CIVIL LIBERTIES  
AlterNet / By Naomi Wolf
comments_imageCOMMENTS: 314

Do the Secret Bush Memos Amount to Treason? Top Constitutional Scholar Says Yes

Legal expert Michael Ratner calls the legal arguments made in the infamous Yoo memos, "Fuhrer's law."
March 25, 2009  |  
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Civil Liberties headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 

In early March, more shocking details emerged about George W. Bush legal counsel John Yoo's memos outlining the destruction of the republic.

The memos lay the legal groundwork for the president to send the military to wage war against U.S. citizens; take them from their homes to Navy brigs without trial and keep them forever; close down the First Amendment; and invade whatever country he chooses without regard to any treaty or objection by Congress.

It was as if Milton's Satan had a law degree and was establishing within the borders of the United States the architecture of hell.

I thought this was -- and is -- certainly one of the biggest stories of our lifetime, making the petty burglary of Watergate -- which scandalized the nation -- seem like playground antics. It is newsworthy too with the groundswell of support for prosecutions of Bush/Cheney crimes and recent actions such as Canadian attorneys mobilizing to arrest Bush if he visits their country.

The memos are a confession. The memos could not be clearer: This was the legal groundwork of an attempted coup. I expected massive front page headlines from the revelation that these memos exited. Almost nothing. I was shocked.

As a non-lawyer, was I completely off base in my reading of what this meant, I wondered? Was I hallucinating?

Astonished, I sought a reality check -- and a formal legal read -- from one of the nation's top constitutional scholars (and most steadfast patriots), Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has been at the forefront of defending the detainees and our own liberties.

Here is our conversation:

Naomi Wolf: Michael, can you explain to a layperson what the Yoo memos actually mean?'

Michael Ratner: What they mean is that your book looks moderate in respect to those issues now. This -- what is in the memos -- is law by fiat.

I call it "Fuhrer's law." What those memos lay out means the end of the system of checks and balances in this country. It means the end of the system in which the courts, legislature and executive each had a function and they could check each other.

What the memos set out is a system in which the president's word is law, and Yoo is very clear about that: the president's word is not only law according to these memos, but no law or constitutional right or treaty can restrict the president's authority.

What Yoo says is that the president's authority as commander in chief in the so-called war on terror is not bound by any law passed by Congress, any treaty, or the protections of free speech, due process and the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The First, Fourth and Fifth amendments -- gone.

What this actually means is that the president can order the military to operate in the U.S. and to operate without constitutional restrictions. They -- the military --  can pick you or me up in the U.S. for any reason and without any legal process. They would not have any restrictions on entering your house to search it, or to seize you. They can put you into a brig without any due process or going to court. (That's the Fourth and Fifth amendments.)

The military can disregard the Posse Comitatus law, which restricts the military from acting as police in the the United States. And the president can, in the name of wartime restrictions, limit free speech. There it is in black and white: we are looking at one-person rule without any checks and balances -- a lawless state. Law by fiat.

Who has suspended the law this way in the past? It is like a Caesar's law in Rome; a Mussolini's law in Italy; a Fuhrer's law in Germany; a Stalin's law in the Soviet Union. It is right down the line. It is enforcing the will of the dictator through the military.


View as a single page
 
Naomi Wolf is the author of Give Me Liberty (Simon and Schuster, 2008), the sequel to the New York Times best-seller The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot (Chelsea Green, 2007).
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest Civil Liberties headlines via email
See more stories tagged with: constitution, yoo, michael ratner, legal memos

comments COMMENTS ( 314 )
READ COMMENTS
LOGIN OR REGISTER TO POST A COMMENT
 

Comments are closed-

Okay, so now can we prosecute?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kaelieh on Mar 25, 2009 1:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jesus Christ, what the hell does it take to get justice around here. What is treason going to be okay now too? If so, I demand equal treatment for participation in a coup to take my country back.

Why isn't the media hounding after this? They never shut up about Monica Lewneski. Hell, they tried to impeach Clinton for it. Octomom dominated headlines for weeks and reporters dug into her life and unveiled all of the dirt. Nixon would have been impeached if he hadn't resigned.

Just WTF.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Nope, they have to wait for the stupid Republicans to say yes. Posted by: Zipidee DooDah & Dipidee DooDog
» Democrats are now equally culpable Posted by: PrinceRobert

Comments are closed-

Overstates the case
[Report this comment]
Posted by: brunowe on Mar 25, 2009 2:18 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yoo's reasoning is indefensible on the merits. However, a badly-reasoned memo written in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 (23 October 2001) is hardly proof of treason.

Yoo's logic was that responses to terrorist attempts on the United States constituted self-defense similar to what a military would do on a battlefield. The logic has more holes than a screen window. A battlefield implies the existence of an organized enemy force engaged in ongoing violent acts. However, the only time the US was actually under attack was the interval between the planes being hijacked on 9/11 and the last of them going down.

People in the US plotting to commit analogous criminal acts doesn't make the US an ongoing battlefield and doesn't constitute the type of attack that would justify the use of military force. The situation is different from the Civil War and the War of 1812 in that the latter involved ongoing organized enemy military operations in the United States. Likewise, smaller scale internal revolts like the Whiskey Rebellion involved an ongoing quasi-military operation.

A flaw in the logic of that size certainly should indicated that Mr. Yoo isn't qualified to be teaching law anywhere, while his attempt to provide legal cover for torture should AT LEAST raise the issue of disbarment, if not criminal charges, but it hardly constitutes treason.

If the memos were the groundwork of an attempted coup, where was the plot to seize the media, transport centers, etc.? The detention of Jose Padilla was unconstitutional, the torture of detainees at Gitmo a crime--but war crimes do not constitute a coup plot.

Ratner's statement
'What I assume happened here is people like Cheney or his aides go to the Office of Legal Counsel and say, "We are going to need legal backing, to give a face of legality to what we are doing and what we are planning."'
speaks volumes as to the lack of proof of such a plot--seeing as he has to make an unsubstantiated assumption.

Make no mistake, torture, illegal detention, FISA violations constituted impeachable offenses and actionable crimes--but the case for that isn't helped by hysterical overreaching.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Oh brother. Posted by: EinMD
» RE: Oh brother. Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: Oh brother. Posted by: thepuffin
» RE: Sent to newspaper Jan 12, 2009 Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: I checked it out: Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: I checked it out: Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» Examples? Posted by: brunowe
» Modification Posted by: leafsong1
» One more thing, EncinoM... Posted by: Quannah
» Let me amend that Posted by: brunowe
» Not constitutional no Posted by: EinMD
» RE: Not constitutional no Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Not constitutional no Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Not constitutional no Posted by: photon's feather
» can you read? Posted by: EinMD
» Doesn't matter Posted by: EinMD
» RE: Doesn't matter Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Doesn't matter Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Doesn't matter Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Doesn't matter Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Doesn't matter Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Doesn't matter Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Doesn't matter Posted by: Quannah
» RE: Doesn't matter Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Doesn't matter Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: Overstates the case--NOT Posted by: OldRedleg
» RE: Overstates the case--NOT Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Treason is narrowly defined Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Treason is narrowly defined Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Overstates the case--NOT Posted by: OldRedleg
» RE: Overstates the case--NOT Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Overstates the case--NOT Posted by: OldRedleg
» Bad Legal Advice Posted by: EinMD
» RE: Your defense is bullshit Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» No overstatement. Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: Overstates the case Posted by: kogwonton
» RE: Overstates the case Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: You are a tar baby... Posted by: kogwonton

Comments are closed-

Before there was treason, these was civil war
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Perry Logan on Mar 25, 2009 2:39 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"If the memos were the groundwork of an attempted coup, where was the plot to seize the media, transport centers, etc.?...War crimes do not constitute a coup plot."

Good point. But keep in mind, this was a botched coup, attempted by incompetent degenerates.

Public Notice: Republicans are incompetent degenerates.

Also, tons of evidence were destroyed. This might explain why pieces of the coup seem to be missing.

Naomi Wolfe's The End of America suggests that the Bush administration really was a botched fascist takeover, inasmuch as they took every single step that a would-be dictatorship takes.

And don't forget the theft of the election, which is an act of civil war. That's a heady list of high crimes our rightward friends have racked up.

Mr. Logan's Magic Book

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No, you cherry piked my comments. Posted by: GuitarBill
» LOL! ROTFLMAO! Posted by: GuitarBill
» As opposed to what? Posted by: GuitarBill
» I don't lie, you lie. Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: I don't lie, you lie. Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: I don't lie, you lie. Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: I don't lie, you lie. Posted by: Aquinas
» Oh, I lied? Posted by: GuitarBill

Comments are closed-

Come on, Naomi...how can you be "shocked" by these memos, but not by the lies of 9/11???
[Report this comment]
Posted by: pfgetty on Mar 25, 2009 3:09 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Naomi, I'm actually a fan of yours.........bought your book, read it, etc etc.
But how disappointing to me that you ALSO, along with the rest of alternative writers, have decided to censor yourself about 9/11 truth!
What power you have. You have the ears of millions. You could REALLY change the world. You could join the movement to show the world that 9/11, the official story, is hogwash. And it is, of course. As a smart, investigative, type person, I know you realize this. But for some reason you are avoiding the issue.
Do you really want to stop the fascist takeover? Do you want to stop the Patriot Act, the tortures, the illegal wars, the rendition, the wiretapping?
You could of course, you and some others. Alternet, if it began to publish the truth of 9/11, with you as one of the writers, could help to make America aware that the most blatant and glaring "coup" move of our sinister leaders was 9/11. It is the biggest story of all time. Once Americans are aware of the facts of 9/11, they will demand a huge change, a revolution!, of their government.

How can you spend your time chasing down all that is the result of 9/11, and never get to the pit of it all? And why are you self cenoring? If you are concerned with the fascist takeover, I'd say you seem to be instrumental in it............you are telling the American people that here you are, the spokeman for the opposition, and you AGREE with the 9/11 fairytale..........why would any Americans, in opposition to this fascist government, think differently about 9/11 than you? You have put the stamp of approval on the 9/11 Commission. Just by ignoring it, you tell us all you believe that sack of lies to be the truth.

What a missed opportunity! Oh, how I'd love to be in your shoes! Not to make the money you are making, or have the fame, or have so many people admire you. I'd love to be in your shoes because I'd have the opportunity now to tell the world that 9/11 was an inside job, and in so doing change the world for the better.
Change the world for the better. How many people can do that? Not many. You could. And you have decided you aren't interested.

How sad.

If this comment infuriates you or you want to get in touch with me, email me at pfgetty@embarqmail.com.
Nobody ever does. I think I speak the truth. Nobody wants to go there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thanks for the correction! Posted by: pfgetty
» Utter incompetence at best Posted by: nikolai
» Still bringing the crazy? Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Well said Posted by: kogwonton
» EncinoM - Try these: Posted by: LeftWright
» RE: ncinoM - Try these: Posted by: brunowe
» RE: ncinoM - Try these: Posted by: EncinoM

Comments are closed-

why the elites on both sides of the Atlantic have no respect for the US constitution
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Suzon on Mar 25, 2009 3:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In 1215 his barons forced King John to sign the first Magna Carta (Charta actually) granting them (but not the lower orders) rights as Free Men.

That charter was repeatedly revoked and renewed so there was not a single Magna Carta but several and probably no two were alike. Until about 300 years ago, the barons and other members of the aristocracy fought each other like cats in a sack. Then they learned that they could secure their wealth and amass even more by using law to lie, cheat and steal (and of course even murder). They were the congresscritters of yesteryear.

The Norman-English monarchists did not accept the outcome of the Revolutionary War as decisive and the same goes for the War of 1812 and the Civil War.

Americans who see the constitution as a fixed star in the heavens need to be aware that others do not feel the same way. If you want to sum up their argument in a single word, it's "entitlement".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: well said Suzon Posted by: MeyravLevine
» thanks, Meyrav Posted by: Suzon

Comments are closed-

So we have a Constitutional scholar in the White House but
[Report this comment]
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Mar 25, 2009 3:52 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't see his plans on what he's going to restore of what Bush trashed of the Constitution. Once it's trashed, it's hard to imagine the next leader even thinking of bringing it back unless he or she actually had the courage to do what's right for the people and not feel bad about it or thought they'd personally benefit from it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: MobileSucks on Mar 25, 2009 3:52 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can't read Wolf without thinking of the Harold Bloom incident. I agree with Paglia's comments.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

proof
[Report this comment]
Posted by: isafakir on Mar 25, 2009 4:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
he need not have spelled out all the details: we all know the degree to which the principles have spelled it out in public and over the last 8 years there is considerably more than enough evidence on record to make the accusation in law: the response is not poopooing one person's reasoned conclusions as over reaching, but the appointment of a prosecutor and a grand jury and conduction of the appropriate investigations.

if the intention was not a coup d'etat, then they were even more incompetent than they seemed: if I buy flour, water and yeast, put it in a bowl and mix it up with some sugar, I am not making chocolates or corned beef and cabbage.

The only way to know who called whom about what is to look up the phone records and listen to the tapes. There is more than enough evidence to do just that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

DANGER don't click on the Privacy Center link above--it's not what it seems
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Suzon on Mar 25, 2009 4:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
can't Alternet filter this link out?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

BEGONE TROLL!!!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: nikolai on Mar 25, 2009 7:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
BEGONE TROLL!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Don't click on that link (IDENTITY THEFT!)
[Report this comment]
Posted by: GuitarBill on Mar 25, 2009 9:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This scumbag is not trying to protect your privacy; he's trying to steal your identity.

If you click on his "Privacy Center" hyperlink, the server the link points to will install a keylogger on your computer, which is used to steal your credit card number, SSN, etc.

Please, report the comment to Alternet's staff.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Say It With Me
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Revolutionary (Direct) Democracy on Mar 25, 2009 4:30 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
FREE AMERICA

REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Inquistion, Salem Witch Trials- Legal precedence
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Purple Girl on Mar 25, 2009 5:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reason we have laws barring any Inhumane Punishment or treatment.Scalia should also be prosecuted, or at least thrown off the bench, "It's not punishment if they haven't been found guilty"Splitting a hair that is not splitable- any form of retribution is punishment whether a trial has been afforded or not. so in Scalia's mind (and utter lack of Unconstitutional law- or ethic or marals) As long as you don't bring them to trial alls fair and just. Funny isn't that the way the inquistion got 'confessions' prior to their 'Trials'. How about the Dunking chair for suspected Witches? That was fine too to obtain a confession. Hell the ultimate determination of guilt came after they drown them- "did She Float?".
You don't need to be a Constitutional Scholar to see why are laws were written as such-Specifically barring the use of 'Cruel and Unusal'.Torture, aka waterborading, is illegal in this country after a verdict of guilty- it is thus Illegal when our laws require a person to be deemed innocent UNTIL PORVEN Guilty- it's a Moral issue not merely a citizens issue. I don't need a fucking law degree to figure that out- just a damn history book from Jr High!!
Not a surprise the Religious Right appauld such heinous crimes, they come right out of their historical Beginnings.Guess humanity must suffer the same abuses the original Christians did for the remainder of time- Pay backs a Bitch ah Holy Rollers?.And no matter how much you tell the Rest of Us were all doomed to hell- the ultimate discision is not made by You. Good Luck with your Self Righteous justifications.So Cheer On- God's Watching you too.Unless of course that's not the one you are trying to impress anyway.Then your Bloody history and your current Credos make perfect sense.
Perhaps we should promote that Meeting at Armegedda and let these sociopathic Religious fanatics have it out- so the rest of Us can continue about our business as the Stewards of 'Eden'. Love the Blood,guts and suffering- keep it amongst yourselves, the rest of Us find your ways abhorrent.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

What 'we' did not know.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Sister_Lauren on Mar 25, 2009 6:09 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"We knew the military could do this to an individual. We did not know the plan was to eliminate First Amendment constitutional rights for the entire population."

Well I did. I knew and I kept telling everyone.

Lots of press related people here in my own town heard it straight from me, straight from the horses mouth. What did the newspaper editor tell me? "You are not a story."

Just like that. I know he is wrong, I AM a story. I know how to write a story and I know how to act my part. I also found a script.

The question is why did he refuse to cover the story? Why do the newspapers and TV people refuse to tell us the truth?

Very interesting question. They are probably trying to cover some naughty things up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What 'we' do not know. Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: What 'we' do not want to know. Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Nikolai Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Nikolai Posted by: MausMasher54

Comments are closed-

Perhaps Bush/Cheney were anticipating
[Report this comment]
Posted by: praedor on Mar 25, 2009 6:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The current economic collapse and, being authoritarians through and through, could not conceive of any non-dictator way to navigate a new Depression. No FDR sentiments in these guys, only an impulse to self-enrich and enrich their chosen few.

I simply do not believe that they actually believed their own overblown and absurd terra-ist ramblings and threats, that was subterfuge and a tool to get all the pieces in place for a takeover should the economy go down on their watch. I daresay they may have felt some relief that it has fallen onto the next guy to deal with, as they were not in any way, shape, or form up to dealing properly with ANY emergency (Katrina, 9/11 are illustrative).

Actually, perhaps Bush is relieved to be out of the hot seat on this, but Cheney...HE is no doubt sad that he didn't get the chance to lay the boot down on the throats of the little people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: They didn't anticipate it Posted by: Sister_Lauren

Comments are closed-

So, nu?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Adastra on Mar 25, 2009 6:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But this has been obvious for years to anyone who has bothered to read the Constitution. GWB's constant attempts to undermine, ignore or overthrow constitutional government are certainly treason. His disregard for the rule of law and the separation of powers likewise. I remember when he announced to a foreign state that the USA would no longer be observing one particular item of the treaty we had signed with them. That in itself constitutes treason, since the Constitution, the supreme law of our nation specifically establishes our international agreements as part of the supreme law of the land equally with the Constitution itself.

The President takes an Oath of Office to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution of the United States. Any President who violates his oath of office and tries to destroy the Constitution is guilty of treason prima facie and must be removed from office and tried for the crime of treason according to our laws. Nixon probably should have been tried for treason simply on the strength of his moronic statement, "If the President does it, it can't be illegal."

That's why we should prosecute Bush, Cheney, Rove and all their co-conspirators. When Nixon resigned rather than face impeachment, we thought the danger was past, until the G.W. Bush administration. If we let Bush's crimes go without legal action, the next traitorous President will take the treason even farther and our nation will be destroyed. All those who want to live under a dictatorship, please raise your hands. What's that, no, no, you mustn't count those raised hands on the right side of the aisle; they support a dictatorship only because they expect to be running it.

With love under will,

Bob, Adastra,
The Wizzard of Jacksonville

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: So, nu? Posted by: dragonlady620

Comments are closed-

Come on! Bush a fascist, the media in cahoots?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: peterjkraus on Mar 25, 2009 7:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please! This IS the US of A after all. Our duly elected president (twice! The first time by the Supremes, the second time by Diebold's computer programmers) wouldn't EVER do what these commies are imputing. Never! Uh-uh.

Did he wave his arms aroundd and say "I am not a crook"? Well, did he? See?

And Dick? After a lifetime of service, now he's supposed to be some kind of creep? I know, the smile, but still. Come on, people! Get real!

Honestly, I was convinced the Bushies would not relinquish power without a fight, but that was my paranoia talking. On Inauguration eve, I truly breathed a huge sigh of relief, and I still cannot understand why they decided not to just stay as the War Government, after all the plans put in place and the collusion of their propaganda machine. But, hey: grateful for little favors.

NOW, we need to let an independent judge and jury decide about the behavior of Bush 3, of Dick and Yoo, of all these smirking elitist bastards who had us by the nuts and for some reason failed to really squeeze hard. Let the courts decide... that's what we have them for.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bush 3? No, Bush 43 Posted by: peterjkraus
» Funny comment about bush 41 Posted by: nikolai

Comments are closed-

Like Grandfather, Like Grandson
[Report this comment]
Posted by: mjt on Mar 25, 2009 7:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As has been documented by the BBC and papers declassified a few years ago, Prescott Bush and a cabal of supporters plotted to overthrow FDR in the early days of the Depression. It was their plan to install a fascist government in league with Germany. Prescott Bush not only helped bank roll Hitler's rise to power, but continued to have financial dealings with the Third Reich until well after the start of WWII.

It was only when the plotters mistakenly attempted to recruit Marine Corp General Smedley Butler to the plot that the coup was exposed. Bush, Harriman, the Walkers and others owned and operated banks which FDR eventually seized for trading with the enemy during WWII.

George W Bush has made clear his hatred of FDR through his intent to roll back the Social Security and the rest of the New Deal. From these papers it is obvious that Bush43 is aligned with the beliefs of his grandfather Prescott. It explains much of the animosity that he showed towards his father while he was growing up. Bush43 clearly saw his father as a weakling, chose to emulate his grandfather Prescott, and was going to prove this by finishing his Prescott Bush's plans to takeover the US.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» And THEY, also, were not prosecuted Posted by: PrinceRobert
» RE: NONE of them will be... Posted by: Gisele

Comments are closed-

A CLOSE CALL
[Report this comment]
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Mar 25, 2009 7:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Bush/Cheney plan was always to completely control the population. They created mass poverty, kept everyone scared all the time, imprisoned a record number of Americans. But told us how lucky we were bacause we hadn't been attacked AGAIN. They didn't bother to explain the first attack. The Iraq invasion served as a distraction and as a country we were completely alienated from the world. Alone with no firends. Except our leaders. I'm sure that decades from now this point in our history will puzzle historians. Oh, I know there's Reagan, Bill & Monica, all the dirty secrets. Fact is Bush/Cheney ended up in the White House because the Supreme Court put them there. So when we talk of treason, and that's what it is, we can't destroy the country trying to take these people down. That's what they wanted to do. Why do it for them. What scares me is that so many people out there still believe they had the right idea. The ones who hope 'the president fails' should be told to shut up. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What makes you think this is over ?? Posted by: PrinceRobert
» RE: A CLOSE CALL Posted by: sashi

Comments are closed-

I too never thought they'd leave.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: motamanx6 on Mar 25, 2009 8:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When Bush and Cheney left office, I was surprised. I was paranoid of them and their cabal which has been described herein as treasonous and not treasonous. If they had had any success at all with their two lackluster administrations, perhaps they would have stayed. They had none and the screwups were finally getting some press.

Why did Pelosi so quickly take impeachment off the table? This was a mistake. Why did the 9/11 Commission allow Bush and Cheney to go hand in hand to tesitfy--not under oath and off the record?

The basic thread of this discussion has not been mentioned: I believe that Yoo was commissioned to write a document that would give the BUshies the OK to do stuff they knew was illegal. Yoo was ordered to cover their ass. The servile cowardly Democrats allowed them to get away with it. The complicit media went along too.

The US has had a near miss, and it will not be over until Cheney is impeached.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» They haven't left . . . Posted by: dustdevil
» RE: I too never thought they'd leave. Posted by: theblackgeorgecarlin

Comments are closed-

Blame the MSM. At least in Part
[Report this comment]
Posted by: dragonlady620 on Mar 25, 2009 9:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If anything proves the rightwing bias of the MSM this does it. Most of this information isn't new-those of us who have been following it have long recognized the criminal behavior of the Bush team. I remember the Nixon years well-and I also remember the intensive media coverage of Watergate, and the public outrage of the lawlessness of our government. What the Nixon team did utterly pales in comparison to what Bush/Cheney/Rove have been doing for the last eight years, and it has gone almost completely unreported by the MSM-so many people are STILL not even aware of it, or of the seriousness of these charges.I have posted this site often and I am going to do it again:
www.source-watch.org/index.php?title=Echo_chamber
It details how the Republicans have been manipulating the media-and public opinion-since the Nixon days. It seems to be the only thing they learned from Watergate.(Note the chilling resemblance to Nazi propaganda techniques) Certainly Karl Rove made very clear his intentions to completely control the media to establish his "permanent Republican Majority".It's frightening how close to success the Bush gang came simply because most people were unaware of what they were doing. In fact most mainstream knowledge of any of it was a result of something they COULDN'T control-Katrina. The massive failure of the government's response went a long way towards exposing Bush's government for the fraud that it was-and it was something the MSM couldn't ignore, no matter how they tried to spin it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Blame the MSM. At least in Part Posted by: theblackgeorgecarlin
» RE: Blame the MSM. At least in Part Posted by: MausMasher54

Comments are closed-

Fourth Estate
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Archie1954 on Mar 25, 2009 11:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What about the fourth estate? shouldn't they be branded as traitors also since in a very real way they aided and abetted the destruction of the Constitution by not publishing what was being done? There are numerous instances where the media could have prevented egregious activities on the part of the administration if they had simply published what was happening.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Fourth Estate Posted by: Collielady

Comments are closed-

Let us keep busy with talking, arguing, and further analysis of exactly how the Law was broke.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Wee Scottie on Mar 25, 2009 11:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's good to have hobbies, however; the Bush Administration and all of the incriminating evidence against Bush and Cheney probably should not be one of those hobbies.

And so, "we" talk and write some more, ad nauseam, it's called Freedom of Speech.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, someone is free as a bird. Most likely he will stay that way and collect his pension for the rest of his life at the tax payers expense. Is this a great country or what?

By the time someone, somewhere finally decides to get up off of their laurels and arrest Bush and Company for breaking the Law, Bush and all of his crooked cronies will probably be six feet under or dust in the wind!

So, the white elephant in the room is Bush, but let's ignore it or deny it is there at all. "We" wouldn't want to get real about this, would "we"? God forbid anyone should hurt Bush or Cheney's feelings, that's just mean.

Let us talk some more then and figure out a way how all of us can blatantly break any law we want and still get rewarded for it!

Is this a great country or what? God Bless America!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.

Comments are closed-

THE REALITIES OF GITMO-PART B
[Report this comment]
Posted by: SassyFrassy on Mar 25, 2009 1:22 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Meanwhile the globalists Anti-American ICC supporters criticized Mr. Bush claiming we were "undermining international LAW, the reality, THEY were writing new INTERNATIONAL LAWS TO protect themselves.

Want to know WHAT were the "agreement on the Privileges and immunities of the ICC" ratified with the assent of ONLY 10 NATION--it flat out provides the ICC immunity from "every form of legal process anywhere".

**They stated that the "property, funds, and assets" of the ICC "shall be IMMUNE from search, seizure, requisition, confiscation, expropriation and any other form of interference. And, the ICC and it's assets they said "are to be exempt from all direct taxes" including local taxes and customs.

** Meantime they want to IMPOSE the GLOBAL POVERTY TAX which would most certainly bankrupt the USA; while they engage in the Socialist rhetoric of how we are "selfish" for not wanting to pay more taxes. This is their idea of spread the wealth. Notice the funds are always going someplace else instead of to the PUBLIC.

How many people don't know all throughout history the spread the wealth has always been used in facist/socialist/communist elections.

Long and short of it----the ICC MEMBERS have declared themselves IMMUNE form "personal arrest or detention, Legal process of every kind and immigration restrictions.

Oh then then lastly, the "salaries, emoluments and allowances" of the judges prosecutor deputy prosecutor and the registras of the ICC ARE EXEMPT from taxaition.

What hypocrites, it seems to run DEEP in the UN, but it indicates the lengths to which globalists will go to undermine National SOVEREIGNTY.

There's no mistaking it, the ICC SEVERELY undermines our Sovereignty and has over the years placed our troops at great risk.

It CLAIMS complete jurisdiction over every person in the world and it makes no difference to them whether or not that nation has even ratified the treaty.

And, FRANKLY our own constitution may soon be up to the interpretation of 18 foreign -and for the most part hostile-ICC JUDGES.

Long and short of it, the ICC is literally a dagger in the heart of our US SOVEREIGNTY, our freedom and our independence.

DO you want to know what the ACLU thinks about how 'STUPID' they view Americans. Here is what Norman THOMAS one of the Founders of the ACLU says QUOTE Americans will never "knowingly" accept Socialism, but under "liberalism" Americans will accept every fragment; and one day wake up in a Socialist Nation and "wonder" how it all happened.

What we need to investigate is how the DEMOCRATS and ACLU think that they can continue to count on Americans being as stupid as the ACLU thinks Americans are.

Prior to elections we repeatedly had to complain to the REPUBLICANS that our posts were stonewalled by sites because no one wanted to know the truth.

to the present the problem exists.

What we as American's need to do is to LEGALLY and LEGISLATIVELY NOT LEAVE WASH DC alone until everyone of our FREEDOMS are iron clad protected from flag to allegience to seal to all freedoms

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: NAFTA... Posted by: kogwonton
» RE: THE REALITIES OF GITMO-PART B Posted by: Collielady

Comments are closed-

WHOSE SIDE ARE THE DEMS ON, ANYWAY??
[Report this comment]
Posted by: SassyFrassy on Mar 25, 2009 1:30 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh, here we go again Obama in 2006 in KENYA to PROTECT TALIBAN and AL-QUAIDA from being prosecuted for their terrorist activities to anyone including the USA BY installing the SHARIA LAW.

Incidentally the SAME SHARIA LAW/ISLAM law that has been recently "agreed" to in PAKISTAN AND AFGHANISTAN and UN under the mislabeled name "fairness doctrine". which states that


a. it's illegal to be a christian or any other religion different from Muslim
b. it's punisbile by death to anyone whom claims the criminal activities of muslim/islam/sharia law are 'bad.

now we read:

1. Obama's church just recently re-printed the HAMA'S manifesto and Obama doesn't denounce it.

2. Obama wants to DROP CHARGES against TERRORISTS by claiming they should get a slap on the wrist and sign a useless piece of paper that says they won't do terrorism again BECAUSE he and ACLU thinks American's are too stupid to notice that every treaty taliban al-quaida and terrorists have signed with Pakistan HAVE BEEN BROKEN by everyone of the terrorists So,

3. he wants to FORCE the USA to try them in PUBLIC courts where every FBI AND CIA identities, networks, contacts and how they get their info is laid bare for every terrorist in the book to take note of and know about--which means PEOPLE there will be NO ABILITY FOR THE USA to protect ITSELF OR anyone else. Thereby accomplishing Obama's goals of making sure NO ONE CATCHES his taliban, and Al-quida or any other terrorist in the book.

NO wonder the all the terrorists gave their blessing to OBAMA to the elections and made sure they HID the LA SUN TIMES video and distracted the public with all that palin nudity video(yawn) taken forever ago--so no one would notice the LA SUN VIDEO showed US BRITISH AND JEWS being beheaded by al-quida and taliban.

4. Now WASH DC even though warned by the FBI that CAIR are indeed un-indicted co-conspirators in terrorism against US. WASH DC has made it clear THEY DON'T CARE about we the people being protected so WASH DC went ahead and had 80 meetings in 2 days even though they were warned to NOT do so.

5. WANT to know what one of OBAMA'S biggest complaints is about the USA???--That the SUPREME COURT will NOT OVERRIDE the will of the people to do what OBAMA or any DICTATOR would want them to do AGAINST WE THE PEOPLE.

Don't believe it??? Well, Melanie Phillips did a whole expose on the topic.

6. Now, the latest?? Obama wants to LEGALIZE Marijuana so that his "buddies' taliban and al-quaida can expand their financial horizons into the the USA at the expense of once again; the PUBLICS health, safety, and freedom.

7. Obama and DEMS ramble on endlessly about GITMO AND ABU GHRABU but yet the AL-QUIDA TORTURE manual which was confiscated by USA in iraq which contains torture so hideous it violates every convention law on the glob YET Obama and DEMS don't denounce it and want it hidden from the public.

To the present it's only one of the 1 % group of people attempting to destroy our Nation's economic systems and constitution.

WHY??? It was said to a WASH DC VIP---that the reason the Socialists think they will win this time and are doing this is because ACLU and their DEMS SLUGS -- they don't think America'S 99 % are " smart enough" to care to let their fingers do the walking to protect their lands, their CONSTITUTION or their freedoms. The DEMS and ACLU think America's 99% don't CARE enough to kick out and send WASH DC SLUGS packing and by way of Balagovich for NOT protecting PUBLICS FREEDOMS or RIGHTS or CONSTITUTION.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» F(&*^*&ing TROLL!! Posted by: MausMasher54

Comments are closed-

WHOSE SIDE ARE DEMS ON, ANYWAY--PART B
[Report this comment]
Posted by: SassyFrassy on Mar 25, 2009 1:33 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To the present it's only one of the 1 % group of people attempting to destroy our Nation's economic systems and constitution.

WHY??? It was said to a WASH DC VIP---that the reason the Socialists think they will win this time and are doing this is because ACLU and their DEMS SLUGS -- they don't think America'S 99 % are " smart enough" to care to let their fingers do the walking to protect their lands, their CONSTITUTION or their freedoms. The DEMS and ACLU think America's 99% don't CARE enough to kick out and send WASH DC SLUGS packing and by way of Balagovich for NOT protecting PUBLICS FREEDOMS or RIGHTS or CONSTITUTION.

Therefore, they want to make sure they take all freedoms away from the public and they want to make it impossible for FREE ENTERPRISE to exist for the small business and mid business and sole proprietorship thru gravytraining BIG BUSINESS bankrupting our Nation and MUSCLING OUT the small/med sole proprietorships, and creating a welfare state. A move straight out of the marxist handbook. and by attempting to eradicate free speech.

The marketplace will be MONOPOLIZED AND DOMINATED by the ENGORGED big businesses. it's why they cannot wait to get their hands on public money and THROW parties COSTING MILLIONS and big bonuses to CEO'S at the public expense.

however,Thomas Jefferson pretty well covered much about our situation today in two quotes made by him over 200 years ago. Our founders fathers feared what we are living today:

1. "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

2. "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."*

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Sir Posted by: theblackgeorgecarlin

Comments are closed-

"Fuhrer's law"
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Alminc on Mar 25, 2009 1:48 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh, come on. The second I saw that in the article, I knew immediately that the entire article was going to be skewed. Will we ever get a non biased media in America again?

Foot

paris sportif

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "Fuhrer's law" Posted by: Morell

Comments are closed-

But, Why didn't they do it?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Jbuuty on Mar 25, 2009 1:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've read Naomi Wolf's book. I've read this article. It's been a frightening situation. I often thought there would be a coup, if it looked like a Democrat might win the elections.

But, I don't understand. As it seems that they were preparing for some sort of fascist state, why didn't they go through with it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: But, Why didn't they do it? Posted by: Collielady
» RE: But, Why didn't they do it? Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: But, Why didn't they do it? Posted by: Sister_Lauren

Comments are closed-

Where we all these guys BEFORE?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Walks-in-Storms on Mar 25, 2009 3:36 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is like the total silence among all the financial experts before the recession began, the same experts who are not blabbering and bloviating about what it means, how to handle it, why what's being done is wrong or right, and more. Where were all these guys when Bush was savaging the Constitution? When I said, right her on AlterNet, that what our Fuhrer was doing was in fact treason, I got derision from the right and mindless knee-jerk political partisanship from the left.

When I said a first year law student could convict Bush in any court of the land, I got the same. What - it was rocket science? Harvard Law School law and legal reasoning? A man publicaly repudiates his oath of office, plots to set aside the constitution, then does proceeds to do just that, and we need a "top legal scholar" to tell us its treason?

Hell, I give up. Christ, what a menagerie! That much-vaunted "rule of law" we bellow to the world is bull-crap. Nothing more. Two and two is only four when someone elite - a Harvard or Yale man - tell us it's so.

It has to be corroborated by an "analyst" on CNN, or Fox, or one of the "major news networks" before it's so. I give up - this is literally (yes, you're damned right I know what the word means) ridiculous.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

This is news? W's "legal" power grab destroyed the Bill of Rights!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: socrates2 on Mar 25, 2009 3:40 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sometime back W legally grabbed, nay, was handed, the authority to "designate" _anyone_ on the planet--even a U.S. citizen within our Republic--an "enemy combatant" and have that individual subject to the horrors of "rendition" (torture and death by CIA proxies abroad) and "non-torture" water-boarding in your local, friendly military prison. And the "e.c." had no legal recourse!
At that point I knew the Bill of Rights was dead...
When Pelosi and flock looked the other way, and she perfunctorily said, "Impeachment is off the table" I knew the coup was a fait accompli.
Possibly one of the smoothest in American history. Not a shot was fired. No national scandal reported in the MSM. Mr. and Mrs. America woke up the next morning, sipped its cup of coffee, and it was as if nothing had changed. We entered a chilling future.
In November we voted Obama and yet no indictments of the conspirators. So, with no penalty for treason, expect history to repeat itself.
Who the next dictator will be I have no idea, but with those "powers" in place, we will surely have one...
God save the Republic!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

MEMO'S OF A PRESIDENT THAT DESTROYED OUR ECONOMY
[Report this comment]
Posted by: foxxx on Mar 25, 2009 4:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WHY NOT HAVE A COMMITTEE OF LEGAL MINDS AND AUTHORS REVIEW THE MEMO'S OF PRESIDENT BUSH AND HIS VICE PRESIDENT FROM 2000 TO 2008, SO WE CAN SEE WHAT IS NEEDED FOR THE FUTURE FOR AMERICA AND IF WRONG WAS ILLEGALLY DONE ON PURPOSE, THEN ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN LEGALLY. NO ONE IS ABOVE OUR LAWS. HAVE A NICE DAY. MIKE

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Name ONE good thing
[Report this comment]
Posted by: willymack on Mar 25, 2009 4:25 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
About the Texas turd or his "presidency".
Phony "elections' in 00 & 04.
Crime of the century more than seven years ago, and STILL no satisfactory explanation for it, or a REAL investigation into the REAL culprit(s).
AWOL "president" who had a cushy job defending marinas and country clubs in Texas against the Viet Cong, while others, more qualified were getting killed in that other phony war. When he got tired of playing soldier, he simply walked off the job and let Poppy clean up after him.
Two ruinous wars, based on dirty lies, while the chump-in-charge proudly proclaimed himself a war president.
Grand theft of our treasury by corporate America and the Pentagon, overseen by our pretend president and his goons.
Trashing the enviornment, the Constitution, and everything else held dear by our people.
The question is not whether the bush crime family is guilty of multiple crimes, but who's got the guts to initiate legal action against them. Hardly anybody at this time, it seems. Maybe it's time for we, the people to step up and demand justice, in all our millions. There are too many of us for even the most jaded bureaucrats to ignore if we make enough noise.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Name ONE good thing Posted by: bagsofsand

Comments are closed-

But how??
[Report this comment]
Posted by: l_m_n on Mar 25, 2009 4:28 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am still completely confused as to how anyone would consider those memos legal. It's appalling (though unsurprising) that the Bush administration would probe the legality of these rights. But who says these memos give Bush any authority? Why didn't they just write a memo saying gay marriage is illegal and save California the trouble? Why do we have to go through so much work to amend the constitution when they seem to be able to toss the whole thing out with nary a thought?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Corporate Media
[Report this comment]
Posted by: frank69 on Mar 25, 2009 4:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Never pay any attention to what the corporate media say about anything. I ignore it, and have done so for may years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

it can still happen
[Report this comment]
Posted by: cactus on Mar 25, 2009 5:14 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who's to say it won't happen this year or the next or the next? Imagine, the economic crisis worsens, the president is assassinated, there is massive civil protest and 2012 comes around. As long as there is no prosecution there is no repudiation of the legal validity of these statements. There are plenty of people in this country who think they would love to have this come to pass.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: it can still happen Posted by: Collielady

Comments are closed-

How can there be any question?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: symcokid on Mar 25, 2009 5:34 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush should be charged with war crimes along with his henchman Cheney. Hardly pays to expound on this and I can't figure out what the holdup is! We will be paying for George Bush's lawlessness for years to come.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

the coup began on 9/11 while Cheney
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kellysgarden on Mar 25, 2009 6:06 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
was in the bunker of the WH barking orders to the young man about the stand-down order and Bush was reading My Pet Goat.

There needed to be a reason Yoo wrote the memos, and the false flag of 9/11 was the "New Pearl Harbor" the PNAC planned.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

It's happened before
[Report this comment]
Posted by: login@bugmenot.com on Mar 25, 2009 6:50 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There was a coup attempt against the US Govt. in 1934 by industry,
mostly the oil companies. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
When the plot was uncovered the traitors threatened to withhold oil and other necessities from the US Govt, so the govt ASKED the traitors what punishment they would accept. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
In the end, Standard Oil paid a $1000 fine.
Bottom line: the people and the govt. are helpless against the corporations. In fact, the govt. is now in bed with the fascists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Losing the country!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: om7buss on Mar 25, 2009 6:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
yes, we are losing this country to a bunch of wall st manipulators that for many years had planned this situation. bush is one of the worst, but now we have the black bush that is getting worst, same people behinded; the infoumous hiden goverment...www.henrybook.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Treason...what the heck...why? I ll show you treason.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: knight on Mar 25, 2009 7:53 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ok so where was i when all my liberties or my familie's and friends' were restricted in the last 8 years? It wouldn t be the first time that a president suspends,keyword"suspends" Constitutional liberties to engage the enemy,Lincoln did.FDR put thousands of innocent people on detention camps,these people that Mr Ratner defends are hardly innocent,some are plain mudererers,if the rights of them are in jeopardy,hell let me take it a step further,enemies captured in the battlefield,I d shoot them myself,if it spares on american soldier s life,hell I d do it in a NY minute,there was no nazilike president or Mussolini's fascism,what we have here is a president who didn t care about his popularity with the left fringe,pacifists,Democrats,to keep the nation safe and that he did,my freedoms and liberties are intact,still have 3 branches of government,even if we are governed by asses at this time,but still there is no or never was any attempt by Mr Bush to do all the crazy things that Mr Ratner hiperventilates over.... I am safer than 16 years ago,Thank you Mr Bush....I miss my president.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» How does one write a picturebook? Posted by: bagsofsand

Comments are closed-

The Ultimate Irony
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Collielady on Mar 25, 2009 8:13 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just watch... Obama will make a mistake and the Rethugs will be all over him and likely impeach. The Rethugs will regain power and proceed to finish off the Constitution. Everyone who gave the Bush Cabal a pass will be hauled off in handcuffs. They'll wonder why their "reaching across the isle" wasn't appreciated. That's the ultimate irony here. But thinking people won't be at all surprised as they choke back "I told you so!". I'm afraid we should all have a secret hiding place.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

A coup? Treason? Get real.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bagsofsand on Mar 25, 2009 8:53 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Say, didn't Lincoln do a lot of these things when his country was at war?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» His country? Posted by: cactus

Comments are closed-

Yoo Memos
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jmmartin on Mar 25, 2009 9:43 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Apparently, as you put it, the Yoo Memos do indeed lay the predicate for a fascist-like state making Watergate look like small potatoes. Perhaps it is time to observe that we seem to grow closer to this form of government each time a Republican occupies the White House.

We had Reagan conveniently forgetting that Oliver North -- a Lt. Colonel in the Army (duh! has anyone seen a movie titled Six Days in May?!) breaking the law by trading arms for hostages in the White House basement.

We also had Tricky Dick Nixon telling David Frost, "When the president does it, it's not criminal." They're all the same, these GOPS. They're all potential Fuhrers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

politics of distraction
[Report this comment]
Posted by: LillianB on Mar 25, 2009 11:50 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't we have enough problems now with a 2 Trillion dollar budget that will bankrupt the U.S. and a currency that's going Kaput? Write stuff to SAVE our country not rehash things irrelevant to the current crisis. Obama spending is Bush on steroids.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Du-uh! Posted by: westomoon

Comments are closed-

What stopped their plan?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: riversknight on Mar 26, 2009 12:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So having read through this, I need to ask:

What stopped them?

We were apparently unaware of this major plot, Bush served his two full terms in office, no major government inquiries threatened this plan as far as I can tell...how did they not succeed in implementing this in its totality? And how can we use that information to keep this from happening again?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What stopped their plan? Posted by: Sister_Lauren

Comments are closed-

Empty
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Dboy on Mar 26, 2009 10:22 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, we were right about Shrub. We were right to hate him (yes, hate..it's ok to hate bad people). We were right to suspect the worst. For the past 8 years, America was being run by a gang of gangsters and terrorists, and the really frightening thing is that the American system was overthrown so easily. Bush, Cheney, Rove, and rest of them deserve to be in a dirty ass-raping prison somewhere. Bush does NOT deserve the respect generally due to former presidents. He does not deserve a library. He does not deserve a presidential portrait. He is a traitor, a coward, a bully, a drunk, and a failure. So while the Bush-haters such as myself are vindicated, it's an empty victory. The Republicans and their lead idiot came very close to destroying this country.

About the library. SERIOUSLY, we've GOT to stop this "presidential" library from ever being built.

dboy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Prosecutors need the Library Posted by: NathanHail

Comments are closed-

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.

Comments are closed-

Obama is being seen as obstructionist in prosecution of Bush Lawbreakers
[Report this comment]
Posted by: JohnHKennedy Denver CO on Mar 27, 2009 9:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama is running a risk that he will soon be seen as
"no change" from Bush.

If Obama's "no one is above the law" is to be believed,

Obama must soon Appoint a SPECIAL PROSECUTOR for all Bush officials who violated Our
Federal Laws (including Torture) and our Constitution

Avoiding prosecution of these well known Federal Crimes is an Admission by Obama
that He Supports Immunity for Bush, Cheney and Himself,
proving to all voters that high US officials
are protected from Federal Laws & our US Constitution
by their successors.

SIGN The PETITION To Prosecute Bush & Cheney for Torture
Over 63,000 have signed-Join Them.

ANGRYvoters.org

.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

NathanHail
[Report this comment]
Posted by: NathanHail on Mar 28, 2009 1:21 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Militarization of our discredited civilian police state is a serious danger to everyone that speaks out against authority. The DOD refuses to be accountable as in burns through billions and billions of dollars. Congress just keeps sucking harder. The reality is that the US is a global military empire. We yield to no one. We threaten and bribe everybody with the world's most advanced and destructive weapons. For "We the People" to sit and watch our military dominate and coerce the entire world is anti-American. It is treason to suspend civilian legal rights. Illegal search and seizure is routine. False imprisonment is routine. Brutal assualt by uniformed officers is routine. And no one is screaming loudly for the reversal of thess policies and practices. No one I know trusts the police or Feds at any level.
We have Predator drones circling the skies. Wireless unwarranted wiretaps are admissible in court. The DOJ turns out to be two-bit whores servicing the politico anti-Democracy, masters like Rove and Cheney. The NSA can tap every digital exchange in the world. Our elected leaders are just bitches on their knees to the Generals. Our uncontrolled police have automatic weapons, stun grenades, unmanned, robotic surveillance and SWAT team armored cars to "subdue" us with. They aggressively profle minorities. They shoot first and cover up later.
If civil unrest is stirring, it is for good reason. We see our brothers being shot, beaten and detained without cause. There is trouble brewing in the kitchen. My only hope is that the illegitimate Northern Command martial law battalion soldiers refuse to fire on their families, neighbors and friends. Dismantle the Police State. And remember everybody, there are 100 million guns floating around our Republic. Many of those folks will fire back if the time comes. Semper Fi!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Speaking of treason, why is Michelle Bachmann not in Gitmo?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: westomoon on Mar 28, 2009 1:50 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Calling for armed uprising to overthrow the elected government of the United States doesn't qualify as terrorism? For that matter, why is Limbaugh still at large?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Breathless, Overheated Rhetoric
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Anarc1ssie on Mar 30, 2009 10:03 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
-- but little substance. It is not treason to write a memorandum suggesting that the President has, or ought to have, absolute power, stupid or evil as that might be. Treason consists of carrying on war against the United States, not having bad opinions.

I am not surprised to see 9/11 conspiratism dragged in to accompany the huffing and panting. It's enjoyable, folks, but if you want to accomplish anything you're going to have to can the hot rhetoric and get some facts.

Is Bush a war criminal? Sure, but not because some puffball named Yoo wrote a stupid memorandum.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

RE: Hasn't Bush actually levied war against Minnesota?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: stellabloo on Mar 30, 2009 11:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well he certainly levied a war against Louisiana. Katrina was the storm that everyone knew would eventually happen. Where the hell where those three brigades then?

Not to mention the world's largest population of prison inmates - by eliminating the right to vote for the young, poor and/or rebellious, the government effectively declared class warfare a long time ago.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

let"t talk aboooout love.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: digoo on Apr 6, 2009 11:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

Okay, so now can we prosecute?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kaelieh on Mar 25, 2009 1:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jesus Christ, what the hell does it take to get justice around here. What is treason going to be okay now too? If so, I demand equal treatment for participation in a coup to take my country back.

Why isn't the media hounding after this? They never shut up about Monica Lewneski. Hell, they tried to impeach Clinton for it. Octomom dominated headlines for weeks and reporters dug into her life and unveiled all of the dirt. Nixon would have been impeached if he hadn't resigned.

Just WTF.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Nope, they have to wait for the stupid Republicans to say yes. Posted by: Zipidee DooDah & Dipidee DooDog
» Democrats are now equally culpable Posted by: PrinceRobert

Comments are closed-

Overstates the case
[Report this comment]
Posted by: brunowe on Mar 25, 2009 2:18 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yoo's reasoning is indefensible on the merits. However, a badly-reasoned memo written in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 (23 October 2001) is hardly proof of treason.

Yoo's logic was that responses to terrorist attempts on the United States constituted self-defense similar to what a military would do on a battlefield. The logic has more holes than a screen window. A battlefield implies the existence of an organized enemy force engaged in ongoing violent acts. However, the only time the US was actually under attack was the interval between the planes being hijacked on 9/11 and the last of them going down.

People in the US plotting to commit analogous criminal acts doesn't make the US an ongoing battlefield and doesn't constitute the type of attack that would justify the use of military force. The situation is different from the Civil War and the War of 1812 in that the latter involved ongoing organized enemy military operations in the United States. Likewise, smaller scale internal revolts like the Whiskey Rebellion involved an ongoing quasi-military operation.

A flaw in the logic of that size certainly should indicated that Mr. Yoo isn't qualified to be teaching law anywhere, while his attempt to provide legal cover for torture should AT LEAST raise the issue of disbarment, if not criminal charges, but it hardly constitutes treason.

If the memos were the groundwork of an attempted coup, where was the plot to seize the media, transport centers, etc.? The detention of Jose Padilla was unconstitutional, the torture of detainees at Gitmo a crime--but war crimes do not constitute a coup plot.

Ratner's statement
'What I assume happened here is people like Cheney or his aides go to the Office of Legal Counsel and say, "We are going to need legal backing, to give a face of legality to what we are doing and what we are planning."'
speaks volumes as to the lack of proof of such a plot--seeing as he has to make an unsubstantiated assumption.

Make no mistake, torture, illegal detention, FISA violations constituted impeachable offenses and actionable crimes--but the case for that isn't helped by hysterical overreaching.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Oh brother. Posted by: EinMD
» RE: Oh brother. Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: Oh brother. Posted by: thepuffin
» RE: Sent to newspaper Jan 12, 2009 Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: I checked it out: Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: I checked it out: Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» Examples? Posted by: brunowe
» Modification Posted by: leafsong1
» One more thing, EncinoM... Posted by: Quannah
» Let me amend that Posted by: brunowe
» Not constitutional no Posted by: EinMD
» RE: Not constitutional no Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Not constitutional no Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Not constitutional no Posted by: photon's feather
» can you read? Posted by: EinMD
» Doesn't matter Posted by: EinMD
» RE: Doesn't matter Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Doesn't matter Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Doesn't matter Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Doesn't matter Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Doesn't matter Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Doesn't matter Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Doesn't matter Posted by: Quannah
» RE: Doesn't matter Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Doesn't matter Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: Overstates the case--NOT Posted by: OldRedleg
» RE: Overstates the case--NOT Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Treason is narrowly defined Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Treason is narrowly defined Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Overstates the case--NOT Posted by: OldRedleg
» RE: Overstates the case--NOT Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Overstates the case--NOT Posted by: OldRedleg
» Bad Legal Advice Posted by: EinMD
» RE: Your defense is bullshit Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» No overstatement. Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: Overstates the case Posted by: kogwonton
» RE: Overstates the case Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: You are a tar baby... Posted by: kogwonton

Comments are closed-

Before there was treason, these was civil war
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Perry Logan on Mar 25, 2009 2:39 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"If the memos were the groundwork of an attempted coup, where was the plot to seize the media, transport centers, etc.?...War crimes do not constitute a coup plot."

Good point. But keep in mind, this was a botched coup, attempted by incompetent degenerates.

Public Notice: Republicans are incompetent degenerates.

Also, tons of evidence were destroyed. This might explain why pieces of the coup seem to be missing.

Naomi Wolfe's The End of America suggests that the Bush administration really was a botched fascist takeover, inasmuch as they took every single step that a would-be dictatorship takes.

And don't forget the theft of the election, which is an act of civil war. That's a heady list of high crimes our rightward friends have racked up.

Mr. Logan's Magic Book

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No, you cherry piked my comments. Posted by: GuitarBill
» LOL! ROTFLMAO! Posted by: GuitarBill
» As opposed to what? Posted by: GuitarBill
» I don't lie, you lie. Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: I don't lie, you lie. Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: I don't lie, you lie. Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: I don't lie, you lie. Posted by: Aquinas
» Oh, I lied? Posted by: GuitarBill

Comments are closed-

Come on, Naomi...how can you be "shocked" by these memos, but not by the lies of 9/11???
[Report this comment]
Posted by: pfgetty on Mar 25, 2009 3:09 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Naomi, I'm actually a fan of yours.........bought your book, read it, etc etc.
But how disappointing to me that you ALSO, along with the rest of alternative writers, have decided to censor yourself about 9/11 truth!
What power you have. You have the ears of millions. You could REALLY change the world. You could join the movement to show the world that 9/11, the official story, is hogwash. And it is, of course. As a smart, investigative, type person, I know you realize this. But for some reason you are avoiding the issue.
Do you really want to stop the fascist takeover? Do you want to stop the Patriot Act, the tortures, the illegal wars, the rendition, the wiretapping?
You could of course, you and some others. Alternet, if it began to publish the truth of 9/11, with you as one of the writers, could help to make America aware that the most blatant and glaring "coup" move of our sinister leaders was 9/11. It is the biggest story of all time. Once Americans are aware of the facts of 9/11, they will demand a huge change, a revolution!, of their government.

How can you spend your time chasing down all that is the result of 9/11, and never get to the pit of it all? And why are you self cenoring? If you are concerned with the fascist takeover, I'd say you seem to be instrumental in it............you are telling the American people that here you are, the spokeman for the opposition, and you AGREE with the 9/11 fairytale..........why would any Americans, in opposition to this fascist government, think differently about 9/11 than you? You have put the stamp of approval on the 9/11 Commission. Just by ignoring it, you tell us all you believe that sack of lies to be the truth.

What a missed opportunity! Oh, how I'd love to be in your shoes! Not to make the money you are making, or have the fame, or have so many people admire you. I'd love to be in your shoes because I'd have the opportunity now to tell the world that 9/11 was an inside job, and in so doing change the world for the better.
Change the world for the better. How many people can do that? Not many. You could. And you have decided you aren't interested.

How sad.

If this comment infuriates you or you want to get in touch with me, email me at pfgetty@embarqmail.com.
Nobody ever does. I think I speak the truth. Nobody wants to go there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thanks for the correction! Posted by: pfgetty
» Utter incompetence at best Posted by: nikolai
» Still bringing the crazy? Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Well said Posted by: kogwonton
» EncinoM - Try these: Posted by: LeftWright
» RE: ncinoM - Try these: Posted by: brunowe
» RE: ncinoM - Try these: Posted by: EncinoM

Comments are closed-

why the elites on both sides of the Atlantic have no respect for the US constitution
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Suzon on Mar 25, 2009 3:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In 1215 his barons forced King John to sign the first Magna Carta (Charta actually) granting them (but not the lower orders) rights as Free Men.

That charter was repeatedly revoked and renewed so there was not a single Magna Carta but several and probably no two were alike. Until about 300 years ago, the barons and other members of the aristocracy fought each other like cats in a sack. Then they learned that they could secure their wealth and amass even more by using law to lie, cheat and steal (and of course even murder). They were the congresscritters of yesteryear.

The Norman-English monarchists did not accept the outcome of the Revolutionary War as decisive and the same goes for the War of 1812 and the Civil War.

Americans who see the constitution as a fixed star in the heavens need to be aware that others do not feel the same way. If you want to sum up their argument in a single word, it's "entitlement".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: well said Suzon Posted by: MeyravLevine
» thanks, Meyrav Posted by: Suzon

Comments are closed-

So we have a Constitutional scholar in the White House but
[Report this comment]
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Mar 25, 2009 3:52 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't see his plans on what he's going to restore of what Bush trashed of the Constitution. Once it's trashed, it's hard to imagine the next leader even thinking of bringing it back unless he or she actually had the courage to do what's right for the people and not feel bad about it or thought they'd personally benefit from it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: MobileSucks on Mar 25, 2009 3:52 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can't read Wolf without thinking of the Harold Bloom incident. I agree with Paglia's comments.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

proof
[Report this comment]
Posted by: isafakir on Mar 25, 2009 4:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
he need not have spelled out all the details: we all know the degree to which the principles have spelled it out in public and over the last 8 years there is considerably more than enough evidence on record to make the accusation in law: the response is not poopooing one person's reasoned conclusions as over reaching, but the appointment of a prosecutor and a grand jury and conduction of the appropriate investigations.

if the intention was not a coup d'etat, then they were even more incompetent than they seemed: if I buy flour, water and yeast, put it in a bowl and mix it up with some sugar, I am not making chocolates or corned beef and cabbage.

The only way to know who called whom about what is to look up the phone records and listen to the tapes. There is more than enough evidence to do just that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

DANGER don't click on the Privacy Center link above--it's not what it seems
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Suzon on Mar 25, 2009 4:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
can't Alternet filter this link out?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

BEGONE TROLL!!!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: nikolai on Mar 25, 2009 7:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
BEGONE TROLL!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Don't click on that link (IDENTITY THEFT!)
[Report this comment]
Posted by: GuitarBill on Mar 25, 2009 9:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This scumbag is not trying to protect your privacy; he's trying to steal your identity.

If you click on his "Privacy Center" hyperlink, the server the link points to will install a keylogger on your computer, which is used to steal your credit card number, SSN, etc.

Please, report the comment to Alternet's staff.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Say It With Me
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Revolutionary (Direct) Democracy on Mar 25, 2009 4:30 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
FREE AMERICA

REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Inquistion, Salem Witch Trials- Legal precedence
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Purple Girl on Mar 25, 2009 5:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reason we have laws barring any Inhumane Punishment or treatment.Scalia should also be prosecuted, or at least thrown off the bench, "It's not punishment if they haven't been found guilty"Splitting a hair that is not splitable- any form of retribution is punishment whether a trial has been afforded or not. so in Scalia's mind (and utter lack of Unconstitutional law- or ethic or marals) As long as you don't bring them to trial alls fair and just. Funny isn't that the way the inquistion got 'confessions' prior to their 'Trials'. How about the Dunking chair for suspected Witches? That was fine too to obtain a confession. Hell the ultimate determination of guilt came after they drown them- "did She Float?".
You don't need to be a Constitutional Scholar to see why are laws were written as such-Specifically barring the use of 'Cruel and Unusal'.Torture, aka waterborading, is illegal in this country after a verdict of guilty- it is thus Illegal when our laws require a person to be deemed innocent UNTIL PORVEN Guilty- it's a Moral issue not merely a citizens issue. I don't need a fucking law degree to figure that out- just a damn history book from Jr High!!
Not a surprise the Religious Right appauld such heinous crimes, they come right out of their historical Beginnings.Guess humanity must suffer the same abuses the original Christians did for the remainder of time- Pay backs a Bitch ah Holy Rollers?.And no matter how much you tell the Rest of Us were all doomed to hell- the ultimate discision is not made by You. Good Luck with your Self Righteous justifications.So Cheer On- God's Watching you too.Unless of course that's not the one you are trying to impress anyway.Then your Bloody history and your current Credos make perfect sense.
Perhaps we should promote that Meeting at Armegedda and let these sociopathic Religious fanatics have it out- so the rest of Us can continue about our business as the Stewards of 'Eden'. Love the Blood,guts and suffering- keep it amongst yourselves, the rest of Us find your ways abhorrent.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

What 'we' did not know.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Sister_Lauren on Mar 25, 2009 6:09 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"We knew the military could do this to an individual. We did not know the plan was to eliminate First Amendment constitutional rights for the entire population."

Well I did. I knew and I kept telling everyone.

Lots of press related people here in my own town heard it straight from me, straight from the horses mouth. What did the newspaper editor tell me? "You are not a story."

Just like that. I know he is wrong, I AM a story. I know how to write a story and I know how to act my part. I also found a script.

The question is why did he refuse to cover the story? Why do the newspapers and TV people refuse to tell us the truth?

Very interesting question. They are probably trying to cover some naughty things up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What 'we' do not know. Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: What 'we' do not want to know. Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Nikolai Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Nikolai Posted by: MausMasher54

Comments are closed-

Perhaps Bush/Cheney were anticipating
[Report this comment]
Posted by: praedor on Mar 25, 2009 6:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The current economic collapse and, being authoritarians through and through, could not conceive of any non-dictator way to navigate a new Depression. No FDR sentiments in these guys, only an impulse to self-enrich and enrich their chosen few.

I simply do not believe that they actually believed their own overblown and absurd terra-ist ramblings and threats, that was subterfuge and a tool to get all the pieces in place for a takeover should the economy go down on their watch. I daresay they may have felt some relief that it has fallen onto the next guy to deal with, as they were not in any way, shape, or form up to dealing properly with ANY emergency (Katrina, 9/11 are illustrative).

Actually, perhaps Bush is relieved to be out of the hot seat on this, but Cheney...HE is no doubt sad that he didn't get the chance to lay the boot down on the throats of the little people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: They didn't anticipate it Posted by: Sister_Lauren

Comments are closed-

So, nu?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Adastra on Mar 25, 2009 6:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But this has been obvious for years to anyone who has bothered to read the Constitution. GWB's constant attempts to undermine, ignore or overthrow constitutional government are certainly treason. His disregard for the rule of law and the separation of powers likewise. I remember when he announced to a foreign state that the USA would no longer be observing one particular item of the treaty we had signed with them. That in itself constitutes treason, since the Constitution, the supreme law of our nation specifically establishes our international agreements as part of the supreme law of the land equally with the Constitution itself.

The President takes an Oath of Office to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution of the United States. Any President who violates his oath of office and tries to destroy the Constitution is guilty of treason prima facie and must be removed from office and tried for the crime of treason according to our laws. Nixon probably should have been tried for treason simply on the strength of his moronic statement, "If the President does it, it can't be illegal."

That's why we should prosecute Bush, Cheney, Rove and all their co-conspirators. When Nixon resigned rather than face impeachment, we thought the danger was past, until the G.W. Bush administration. If we let Bush's crimes go without legal action, the next traitorous President will take the treason even farther and our nation will be destroyed. All those who want to live under a dictatorship, please raise your hands. What's that, no, no, you mustn't count those raised hands on the right side of the aisle; they support a dictatorship only because they expect to be running it.

With love under will,

Bob, Adastra,
The Wizzard of Jacksonville

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: So, nu? Posted by: dragonlady620

Comments are closed-

Come on! Bush a fascist, the media in cahoots?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: peterjkraus on Mar 25, 2009 7:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please! This IS the US of A after all. Our duly elected president (twice! The first time by the Supremes, the second time by Diebold's computer programmers) wouldn't EVER do what these commies are imputing. Never! Uh-uh.

Did he wave his arms aroundd and say "I am not a crook"? Well, did he? See?

And Dick? After a lifetime of service, now he's supposed to be some kind of creep? I know, the smile, but still. Come on, people! Get real!

Honestly, I was convinced the Bushies would not relinquish power without a fight, but that was my paranoia talking. On Inauguration eve, I truly breathed a huge sigh of relief, and I still cannot understand why they decided not to just stay as the War Government, after all the plans put in place and the collusion of their propaganda machine. But, hey: grateful for little favors.

NOW, we need to let an independent judge and jury decide about the behavior of Bush 3, of Dick and Yoo, of all these smirking elitist bastards who had us by the nuts and for some reason failed to really squeeze hard. Let the courts decide... that's what we have them for.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bush 3? No, Bush 43 Posted by: peterjkraus
» Funny comment about bush 41 Posted by: nikolai

Comments are closed-

Like Grandfather, Like Grandson
[Report this comment]
Posted by: mjt on Mar 25, 2009 7:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As has been documented by the BBC and papers declassified a few years ago, Prescott Bush and a cabal of supporters plotted to overthrow FDR in the early days of the Depression. It was their plan to install a fascist government in league with Germany. Prescott Bush not only helped bank roll Hitler's rise to power, but continued to have financial dealings with the Third Reich until well after the start of WWII.

It was only when the plotters mistakenly attempted to recruit Marine Corp General Smedley Butler to the plot that the coup was exposed. Bush, Harriman, the Walkers and others owned and operated banks which FDR eventually seized for trading with the enemy during WWII.

George W Bush has made clear his hatred of FDR through his intent to roll back the Social Security and the rest of the New Deal. From these papers it is obvious that Bush43 is aligned with the beliefs of his grandfather Prescott. It explains much of the animosity that he showed towards his father while he was growing up. Bush43 clearly saw his father as a weakling, chose to emulate his grandfather Prescott, and was going to prove this by finishing his Prescott Bush's plans to takeover the US.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» And THEY, also, were not prosecuted Posted by: PrinceRobert
» RE: NONE of them will be... Posted by: Gisele

Comments are closed-

A CLOSE CALL
[Report this comment]
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Mar 25, 2009 7:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Bush/Cheney plan was always to completely control the population. They created mass poverty, kept everyone scared all the time, imprisoned a record number of Americans. But told us how lucky we were bacause we hadn't been attacked AGAIN. They didn't bother to explain the first attack. The Iraq invasion served as a distraction and as a country we were completely alienated from the world. Alone with no firends. Except our leaders. I'm sure that decades from now this point in our history will puzzle historians. Oh, I know there's Reagan, Bill & Monica, all the dirty secrets. Fact is Bush/Cheney ended up in the White House because the Supreme Court put them there. So when we talk of treason, and that's what it is, we can't destroy the country trying to take these people down. That's what they wanted to do. Why do it for them. What scares me is that so many people out there still believe they had the right idea. The ones who hope 'the president fails' should be told to shut up. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What makes you think this is over ?? Posted by: PrinceRobert
» RE: A CLOSE CALL Posted by: sashi

Comments are closed-

I too never thought they'd leave.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: motamanx6 on Mar 25, 2009 8:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When Bush and Cheney left office, I was surprised. I was paranoid of them and their cabal which has been described herein as treasonous and not treasonous. If they had had any success at all with their two lackluster administrations, perhaps they would have stayed. They had none and the screwups were finally getting some press.

Why did Pelosi so quickly take impeachment off the table? This was a mistake. Why did the 9/11 Commission allow Bush and Cheney to go hand in hand to tesitfy--not under oath and off the record?

The basic thread of this discussion has not been mentioned: I believe that Yoo was commissioned to write a document that would give the BUshies the OK to do stuff they knew was illegal. Yoo was ordered to cover their ass. The servile cowardly Democrats allowed them to get away with it. The complicit media went along too.

The US has had a near miss, and it will not be over until Cheney is impeached.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» They haven't left . . . Posted by: dustdevil
» RE: I too never thought they'd leave. Posted by: theblackgeorgecarlin

Comments are closed-

Blame the MSM. At least in Part
[Report this comment]
Posted by: dragonlady620 on Mar 25, 2009 9:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If anything proves the rightwing bias of the MSM this does it. Most of this information isn't new-those of us who have been following it have long recognized the criminal behavior of the Bush team. I remember the Nixon years well-and I also remember the intensive media coverage of Watergate, and the public outrage of the lawlessness of our government. What the Nixon team did utterly pales in comparison to what Bush/Cheney/Rove have been doing for the last eight years, and it has gone almost completely unreported by the MSM-so many people are STILL not even aware of it, or of the seriousness of these charges.I have posted this site often and I am going to do it again:
www.source-watch.org/index.php?title=Echo_chamber
It details how the Republicans have been manipulating the media-and public opinion-since the Nixon days. It seems to be the only thing they learned from Watergate.(Note the chilling resemblance to Nazi propaganda techniques) Certainly Karl Rove made very clear his intentions to completely control the media to establish his "permanent Republican Majority".It's frightening how close to success the Bush gang came simply because most people were unaware of what they were doing. In fact most mainstream knowledge of any of it was a result of something they COULDN'T control-Katrina. The massive failure of the government's response went a long way towards exposing Bush's government for the fraud that it was-and it was something the MSM couldn't ignore, no matter how they tried to spin it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Blame the MSM. At least in Part Posted by: theblackgeorgecarlin
» RE: Blame the MSM. At least in Part Posted by: MausMasher54

Comments are closed-

Fourth Estate
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Archie1954 on Mar 25, 2009 11:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What about the fourth estate? shouldn't they be branded as traitors also since in a very real way they aided and abetted the destruction of the Constitution by not publishing what was being done? There are numerous instances where the media could have prevented egregious activities on the part of the administration if they had simply published what was happening.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Fourth Estate Posted by: Collielady

Comments are closed-

Let us keep busy with talking, arguing, and further analysis of exactly how the Law was broke.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Wee Scottie on Mar 25, 2009 11:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's good to have hobbies, however; the Bush Administration and all of the incriminating evidence against Bush and Cheney probably should not be one of those hobbies.

And so, "we" talk and write some more, ad nauseam, it's called Freedom of Speech.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, someone is free as a bird. Most likely he will stay that way and collect his pension for the rest of his life at the tax payers expense. Is this a great country or what?

By the time someone, somewhere finally decides to get up off of their laurels and arrest Bush and Company for breaking the Law, Bush and all of his crooked cronies will probably be six feet under or dust in the wind!

So, the white elephant in the room is Bush, but let's ignore it or deny it is there at all. "We" wouldn't want to get real about this, would "we"? God forbid anyone should hurt Bush or Cheney's feelings, that's just mean.

Let us talk some more then and figure out a way how all of us can blatantly break any law we want and still get rewarded for it!

Is this a great country or what? God Bless America!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.

Comments are closed-

THE REALITIES OF GITMO-PART B
[Report this comment]
Posted by: SassyFrassy on Mar 25, 2009 1:22 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Meanwhile the globalists Anti-American ICC supporters criticized Mr. Bush claiming we were "undermining international LAW, the reality, THEY were writing new INTERNATIONAL LAWS TO protect themselves.

Want to know WHAT were the "agreement on the Privileges and immunities of the ICC" ratified with the assent of ONLY 10 NATION--it flat out provides the ICC immunity from "every form of legal process anywhere".

**They stated that the "property, funds, and assets" of the ICC "shall be IMMUNE from search, seizure, requisition, confiscation, expropriation and any other form of interference. And, the ICC and it's assets they said "are to be exempt from all direct taxes" including local taxes and customs.

** Meantime they want to IMPOSE the GLOBAL POVERTY TAX which would most certainly bankrupt the USA; while they engage in the Socialist rhetoric of how we are "selfish" for not wanting to pay more taxes. This is their idea of spread the wealth. Notice the funds are always going someplace else instead of to the PUBLIC.

How many people don't know all throughout history the spread the wealth has always been used in facist/socialist/communist elections.

Long and short of it----the ICC MEMBERS have declared themselves IMMUNE form "personal arrest or detention, Legal process of every kind and immigration restrictions.

Oh then then lastly, the "salaries, emoluments and allowances" of the judges prosecutor deputy prosecutor and the registras of the ICC ARE EXEMPT from taxaition.

What hypocrites, it seems to run DEEP in the UN, but it indicates the lengths to which globalists will go to undermine National SOVEREIGNTY.

There's no mistaking it, the ICC SEVERELY undermines our Sovereignty and has over the years placed our troops at great risk.

It CLAIMS complete jurisdiction over every person in the world and it makes no difference to them whether or not that nation has even ratified the treaty.

And, FRANKLY our own constitution may soon be up to the interpretation of 18 foreign -and for the most part hostile-ICC JUDGES.

Long and short of it, the ICC is literally a dagger in the heart of our US SOVEREIGNTY, our freedom and our independence.

DO you want to know what the ACLU thinks about how 'STUPID' they view Americans. Here is what Norman THOMAS one of the Founders of the ACLU says QUOTE Americans will never "knowingly" accept Socialism, but under "liberalism" Americans will accept every fragment; and one day wake up in a Socialist Nation and "wonder" how it all happened.

What we need to investigate is how the DEMOCRATS and ACLU think that they can continue to count on Americans being as stupid as the ACLU thinks Americans are.

Prior to elections we repeatedly had to complain to the REPUBLICANS that our posts were stonewalled by sites because no one wanted to know the truth.

to the present the problem exists.

What we as American's need to do is to LEGALLY and LEGISLATIVELY NOT LEAVE WASH DC alone until everyone of our FREEDOMS are iron clad protected from flag to allegience to seal to all freedoms

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: NAFTA... Posted by: kogwonton
» RE: THE REALITIES OF GITMO-PART B Posted by: Collielady

Comments are closed-

WHOSE SIDE ARE THE DEMS ON, ANYWAY??
[Report this comment]
Posted by: SassyFrassy on Mar 25, 2009 1:30 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh, here we go again Obama in 2006 in KENYA to PROTECT TALIBAN and AL-QUAIDA from being prosecuted for their terrorist activities to anyone including the USA BY installing the SHARIA LAW.

Incidentally the SAME SHARIA LAW/ISLAM law that has been recently "agreed" to in PAKISTAN AND AFGHANISTAN and UN under the mislabeled name "fairness doctrine". which states that


a. it's illegal to be a christian or any other religion different from Muslim
b. it's punisbile by death to anyone whom claims the criminal activities of muslim/islam/sharia law are 'bad.

now we read:

1. Obama's church just recently re-printed the HAMA'S manifesto and Obama doesn't denounce it.

2. Obama wants to DROP CHARGES against TERRORISTS by claiming they should get a slap on the wrist and sign a useless piece of paper that says they won't do terrorism again BECAUSE he and ACLU thinks American's are too stupid to notice that every treaty taliban al-quaida and terrorists have signed with Pakistan HAVE BEEN BROKEN by everyone of the terrorists So,

3. he wants to FORCE the USA to try them in PUBLIC courts where every FBI AND CIA identities, networks, contacts and how they get their info is laid bare for every terrorist in the book to take note of and know about--which means PEOPLE there will be NO ABILITY FOR THE USA to protect ITSELF OR anyone else. Thereby accomplishing Obama's goals of making sure NO ONE CATCHES his taliban, and Al-quida or any other terrorist in the book.

NO wonder the all the terrorists gave their blessing to OBAMA to the elections and made sure they HID the LA SUN TIMES video and distracted the public with all that palin nudity video(yawn) taken forever ago--so no one would notice the LA SUN VIDEO showed US BRITISH AND JEWS being beheaded by al-quida and taliban.

4. Now WASH DC even though warned by the FBI that CAIR are indeed un-indicted co-conspirators in terrorism against US. WASH DC has made it clear THEY DON'T CARE about we the people being protected so WASH DC went ahead and had 80 meetings in 2 days even though they were warned to NOT do so.

5. WANT to know what one of OBAMA'S biggest complaints is about the USA???--That the SUPREME COURT will NOT OVERRIDE the will of the people to do what OBAMA or any DICTATOR would want them to do AGAINST WE THE PEOPLE.

Don't believe it??? Well, Melanie Phillips did a whole expose on the topic.

6. Now, the latest?? Obama wants to LEGALIZE Marijuana so that his "buddies' taliban and al-quaida can expand their financial horizons into the the USA at the expense of once again; the PUBLICS health, safety, and freedom.

7. Obama and DEMS ramble on endlessly about GITMO AND ABU GHRABU but yet the AL-QUIDA TORTURE manual which was confiscated by USA in iraq which contains torture so hideous it violates every convention law on the glob YET Obama and DEMS don't denounce it and want it hidden from the public.

To the present it's only one of the 1 % group of people attempting to destroy our Nation's economic systems and constitution.

WHY??? It was said to a WASH DC VIP---that the reason the Socialists think they will win this time and are doing this is because ACLU and their DEMS SLUGS -- they don't think America'S 99 % are " smart enough" to care to let their fingers do the walking to protect their lands, their CONSTITUTION or their freedoms. The DEMS and ACLU think America's 99% don't CARE enough to kick out and send WASH DC SLUGS packing and by way of Balagovich for NOT protecting PUBLICS FREEDOMS or RIGHTS or CONSTITUTION.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» F(&*^*&ing TROLL!! Posted by: MausMasher54

Comments are closed-

WHOSE SIDE ARE DEMS ON, ANYWAY--PART B
[Report this comment]
Posted by: SassyFrassy on Mar 25, 2009 1:33 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To the present it's only one of the 1 % group of people attempting to destroy our Nation's economic systems and constitution.

WHY??? It was said to a WASH DC VIP---that the reason the Socialists think they will win this time and are doing this is because ACLU and their DEMS SLUGS -- they don't think America'S 99 % are " smart enough" to care to let their fingers do the walking to protect their lands, their CONSTITUTION or their freedoms. The DEMS and ACLU think America's 99% don't CARE enough to kick out and send WASH DC SLUGS packing and by way of Balagovich for NOT protecting PUBLICS FREEDOMS or RIGHTS or CONSTITUTION.

Therefore, they want to make sure they take all freedoms away from the public and they want to make it impossible for FREE ENTERPRISE to exist for the small business and mid business and sole proprietorship thru gravytraining BIG BUSINESS bankrupting our Nation and MUSCLING OUT the small/med sole proprietorships, and creating a welfare state. A move straight out of the marxist handbook. and by attempting to eradicate free speech.

The marketplace will be MONOPOLIZED AND DOMINATED by the ENGORGED big businesses. it's why they cannot wait to get their hands on public money and THROW parties COSTING MILLIONS and big bonuses to CEO'S at the public expense.

however,Thomas Jefferson pretty well covered much about our situation today in two quotes made by him over 200 years ago. Our founders fathers feared what we are living today:

1. "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

2. "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."*

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Sir Posted by: theblackgeorgecarlin

Comments are closed-

"Fuhrer's law"
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Alminc on Mar 25, 2009 1:48 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh, come on. The second I saw that in the article, I knew immediately that the entire article was going to be skewed. Will we ever get a non biased media in America again?

Foot

paris sportif

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "Fuhrer's law" Posted by: Morell

Comments are closed-

But, Why didn't they do it?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Jbuuty on Mar 25, 2009 1:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've read Naomi Wolf's book. I've read this article. It's been a frightening situation. I often thought there would be a coup, if it looked like a Democrat might win the elections.

But, I don't understand. As it seems that they were preparing for some sort of fascist state, why didn't they go through with it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: But, Why didn't they do it? Posted by: Collielady
» RE: But, Why didn't they do it? Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: But, Why didn't they do it? Posted by: Sister_Lauren

Comments are closed-

Where we all these guys BEFORE?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Walks-in-Storms on Mar 25, 2009 3:36 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is like the total silence among all the financial experts before the recession began, the same experts who are not blabbering and bloviating about what it means, how to handle it, why what's being done is wrong or right, and more. Where were all these guys when Bush was savaging the Constitution? When I said, right her on AlterNet, that what our Fuhrer was doing was in fact treason, I got derision from the right and mindless knee-jerk political partisanship from the left.

When I said a first year law student could convict Bush in any court of the land, I got the same. What - it was rocket science? Harvard Law School law and legal reasoning? A man publicaly repudiates his oath of office, plots to set aside the constitution, then does proceeds to do just that, and we need a "top legal scholar" to tell us its treason?

Hell, I give up. Christ, what a menagerie! That much-vaunted "rule of law" we bellow to the world is bull-crap. Nothing more. Two and two is only four when someone elite - a Harvard or Yale man - tell us it's so.

It has to be corroborated by an "analyst" on CNN, or Fox, or one of the "major news networks" before it's so. I give up - this is literally (yes, you're damned right I know what the word means) ridiculous.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

This is news? W's "legal" power grab destroyed the Bill of Rights!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: socrates2 on Mar 25, 2009 3:40 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sometime back W legally grabbed, nay, was handed, the authority to "designate" _anyone_ on the planet--even a U.S. citizen within our Republic--an "enemy combatant" and have that individual subject to the horrors of "rendition" (torture and death by CIA proxies abroad) and "non-torture" water-boarding in your local, friendly military prison. And the "e.c." had no legal recourse!
At that point I knew the Bill of Rights was dead...
When Pelosi and flock looked the other way, and she perfunctorily said, "Impeachment is off the table" I knew the coup was a fait accompli.
Possibly one of the smoothest in American history. Not a shot was fired. No national scandal reported in the MSM. Mr. and Mrs. America woke up the next morning, sipped its cup of coffee, and it was as if nothing had changed. We entered a chilling future.
In November we voted Obama and yet no indictments of the conspirators. So, with no penalty for treason, expect history to repeat itself.
Who the next dictator will be I have no idea, but with those "powers" in place, we will surely have one...
God save the Republic!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

MEMO'S OF A PRESIDENT THAT DESTROYED OUR ECONOMY
[Report this comment]
Posted by: foxxx on Mar 25, 2009 4:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WHY NOT HAVE A COMMITTEE OF LEGAL MINDS AND AUTHORS REVIEW THE MEMO'S OF PRESIDENT BUSH AND HIS VICE PRESIDENT FROM 2000 TO 2008, SO WE CAN SEE WHAT IS NEEDED FOR THE FUTURE FOR AMERICA AND IF WRONG WAS ILLEGALLY DONE ON PURPOSE, THEN ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN LEGALLY. NO ONE IS ABOVE OUR LAWS. HAVE A NICE DAY. MIKE

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Name ONE good thing
[Report this comment]
Posted by: willymack on Mar 25, 2009 4:25 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
About the Texas turd or his "presidency".
Phony "elections' in 00 & 04.
Crime of the century more than seven years ago, and STILL no satisfactory explanation for it, or a REAL investigation into the REAL culprit(s).
AWOL "president" who had a cushy job defending marinas and country clubs in Texas against the Viet Cong, while others, more qualified were getting killed in that other phony war. When he got tired of playing soldier, he simply walked off the job and let Poppy clean up after him.
Two ruinous wars, based on dirty lies, while the chump-in-charge proudly proclaimed himself a war president.
Grand theft of our treasury by corporate America and the Pentagon, overseen by our pretend president and his goons.
Trashing the enviornment, the Constitution, and everything else held dear by our people.
The question is not whether the bush crime family is guilty of multiple crimes, but who's got the guts to initiate legal action against them. Hardly anybody at this time, it seems. Maybe it's time for we, the people to step up and demand justice, in all our millions. There are too many of us for even the most jaded bureaucrats to ignore if we make enough noise.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Name ONE good thing Posted by: bagsofsand

Comments are closed-

But how??
[Report this comment]
Posted by: l_m_n on Mar 25, 2009 4:28 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am still completely confused as to how anyone would consider those memos legal. It's appalling (though unsurprising) that the Bush administration would probe the legality of these rights. But who says these memos give Bush any authority? Why didn't they just write a memo saying gay marriage is illegal and save California the trouble? Why do we have to go through so much work to amend the constitution when they seem to be able to toss the whole thing out with nary a thought?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Corporate Media
[Report this comment]
Posted by: frank69 on Mar 25, 2009 4:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Never pay any attention to what the corporate media say about anything. I ignore it, and have done so for may years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

it can still happen
[Report this comment]
Posted by: cactus on Mar 25, 2009 5:14 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who's to say it won't happen this year or the next or the next? Imagine, the economic crisis worsens, the president is assassinated, there is massive civil protest and 2012 comes around. As long as there is no prosecution there is no repudiation of the legal validity of these statements. There are plenty of people in this country who think they would love to have this come to pass.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: it can still happen Posted by: Collielady

Comments are closed-

How can there be any question?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: symcokid on Mar 25, 2009 5:34 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush should be charged with war crimes along with his henchman Cheney. Hardly pays to expound on this and I can't figure out what the holdup is! We will be paying for George Bush's lawlessness for years to come.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

the coup began on 9/11 while Cheney
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kellysgarden on Mar 25, 2009 6:06 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
was in the bunker of the WH barking orders to the young man about the stand-down order and Bush was reading My Pet Goat.

There needed to be a reason Yoo wrote the memos, and the false flag of 9/11 was the "New Pearl Harbor" the PNAC planned.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

It's happened before
[Report this comment]
Posted by: login@bugmenot.com on Mar 25, 2009 6:50 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There was a coup attempt against the US Govt. in 1934 by industry,
mostly the oil companies. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
When the plot was uncovered the traitors threatened to withhold oil and other necessities from the US Govt, so the govt ASKED the traitors what punishment they would accept. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
In the end, Standard Oil paid a $1000 fine.
Bottom line: the people and the govt. are helpless against the corporations. In fact, the govt. is now in bed with the fascists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Losing the country!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: om7buss on Mar 25, 2009 6:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
yes, we are losing this country to a bunch of wall st manipulators that for many years had planned this situation. bush is one of the worst, but now we have the black bush that is getting worst, same people behinded; the infoumous hiden goverment...www.henrybook.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Treason...what the heck...why? I ll show you treason.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: knight on Mar 25, 2009 7:53 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ok so where was i when all my liberties or my familie's and friends' were restricted in the last 8 years? It wouldn t be the first time that a president suspends,keyword"suspends" Constitutional liberties to engage the enemy,Lincoln did.FDR put thousands of innocent people on detention camps,these people that Mr Ratner defends are hardly innocent,some are plain mudererers,if the rights of them are in jeopardy,hell let me take it a step further,enemies captured in the battlefield,I d shoot them myself,if it spares on american soldier s life,hell I d do it in a NY minute,there was no nazilike president or Mussolini's fascism,what we have here is a president who didn t care about his popularity with the left fringe,pacifists,Democrats,to keep the nation safe and that he did,my freedoms and liberties are intact,still have 3 branches of government,even if we are governed by asses at this time,but still there is no or never was any attempt by Mr Bush to do all the crazy things that Mr Ratner hiperventilates over.... I am safer than 16 years ago,Thank you Mr Bush....I miss my president.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» How does one write a picturebook? Posted by: bagsofsand

Comments are closed-

The Ultimate Irony
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Collielady on Mar 25, 2009 8:13 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just watch... Obama will make a mistake and the Rethugs will be all over him and likely impeach. The Rethugs will regain power and proceed to finish off the Constitution. Everyone who gave the Bush Cabal a pass will be hauled off in handcuffs. They'll wonder why their "reaching across the isle" wasn't appreciated. That's the ultimate irony here. But thinking people won't be at all surprised as they choke back "I told you so!". I'm afraid we should all have a secret hiding place.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 -