Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News High Crimes and Treason!

  1. Oct 30, 2005 #1
    I thinks it time to compile a list of the High Crimes and Treason committed by the cabal. Just to get things going I have few:

    1)Lying to the Congress, the Senate, and to the People to justify military actions. IMHO, this is the highest crime that can be commited and so far they have faced no consequences. By default, those representitives that supported this action also are complicit.

    2) Violation of The War Crimes Act of 1996
    3)With the Patriot Act being reinstituted plus more amendments that are unconstitutional, I charge this administration and the legislative bodies that support the act with subversion of the constitution. Violating the constitution and the principles is stands for should never be taken lightly.

    The list is long and it does go back five years, back to the 2000 election. That's one place to start!

    Though I am just a laymen when it comes to the law, it doesn't take a scholar to see what is happening.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 30, 2005 #2

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I'm with ya, but I suspect you are attempting to reason with those who continue to defend Bush and his administration. The hard core Bush supporters are not educated on political matters or the issues of the day; they don't want to be; their minds are closed; you can present all the evidence per logic of the scientific method and they will not believe—they hate academia and prefer simple black and white answers to things no matter how illogical; they...well read the first quote in my signature.

    This is really a problem, underneath the carpet as it were, but if we are really going to clean house this needs to be addressed, whether improving education, encouraging better citizenship, ensuring distribution of accurate information, etc. Maybe instead of making more and more threads about facts (nothing against your OP—I agree with it fully), but maybe we should skip it and begin to discuss the roots of the problems and how to resolve these, then maybe everything else will be corrected in turn.
     
  4. Oct 30, 2005 #3

    Diane_

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    I realize this is probably an odd idea, but do you suppose it's possible for someone to disagree with you politically and not be either stupid, evil, or both?
     
  5. Oct 30, 2005 #4

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Whether or not one is a Bush supporter, you can't charge someone unless they have actually broken the law. Maybe #2 fits that, but all I can say is good luck. As far as I can tell, Bush and his cabinet may be partially responsible for creating an environment in which war crimes were likely to take place, but doing that is not itself a war crime. Short of a memo from Rumsfeld telling field commanders "torture them," I don't see what you'd be able to get here.

    Also here, whether or not that is your opinion, it's not the law. If one can prove that Bush actually knew his intelligence was incorrect and pushed it through anyway, you can probably charge him with fraud. That would be enough to get him out of office, but again, good luck proving that. Bush wasn't the only one believing his intelligence to be correct. You'd pretty much be pitting the opinions of one intelligence man against the opinions of another.

    You might have some outside chance at proving a crime has been committed with your other two, but not with this. Congress has the right to pass any legislation that it wants, then it is up to the courts to determine whether or not it is constitutional. Note that congressmen were not punished for passing the alien and sedition acts. You might think these laws subvert the constitution, but unfortunately it isn't your place to say. That decision is up to the courts. Whatever parts they find to be in violation, they will strike down. Thus far, the Act has been upheld, which means, simply and plainly, that it is not unconstitutional, regardless of any arguments you might make to the contrary (I can guarantee you that these same arguments have been made to the courts and they have not bought them).
     
  6. Oct 30, 2005 #5

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Hmm...funny, one of my good friends and colleagues is a Bush supporter...he's an academic scientist, and keeps himself educated on politics, he just has different opinions on it. People can have different opinions without being stupid or uneducated, and remarks such as this are not conducive to an open discussion.

    I don't think Bush is a good leader, I didn't vote for him, but geez, it gets tiresome hearing the rants of people trying to form a lynch mob and attacking the intelligence of his supporters as if they don't have a right to a different opinion. Maybe their priorities are simply different from yours?
     
  7. Oct 30, 2005 #6

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Several such memos exist - they were all cleared by the JAG as compliant with US and International Law. There's this one memo I recall which included an "extra" set of torture ("counter-resistance techniques") practices which were not yet cleared by JAG but Rummy had recommended that the Legal counsel at Gitmo check them for compliance with the law before they be used.

    I think this is it : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/dodmemos.pdf
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2005
  8. Oct 30, 2005 #7

    Tide

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I think liberal paranoia is hitting new lows everyday. Cabal?? Gimme a break!
     
  9. Oct 30, 2005 #8
    I've known this argument before and find it very easy to drive a rather large bus through the hole.

    Before I state it, I am not attempting to say your friend is a Nazi but to draw a parallel:

    Ahem ... [Just starting Bus]

    Scientists know their field but it is no guarantee they know anything about politics after all, the Nazi war machine was driven by brilliant scientists who created rockets to deliver payloads to London in the form of the V1 and V2.

    They, including Dr. Mengele, played quite a large part in the evolution of 'the final solution', the experimentation involved and the dehumanization of particular sub-cultures.

    To attempt to elevate the scientist as something above the 'norm' is a logical fallacy.

    After all, the Nobel Peace Prize is an attempt at appeasment of a scientist who invented something and then realized the horror he had released upon the world.
     
  10. Oct 30, 2005 #9
    What a coincidence, I think everyone in North America is hitting new lows everyday.

    Punks arn't even punk anymore, I can't trust anyone.
     
  11. Oct 30, 2005 #10

    Tide

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    There is substantial evidence here to support that hypothesis! :)
     
  12. Oct 30, 2005 #11

    Tide

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    It's always sumthin' -- to coin a phrase! :)
     
  13. Oct 30, 2005 #12
    Cabal is the term that was used by Lawrence Wilkerson in a speech on October 6 2005. He was referring to the highly secretive actions of the Bush administrations inner circle. Lawrence Wilkerson was Colin Powells Chief of staff when Powell was Secretary of State. Cabal has been used extensively in the news recently as others picked up on it.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...0,7455395.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

    There were no WMD found in Iraq and WMD was our primary reason for starting the war. Either someone manufactured the evidence or we have the most dismal intellegence gathering capabilities of any modern country.
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2005
  14. Oct 30, 2005 #13

    Tide

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I am aware of that. Someone, for whatever reason, overstates his case by misusing the language and now it becomes mantra. It's consistent with the notion that someone made serious mistakes wrt Iraq and now we call it "lies." Now everything is a conspiracy. <gasp!>
     
  15. Oct 30, 2005 #14
    Again ... this is 'point of view' ... many people when viewing documents like 'The Downing Street Memo' have the urge to take the vast difference between what was said by the US administration at the time and the intervening time and reality and call it 'lies'.

    I can't see how that would have happened, can you?:surprised
     
  16. Oct 30, 2005 #15
    Actually Wilkersons case was very well substantiated. Everything done by the administration ,as far as reasons to Invade Iraq, was so secretive..........
    If the shoe fits.
     
  17. Oct 30, 2005 #16

    Tide

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    That's a polite way of saying "political spin" in which case it impossible to conduct reasoned discussion.
     
  18. Oct 30, 2005 #17
    believe it or not, you're opinion isn't actually fact.
     
  19. Oct 30, 2005 #18
    SOMBODY's been listening to Mr. O'Reiley again.

    Now if you can actually read a top secret document originating from the government of the UK, the allies of the USA, and written before the invasion describing how the US administration intended to build the case for war and then not question what has been said, it is you who is spinning, my friend.

    The best answer I have heard so far from the other side of the pond has been 'what's done is done so let's let it fall by the wayside and get on to the rebuilding of Iraq'.

    Meanwhile you're attempting to roast Rove's chestnuts because he outed Plame.

    No, THAT is spin.

    Let's let scooter fall on his sword because the alternative is that the administration goes down... THAT IS SPIN.

    Do you really think we 'foreigners' are idiots?

    You've been caught with the evidence explaining how you set up the case for invasion and the best you can do is prosecute a guy called 'Scooter' for whispering a name to a newspaper reporter?

    Thousands of people have died and you're bing amused by a rumourmonger, a tattle-tale, someone who committed the high treason of telling who might have given them the right information for once?

    Please man, where is your perspective?

    Don't you realize your government has somehow managed to SPIN this so you believe that this is justice?

    Shame.
     
  20. Oct 30, 2005 #19

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Gukol, I meant that an illegal memo would have to be found. If these were all either cleared or not to be used until they were cleared, they're useless to anyone trying to prove criminal behavior.
     
  21. Oct 30, 2005 #20

    Tide

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Well, golleee, that sure makes you sound credible! I am not worthy, I am not worthy! :)
     
  22. Oct 30, 2005 #21

    Tide

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    TSM,

    Get real. I made no assertions beyond the observation that this discussion is spin city personified. Mr. O'Reilly doesn't have a copyright on the word and you have your nerve resorting to such cheap shots and lame tactics in a feeble attempt to save your political dogma.

    I'm fully aware of what MI5 wrote and this is the same intelligence ministry that got the yellow cake thing wrong. Tell me something new. Again, paranoia? Conspiracy? It looks like X-Files all over again.

    Meanwhile, you continue attempting to put words in people's mouths. Rather undignified, wouldn't you say?

    From your vantage point I am the foreigner and your implications are just plain silliness. Remind me, I seem to be having a slight mental lapse here. Didn't I assert that it is impossible to have serious discourse on political matters? You're making my case with each line you write.

    Apparently, Smurf didn't recognize there's a whole lot of OPINION being cast about - very thinly disguised as fact! :)

    Do you think all Americans are naive dolts? Give us some credit, man! I'll avoid the tempatation to respond in kind with mention of your government, its tactics and its "adherents."

    I couldn't have said it better myself.
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2005
  23. Oct 31, 2005 #22

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    One can never make generalities as there will always be exceptions to the rule. This is why I usually refer to the hard-core Bush supporters as around 20% of Americans. Of that percent, there are a few who are well informed and do a better job of making their case, and I accept a differing opinion when people provide evidence for their views. However, my personal experience is that most people who have supported Bush do little to educate themselves about politics and world affairs, and it shows

    The frustration with this mind set has been ongoing since the short time before the invasion of Iraq. During this time people (like me) who were against the invasion insisted there were no WMD, that there was no connection between Saddam and Bin Laden. Those of us who dared speak against Bush were despised. Now the facts support our claims. But still the facts are not accepted. Talk about tiresome.

    So I stand by what I said above—it is a waste of time attempting a logical debate with people who made up their minds long ago and then threw away the key.
     
  24. Oct 31, 2005 #23

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Well, you're in luck: there aren't any hard-core Bush supporters on this board! :surprised The last one we had got banned a few months back. Since this board is so heavily liberal, the hard-core conservatives tend to get into fights quickly, and get themselves banned. Sometimes they take a hard-core liberal with them...

    In any case, this discussion was had a week or so ago, and I'll say what I said then: show crimes. Just because you don't like or don't agree with something Bush did, doesn't make it a crime. And even if there were crimes, Presidents are so well-insulated that it would be near impossible to nail him for anything (Iran-Contra). Loseyourname's hypothetical is typical: there won't be any such memo, even if Bush did order actions known to be torture. And even if some poorly-phrased memos did exist, he could just destroy them or claim executive privelege (a la Memogate).

    All Presidents do things that others would like to nail them for, but short of taking a deposition and hitting them for abstruction of justice (Clinton), there really isn't anything to be had.
    That's actually a pretty good benchmark issue to identify people on the fringe on both sides: a conservative who believes Saddam was connected to 9/11 is probably on the fringe and a liberal who sees the connection made in a discussion when it wasn't is probably on the liberal fringe.
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2005
  25. Oct 31, 2005 #24
    What is hard-core liberal, and who would that be?
    Likewise, just because you do not have proof, it does not equate to innocence. In the case of the CIA leak, there is more indication of guilt than innocence. In other words, there is even less proof that the Bush administration did not attempt to suppress Wilson's report. Wilson's findings were known before Bush's speech. At the minimum the findings were ignored, but IMHO the leak occurred to discredit these findings. The administration was in the wrong and behaved unethically if not illegally, and regardless of indictments, everyone knows it.
    There have been members who have claimed there were WMD—not imagined.
     
  26. Oct 31, 2005 #25

    Tide

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    IL,

    Nor does it equate to guilt. The burden of proof is on those making the charge.

    Is that called wishful thinking? It's not the case according to the prosecutor who reviewed a lot more evidence than you have access to.

    The operative word is "opinion." The contrary evidence is that Wilson was unqualified to make such an assessment. He was not the spook. His wife was. Moreover, he claimed to have been sent by Cheney. Cheney clumsily pointed out that he did not send Wilson and one should look at his contacts in the CIA for Wilson's invitation. And you think it is something new for politicians to discredit "the other side?"

    Incidentally, doesn't it seem somewhat odd to anyone that Wilson filed his "report" in op-ed pieces in the NYT and Washington post? HINT: It's called POLITICS!

    Everyone? LoL! Hey, who needs facts anyhow? They are such a petty nuisance! :)
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook