Ticomaya wrote:Debra_Law wrote:President Bush, his administration, and the DOJ (the president's Department of false JUSTIFICATIONS), have lost credibility with the Country--and the Courts.
President Bush's power grab as the wartime president in the never-ending war on terrorism is is based on LIES. Because LIES cannot be proven or justified, Bush evades accountability. The secret FISA court now knows Bush to be a liar and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals now knows Bush to be a liar.
With his credibility shattered, the self-appointed monarch of our country, KING Bush, is headed for a well-deserved fall from grace. If any president in the history of our nation deserved to be impeached, it is BUSH.
LOL. Because his "lies" can't be proven he avoids accountability? How do these courts "know" him to be a liar if the lies can't be proven?
You should see the various video clips where he discusses wiretaps and specifies that when he's talking wiretapping, he's talking about doing it with a warrant.
Gee, sounds like a lie to me.
Ticomaya:
It's elementary law. Why don't you research the concept of "reasonable inferences."
You know as well as I do that when any party, the government included, invokes the jurisdiction of a court, the party must ALLEGE FACTS that demonstrate that the party is entitled to the relief sought. Everyone is accountable for the TRUTH of the factual allegations that are presented to a court and that a court relies upon to grant an application.
Bush claims that the targets of his domestic spying program have known ties to international terrorim. OKAY--If President Bush was truthful (not lying) that the targets of his domestic spying program were agents of a foreign power (an international terrorist group), there is NO JUSTICATION for avoiding the requirements of FISA. The FISA court judges are keenly aware of that FACT.
If Bush's statement was true, then FISA court would issue a warrant that allows electronic surveillance of the target. BUT, Bush avoided the FISA process. WHY?
It's elementary law. What reasonable inferences can be drawn from the FACT that Bush avoided the FISA procedures established by Congress?
The reasonable inference is that Bush is LYING. The targets of Bush's domestic spying program DO NOT have ties to international terrorism.
NEXT, check out the Hamdi and Padilla cases. BUSH alleged that he had authority to detain enemy combatants pursuant to the AUMF. The Supreme Court agrees that the president may detain enemy combatants. The capturing and detaining of combatants are important incidents of war. This prevents the combatants from returning to the battlefield; it allows intelligence gathering; and it restricts the detainee's communication with the foreign power to protect national security.
HOWEVER, detention is allowed or disallowed based on the FACTS ALLEGED by the government. In Hamdi, the Supreme Court remanded the case for a hearing, pursuant to the requirements of due process, for a judicial determination of whether the FACTS ALLEGED by the government were TRUE.
In Hamdi's case, rather than prove the truth of the government's allegations that the government was lawfully detaining Hamdi as an enemy combatant, the government released Hamdi to Saudi Arabia on the condition that Hamdi surrender his U.S. citizenship and agree not to sue the government for wrongful detention. Hmmmm.
The government had an opportunity to PROVE the truth of its allegations and that its detention of Hamdi was lawful--but the avoided accountablity by allowing Hamdi to leave the country.
What reasonable inferences can be drawn from that FACT?
The same applies to Padilla. For over three and a half years, the government alleged that detention of Padilla as an enemy combatant was necessary for our national security. The government repeatedly alleged to the court that Padilla should not be given his day in a criminal court to dispute the charges against him (that he was an agent of international terrorism and that he intended to set off a dirty bomb) because releasing him to the criminal court system would threaten national security.
In order to avoid proving the TRUTH of the government's allegations that the government has steadfastly maintained for the last three and half years to detain Padilla as an enemy combatant, the government has now indicted him. What? No where in the indictment is there any allegation that Padilla conspired with a foreign power (an international terrorist group) to commit an act of terrorism with a dirty bomb.
What is the reasonable inference that can be drawn from that FACT? That the government has been lying to the courts for over 3 years concerning the basis of Padilla's detention? The Fourth Circuit is PISSED. They are not allowing the government to simply say, "NEVER MIND: Forget what we have been saying for the last three and half years--we take it back."
The government's credibility is nonexistent and neither the FISA court nor the Fourth Circuit are going to allow the Bush Administration to play them for fools. They are capable of discerning the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from all the facts known to us right now and here's the TRUTH: The Bush Adminstration is lying to the courts and lying to the American public.
Reasonable inferences, Ticomaya, look it up.
DrewDad wrote:You keep cat poop in your garbage?
When I scoop the litter pans, I place the scooped material in plastic bags and put it in the garbage. It is destined for the landfill. I don't examine it; I don't save it.
Figuratively speaking, Mortcat uses our discussion forum for his litter box. He demands that we scoop out his smelly excrement, examine it nugget by smelly nugget, and then wave it under his nose and explain to him (in a manner that his limited powers of comprehension can grasp) the numerous ways in which it reeks. For most of us, he should consider his nuggets tossed in the garbage (double bagged and destined for the landfill) without explanation.
You should get a "Litter Maid." Saves all that tedious scooping.
FreeDuck wrote:The two of you are like old dodgy flashers. Whenever you see a polite and thoughtful conversation going on you jump in, thrust open your coats and wave your wankers at us.
The dodgers were proving parados was enthusiastically wrog about a major point in his conversation.
Rather than try to mask it with poo--let's just say they were correct, and parados was WAY off his game.
You've been flashed with righteous wanker, and parados has obviously been in the pool.
There is nothing righteous about that wanker -- apparently they both have Clinton tattooed on them. The discussion was not very partisan until the flashers came in with their usual "look over there!" arguments.
parados wrote:Mortkat,
Your argument is silly. The terrorists didn't strike when Clinton was President. The only conclusion is that Clinton was watchful enough for them to not strike. [...] Why didn't Bush stop [911] Mort? Was he stupid? Was he not watchful? Was he just not capable like you think Clinton was?
There is no way in hell anyone should get away with such an inexcusable error.
Calling him on it doesn't make Mort partisan. C'Mon! Look at that.
Did you scroll back to Mortkat's post before that?
Mortkat wrote:Parados is being ridiculous. We would never look at the conversation of every American. Parados is, I am afraid, a political partisan who would attack the Bush Administration at every opportunity. Parados gives no evidence. Only his opinion. Well, I am certain that evidence shows that if Bill Clinton would have been more watchful we might not have had 3,000 citizens killed in the WTC.
Now, I will give evidence. Please do not dissemble, Parados--Address the evidence--
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/21/terror/main607659.shtml
quote:
Six years before the sept. 11 attacks, the CIA warned in a classified report that Islamic extremists likely would strike on US soil at landmarks in Washington or New York, or through the airline industry, according to airline officials.
end of quote
Is this report false? If so, prove it, Parados.
Notice the specificity--"Islamic extremists"
"Strike on US soil" "landmarks in Washington or New York" "through the airline industry"
Bill Clinton did, I hope, read the CIA reports, or he may have forgotten because he was so busy being fellated by Monica.
That was when a few well placed wire taps might have averted the WTC tragedy, Parados, but partisans like you will never admit the possibility.
Take note: The Patriot Act will be passed-Thank God!
This one? If it is, what do you disagree with so strongly that you seemingly prefer to gloss over parados' obviously incorrect assertion? <she asked politely>
Debra_Law wrote:Ticomaya wrote:Debra_Law wrote:President Bush, his administration, and the DOJ (the president's Department of false JUSTIFICATIONS), have lost credibility with the Country--and the Courts.
President Bush's power grab as the wartime president in the never-ending war on terrorism is is based on LIES. Because LIES cannot be proven or justified, Bush evades accountability. The secret FISA court now knows Bush to be a liar and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals now knows Bush to be a liar.
With his credibility shattered, the self-appointed monarch of our country, KING Bush, is headed for a well-deserved fall from grace. If any president in the history of our nation deserved to be impeached, it is BUSH.
LOL. Because his "lies" can't be proven he avoids accountability? How do these courts "know" him to be a liar if the lies can't be proven?
Ticomaya:
It's elementary law. Why don't you research the concept of "reasonable inferences."
<big snip>
Reasonable inferences, Ticomaya, look it up.
Reasonable inferences? Really? What a weak argument. You'll get blown out of the water if you think that bit of "elementary law" will carry the day for you. You claim he's lied, but his "lies" can't be proven, yet you feel the court will believe he's lied with no proof. In the snipped portion of your above post, you have zero evidence that Bush was lying when he claimed that the targets of his domestic spying program have known ties to international terrorim. You have zero evidence that the allegations regarding Hamdi's detention were untrue. You have zero evidence that the contentions of the government regarding Padilla were untrue. Rather than draw the "reasonable inferences" you suggest, courts instead listen to the evidence and arguments concerning the justiciable issues before them, and then make the appropriate findings, based upon the evidence.
But let's apply your "reasonable inferences" approach to your argument: You have claimed that Bush has lied, yet you acknowledge you cannot prove that Bush has lied. The reasonable inference is that it is
you who is lying.
Quote:Your superior logic has conquered, Kuvasz. first damned thing you said that has made any sense. Clinton was never guilty of anything. strawman argument alert He could not(he was only in office a month) have done anything to prevent the Cole attack.
Actually,the attack on the Cole happened when Clinton only had three months left of his second term.
It happened on Oct 12,2000.
But Ticomaya- She doesn't need evidence/ She is Debra L A W.
Actually, you are dead right, Ticomaya. But since Debra L A W is obviously one of the most brilliant people on these threads, I will pose a question which follows up from Ticomaya's incisive post.
Tell us, O Debra Law, EXACTLY what Crime was committed by the Bush Administration. You are extremely skilled in the law so tell us, EXACTLY WHO WAS THE AMERICAN CITIZEN WHOSE RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED WHEN HIS CONTACT WITH A FOREIGN NATIONAL WAS WIRETAPPED.
If you can't do that( and you can't, )you don't have a case.
It looks like Mysterman has sunk the good ship Kuvasz. Three months left of Clinton's second term. Good Job Mysteryman.
But I think I have an excuse for Bill Clinton. How, Mysteryman, how could he possibly pay attention to anything as minor the threat to one of our ships. He was busy giving pardons at the end of his tenure. In fact, he gave pardons to many felons including one Marc Rich whose wife, just coincidentally happened to give thousands of dollars to the Clinton Library. There was no connection--you understand.
Well, when Bill Clinton issued all of those pardons, Jimmy Carter, another Democrat delivered the opinion that Clinton's pardons were disgraceful.
Mysteryman, You have performed a great service. Here I went along thinking that a great scholar like Kuvasz would never make such an egregious error. Why you caught him with his pants down!!!!
