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.