News If Bush knowingly lied about WMDs, should he go to jail?

[PhysicsRocks88]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
This is an if then question. I am not asserting that Bush lied.

If a fraud was perpetrated by Bush and some of his administration, on the people and Congress of this country, and the world in general, should he do time, or should he only be ruined and disgraced politically?

The answer is to simple to warrant a post.

Laws are in place - and punishments are in place for breakers of the law.

It is NOT against the law for the president to lie.

Therefore he would not go to jail if he lied.

Simple as that. It's not open for opinion!

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by PhysicsRocks88
The answer is to simple to warrant a post.

Laws are in place - and punishments are in place for breakers of the law.

It is NOT against the law for the president to lie.

Therefore he would not go to jail if he lied.

Simple as that. It's not open for opinion!

on the contrary, it is very much open to opinion (four pages of opinions, in fact). it is against the law for the president to lie if that lie was responsible for the needless deaths of many people.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by PhysicsRocks88
The answer is to simple to warrant a post.

Laws are in place - and punishments are in place for breakers of the law.

It is NOT against the law for the president to lie.

Therefore he would not go to jail if he lied.

Simple as that. It's not open for opinion!

Did you bother to read the criminal code that I posted. It clearly states the the law applies to anyone for any reason.. Please provide some evidence for your position as I did mine.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
This is the one that I wonder about. We sure do now hold a strategic position - right in the middle of the middle east. I have often wondered; given the threat of terrorism, could this be the true motive? We can now strike at will, anytime, anywhere in the middle east.

How is that differerent from when we "only" had bases in half a dozen of the other countries in the Middle East?

Not to mention, the majority of the airstrikes into Iraq came from the ocean or Missouri.

I don't know that you have my view penned exactly as it is...

I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, kat. I was hoping you'd clarify.

Originally posted by Zero
telling an uncomfortable truth is now defined as 'anti-american'...

Are you saying you seriously believe foreign medias don't ever lie or slant their stories to be anti-US? Bagdhad Bob was always truthful?

And, again, no end justifies lying..

Really? Haven't you ever take an ethics course? Or even simply THOUGHT about this issue? I can think of quite a few where it is easy to see the ends justifying the means. The typical example is what if you had a Jew in your house in 1938 in Germany and a Nazi knocked on your door asking if you had any Jews in the house? Do you lie and save your friend or tell the truth and send him to his death?

I have a real life example as well - a friend of my mother was taken to a concentration camp at age 12 or so. There they sorted the people by among other things age to determine who went to a work camp and who to a death camp. Being an early bloomer, her parents were able to lie to the Germans and tell them she was 16 (I'm not sure of the exact ages here). She lived instead of dying.

Have any kids? Always tell them the truth? Quantum mechanics? SANTA??

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
How is that differerent from when we "only" had bases in half a dozen of the other countries in the Middle East?

Not to mention, the majority of the airstrikes into Iraq came from the ocean or Missouri.

Ah, but we sure had to kiss some butts didn't we. And we surely did not get the kind of access desired. Turkey never did let us in. Then we have Syria, Iran, Libya, Yemen, Egypt, Pakistan, all unfriendly or potentially so; and of course our friends the Saudis - 15 of which were 9/11 terrorist. If access was not an issue, then why did we spend so much time negotiating with so many countries. Additionally, if some of these guys were to turn on us, access could be much more of an issue. But not anymore. We now have strategic control of the entire middle east. The irony of this is that even I've got to love it! I may have moral or ethical objections to one thing or another, but it hard to argue with the military position we have; in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Of course, things could still get real ugly...again. And of course, American strength in the Middle East is why we have terrorists in the first place.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
And of course, American strength in the Middle East is why we have terrorists in the first place.

Everything else was ok except for this. Terrorism far predates any permanent US presence in the Middle East and certainly predates the oft cited presence of the US in Saudia Arabia. The root cause of the Arab hatred for the US is our support for Israel.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Everything else was ok except for this. Terrorism far predates any permanent US presence in the Middle East and certainly predates the oft cited presence of the US in Saudia Arabia. The root cause of the Arab hatred for the US is our support for Israel.

This is really what I meant. This, in addition to our [the military industrial complex] arms sales, the artificial borders that resulted from the world wars, and finally, our political role and the influence that we impose on the area. Much of this really goes back to Israel, but our oil interests also go back to the 1920s.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Did anyone watch the Jim Lehrer News hour on PBS tonight? They showed Bush on Polish TV stating that we had found WMDs. This related to the alleged chemical trucks that checked out completely clean. This guy knows no limits! He has no regard for the truth; unlike Clinton.

 

[Zero]

Oh, here's something interesting...seems like we can blame Clinton after all...since most of the evidence used about WMD comes from 5 years ago!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7276-2003Jul3.html?nav=hptop_ts

How they go from that to claiming that the WMD were there 5 years later is beyond me...but read it yourself.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Zero
Oh, here's something interesting...seems like we can blame Clinton after all...since most of the evidence used about WMD comes from 5 years ago!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7276-2003Jul3.html?nav=hptop_ts

How they go from that to claiming that the WMD were there 5 years later is beyond me...but read it yourself.

"There is evidence of exaggeration not just by administration leaders," he said, "but by the intelligence community which are subject to review . . . to see whether they're objective and accurate so that we can in the future rely on our intelligence."

Hmmm. Now who has close ties to the intelligence community? Let me see...could it beeeee...daddy? How conviiieeeeeenent.

All in all, I really thought this report favors Bush more than not. However, it would seem that as a best case scenario, the imminent threat and the WMDs that "we know are around Tikrit" [as per Rummy], were really assumptions based on weak information that is up to ten years old. Gee, I don't feel lied to. IS this a lie? Wait, what is the meaning of IS? Boy politics gets complicated.

 

[Ganshauk]

Clinton lied about his affairs.

Bush MAY have lied about WMDs.

The difference is, when Clinton lied, he had been sworn under oath to tell the truth in a court of law. This is known as perjury, and is a most heinous criminal offense.

If it turns out that Bush lied, he will sow his own seeds of woe and possibly end his career, but it is not criminal.

I think that focusing on the administration's disinformation techniques is irrelevant. I believe that whether we find WMDs or not, whether Bush lied or not, has no bearing whatsoever upon the fact that a very dangerous man has been removed from power before he could cause irrevocable harm to the world.

I have no doubts that Hussein would have burned the world if he could, and had long term aspirations to do so. This "talking-point" rhetoric is only an obvious and pathetic attempt of the democratic party to save its drowning self by grasping at any floating object that comes to hand.

In true style, like those who find themselves on the wrong side of an argument, the left has taken to pointing fingers, muckraking, and calling names without any real contribution to the current situation.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Bush MAY have lied about WMDs.

The difference is, when Clinton lied, he had been sworn under oath to tell the truth in a court of law. This is known as perjury, and is a most heinous criminal offense.

Actually it has already been established that Bush could be guilty of criminal offenses. Conspiracy and fraud against the US make Clinton look like a boy scout.

If it turns out that Bush lied, he will sow his own seeds of woe and possibly end his career, but it is not criminal.

If he knowingly lied, US law calls for up to 20 years of jail time.
United States Code
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 19 - CONSPIRACY
U.S. Code as of: 01/02/01
Section 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.


United States Code
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 47 - FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS
U.S. Code as of: 01/02/01
Section 1001. Statements or entries generally
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any
matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or
judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly
and willfully -
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or
device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation;
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to
contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years,
or both.


Section 1031. Major fraud against the United States
(a) Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, any scheme
or artifice with the intent -
(1) to defraud the United States; or
(2) to obtain money or property by means of false or fraudulent
pretenses, representations, or promises, in any procurement of property or services as a prime contractor with the United States or as a subcontractor or supplier on a contract in which there is a prime contract with the United States, if the value of the contract, subcontract, or any constituent part thereof, for such property or services is $1,000,000 or more shall,subject to the applicability of subsection (c) of this section,

shall be fined not more than 1,000,000, or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both

I think that focusing on the administration's disinformation techniques is irrelevant. I believe that whether we find WMDs or not, whether Bush lied or not, has no bearing whatsoever upon the fact that a very dangerous man has been removed from power before he could cause irrevocable harm to the world.

I have no doubts that Hussein would have burned the world if he could, and had long term aspirations to do so. This "talking-point" rhetoric is only an obvious and pathetic attempt of the democratic party to save its drowning self by grasping at any floating object that comes to hand.

In true style, like those who find themselves on the wrong side of an argument, the left has taken to pointing fingers, muckraking, and calling names without any real contribution to the current situation.

Yes the constitution is just another liberal left wing agenda. Considering that you consider fraud and conspiracy by King George as pro-American, I can see why you don’t understand the argument. It is this kind of blind patriotism that defiles the very principles upon which this country was based. Clinton was an embarrasing shame. Bush is dangerous, an insult, and a disgrace. I would rather have a brilliant scoundrel for president than a dimwitted zealot.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Actually it has already been established that Bush could be guilty of criminal offenses.

"Could?" and established by whom? You?

As I said before, that law is so broad as to be utterly meaningless.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Ganshauk
Clinton lied about his affairs.

Bush MAY have lied about WMDs.

The difference is, when Clinton lied, he had been sworn under oath to tell the truth in a court of law. This is known as perjury, and is a most heinous criminal offense.

If it turns out that Bush lied, he will sow his own seeds of woe and possibly end his career, but it is not criminal.

I think that focusing on the administration's disinformation techniques is irrelevant. I believe that whether we find WMDs or not, whether Bush lied or not, has no bearing whatsoever upon the fact that a very dangerous man has been removed from power before he could cause irrevocable harm to the world.

I have no doubts that Hussein would have burned the world if he could, and had long term aspirations to do so. This "talking-point" rhetoric is only an obvious and pathetic attempt of the democratic party to save its drowning self by grasping at any floating object that comes to hand.

In true style, like those who find themselves on the wrong side of an argument, the left has taken to pointing fingers, muckraking, and calling names without any real contribution to the current situation.

Thank you for cutting and pasting from the Republican Party website, but we have rules against copyright violations.

The fact that your entire post is completely wrong makes your source pretty obvious.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
"Could?" and established by whom? You?

As I said before, that law is so broad as to be utterly meaningless.

I know that you never agreed with this, but the law is very clear. Even King George is subject to US law...if he gets caught.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I know that you never agreed with this, but the law is very clear. Even King George is subject to US law...if he gets caught.

You didn't answer the question. Established by whom? If I don't agree and a lot of other people don't agree, then it is very much still up for debate.

And clear isn't always clear. Its clear that anyone can be tried for fraud for any deception. But clearly that doesn't happen. There is a reason for that.

Also, the law with regard to foreign citizens are more complicated (even worse if they are government officals). Best not to go into that.

Thank you for cutting and pasting from the Republican Party website, but we have rules against copyright violations.

Link? Maybe Ganshauk needs to copy my sig.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Its clear that anyone can be tried for fraud for any deception.

My new signature?

Not for any deception, for committing fraud against the US. If this does not constitute fraud - assuming Bush knowingly lied about the evidence - then what does?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
If this does not constitute fraud - assuming Bush knowingly lied about the evidence - then what does?

Ivan, that's exactly my point: *EVERYTHING* does. So much that its utterly meaningless. If you wanted to put Bush in jail for it, to be consistent you'd also need to arrest all of Congress (not that that would necessarily be a bad thing).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Ivan, that's exactly my point: *EVERYTHING* does. So much that its utterly meaningless. If you wanted to put Bush in jail for it, to be consistent you'd also need to arrest all of Congress (not that that would necessarily be a bad thing).

First, I am sure that these laws are used to convict people on a regular basis. These ARE the primary US laws relating to Fraud and Conspiracy. Also, people from Watergate did go to jail on just such charges. You make it sound as if there is no law because it is so plainly stated otherwise. If you lie to the government about your taxes you can go to jail. If you lie about your ID you can to jail. Conspiracy to defraud in a money scheme lands you in jail. Presenting false evidence to congress can land you in jail. There is precedence. How many examples should I give?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
There is precedence. How many examples should I give?

One would be fine. Can you provide one example of a politician being jailed for something he claimed in a political speach?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
One would be fine. Can you provide one example of a politician being jailed for something he claimed in a political speach?

The issue is: False information presented to congress.
Most of the people that went to jail over watergate were prosecuted on similar charges. Nixon resigned because if he hadn't, he stood to bare the full brunt of the law.

 

[Zero]

I say we put Bush under oath, and see what he has to say. There are too many questions with poor answers to allow the administration to whitewash it.

 

[zeronem]

Russ, I believe Ivan Seeking is trying to get across to you that Nobody is above the Law.

Anyways, I think Mr. Bush and the Intelligence were planning the Iraq Invasion to be more easier then they thought. In fact we even gave the Iraq Soldiers the choice to surrender so we could easily take Saddam out. Lots surrendered and lots didn't. Bush made his motive for taking out Saddam by using the "WMD reason" more then the "Saddam Kills and tortures the Iraq people reason".

I really think we went in there to take Saddam out of the position of Ruling Iraq. Saddam is no different from a Mob Leader. He's no different from a criminal. Who would want a Criminal to have power over a country? I know I wouldn't. Bush talked and talked on the WMD that way he could get Saddam out of power of Iraq. It was the only better reason to use so he could do it.

Bush's true motives were to remove Saddam so the Iraq people would no longer have to suffer. Not because of WMD. Thats only my opinion. I don't know about you, but when I saw all those Iraq people shouting USA and blowing kisses to the American Soldiers on the News, my eyes got a little watery and it takes a lot to make my eyes watery, because I am a rather cold person.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by zeronem
Russ, I believe Ivan Seeking is trying to get across to you that Nobody is above the Law.

And I certainly agree.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

G:
Nobody died because of Clinton's fillandering and subversion. Lots of guys died from Bush's lies. You think Bush is morally superior? I don't.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
G:
Nobody died because of Clinton's fillandering and subversion. Lots of guys died from Bush's lies. You think Bush is morally superior? I don't.

I'm not sure what the relevence of bringing up Clinton is in this, but do you know who said this:

"outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals."

and this

"We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq." ?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by kat
I'm not sure what the relevence of bringing up Clinton is in this, but do you know who said this:

"outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals."

and this

"We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq." ?

Clinton?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
G:
Nobody died because of Clinton's fillandering and subversion. Lots of guys died from Bush's lies. You think Bush is morally superior? I don't.

As someone pointed out in another thread, if you pick your spin carefully enough, you can get people to say that Hitler is morally superior to Churchill and Roosevelt. There is more to both of them than those two statements.

I've said on several occasions, that Clinton's fillandering was merely a symptom of a more systemic problem: Clinton was unfit as a leader.

 

[Shadow]

G:
Nobody died because of Clinton's fillandering and subversion. Lots of guys died from Bush's lies. You think Bush is morally superior? I don't.

Well perhaps in this country no but outside this country? Yes. Schwartz or anyone else for that matter, have you thought of all the people that died at the hand of Saddam, Osama bin laden, and the various tyrants currently in power? Sure Clinton did nothing but perhaps if he DID do something, he could have saved many lives outside of the US. And, although it is sad to say this, I think it may have taken the war (on terror and saddam) to show people that we are paying attention and that we do care, despite what they think.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Clinton was unfit as a leader.

In spite of the fact that I did not support impeachment, you may be surprised to know that I agree. Too bad really. I think he had the potential to do great things.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters


I've said on several occasions, that Clinton's fillandering was merely a symptom of a more systemic problem: Clinton was unfit as a leader.

Would you care to explain how this relates to Bush on any level, even if it were true?

 

[Shadow]

He was responding to Schwartz. Look back a few posts, schwartz said

Nobody died because of Clinton's fillandering and subversion. Lots of guys died from Bush's lies. You think Bush is morally superior? I don't.

So we've been responding. hope i helped.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Shadow
He was responding to Schwartz. Look back a few posts, schwartz said




So we've been responding. hope i helped.

Thanks alot...you just got this thread locked.

Have a nice day.