President Bush: Is He a Liar?

You know, we've dealt with all this nonsense in the appropriate threads.

I addressed this issue ..... HERE:

Plame didn't need to be a covert agent when she was outed. Go back and read the law.

Thank You, Ticomaya, for your evidence. I thought most people who have kept up on this topic knew that Fitzgerald had not established that Plame was a "covert agent" at the time her identity was disclosed.

It is quite clear that at this time, the charge can be considered moot.

Therefore, your comment, Ticomaya, concerning "all this nonsense" is right on target.

The charge can not be considered moot.

Fitzgerald like any prosecutor made a statement to the judge about the specifics of the case. Because he didn't prove it to the judge at this time in the manner some naysayers demand in no way negates the charges.

If a prosecutor isn't allowed the benefit of the doubt in charging then a case would be always be tried during the appeal to throw it out and no case would ever make it to court.

Unless you have some evidence that Fitzgerald lied to the court the public should allow the same standard the court does.

Tico stated:

Yes, I deny it. I've read reports that there is absolutely NO harm to have come from the revelation that Valerie Plame works for the CIA. And at this juncture I'm lead to believe those reports, and not your assumptions.


Could you share with us the reports that no harm has come from revealing Plame's CIA employment. I wager that you cannot, and will have to quibble out of your statement.

We must rely on the February 2006 issue of Newsweek that claims Plame was still a "covert" agent. Anybody that disagrees with his assessment must produce recent documents to say she wasn't a "covert" agent when she was outed. That's the crux of this issue.

It's also interesting to note that Rove has been called before the grand jury just recently; after the February 2006 news release by Newsweek.

We'll just have to wait and see if anything comes out of this investigation.

Thanks to Tico for his posts. The quote I noticed especially was "To date, we have no direct evidence that Libby knew or believed that Wilson's wife was engaged in covert work." It seems to me that by the time that statement was made, they would surely have been able to at least ascertain that! So considering that, the Newsweek article or the latest news that she was classified covert by the CIA is even more puzzling. And to our knowledge, it has yet to be charged by Fitzgerald that anyone broke a law by outing Plame. What Newsweek says matters none. It is what transpires in the court proceedings that matters.

All of this supports Bush in that it has yet to be established that anyone on his staff broke any law, so why should he fire anybody? No lie has been established here.

What are you wagering?

Bob Woodward on the Larry King show on October 27, 2005:



LINK

Which squares up with reports that the CIA believed Aldrich Ames compromised her, so they brought her home in the mid 90's and wound up her operations.

So, you have a report that shows otherwise?

No, we must not rely on Newsweek ... Isikoff got it as wrong as Judge Tatel did. If Fitzgerald intended to assert Plame was covert -- and I maintain he did not: (A) that would not be conclusive, but only indicative of his belief, and (B) he would not have buried that bombshell of a revelation in the footnote of an affidavit.

Tico, You sound as though you have all the answers to this investigation without even hearing what Fitzgerald has to say - the person with the final word of if any charges will be made against anybody in Bush's administration.

What makes you so sure?

Sure about what?

One thing I'm fairly sure of is Fitzgerald has not come out and directly stated he believes Plame was "covert" as that term is defined in the IIPA.

"...he has not come out..." is all I need to know.

It seems to me that there can be no judgment made until a legal judgment is made.

This is not Iraq where Islamo-fascists reach decisions without resorting to appropriate and established courts. They make statements BEFORE a court and jury rules.

There has been no finding. The fact that no statement has been issued means that NO ONE is guilty. Unless, of course, one adopts the tactics of the Islamo-fascists.

It has been my conclusion from the very beginning of this, that if the Democrats want to bet on a horse to take them to victory, they are making a mistake in betting on the Joseph Wilson / Valerie Plame horse. I think it will come up lame. I would love to see Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame placed on the witness stand. Unfortunately, we probably won't see it, but I think it would be more than interesting.

This is old stuff, but perhaps reminders are needed:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004967.php
http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=5630

Of late, Wilson and his spinners are coordinating the effort to spin his documented inaccuracies as inaccurate reporting by the press. The truth is he found out nothing in Niger to prove his so-called proof that Iraq had not sought uranium in Niger, yet he proceeds to go on his mission to discredit the administration based on his so-called conclusive evidence, including even writing a book.

I have not entirely figured out this couple, the Wilsons, the couple of Vanity Fair fame, as there is something more fishy here than meets the eye. They are certainly not the horse I would bet on.

Funny you'd say that. So, when again are the internees in Gitmo going to by brought before a court...?

(No statement has been issued, so they are not guilty. Or did you adopt the tactics of the Islamo-fascists?)

Well, Old Europe, to begin with- The Supreme Court issued the following decision--

***********************************************************
Supreme Court Rejects Enemy Combatant's Appeal
Today a divided Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of American citizen Jose Padilla, who has been in custody for nearly four years.


Initially designated an enemy combatant after his arrest in 2002, Padilla had challenged his continued detention at a naval brig in South Carolina without access to American courts. In 2004 the high court threw the case out on a technicality -- that Padilla had filed the matter in the wrong court.


Padilla's lawyers re-filed the case, and it returned to the Supreme Court again with Padilla asking the court to declare his continued detention illegal. Thereafter, the government filed federal criminal charges against the former gang member and transferred him from the naval brig to a detention center in Florida. The government then contended that Padilla's present appeal to the Supreme Court was rendered moot in light of the pending criminal charges.


Justice Kennedy, with the Chief Justice and Justice Stevens joining in, said the court would not get involved as criminal charges are pending, and any defense claims that Padilla might be "returned to military custody would be hypothetical." Justice Kennedy warned, however, that the court would keep a close eye on the case, and any change in Padilla's detentions status could "be addressed if the necessity arises."


Justice Ginsburg -- jointed by Justices Souter and Breyer -- dissented, calling Padilla's plight a case of "profound importance to the Nation." She said that when first given the opportunity in 2004, the court should have decided whether President Bush has the authority to "imprison indefinitely a United States citizen," based on the government's characterization of Padilla as an enemy combatant.

abc.blogs.com
*************************************************************
That, Old Europe was the finding of the Supreme Court for an American Citizen after he had been held for four years. I am sure you realize that as an American Citizen, he had RIGHTS that the rest of the Gitmo prisoners do not have.

He is a citizen. The Gitmo prisoners are not citizens and are not protected as such by the Constitution as Padilla is.

If the Gitmo prisoners had any protection from being held, their protection would be from the Geneva Convention. As you may be aware, the GC does not cover them since they were not uniformed when they were captured and were not under the leadership of an established hierarchical authority.

I am sure you know that Mr. Libby, who is being tried by Mr.Fitzgerald,is in an entirely different category than the Gitmo prisioners. He is a citizen of the United States.

It is important to be a citizen of a country and be protected under its laws and constitution. If you want to know how important it really is, go to Mexico and attempt to gain some rights there as a non-citizen.

Now, if you would be so good as to point out where exactly the Constitution says that you must be US citizen in order to get justice in the United States, that might be very helpful.

But hey, you are referring to Mexico. Good. So the US should do what Mexico does. Before you have mentioned islamo-fascists. So no problem doing what islamo-fascists do. Right? That's your argument?

Pretty weak.

I am very much afraid, Old Europe, that you don't follow the news very well.

Note:
Quote

Q&A: US Supreme Court Guantanamo ruling


Prisoners can now go to court
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay can take their case that they are unlawfully imprisoned to the American courts.

BBC News Online looks at the issues involved.

What did the Supreme Court say?

The overall ruling of the court was: "United States courts have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay."

The court then described how this should happen. It accepted the argument from lawyers from the Center for Constitutional Rights that the Federal District Court in Washington DC (to which the case was first brought) does have jurisdiction to hear the prisoners' petition, under the "habeas corpus" law, that they are held "in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States."

What is habeas corpus?

Habeas corpus is a Latin phrase meaning: "You have the body." It is the name given to an ancient legal device under English common law (a mixture of judge-made laws, precedents and statutes). Habeas corpus was continued in American law after independence.

If a writ of habeas corpus is issued by a court, the person holding a prisoner (the "body") must bring the prisoner to the court and justify the detention. It has been a basic instrument under which courts in common law systems have protected citizens against wrongful imprisonment.

Why did the Supreme Court rule in the prisoners' favour?

The court was divided 6-3. The majority opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens and hinged on the definition of "sovereignty." He argued that, even though Cuba retained "ultimate sovereignty", the United States exercised, in the words of the lease from Cuba, "complete jurisdiction and control" at Guantanamo Bay.

Therefore federal jurisdiction applied there and "aliens, no less than American citizens, are entitled to invoke the Federal courts' authority."

The court rejected an argument that a case arising out of World War II should be followed in this instance (see below), saying that the two were quite different.

Justice Stevens quoted a predecessor on habeas corpus: "Executive imprisonment has been considered oppressive and lawless since [King] John, at Runnymede, pledged that no free man should be imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, or exiled save by the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."

The majority was formed by the liberals on the court, joined by the "swing" justices. One of the latter, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, said that the US government could not have a "blank check" even in time of war.

What did the minority on the Court say?

The minority opinion, on behalf of the three core conservatives, was written by Justice Antonin Scalia.

He based his argument on the "Eisentrager" case. This arose out of the arrest in China of a number of Germans agents accused of helping the Japanese after the surrender of Germany in World War II.

Their leader, who called himself Lothar Eisentrager though his real name was Ludwig Ehrhardt, had hired himself to the Japanese after the German surrender. He was sentenced to life in a prison in Germany but appealed for a writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court ruled that this did not apply because he was an alien outside US sovereign territory. He was eventually freed anyway under an amnesty.

Justice Scalia said that the "carefree" court's "spurious" ruling on Guantanamo was a "wrenching departure from precedent" and "boldly extends the scope of the habeas statute to the four corners of the earth."

The consequence, he said, was "breathtaking." It enabled "an alien captured in a foreign theater of active combat to petition the Secretary of Defense." It brought the "cumbersome machinery of our domestic courts into military affairs".


Is this the end of the prisoners' "legal black hole"?


It should be the beginning of it, though getting access to the US courts does not mean the prisoners necessarily getting their freedom. But they do now have much more of a legal status and the courts might order a full clarification.


The Defense Department announced (on 7 July) that nine more prisoners will face trial by military commission, bringing to 15 the number of prisoners who will be tried in this way.

On 7 July, the Pentagon announced that cases would be reviewed by military tribunals. Why?


The Pentagon is responding to the Supreme Court ruling and is trying to pre-empt any criticism from a US court. It is setting up three-officer review panels to determine whether a prisoner is a combatant.


This is supposed to happen under Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention which states that if there is doubt as to whether someone was a combatant, a "competent tribunal" should determine his status. The conventions have not been applied to the Guantanamo prisoners, so the panels, provision for which exist in US military law, were not convened. The decision to set them up now does not mean that Washington is suddenly going to apply the conventions but it is following them more closely.


The prisoners' lawyers are likely to argue in court that the panels are not enough and that the detainees should be properly charged or set free.


Whatever happens in the District Court is likely to be appealed in a procedure which could go on for many months.

End of Quote:

Observations:

The US, unlike the Islamo-Fascists, who solve their prisoner problems in a couple of weeks by beheading their captives, follows the "rule of law"

The law, in the US, does not move as quickly as some would like since there are so many safeguards built into our legal system which allow both the plaintiff and the defendant to utilize a great variety of legal avenues.

You have, of course, noted the last paragraph in the link, Old Europe--

"Whatever happens in the District Court is likely to be appealed in a procedure which COULD GO ON FOR MANY MONTHS."


I am very sorry, Old Europe, but the legal system in the US is not like the legal system on TV or in the movies in which justice is handed out in one or two hours.

The prisoners at Gitmo are just going to have to wait.

Perhaps they will be given amnesty by the next president of the United Statess-Hillary Rodham Clinton.

That's a fine paean of praise for the American court system, Bernard. I'm so glad you affirm the constitutional right to a trial which the Supreme Court upheld. You realize that the losing party in the suit was the Bush administration, which had held for years that the Geneva Conventions didn't apply to the Gitmo prisoners, and that they had no right to a trial, nor rights to lawyers. The administration basically maintained it could do whatever it wanted to them, for any length of time it wanted. The Supreme Court said the administration did not have the law on its side. Are you therefore now going to chide the Bush administration for its unlawful conduct, as judged by your so-highly-praised Suporeme Court, the arbiter of the law? We are, after all, examining the actions of President Bush in this thread, so I'm sure you will see your way clear to castigating him. Right, Bernard? Follows directly from your position above, I would say. Right, Bernard?

I am very much afraid, Username, that you did not read my last post thoroughly:

"Whatever happens in the District Court is likely to be appealed in a procedure which COULD GO ON FOR MANY MONTHS."


I am very sorry, Old Europe, but the legal system in the US is not like the legal system on TV or in the movies in which justice is handed out in one or two hours.

The prisoners at Gitmo are just going to have to wait.

Perhaps they will be given amnesty by the next president of the United States-Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The prisoners at Gitmo will still be there in Jan. 2009!!!