Wow look what I found on the normally useless Yahoo message boards.

http://news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=37447170&tid=huffpost013023&sid=37447170&mid=1

Bush committed FELONIES: impeach NOW!
by: bush_kills_america 12/29/05 04:20 pm
Msg: 1 of 1
1 recommendation

And he says he'll commit them again.

He could have gotten warrants from the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) court -- if this surveillance was legit. They're easy to get, can be issued up to 72 hours AFTER THE FACT, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/36/subchapters/i/sect ions/section_1805.html (paragraph f), and many thousands have been issued over the years

But instead of following the law, which he never before said was inadequate to do his job (and which he never asked Congress to amend), he instead insisted on "showing his power" -- power the Constitution does not give him -- by flagrantly violating the law, and by saying he'll do it again. Each of his violations is a federal FELONY, punishable by up to 5 years in federal prison. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/36/subchapters/i/sect ions/section_1809.html

Can we IMPEACH and CONVICT now? Or do we have to wait until he renounces the Constitution?

Oh, wait, he just did that, too, calling it "a goddamned piece of paper":

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

Sounds like a direct violation of his oath of office to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC...."

Time to defend it from Bush.

IMPEACH and CONVICT now! DEMAND it from your representative and senators:

http://www.house.gov
http://www.senate.gov

----

Oh, and as for Gonzales's "defense", FISA specifically provides for a limited exception to the warrant requirement "for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress". http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/36/subchapters/i/sect ions/section_1811.html But Congress never declared war, and Bush violated the warrant requirement over a period of years.

Oops. Felony!

In a time of war, you don't have 72 hours to get a warrant after the fact, you have 15 days!! He said that the way the various resolutions were drafted, we are in a state of war, so they had 15 days.

If they didn't they have broken the law, correct?

just goes to show you that if you thought 72 hours was too much of a burden, it was really 15 days most of the time.

declaration of war in which to do this.....not repeated sets of 15 days.

http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/japwar.html

JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same.

Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

Approved, December 8, 1941, 4:10 p.m. E.S.T.

THIS:
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

is not a declaration of war.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/bliraqreshouse.htm

period.

Let's see... can't be the against Iraq. Didn't we issue a "Mission Accomplished."

So, did Congress then declare a War on Terra, a War on Drugs, a War on the Poor (well, we used to have a War on Poverty, but that's over.) A War on the Insurgency. A War on Freedom Fighters.

If a war is a conflict between nations, what nations are we conflicting with?

Didn't you know that?? LOL

go along. Of Course, THE WAR ON CHRISTMAS!

That's what we're fighting for!

victory as I seem to recall. Saddam? Mission accomplished per the Pres.

So who are we at war with? "Terror?" How do we know when we've won and who do we get to sign the peace treaty?

Biden apparently thinks the US is now in a state of perpetual war with anyone the Administration calls a threat and decides to attack, with apparently no legal mechanism to end the state of war? Is that it, Joe? Following that logic as Bush does, according to Bush, in those circumstances Fed law and the Constitution can be set aside. Biden may just as well give up his seat in Congress along with the rest since apparently the Pres now has perpetual extra-legal powers whenever and however he chooses to exert them.

And Biden's running for Pres? Cretin.

Whether it was 72 hrs. or 15 days, he didn't bother to get warrants.

Period.

Nope.. you take the car and if you do not get stopped by a cop, and do not have an accident, she probably won;t ever know you took the car while she was asleep.

That's our pres..

If you get caught "play the victim" and then call for unity (the "you're with us or against us" argument).

Just like if you don't talk about the DUI's you got until they are revealed just prior to the 2000 election. You evade, lie and obfuscate until evidence surfaces that you can't deny. When the evidence does come out then you go to step three and play the "you're with us or against us" argument by calling on America to unite after the SCOTUS decision.

Now, he's doing the same. He didn't think anyone would find out so he authorized spying and continued to authorize it. He got caught then he tried lying, evading and obfuscation. He asked the NYT not to say anything (hmmm, wonder if the NYT's Ms. Run Amok's access to the admin was part of the deal)and they didn't. Now that's it has come out he's playing the "you're with us or against us" routine. He's a war pResident and either you understand why he (and his gang) circumvents federal law and the constitution or you don't.

He don't need no stinkin warrants.He's King Of The World!

Our Dear Leader.

Warrants are for mere mortals.


:eyes:

How come you're right so often when I know you to be on the left?

LOL

You have a marital advantage. And didn't you also go to law school?

because of you. Remember that post where you urged people to vote in a newsmax.com poll? I spent way too much time trying to explain to someone that newsmax tracking her IP should be the least of her worries. :banghead: Besides that it is basketball season. I'm usually pretty useless until the end of March Madness.


In answer to your question, yes I did go to law school. More importantly I also graduated from law school. My specialty is environmental legal research not criminal law. I do have some experience in criminal law but it is almost exclusively limited to district or municipal levels (DUI, divorce, custody matters and the like). My federal experience is limited to appeals and (limited) Indian prisoner issues so I'm not "up" on my federal practice/procedures.

Happy New Years Mabus! :hug: :hi:

it always takes on a slightly hysterical note after that

How many times did we hear that line a few years/an eternity ago? You remember ... back when America was a free country and the political opposition (Rethugs) could (in my view legitmately) raise concern over the Big Dog's lies under oath. Sorry ... love the dude but that was wrong and, indeed, the question of "Shall we have rule of law or rule of men" was legitimate then, as it is now.

True conservatives (our honorable political opponents in normal times) are raising that question now ... but obviously when the target is the main man of your own party, that does that some of the zeal and fun out of it. Still, the question is being raised by some. Take note of who ... they are people who have not yet completely whored themselves out.

Bush apologists on either side of the aisle, on the other hand, now stand with Power rather than the concept of "Rule of Law". Note them, also. Know them for what they are.

Bush renewed that provision some 45 times.

Won't that be hard to explain Bushie?