Grim Reaper Who gets to decide what laws are followed and what laws are not followed? Who decides who will be charged with a crime and who will give "state's evidence" and be given amnesty, or just not charged and allowed to walk after the commission of a crime? The one that usually decides that is the District Attorney that has jurisprudence over the crime. Things that they consider are what the crime was, the person who committed the crime, whether that person that committed the crime is likely to do it again, what is on the court calender, the severity of the crime, and also if the crime was the kind of a crime that if ignored, might set a dangerous precedent and therefore a dangerous message to the community.
All those things that I mentioned may also be applied to George W. Bush and the things that have transpired since he was elected. The option of using him to give state's evidence on his crimes to get the person or persons that are responsible for these crimes is moot, because he is of course, at the top of the organizational chart. He is the perpetrator and the one that authorized the crimes. The crimes that were committed were capitol crimes. Murder, treason, violations of the 4th Amendment, 6th Amendment and the 8th Amendment, which cover Illegal search and seizure, the right of persons charged to a swift and speedy trial with a jury of their peers and right of counsel, and cruel and unusual punishments like rendering and water boarding. These are not crimes that are minor or frivolous, they are serious and if left to go unanswered, they could lead to a dictatorship by the executive branch. Why Congress has such a hard time acting is something that puzzles the people I talk to. This is something that will not go away. These things fester until eventually people lose respect for rule of law. When the rule of law does not include the rulers in government, then citizens basically lose respect for it.
When George W. Bush pressed his case for war with Iraq, he told Congress that Iraq had WMD's. He said that Iraq was in league with the people that caused 9/11. He said that Iraq was building nuclear weapons and had plans of using nuclear weapons on the United States. The reason that I'm bringing this up again is because he is again claiming the same things about another nation, this time it's Iran, another member of his "Axis of Evil". How many times will George W. Bush take this nation to war? Will Rep John Conyers and Rep Nancy Pelosi and The Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid fall for this same game again? Do the people in Congress actually believe that Iran wants a war with the United States? Do they really believe that Iran poses a "Clear and Present Danger" to our country? How many pre-emptive wars are we going to allow this President to lead us into? Are we going to let him use military invasion serve as a way to imprint our will on the nation of Iran?
This is not the "rubber stamp" Congress that the 109th Congress was. It might be far worse. So far this Congress has already given the military the power to put civilians under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) in violation of the Constitution. They have already signed of on a Resolution that would allow our military to fire on and kill Iranians that they find in Iraq. What message is this resoulution supposed to convey to the world? If Iranians were to fire on US Troops weeks ago, how would American soldiers differentiate them from Iraqi insurgents? Wouldn't the US Military fire back as a matter of self defense? Why do we need a resolution to authorize the military to kill Iranians unless we were sending a threat to Iran? Why was it necessary? How many Iranians are in Iraq? Have US Forces ever NOT fired on the enemy during any circumstances? What made this resolution necessary now?
Many people in this country believe that Bush wants to attack Iran. I am one of them. I don't see why we have the right to tell another nation what to do in their own territory. Did The United Nations or any other World Court give us the authority to govern the entire world? Pakistan and India built a nuclear weapon. India was a signatory of the nuclear proliferation treaty! I'm deadly serious about this. What gives us the moral authority to impose our will on any nation? War is supposed to be a last resort when all diplomacy fails and the nation is attacked. To wage pre-emptive wars against nations that don't do what we tell them to do is not the way that America has historically done business. North Korea has nuclear weapons, they are not being attacked. If this is what our nation has decided on, then put it in writing, and let me know. If this is the way that the United States is now going to conduct it's foreign policy, than I am ashamed to call myself an American. The 21 years that I gave to this nation by serving in it's Armed Forces was a mistake and I will move out of this country. I refuse to be a party to a nation that forces it's will on other nations by military force. I do not want to be a citizen of a nation that attacks other nations as a matter of national policy. If the members of Congress do not wish to carry out their constitutional duties, they should resign. Make no mistake, Bush is going to attack Iran. Don't wait until after he has done it to try and stop him. Don't believe that the people of the United States will think of you as unpatriotic for forcing this issue. They will however think you unpatriotic if you don't.
http://liberalpro.blogspot.com
Tim was banned from the site for posting private email from the publisher to him on his blog, and then attacking the publisher and the site in emails and articles. OEN has no responsibility to publish articles from people who attack the site.
Tim's accusations that he was banned for his political positions are untrue. Check his articles. He repetitively wrote about and had published exactly the things he claimed he was banned for doing.
Former Chairman of the Liberal Party of America, Tim is a retired Army Sergeant. He currently lives in South Carolina. A regular contributor to OpEdNews, he is the author of Kimchee Kronicles and is currently at work on a new novel.
Just all an matter of time Tim, which for some corrupt reason or another seems to be on Bush's side. His dark, dark, dark side where blood seems to trail not far behind.
The grim reaper in your posted article holds an hour's glass in his hands. Which apparently represents the war pigs time for there newest of attacks to quench there blood thurst once again.
by
Fred F (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 361 comments)
on Saturday, January 27, 2007 at 11:13:01 PM
Preventative wars are against international law, while preemptive wars are not. The US preventatively (not preemptively) invaded Iraq. Preemptively means that we would have invaded to stop a clear, present, and immediate threat. Instead, we invaded to prevent a gathering threat.
Is Bush going to order a preventative aerial bombardment of Iraq? It may be a bigger mistake than preventatively invading Iraq, or escalating the conflict when it was appearent that victory is an illusion there. I hear that Iran has a military response already programmed should the US or Israel goes on a prevenative aerial bombardment campaign. It may include attacking Saudi oil infrastructure, attacking ship traffic through the Strait of Humuth, or escalating insurgency attacks in Iraq.
My thinking is that the American public is very pro-war, and only revolts when it seems our leaders don't have a strategy for victory. Bush may indeed get a bump out of hostilities in Iran, but war games have shown that Iran can really raise the cost of any US military campaign against it.
by
Brad Arnold (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments)
on Sunday, January 28, 2007 at 2:22:45 AM
For decades the Rabid Right has worked with diligence and determination to establish a Military Industrial Complex dictatorship. But of course, they don't see it that way. The way they see it, they were merely fighting for their own self-interest. Their own self-interest as opposed to the common good. They sold their own self-interest under the banner of opposition to taxation, and it was an easy sell because nobody likes paying taxes.
Reagan and thousands of others convinced a majority of Americans that government wasn't the solution, but the problem. Shrink the government they said and we could save all the money that government had been wasting, and thus cut taxes. But once they took control of congress, they didn't shrink government, they greatly increased spending on the Military Industrial Complex which is the largest component of government. They did cut taxes, but only for Americans with the highest incomes. Which is telling because the people with the highest incomes are the ones who derive most of their income from government contracts. They own corporations that supply the government with everything from toilet paper to software. Microsoft has made billions supplying the government with software.
In order to offset the increased spending on the Military Industrial Complex, which they call "National Defense," they cut spending for everything else. Things commonly thought of as necessary for the common good. Education, infrastructure, Medicare, Medicaid, thousands of things that benefit the middleclass and poor. To justify the huge increases in spending on the Military Industrial Complex, they waged a media propaganda campaign of fear and hatemongering, constantly warning us of enemies who resist their plans for world domination.
The way they achieved all this is stunning in it's simplicity. They infiltrated all branches of government and installed zealous and criminal appointees willing to betray their country for career advancement and profit. The day the Supreme Court appointed George Bush as President of the United States, brought all their ambitions to fruition.
We are now ruled by a Military Industrial Complex dictatorship.
by
rabblerowzer (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 227 comments)
on Sunday, January 28, 2007 at 4:09:00 AM
For many years of my life I remember living with the constant concern and reminder that some idiot (with dreams of glory and world conquest) in Russia could start a Nuclear war at any minute. And I will never forget (in my youth) all the times (during drills) that I lined up against the walls in the hall with my classmates; I will never forget how I was also trained to crawl under my desk and hide in fear whenever the sirens rang. And pardon, my French, but ##%^$% dammit, I never $%*#$* thought that I would %$%#$ have to live in such #$%#$% fear (except now it's for my children) because of a $%#$% American President! Fraudulent though he is...
Folks, when this idiot starts chucking nukes at Iran, it will cause events to fall into place that will wreck and change the entire world. Which is probably why he wants to do it. (He wants to go down in history.) Anyhoo, this must be stooped now AND I hope we all don't wait until it's too late. I'm serious, what are the American People going to do? Are they going to wait until he actually does it and everyone has a family member that is dying of leukemia or some other cancer? This has to be stopped.
by
RCG (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 348 comments)
on Sunday, January 28, 2007 at 2:23:46 PM
You are a person with very strong moral principles. If you do decide to leave the US we would welcome you here in Cambridge, UK.
You have a very sad and dangerous situation in your wonderful country-my daughter lives in Ohio and says the tension there is considerable-and I don't see an answer, as yet,HOWEVER,as a designer my philosophy is "there is always an answer"
by
cb (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments)
on Wednesday, January 31, 2007 at 2:25:43 PM
5 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
