Dont Tread on Me had the following name on his list:
john ashcroft
**************************
It may be that Dont Tread on Me does not know that there has already been adjudication with regard to John Ashcroft.
What you don't appear to understand is that Courts will not hold office holders accountable if they appear to be doing their duty as they understand it. Of course, repeated lying to the courts and misbehavior in court along with obstruction of justic can, in the most egregious cases, lead to impeachment--Ask Bill Clinton, but now note the finding of the Supreme Court which ' COULD MAKE IT HARDER TO SUE TOP OFFICIALS FOR THE ACTIONS OF LOW LEVEL OPERATIVES.
WASHINGTON " FBI Director Robert Mueller and former Attorney General John Ashcroft cannot be sued by a former Sept. 11 detainee who claimed he was abused because of his religion and ethnicity, a sharply divided Supreme Court said Monday in a decision that could make it harder to sue top officials for the actions of low-level operatives.
The court overturned a lower court decision that let Javaid Iqbal's (Ick-ball) lawsuit against the high-ranking officials proceed.
Iqbal is a Pakistani Muslim who spent nearly six months in solitary confinement in New York in 2002. He had argued that while Ashcroft and Mueller did not single him out for mistreatment, they were responsible for a policy of confining detainees in highly restrictive conditions because of their religious beliefs or race.
But the government argued that there was nothing linking Mueller and Ashcroft to the abuses that happened to Iqbal at a Brooklyn, N.Y., prison's Administrative Maximum Special Housing Unit, and the court agreed.
"The complaint does not show or even intimate, that petitioners purposefully housed detainees in the ADMAX SHU due to their race, religion or national origin," said Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion. "All it plausibly suggests is that the nation's top law enforcement officers, in the aftermath of a devastating attack, sought to keep suspected terrorists in the most secure conditions available until the suspects could be cleared of terrorist activity."
@genoves,
Quote:
Paradox does not know that NOONE will be disbarred. No lawyer working for the Obuma administration would dare to write an opinion which might be viewed by a future adminstration as one which was POLITICALLY intolerable.
I guess you don't understand how disbarment works. No lawyer is disbarred by lawyers working for a President. But you don't seem to understand how much of anything works in the real world, do you genoves?
(That ought to get a dozen attack posts from Massagatto/genoves. Yes, you are on ignore genoves. So waste your time with posting. It does seem you have nothing else to do.)
@McGentrix,
Tell me this McGentrix, if the US believes water boarding to be legal, why did we prosecute Japanese soldiers with war crimes for water boarding?
Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime
Quote:The United States knows quite a bit about waterboarding. The U.S. government -- whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community -- has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it.
After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."
Nielsen's experience was not unique. Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.
In this case from the tribunal's records, the victim was a prisoner in the Japanese-occupied Dutch East Indies:
A towel was fixed under the chin and down over the face. Then many buckets of water were poured into the towel so that the water gradually reached the mouth and rising further eventually also the nostrils, which resulted in his becoming unconscious and collapsing like a person drowned. This procedure was sometimes repeated 5-6 times in succession.
Unless we are so arrogantly self centered that only others have to pay for war crimes and only our lives and rights to humanity are important, the Bush administration clearly went against previously established rules regarding water boarding regardless of whether they had some attorney's to back up their position after the fact.
From the April 20 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
BILL O'REILLY (host): Now, what -- what is the prevailing wisdom within the CIA? Not just the former directors and the big shots but among the rank and file?
ANGLE: Well, look, they -- this is a very difficult job. And President Obama went out there today to tell them that, that he understands what a predicament they are in, that they have to do some very difficult things and to sort of reassure them that releasing these memos was not an attack on them. Now, he says he released them because they were mostly public. That is not entirely true, because a lot of the details weren't public.
And there was an interesting -- another interesting development today, Bill. And that is that Vice President Cheney is upping the ante here. He is saying, "Look, if you're going to declassify all the legal documents that justify these harsh interrogation techniques while arguing that these interrogation techniques did not help, then you should also declassify a lot of the reports I saw, which showed that they did, indeed, help, that they kept us from being attacked again, that they were extremely useful. So if you're going to declassify the other thing, how about declassifying the reports I'm talking about?"
O'REILLY: And also, I think there's criticism about President Obama, you know, sending drones in and blowing up people, sometimes civilians. But then making a big deal out of this.
ANGLE: Well, you know, the odd thing about this, Bill, is that President Obama has decided that waterboarding, which we have done, by the way, to thousands of our own people in the military -- pilots and Special Forces are often trained by being waterboarded. We've done it to thousands of our own people. He has decided it is too harsh to use on terrorists.
On the other hand, days after he took office, he approved air strikes on terrorists in their homes and in Pakistan, for instance. And they're in their homes, presumably with their wives and children, so you get a lot of civilians who were killed. You certainly get the terrorists who were killed. One could argue that waterboarding isn't nearly as bad as being blown up. But that is not the position that President Obama has taken
Poor Parados:
I know far far more about how disbarment works than you do.
Listen up-
l. President Clinton was disbared.
By whom?
Note:
Clinton Disbarred From Supreme Court
By Anne Gearan
Associated Press Writer
Monday, Oct. 1, 2001; 10:48 a.m. EDT
WASHINGTON "" The Supreme Court ordered former President Clinton disbarred from practicing law before the high court on Monday and gave him 40 days to contest the order.
The court did not explain its reasons, but Supreme Court disbarment often follows disbarment in lower courts.
In April, Clinton's Arkansas law license was suspended for five years and he paid a $25,000 fine. The original disbarment lawsuit was brought by a committee of the Arkansas Supreme Court.
There are no fines associated with the Supreme Court action. Most lawyers who are admitted to the Supreme Court bar never actually argue a case there, but the right to do so is considered an honor.
Clinton agreed to the Arkansas fine and suspension Jan. 19, the day before he left office, as part of an understanding with Independent Counsel Robert Ray to end the Monica Lewinsky investigation.
The agreement also satisfied the legal effort by the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct to disbar Clinton for giving misleading testimony in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case.
The Supreme Court followed its standard rules in the Clinton case, which include suspending Clinton from practice in the court and giving him 40 day to show why he should not be permanently disbarred.
The court order did not mention any vote by the justices.
"Whenever a member of the bar of this court has been disbarred or suspended from practice of any court of record, or has engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the bar of this court, the court will enter an order suspending that member from practice before this court," Supreme Court rules say.
Julia Payne, a spokeswoman for Clinton, referred calls to his lawyer, David Kendall, in Washington. Kendall did not immediately return a call seeking comment
2. The lawyers who worked on the rules regarding the appropriateness of waterboarding and other methods WILL NOT BE DISBARRED.
3. You must have made an error. You say that I am on "ignore".
Yes, on ignore by left wing cowards but not on ignore by people like OKIE.
Stick that up your diseased rectum, Parados!
What you are too stupid to understand, Paradox, is that one of my goals is to eliminate as many posts of the left wing that I can. Viewing the output lately leads me to the conclusion that I have done a pretty good job.
The left wing chimpanzees are just too afraid of what I can do to thier posts--even if they don't see what I do to them--Others do!
@genoves,
genoves wrote:
What you are too stupid to understand, Paradox, is that one of my goals is to eliminate as many posts of the left wing that I can. Viewing the output lately leads me to the conclusion that I have done a pretty good job.
oh my gosh, my golly! i had no idea just how important you are! look, everyone! it's the Messiah!!!!
putz...
@genoves,
genoves wrote:
The left wing chimpanzees are just too afraid of what I can do to thier [sic] posts--even if they don't see what I do to them--Others do!
I think you should be more concerned about what you do to your own posts Possum.
(That should get about 4 rants out of you.)
@DontTreadOnMe,
I think you mean it's the Mass-iah, of the cat variety.
@FreeDuck,
FreeDuck wrote:
I think you mean it's the Mass-iah, of the cat variety.
a legend in his own mind.
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Anyone who actually believes that we only tortured 3 people is a goddamn moron.
You are speaking of Pelosi...
vWhat you are too stupid to understand, Paradox, is that one of my goals is to eliminate as many posts of the left wing that I can. Viewing the output lately leads me to the conclusion that I have done a pretty good job.
The left wing chimpanzees are just too afraid of what I can do to thier posts--even if they don't see what I do to them--Others do!
Poor Parados:
I know far far more about how disbarment works than you do.
Listen up-
l. President Clinton was disbared.
By whom?
Note:
Clinton Disbarred From Supreme Court
By Anne Gearan
Associated Press Writer
Monday, Oct. 1, 2001; 10:48 a.m. EDT
WASHINGTON "" The Supreme Court ordered former President Clinton disbarred from practicing law before the high court on Monday and gave him 40 days to contest the order.
The court did not explain its reasons, but Supreme Court disbarment often follows disbarment in lower courts.
In April, Clinton's Arkansas law license was suspended for five years and he paid a $25,000 fine. The original disbarment lawsuit was brought by a committee of the Arkansas Supreme Court.
There are no fines associated with the Supreme Court action. Most lawyers who are admitted to the Supreme Court bar never actually argue a case there, but the right to do so is considered an honor.
Clinton agreed to the Arkansas fine and suspension Jan. 19, the day before he left office, as part of an understanding with Independent Counsel Robert Ray to end the Monica Lewinsky investigation.
The agreement also satisfied the legal effort by the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct to disbar Clinton for giving misleading testimony in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case.
The Supreme Court followed its standard rules in the Clinton case, which include suspending Clinton from practice in the court and giving him 40 day to show why he should not be permanently disbarred.
The court order did not mention any vote by the justices.
"Whenever a member of the bar of this court has been disbarred or suspended from practice of any court of record, or has engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the bar of this court, the court will enter an order suspending that member from practice before this court," Supreme Court rules say.
Julia Payne, a spokeswoman for Clinton, referred calls to his lawyer, David Kendall, in Washington. Kendall did not immediately return a call seeking comment
2. The lawyers who worked on the rules regarding the appropriateness of waterboarding and other methods WILL NOT BE DISBARRED.
3. You must have made an error. You say that I am on "ignore".
Yes, on ignore by left wing cowards but not on ignore by people like OKIE.
Stick that up your diseased rectum, Parados!
Parados, whose writing skills are nil; who can't think fast enough to post rebuttals or is deathly afraid he will be skewered, as he was when I proved that Barack Hussein Obama was, when he worked at the Woods Foundation under the Anti-American William Ayres, the originator of massive payouts to ACORN.
ACORN, as any reader of main stream news knows, is the organization whose members have been indicted for vote fraud. BO knows who his friends are.
ACORN is populated by every kind of gang-banger from the inner city ghetto and barrio who were paid to bring in voters--even if they were illegals or had voted in other venues.
Parados can't explain this one away!
I challenge the coward Parados to rebut this evidence.
Note:
To add to that post, the evidence is growing that the US populace is not concerned about global warming and that there is no consensus--
NOTE:
A Post article on May 19 falsely reported that there is a "consensus" among scientists and a growing portion of the American public that human carbon emissions are causing a dangerous, long-term increase in worldwide temperatures. The facts, overwhelmingly, show no such consensus.
The Post's David A. Fahrenthold reported that Republican "warming skeptics" are becoming ever bolder on Capitol Hill even as "most" or a "consensus" of "scientists around the globe have rejected their main arguments - that the climate isn't clearly warming, that humans aren't responsible for it, or that the whole thing doesn't amount to a problem." He continued: "Public opinion has also shifted" in favor of warming's existence and importance.
The latter claim is risible. Earlier this month, Gallup poll editor Frank Newport told U.S. News & World Report's Paul Bedard that on global warming, "Any measure that we look at shows Al Gore's losing at the moment. The public is just not that concerned." The highest number of respondents ever, he said - 41 percent - thinks warming claims are exaggerated. That 41 percent swamped the 28 percent who think the threat is "underestimated." Of eight major "environmental issues" (including water pollution and loss of rain forests), the public ranked warming last. The Pew Research Center in January reported climate change ranking dead last among 20 major public concerns.
Respected scientists are far from united on the issue. Reports in August from the International Geology Congress - and from other conferences or major scientific organizations in Canada, Japan, Australia and elsewhere - indicate majorities disagreeing with climate-change dogma. Republicans on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works have compiled a list of more than 700 well-credentialed scientists, including many who once believed in warming, who argue against the warming theory.
More than 31,000 scientists have signed a Global Warming Petition expressing doubts. The founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman, has written that warming is "the greatest scam in history." As far back as two years ago, The Post's own Juliet Eilperin reported that consensus on warming was shrinking, not growing. And for good reason. Earth temperatures actually have dropped since 1998. The National Snow and Ice Data Center in April showed more Arctic sea ice than in any April since 2003. Even many prominent warming supporters acknowledge that their own models now forecast cooling for the next 30 years.
Whichever group of scientists is correct, the simple fact is that the idea of consensus is a myth.
*******************************************************************
Parados wont comment on this since it destroys his main thesis--that we are all going to die in a few years because of "global warming".
Parados avoids any evidence that he can't handle.
The latest Gallup Poll shows that:
There has also been an uptick in the percentage of Americans who say global warming will pose a serious threat to them in their lifetimes, from 25% in 1997 to 40% today.
Even with this increase over the last 11 years, the fact remains that still less than a majority of Americans, at this point, believe global warming will pose a serious threat to them in their lifetimes.
Worry?
The fact that a majority of Americans don't believe global warming will pose a threat to them in their lifetimes makes it perhaps less surprising to find that significantly less than a majority of Americans say they worry a great deal about it.
************************************************************
Parados will also be unable to respond to this. His arrogance does not allow him to consider that there is a growing consensus that Global Warming is almost a non-issue among a majority of Americans.
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:
And if a congress person doesnt appear, they are automatically removed from office.
NOBODY will be allowed to plead the 5th, nobody will be allowed to not answer, and any answers we dont like will also result in immediate removal from office.
Do those rules sound reasonable to you?
Yes, if you don't like the Constitution.
Cyclops wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Anyone who actually believes that we only tortured 3 people is a goddamn moron.
*****************************************
Of course, Cyclops does not realize that the legal advice given to the President was that waterboarding was not torture--Cyclops is asking us to believe that the US tortures hundreds of its own special forces who are routinely waterboarded in the course of special training.
Of course, Cyclops has PROOF that more than three people were subjected to waterboarding. Cyclops is myopic both visually and mentally.
Of course, Cyclops has PROOF that Los Angeles was not saved from an attack by Al Qaeda because of CIA interrogation of war criminals.
genoves eats worms. by choice.
@DontTreadOnMe,
Oh, please, don't tread on me, try to rebut my posts and find more colorful comments. You know, of course, that some people eat worms regularly.
They are supposed to be a good source of protein.
