This is encompasses Padilla;, warrentless wire tapping & changing up the law for one’s benefit.

1) In the case of Padilla (regardless of guilt or innocence), he was at first labeled a “Combative Enemy” with no right to a trial, a lawyer and allowed to be totrtured to get a confession

The charges labled against him were for POTENTIALLY setting off a dirty bomb in the USA. He was held for 2-3 years like this.

When the Supreme court overruled that he was a US Citizen & US Citizens must be given a trial, Those charges were CHANGED to aiding the enemy Overseas and had nothing to do with a dirty bomb plot. (I am NOT contesting that he was found guilty)

What happens to all those years he was held illegally on (possibly..who really knows? ) trumped up charges that were changed once he had to go to a real court of law?

Can anyone be held accountable for being able to whisk any American off the street & held without a lawyer illegally?

2)
In the case of warrentless wiretapping of US citizens:

First, The Attorney general said you didn’t need FISA to listen to American phone calls.

Then the Upper management of the DOJ ruled that it was ILLEGAL to do so to Americans (This is what lead to Gonzoles trring to get a doped-up Ashcroft to sign off on it in the famous hospital incident). ]

He was shut down but, ON BUSHS’ ORDER, they CONTINUNED to do it anyway.

Recently congressioanl idiots just gave that power back to the Administration.

What happens to all those years they were illegally wiretapping Americans ANYWAY?

Can anyone be held accountable for being able to listen in on an American phone call illegally?

IS (or Will) ANYONE EVER be able to be held accountable for acting illegally before a law is changed/redacted?

What do we need to do to assure that POTUS #44 sufficiently cleans up these messes?

I am thinking that we need to pressure our POTUS #44 candidates.

Which candidates will vow to pull out these programs by the roots and which will try and cover it all up and just say “Time to move on”

As for a flurry of pardons, any Bush official who receives a pardon and no one knows what crime he or she allegedly committed should be subpoena-ed by Congress and forced to elaborate on what exactly they were pardon-ed for.

And if there is evidence of crimes not disclosed during that Congressional appearance, prosecute for perjury. If they fully disclose what they did that required a pardon, then thank them for their time and wish ‘em a nice life.

An ad hoc checks and balances on excessive use of the Executive pardon power.

The Secret Program Known only to 5 & FISA #2

DR, another great diary. As you know, I have maintained since seeing Abu testify that there exists a secret program that the DoJ was kept in the dark about in order to maintain “plausible deniability” – a page from the Iran Contra chapter in the R-thug Stonewalling a Scandal Handbook – applying the Mushroom Theory- Keep Em in the Dark, and Feed Em S**t.

My original hypothesis was that the full extent of the program was known only by Bush, Rove Cheney and Addington, but was hidden from Ashcroft and the DoJ.

As a reliable syncophant, I think Abu knows too, and that is all the more reason to impeach the SOB. As far as getting to the truth, I have always found found when prosecuting corporate or government cover ups, it critical to get to the ‘worker bees’ who must do the actual implementation, as opposed to the queens at the top.

That is another reason why the next FISA debate is a must win, and the wiretap cases in SF are so vital, because the potential is there to blow the lid off this crap. Let’s not lose sight of the real fight in FISA Round 2, is the effort to stop this kind of case in its tracks by immunizing the telecom companies.

This is the Administration’s prime objective- check this out

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070806-5.html

Our Work Is Not Done — This Act Is A Temporary, Narrowly Focused Statute To Deal With The Most Immediate Needs Of The Intelligence Community To Protect The Country. When Congress returns in September, the Intelligence Committees and leaders in both parties will need to complete work on the comprehensive reforms requested by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, including the important issues of providing meaningful liability protection to those who are alleged to have assisted our Nation following the attacks of September 11, 2001.

The telecom workers who have to implement the spy program hold the key – and I hope the Committees will talk to these people before considering FISA again.

The loyal Bushies are playing hardball, and will stop at nothing to checkmate this process in FISA Round 2, and THEY MUST BE STOPPED- PERIOD.

Think it thorough – the Congressional Gang of 8 was told the truth – as the DoJ officials knew it – but that is not the whole story.

…. In conclusion, winning the next FISA battle and impeaching ABU hold the keys to the kingdom.

It strikes me that the dems were elected to end the war. Now we’re waiting to see what Bush’s new report says (the Petraus report). Huh? I thought we were going to end this senseless war. Dems let Bush re-frame the debate…again.

Likewise, it’s just spiffy that Mueller’s notes prove that Gonzales lied, but what more proof did we need? Didn’t anyone watch the testimony (partisans aside)? There’s no recourse for those on this board but to throw out the bums who failed to throw out the bums who sold out our country.

dan

How?

Here, read this:

St. Thomas Aquinas on the Natural Law.

this might help you understand too:

To sum it up, then, we can say that the natural law:

• is not made by human beings;

• is based on the structure of reality itself;

• is the same for all human beings and at all times;

• is an unchanging rule or pattern which is there for human beings to discover;

• is the naturally knowable moral law;

• is a means by which human beings can rationally guide themselves to their good.

This comment is curious: “The Constitution will be changed to reflect this.” Suppose your argument were true — that we, today, are relying on “future law” to justify his action to day. This is not legal:

it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act.

You have no legal basis to say “perhaps the lie might be changed in the future, therefore today we shall permit illegal activity.” May not put “God’s law” at the basis for the law of the land, when the law of the land is Supreme the Supreme Law.

“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land”Art VI

Finding no reference to “God’s law” — in the Constitution — as the Supreme Law, your assertion is meaningless.

Comment by Anon — August 16, 2007 @ 7:06 pm

God’s Laws of Natural Justice trump all of man’s laws. President Bush is doing what is morally Just and he is therefore not a criminal. The Constitution will be changed to reflect this.

Comment by “peaches” from peaches n’ cream — August 16, 2007

You’ve contradicted yourself. “There comes a time in the course of events when a Nations Constitution is no longer adequate when it comes to protecting citizens and preserving the Nation.” Until the Constitution is changed, it must be protected as it is; not ignored. You contradict yourself when you assert he is not required to defend this Constitution; but he is not a criminal: But until then, he is anything but a criminal. The very definitino of a criminal is one who refuses to enforce their oath, as has this President.

Putting above aside, you cited nothing to suport your view. the other view has more support:

Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually;Fed 78

You cant argue that the President can ignore the Constituion or call for “new things” as the basis to ignore it or justify it. Your argument fails.

Comment by Anon — August 16, 2007 @ 6:35 pm
———–

You are both wrong. But technically, Anon is less wrong.

There comes a time in the course of events when a Nations Constitution is no longer adequate when it comes to protecting citizens and preserving the Nation. It is at such a time when a True Leader, such as The Honorable President of The United States of America George W. Bush, beckons to the call of the People, and forges a new standard of Patriotism and Heroism.

Only later will the Constitution be changed to liking of The Honorable President George W. Bush. But until then, he is anything but a criminal. Although technically the Constitution may present what seems to be contradictory statements.

“To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;Art 1 Sec 8

Indeed, the Congress has power to raise a militia; yet the President has the power to put down the illegal rebellion. What happens when Congressional power to raise a militia is at odds with the President’s rebellion, and his power to choose to do nothingabout his illegal conduct? Without action, the Constitution is left on its own, impermissibly.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. . . .” Art. III, § 3.

Nothing in there remotely resembling what you’re talking about. Zip.

If he wasn’t following the US Constitution, but as you say engaged in treason, then he must have followed some laws outside the US. You fail to explain which “non-US laws” Bush is explicitly adhering. If the President was “scrupulously” following another nation’s laws, would that evidence not be clear, obvious? There is no evidence. It doesn’t exist. Your argument fails.

No, you failed to justify your assertion: “Treason is the proper classification for those actions. Based on your argument, you’ve shown that they could not be prosecuted for treason.

Here, you’re wrong.

Incorrect. “Treason” requires something else: Foreign component, combat, warfare; and direct evidence ofhaving support the foreign enemy. This isn’t treason. It’s illegal activity: FISA violation.

This one single event, will be paramount at Bush’s trial as well.

That night, he knowingly tried to get a man, who was not only drugged, weak and practically comatose, but also NOT the Attorney General, to sign an illegal document that only the Attorney General could sign.

That was an act of open treason, where the president, and his lawyer, tried to overthrow the constitution, and when he failed, he fired the Attorney General and made his lawyer the AG.

Treason is the proper classification for those actions.