Bush Above the Law?

[haybierman]

where's the topic?

[BCUS28]

Can anybody hear me?!?!?! doodoodoodoo twlight zone.

[streicher187]

looks like a bunch of the topics vanished don't know if they were deleted or what but I know site was down for a while...

[streicher187]

It was a link to a large article showcasing how Bush/Cheney are going around congress and making their own laws/rules as they go by using signing statement to overturn laws that were passed and adding statements to prevent people from ever testifying against them in investigations and what should be war crimes trials after he leaves office.....

March 9: Justice Department officials must give reports to Congress by certain dates on how the FBI is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.

Bush's signing statement: The president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.

Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.

Dec. 30: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay."

Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.

Aug. 8: The Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its contractors may not fire or otherwise punish an employee whistle-blower who tells Congress about possible wrongdoing.

Bush's signing statement: The president or his appointees will determine whether employees of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can give information to Congress.

Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.

Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."

Dec. 17: The new national intelligence director shall recruit and train women and minorities to be spies, analysts, and translators in order to ensure diversity in the intelligence community.

Bush's signing statement: The executive branch shall construe the law in a manner consistent with a constitutional clause guaranteeing ''equal protection" for all. (In 2003, the Bush administration argued against race-conscious affirmative-action programs in a Supreme Court case. The court rejected Bush's view.)

Oct. 29: Defense Department personnel are prohibited from interfering with the ability of military lawyers to give independent legal advice to their commanders.

Bush's signing statement: All military attorneys are bound to follow legal conclusions reached by the administration's lawyers in the Justice Department and the Pentagon when giving advice to their commanders.

Aug. 5: The military cannot add to its files any illegally gathered intelligence, including information obtained about Americans in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches.

Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can tell the military whether or not it can use any specific piece of intelligence.

Nov. 6, 2003: US officials in Iraq cannot prevent an inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority from carrying out any investigation. The inspector general must tell Congress if officials refuse to cooperate with his inquiries.

Bush's signing statement: The inspector general ''shall refrain" from investigating anything involving sensitive plans, intelligence, national security, or anything already being investigated by the Pentagon. The inspector cannot tell Congress anything if the president decides that disclosing the information would impair foreign relations, national security, or executive branch operations.

Nov. 5, 2002: Creates an Institute of Education Sciences whose director may conduct and publish research ''without the approval of the secretary [of education] or any other office of the department."

Bush's signing statement: The president has the power to control the actions of all executive branch officials, so ''the director of the Institute of Education Sciences shall [be] subject to the supervision and direction of the secretary of education."

[ensbergcollector]

It also lost my reply:

There is a reason some people are elected to congress and some are elected president. Bush wasn't the first to use that priviledge and he won't be the last. There are a number of those articles in which congress attempted to take a decision away from the president or away from the cabinet that he has chosen. Not all, but some. We can't blindly act like congress is perfect and Bush is bad for changing them. Just my opinion. (Also, not looking to have the for/against bush debate)

[mikesilvia]

I usually don't reply to "facts" without links. Why? Because these threads usually come from such sites as "bushlies.com" and other reputable sites "bushisevil.com". Links would be great!

[mikesilvia]

What I do find funny though is Bush has broken so many laws that not a SINGLE Demcorat is pushing for investigations. :) Wouldn't it be big news if Bush broke the law? Or is it that maybe there are a lot of people (on the left) that simply state that the law is being broken, when it is not?

[streicher187]

there was a link but in went away with original post it was in the boston globe..

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...dreds_of_laws/

[streicher187]

What I do find funny though is Bush has broken so many laws that not a SINGLE Demcorat is pushing for investigations. :) Wouldn't it be big news if Bush broke the law? Or is it that maybe there are a lot of people (on the left) that simply state that the law is being broken, when it is not?

If they go after him and something bad happens then they will be blamed, Democrats for the most part are spineless and need a backbone .. I am an independent voted for Bush first time and Kerry last time (if it's obama / mccain will not vote this time because I don't agree with either of them).. Don't know what I did with article but there is one town that has Bush on trial for war crimes and I know they were looking into it in Germany and a few other countries but the Dem. don't have the nerve or backbone to do something like that..

The republicans are great at putting the blame on the Dem. they blamed Clinton for 9/11 because he was more worried about Monica than Bin Laden even though it was the republicans who were after him. I was REALLY hoping that a credible independant would make a run but with the laws and rules that is really impossible for someone not in the 2 major parties to make a serious run..

And in the first 6 years if he broke the law then they would just rewrite it to make it so he wasn't (and the supreme court even sided against him on a few)..

[mikesilvia]

If they go after him and something bad happens then they will be blamed, Democrats for the most part are spineless and need a backbone .. I am an independent voted for Bush first time and Kerry last time (if it's obama / mccain will not vote this time because I don't agree with either of them).. Don't know what I did with article but there is one town that has Bush on trial for war crimes and I know they were looking into it in Germany and a few other countries but the Dem. don't have the nerve or backbone to do something like that..

The republicans are great at putting the blame on the Dem. they blamed Clinton for 9/11 because he was more worried about Monica than Bin Laden even though it was the republicans who were after him. I was REALLY hoping that a credible independant would make a run but with the laws and rules that is really impossible for someone not in the 2 major parties to make a serious run..

And in the first 6 years if he broke the law then they would just rewrite it to make it so he wasn't (and the supreme court even sided against him on a few)..

So, Democrats have the means to get Bush investigated, but they don't have the spine? Are you serious? If they had anything with merit President Bush would be investigated in a heart beat.

Small towns? Small towns can hold all the trial they want, but state law and fedral law will trump them, Just because some kindergarten class holds a "Bush Trial" that doesn't mean it is legit.

And in the first 6 years if he broke the law then they would just rewrite it to make it so he wasn't (and the supreme court even sided against him on a few)..

Who would "just rewrite" it? The Democrat House and Senate who write the bills that become laws?