since youre an expert.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Harvey
We've heard all of the same apologist bullshit you've been spewing from others around here for years. You write better and you're more polite than most, but if the best you can manage is the same old revisionism, diversions and distractions, give up. Eloquence doesn't make your bullshit smell any sweeter.

How do you respond to the fact that nearly every NSA-related "crime" you're referring to -- at least as far as this thread is concerned -- is now explicitly legal as a result of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008? IOW, unless the law is changed yet again, Obama will continue utilizing the same programs as Bush during his time in office.

The TSP cases Dave mentioned are the exception. For each of those -- less than 100 cases -- no court in the land has ever judged them to be within, or outside of, the powers granted a President under Article II. Until a proper court makes such a ruling, it is entirely inaccurate to say that those actions were "criminal."

If my suspicions are correct, we'll never see a court rule on those cases; thus leaving their legality in limbo for all eternity.

Uhmmm.... palehorse, you know that's completely wrong?

The only court ever to rule on the merits of the case (not standing), ruled specifically that the president's violations of FISA were unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment, the 4th Amendment, the separation of powers doctrine, and... well... that they violated FISA. (see ACLU v. NSA)

This case was later dismissed because a higher court ruled that the plaintiffs did not in fact have standing, but your contention that no court in the land has ever judged them outside of the powers granted to the president is completely wrong. The one and only ruling on the case based on the actual factual merits utterly decimated the executive's claim in about the strongest language possible.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

I noticed you dodged Palehorses charge to you: provide which statutes he could be charged under. Quit with your macro'd generalities. Be specific. You know, since youre an expert.

palehorse isn't into the kind of blatant denial, distraction and diversions from the facts as you, chucky, Corn and other far right sycophants. Believe it or not, I have only so much time to post on the forums so I address the most blatant and egregious BS, first.

That said, I noticed that eskimospy dealt with the falicy in palehorse's post.

I also noticed that, like all the rest of the Bushwhacko sycophants, you haven't denied, let alone disproved, that your EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang committed the crimes I've listed.

I don't know enough about details of the statutes against domestic spying to specify which would apply. I do know it violates the Constitutional prohibition against unwarranted search and seizure.

I also believe that George W. Bush's and Dick Cheney's willful violations of our Constitutional rights are in direct opposition to the oath they swore to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," which is why I believe they are guilty of treason.

If you want specific statutes supporting specific felony charges, see my previous long post in which I listed two distinct legal theories under which they could be charged regarding murder, including examples of state and Federal statutes.

One is the "felony-murder" rule committing a felony that could foreseeably cause the death of another. Lying to Congress is a felony, regardless of whether or not it is done under oath. Lying to Congress to gain Congressional approval for their war of LIES in Iraq, and death is a very foreseeable consequence of war.

Another is committing an act in callous, wreckless or wanton disregard for human life that, in fact, causes the death of another. Regardless of the lies noted in the previous charge, starting an elective war under false pretenses cannot be considered anything other than callous, wreckless or wanton disregard for human life.

Obstruction of justice is another felony. If you don't believe they have obstructed justice at every opportunity, just re-read the entirety of P&N for the last number of years. If you think my "macros" are long, reposting every example, here, would probably choke the forum servers.

If you think your EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang aren't guilty of any crimes, instead of trying and failing to put me down, prove your position by posting facts and links that establish that they didn't commit the acts that constitute their crimes.

If you can't do that, try being a REAL "conservative" who supports the Constitution and the rule of law, irrespective of the political affiliation of the criminals.

Or are you opposed to the Constitution and the rule of law? :Q

And thanks for bumping the thread and keeping this very important topic on the first page of the forum. :thumbsup: 😎

 

[alchemize]

:music: It's Chatty Cathie, it's Chatty Cathie :music:

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: alchemize

:music: It's Chatty Cathie, it's Chatty Cathie :music:

Is that supposed to mean something, or are you just another Bushwhacko sycophant blowing yet more smoke because you can't deny, let alone disprove, that your EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang committed the crimes I've listed? :roll:

Are you having fun, yet? Are you opposed to the Constitution and the rule of law? :Q

And thanks for bumping the thread and keeping this very important topic on the first page of the forum. :thumbsup: 😎

 

[blackangst1]

Harvey:

I think your response is misguided. Im not the blind Bush supported you think I am. I just think youre spitting in the wind is all. Maybe its simplistic, but the fact that Bush got not only public support but senate support to start this war, and 6 years of support to continue it, is proof enough youre claims are unwarranted. I mention the war because thats where the majority of your macros are pointed. I hope you enjoy your venting, because hot air is all you will ever get out of it.

Now, violations under the guise the unPatriot Act are another matter altogether. I would love for Bush to be prosecuted for those violations. But, as daveschroeder has so clearly pointed out, most if not all of it falls into a grey area, which means it wont see a court. Period.

Which leads me to my next point. You understand in the real world if you partake in the murder or rape of another human being, even though YOU arent the one who pulled the trigger or raped, you are held nearly as responsible as the one who did, right? So where's your anger at the senate for supporting and promoting all these alleged crimes? Hmmm? If Bush is to be held accountable for it, so should those who enabled him. I have seen nary a word about that. And how about Obama? Where's your outrage at him for appearing to continue these alleged crimes? Where's your cut and paste posts for him?

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Harvey:

I think your response is misguided. Im not the blind Bush supported you think I am. I just think youre spitting in the wind is all. Maybe its simplistic, but the fact that Bush got not only public support but senate support to start this war, and 6 years of support to continue it, is proof enough youre claims are unwarranted. I mention the war because thats where the majority of your macros are pointed. I hope you enjoy your venting, because hot air is all you will ever get out of it.

Now, violations under the guise the unPatriot Act are another matter altogether. I would love for Bush to be prosecuted for those violations. But, as daveschroeder has so clearly pointed out, most if not all of it falls into a grey area, which means it wont see a court. Period.

Which leads me to my next point. You understand in the real world if you partake in the murder or rape of another human being, even though YOU arent the one who pulled the trigger or raped, you are held nearly as responsible as the one who did, right? So where's your anger at the senate for supporting and promoting all these alleged crimes? Hmmm? If Bush is to be held accountable for it, so should those who enabled him. I have seen nary a word about that. And how about Obama? Where's your outrage at him for appearing to continue these alleged crimes? Where's your cut and paste posts for him?

Get with the probram BA, the idiot Bush outsmarted our reps into voting for the war, so of course they get a pass. Especially the Democrats reps.....you won't see Harvey complain and creat macros about their complicity, no sir. Guaranteed!

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Now, violations under the guise the unPatriot Act are another matter altogether. I would love for Bush to be prosecuted for those violations. But, as daveschroeder has so clearly pointed out, most if not all of it falls into a grey area, which means it wont see a court. Period.

It's nice to know you agree with my underlying premise that the Bushwhackos' actions violated our Constitutional rights. It remains to be seen whether they will be prosecuted. It will depend on exactly what evidence comes out as the Bushwhackos' dirty secrets are unearthed and whether they prove actual acts that constitute crimes.

I believe daveschroeder is a well educated, literate partisan hack with his own agenda that isn't completely supported by the facts. I say that because a lot of what he has posted are the same kinds of denials, distractions, diversions and strawman arguments others have posted for years before he showed up. He just writes better.

I'll wait to see more from him, but it will take me awhile to learn more about him to confirm or dismiss that conclusion.

So where's your anger at the senate for supporting and promoting all these alleged crimes? Hmmm? If Bush is to be held accountable for it, so should those who enabled him. I have seen nary a word about that. And how about Obama? Where's your outrage at him for appearing to continue these alleged crimes? Where's your cut and paste posts for him?

Try reading my previous posts. I already said I'd support prosecuting those of either party who are guilty of committing crimes. Please do what I've done to post names, specific charges, evidence and relevant statutes, but please do it in another thread, rather than distracting from the topic of this one.

That said, NOTHING done by Congress that enabled the Bushwhackos to commit those crimes relieves them of their responsiblity and guilt for actually committing them. :|

Originally posted by: Corn

Get with the probram BA, the idiot Bush outsmarted our reps into voting for the war, so of course they get a pass.

So, as a pissant, ass licking Bushwhacko supporter, you think "outsmarting" our Congressional representatives to enable them to commit greivous crimes against our nation and the world is OK? :shocked:

Clue - It isn't. But thanks for acknowledging that your EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang actually committed the acts comprising the crimes I've listed. :thumbsup: 😎

Especially the Democrats reps.....you won't see Harvey complain and creat macros about their complicity, no sir. Guaranteed!

What??? Why would I want to deprive you of your own fun? If you want to spend the time to write macros about crimes committed by Democrats, go ahead. If you can make your point with verifiable data, I already said I'd support prosecuting them, as well.

Meanwhile, you're a bit late to the party... and very WRONG! :roll:

 

[Lemon law]

As palehorse pops up with the Blago defense that worked so well with "The problem with your argument is that those acts were not definitively illegal either -- as no court has ever been called upon to judge Bush's Article II authorities.

In other words, they existed in the already discussed "gray area" of the law that Dave so eloquently described above. And now, those same programs are legal.

So, the chances of any retroactive judgment in that matter, specifically, are very slim...

EDIT: If you disagree, please cite the specific statutes under which Bush could be prosecuted."

Try the international war crimes tribunals at the Hague for your statues under which GWB could be prosecuted. Also remember how long the good German type defenses lasted. And also the rendition in other countries amounts to kidnapping. Italy is still PO'd. Travel outside the USA definitely not advised for GWB.

We do not even know a 1/4 of what GWB&co were up to yet. And here I thought Republicans were supposed to advocate personal accountability?

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Harvey
I believe daveschroeder is a well educated, literate partisan hack....

So, the difference between Mr. Schroeder and yourself is that he's well educated. No suprise there.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: alchemize

:music: It's Chatty Cathie, it's Chatty Cathie :music:

Is that supposed to mean something, or are you just another Bushwhacko sycophant blowing yet more smoke because you can't deny, let alone disprove, that your EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang committed the crimes I've listed? :roll:

Are you having fun, yet? Are you opposed to the Constitution and the rule of law? :Q

And thanks for bumping the thread and keeping this very important topic on the first page of the forum. :thumbsup: 😎

:music: It's Chatty Cathie, it's Chatty Cathie :music:

Open question to all reading this thread: Please post if Harvey has changed your perspective on this topic 🙂

Oh, and PS: the way our constitution and legal system works, you don't disprove crimes 🙂 Guess you missed that part.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
We do not even know a 1/4 of what GWB&co were up to yet.

Liberal logic is confusing but fun. If you don't know the sum, how could you possibly know what fraction of the sum you think you know? But you just know that evil Bush was up to something bad, you just do!!!!!!