 |
|
Add to My Group
|
July 16, 2008 at 06:05:42
Federal Judge Ruling: George W. Bush is a Felon by Len Hart Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
 
|
Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of the US District Court in California has ruled that President George W. Bush is a felon. The ruling stems from the case of Al-Harmain Islamic Foundation Inc. v Bush, a case which will now be remembered as making it official that Bush's program of 'warrantless spying' is illegal.
Judge Walker held that the president lacks the authority to disregard the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA -- which means Bush's warrantless electronic surveillance program was illegal. Whether Bush will ultimately be held accountable for violating federal law with the program remains unclear. Bush administration lawyers have fought vigorously -- at times using brazen, logic-defying tactics -- to prevent that from happening. The court battle will continue to play out as Congress continues to battle over recasting FISA and possibly granting immunity to telecom companies involved in the illegal surveillance. --Suing George W. Bush: A bizarre and troubling taleThe complete story at Sott.net outlines the sorry history of how the Bush administration has defined the law of this nation as well as the laws of common sense and decency to carry out a program that would have made even Richard Nixon or J. Edgar Hoover blush. It would seem to me that it's now well established that Bush is indictable in a Federal Court. It is also my understanding that any sitting federal judge can now --upon his/her own motion --convene a federal grand jury to investigate Bush's many violations of federal law, not the least of which are US Codes, Title 18, Section 2441, which make Bush subject to the penalty of death for each death of his war of aggression in Iraq.
(a) Offense.- Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.It's easy to find evidences of Bush's tyranny. Here's a headline linked from the article cited above.--TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 118 > § 2441 § 2441. War crimes
It is the Bush administration which has pressed this issue, an issue that has come up, until Bush, just four times in 23 years. But since 911 and the Bush wars for which it is fraudulently cited in justification, Bush has seized upon a Supreme Court ruling of 1953 to justify sweeping authority far beyond anything that could have been envisioned by the courts. Mere mention of two words --'state secrets' --was always enough to get a wink and nod from a federal judge. Things have changed. There is the possibility that George W. Bush is under investigation by a Federal Grand Jury as we write this.Editor's note: This article is part of a Salon investigative series on spying inside the United States by the Bush administration. Research support for the article was provided by the Nation Institute Investigative Fund.
Spying on Americans without warrants, charges based on secret evidence, a small town divided by fear. Welcome to the world of Bush's "specially designated global terrorists." May 19, 2008 | RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, and ASHLAND, Ore. One day in March 2004, Soliman Hamd Al-Buthe, a former member of Saudi Arabia's national basketball team and a government official in the city of Riyadh, picked up his phone for an urgent call with two American lawyers in Washington, DC Most of the call concerned a growing confrontation between the US government and the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation in Ashland, Ore., the US branch of a global Saudi Arabian charity organization under investigation for possible links to terrorism. Al-Buthe had been an advisor to Al-Haramain from 1995 to 2002 and was a member of the Oregon foundation's board of directors. Just weeks prior to the call, the foundation -- a respected fixture in the Ashland community run for years by an Iranian-American Muslim named Pete Seda -- had been raided by US law enforcement agents. --Blacklisted by the Bush government, Tim Shorrock, Salon
Federal grand juries do two things: They investigate to determine if federal crimes have been committed; and they indict, or bring criminal charges against, those whom the grand jury believes committed federal crimes. To indict, the grand jurors must have probable cause to believe the persons indicted did violate federal criminal law. Grand juries offer prosecutors several advantages in conducting a criminal investigation, especially a high-profile, factually complicated investigation. For one thing, grand juries operate in secret; this not only gives prosecutors the ability to shield the evidence they are gathering from disclosure to the press and others, it can also encourage people to cooperate with a grand jury. Unless a witness reveals that he or she testified before a federal grand jury, no one ever needs to know that occurred, and since the transcripts of grand jury testimony are secret, no one will know what the witness said. This can be an advantage in an investigation, such as an investigation into terrorism, where witnesses may be afraid of retaliation if they cooperate with investigators.It is against both the letter of the law, logic, and common sense to allow Bush carte blanche to dismiss out-of-hand legal challenges to his various assumptions of dictatorial powers. This is crucial! Bush wars on Iraq, Afghanistan and 'terror' can be shown to be criminal and fraudulent. No other criminal defendant could simply invoke 'executive privilege' in order to have the smoking gun evidence against him thrown out of court. And Bush must no be allowed to do so either!Grand juries also give prosecutors the power to subpoena witnesses and evidence from around the country and, in some circumstances, from other countries, as well. (Getting evidence from abroad is discussed below.) If federal agents want to interview someone, the person can refuse to speak to them; this is true even if the person is arrested as a material witness, because persons who are arrested can invoke the Miranda rights to silence and to an attorney. The U.S. Supreme Court has held, however, that the Miranda rights are not available to witnesses subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury. Unlike someone being interrogated by federal agents, a grand jury witness not only has not right to silence or counsel, he or she is required to answer questions posed by the prosecutor working with the grand jury and by the grand jurors. A grand jury witness can refuse to answer if he or she can invoke the Fifth Amendment as to a question, but the privilege must be claimed as to each question and the prosecutor can challenge a witness' ability to invoke the privilege. --Using a Grand Jury to Investigate the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks, Susan Brenner & Lori Shaw
In this case, the evidence that must be allowed, the evidence that must be weighed by a federal grand jury will prove beyond any shadow of doubt that the panoply of frauds and lies Bush perpetrated upon the sovereign people of the US amount to high treason, mass murder, and war crimes for which US Codes themselves demand the death penalty.
A very important and related story at Alternet: Worries About War Crimes Heat up in the White House. Bush should worry. Any competent prosecutor could make an open and shut case right now that George W. Bush, who ordered the illegal attack and invasion of Iraq, is personally guilty of war crimes that demand the death penalty.
See: US Codes, Title 18, Section 2441.
Also see: Impeach, Remove, and Try George W. Bush for War Crimes and Mass Murder!
http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 18 comments |
|
Again one wonders who's side Congress is really on.
FISA is the law, but Congress, one way or another, tried to write a law that no one can contest...not even Congress it seems. If a law is designed in such a way that it effectivly precludes the court from doing it's duty under the constitution, that court needs to declare the law unconstitutional if for no other reason that it denies our constitutional right to petition our government through the courts to test such laws. We know we can't trust Bush. We know we can't trust Congress. I just hope we can trust the Courts to bail us out our our constitution is toast. by Paul Kruger (39 articles, 1 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 304 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jul 16, 2008 at 10:57:21 AM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: Revised FISA Act Immunity to Telcoms Unconstitutional?
Isn't the revised FISA Act immunity provisions to the Telecoms unconstitutional? How can immunity be granted to a law violated in the past be granted to a "person" (corporation) the telecommunications companies who cooperated with the Federal government be Constitutional? Isn't that an "ex post facto law"? A judge or prosecutor can grant or ask for immunity in exchange for cooperation or giving evidence in a court case. I never heard of granting amnesty only a President giving pardons, clemency or commuting sentences, especially out going Presidents. by Trainer12 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 73 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jul 16, 2008 at 2:39:41 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: FISA
"Isn't the revised FISA Act immunity provisions to the Telecoms unconstitutional? ?" Of course it is! But Bush believes the US Constitution to be a 'goddamned piece of paper!" That 'goddamned piece of paper' EXPRESSLY forbids EX POST FACTO laws. And that means that not only is congress PROHIBITED from passing laws that would result in the prosecution of someone for violating a law that was NOT IN EFFECT at the time of the offense, it --likewise --applies to rewrites of the law to MAKE LEGAL acts that were crimes when they were commited. Otherwise --Bush could simply make everything up as he goes along. THAT is the very ANTI-THESIS of the RULE OF LAW! by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Wednesday, Jul 16, 2008 at 3:46:40 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: No
Only ex post facto if used to convict. Imunity can be given for crimes already committed. Also not unconstitutional, unless you can prove the Telcoms were acting as agents for the government when they were colecting the info i.e. - knew they were colecting the information to turn over to the government. Then it can not be given "criminal" imunity and it is unconstitutional. I don't think your governemnt can stop you personally from filing a law suit in your local civil court for damages. by Gallaher (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 990 comments [34 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jul 16, 2008 at 4:36:58 PM (0+)
|
|
This is supperb and should be widely shared
Thank you for making this point so clearly and for your honest conclusion: "Bush should worry. Any competent prosecutor could make an open and shut case right now that George W. Bush, who ordered the illegal attack and invasion of Iraq, is personally guilty of war crimes that demand the death penalty." The question that arises is, why hasn't this prosecution happened? Is there not one single prosecutor willing to take this one and run with it? Our history will take on a truly democratic meaning when we act on this. It's more important than any economic stimulus or other corrective programs from the federal government. The act of holding a tyrant accountable is a collective statement that we're all accountable and that we're all involved equally in the process. This would be profound. Lets make it happen. by Michael Collins (130 articles, 20 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 485 comments [42 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jul 16, 2008 at 3:09:53 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: ... should be widely shared
Thanks for your comments. Please ---distribute this as far and wide as you can. An informed populace must certainly be Bush's worst nightmare. WE --the people --CAN make a difference. But we simply MUST be informed and prepared. by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Wednesday, Jul 16, 2008 at 3:56:17 PM (0+)
|
|
A note on Grand Jurys
Anyone can go before a grand jury with charges Not just your local prosecutor or U.S. Attorney. You would have to go before the Grand Jury and prove there is enough evidence to warant an indictment. Caution, you could end up on the wrong end of a wrongful prosecution suit without the abusive powers granted to normal prosecutors. by Gallaher (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 990 comments [34 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jul 16, 2008 at 4:43:48 PM (0+)
|
|
NO to you!
Only ex post facto if used to convict. Imunity can be given for crimes already committed. That's absurd on its face! First --the Constitution itself states simply that ex post facto laws are forbidden. Your interpretation means that Bush can simply make it all up as he goes along. The word for that is TYRANNY as such a provision would render the very 'rule of law' utterly meaningless. by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Wednesday, Jul 16, 2008 at 4:50:30 PM (0+)
|
|
Grand Juries
You would have to go before the Grand Jury and prove there is enough evidence to warant an indictment. Caution, you could end up on the wrong end of a wrongful prosecution suit without the abusive powers granted to normal prosecutors. by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Wednesday, Jul 16, 2008 at 4:59:45 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Happens every day.
You must not have spent much time in court. Immunity for crimes already committed is given all the time. No, A Federal judge may not bring charges to a Grand Jury. He may call for a Grand Jury to convene, but may not (legally) bring forth charges, unless he is not going to be the presiding judge over the prosecution. Then he is acting no different than you or me. I can go to the Federal Court house tomorrow and ask to present evidence to the Grand Jury. (I’ve done it before when the U.S. Attorney would not) by Gallaher (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 990 comments [34 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jul 16, 2008 at 5:12:55 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: ex post facto
There is but a single short sentence about ex post facto laws in the Constitution: Because something is done 'all the time' DOES NOT make it legal NOR does it make it constitutional. You'll have to do better than that. Secondly --a FISA immunity is, in this case, especially egregious in that it is NOT merely immunity for a violation of statute but a violation of CONTSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES for which ANY ex post facto immunity is and should be completely unprecedented. by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Wednesday, Jul 16, 2008 at 5:15:34 PM (0+)
|
|
Fed juries
A Federal judge may not bring charges to a Grand Jury. He may call for a Grand Jury to convene, but may not (legally) bring forth charges, unless he is not going to be the presiding judge over the prosecution. Then he is acting no different than you or me. I can go to the Federal Court house tomorrow and ask to present evidence to the Grand Jury. (I've done it before when the U.S. Attorney would not) by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Wednesday, Jul 16, 2008 at 5:23:14 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Constitution? Imunity?
Courts rule on Supreme Court case law when it comes to the constitution. It does not matter what you interpret from the constitution when you read it. Ex post facto by case law only applies to criminal law and only for prosecutions. This was one of the Supreme Courts first decisions in a civil case where someone was blocked from suit. The congress doesn't even have to right a law to give imunity. The government just doesn't have to prosecute them or even better write them an agreement that they cannot be prosecuted. A lowly Assistant U.S. Attorney prosecuters can do this. I’m telling you this is being done as I type here. There is almost always a standing Grand Jury waiting to hear allegations of a criminal act. No need for a judge to order one convened unless there is no Grand Jury to hear a complaint within some remote district or the judge may order the Grand Jury to report back to the court house from a break (convene) to hear complaints. by Gallaher (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 990 comments [34 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jul 16, 2008 at 7:46:45 PM (0+)
|
|
Article I, Section 7
The congress doesn't even have to right a law to give imunity. by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Thursday, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:53:02 AM (0+)
|
|
Ex post facto
I wish you were right about the Constitution but logic doesn't seem to hold sway when it comes to the courts. Much of interpretation is based on common law, past precedent and case law. Apparently "ex post facto" has been interpreted as declaring something you did in the past as illegal and punishing you for it even though it was not illegal when you did it. by Bryan Emmel (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 415 comments [32 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jul 17, 2008 at 2:51:11 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Sway
I wish you were right about the Constitution but logic doesn't seem to hold sway when it comes to the courts. Much of interpretation is based on common law, past precedent and case law. Apparently "ex post facto" has been interpreted as declaring something you did in the past as illegal and punishing you for it even though it was not illegal when you did it. The conventional wisdom with regard to EX POST FACTO may be 'conventional wisdom' but that doesn't mean it is correct. EVEN if one could show me the fuckin' CASE LAW establishing that dubious idea, it is still LUDICROUS. It's a recipe for RULING BY DECREE. And Bush would like that, woudln't he? I would like to think that in some thirty plus years covering both state and federal courts, covering the Watergate Scandal and several Presidential news conferences, interviewing people like Gerald Ford, George Bush Sr., John Connally, John Tower, numerous Senators including the Constitutional Scholar Sen. Sam Ervin, I might have learned a thing or two about the Constitution. I don't think the 'conventional wisdom' is what the founders had in mind! As Mr. Bumble said in David Copperfield: "If that is the law, then the law is a ass!" If what is said by idiots about EX POST FACTO laws is correct, then 'THE LAW IS A ASS!" There is NO 'rule of law' if --through clout and influence --one can simply excuse the rich and powerful for heinous crimes AFTER they've committed them. If that were so --what's the fuckin' point of passing a law to be begin with? I am frankly fed up with idiots who will persist in rewriting the Constitution when the framers bloody well wrote what they had intended! That includes primarily George W. Bush, Alberto Gonzales, and John Yoo! If our government suddenly decides the Constitution doesn't mean what it fuckin well says, then we should either SCRAP the government --of scrap the Constitutuion. I VOTE FOR SCAPPING THIS GOVERNMENT. That includes prosecuting the complicit TELECOMS for enabling the illegal and felonious acts of a usurper President who wouldn't even be in the White House had it not been for the very worst SCOTUS decision in US history: BUSH V GORE. Bush v Gore is what you get when even the justices on the Supreme Court decide that they know better what's in the Constitution than did James frickin' Madison --the genius and patriot who wrote most of it himself. by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Thursday, Jul 17, 2008 at 4:53:03 AM (0+)
|
|
There is a difference
There is a difference between what written and reality. There is no way that Bush will be procecute for his crime no matter what the law says. You have to wake up. There are people who are above the law. Unless there is a REVOLUTION (lol, sure, people are way to cowards for that!) there is no way that will change. by Sylvain Pimpare (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 30 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jul 17, 2008 at 2:24:47 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: OK, fine --go kiss Bush's ass
There is no way that Bush will be procecute for his crime no matter what the law says. You have to wake up. There are people who are above the law. Unless there is a REVOLUTION (lol, sure, people are way to cowards for that!) there is no way that will change. I don't subscribe to that kind of thinking. Because YOU are happy being a slave, a kiss up, and a defeatist doesn't mean that I have to be! Either CHANGE this system or live with it! But that's your problem NOT mine! I was told a long time ago: YOU ARE EITHER A PART OF THE PROBLEM OR A PART OF THE SOLUTION! It would appear that you are a part of the problem. I feel sorry for you. by Len Hart (134 articles, 175 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 555 comments) on Thursday, Jul 17, 2008 at 2:54:26 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
