You have GOT to be fucking kidding me!!

[Harry Monroe]

Obama DOJ Asks Court to Grant Immunity to George W. Bush For Iraq War

By Inder Comar

In court papers filed today (PDF), the United States Department of Justice requested that George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz be granted procedural immunity in a case alleging that they planned and waged the Iraq War in violation of international law.

Plaintiff Sundus Shaker Saleh, an Iraqi single mother and refugee now living in Jordan, filed a complaint in March 2013 in San Francisco federal court alleging that the planning and waging of the war constituted a “crime of aggression” against Iraq, a legal theory that was used by the Nuremberg Tribunal to convict Nazi war criminals after World War II.

“The DOJ claims that in planning and waging the Iraq War, ex-President Bush and key members of his Administration were acting within the legitimate scope of their employment and are thus immune from suit,” chief counsel Inder Comar of Comar Law said.

The “Westfall Act certification,” submitted pursuant to the Westfall Act of 1988, permits the Attorney General, at his or her discretion, to substitute the United States as the defendant and essentially grant absolute immunity to government employees for actions taken within the scope of their employment.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/obama-doj-asks-court-to-grant-immunity-to-george-w-bush-for-iraq-war/5346637

[Wilms]

1. They've essentially pardoned the banksters.

So it would be unfair to have the previous administration answer to the court.

Got it? Good.

[BornLooser]

119. What I got...

...is the feeling of shame, betrayal and loathing for supposed "citizens" of a "world leader" who place a higher value on their high fructose corn syrup fix, than holding feet to fire for the TRUTH. So......it takes an Iraqi refugee? No foolin? A lot of people in the dark here in the UaSsA, what with all the heads up collective asses. One nation?, indivisible?, with liberty and just...a load of horseshit, yes?

[Enthusiast]

132. Satisfying logic to the pragmatic mind.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Octafish]

165. Might as well do the war criminals and traitors, too.

Same crowd.

[RobertEarl]

2. Sure

If they can get this to pass constitutional mustard, before spreading the mustard all over the Syrian hamburger about to be delivered, they can flush peace away: dinner is served!

[maddiemom]

83. Pass---MUSTER.

[Jackpine Radical]

105. Pun.

Sometimes you need to give yourself a moment to ketchup with things.

[kurtzapril4]

129. Olive for a good pun!

[Aerows]

134. Life without puns

is the pits.

[AAO]

116. Pass the grey poupon..... but of course!!

[demwing]

154. OK!

here ya go...

[maddiemom]

199. Good one. LOL

[Skittles]

3. why are you surprised?

they let us know from day one they were not interested in holding war criminals accountable

[Phlem]

26. Exactly

and from day 1 I was pissed. I guess health care is supposed to quell the masses from all the abuse that has been brought on us.

I say it's a little short, especially with the TTP headed our way.



-p

[magical thyme]

84. just a reminder, we do not have universal health care.

We have universal health INSURANCE. I have yet to see any insurance company provide any health care. They are not in business to provide health care. They are in business to collect money and deny health care in return.

[Myrina]

89. ^ x100 ^

Thank you.

[area51]

91. +1

What we need is an acknowledged right to health care, not GingrichCare, which is a law forcing people to buy lightly regulated insurance without the ability to go to a govt. option. GingrichCare will still let people die, and still let people go bankrupt.

[JayhawkSD]

93. We do not have universal health insurance, either.

We have the universal right to BUY health insurance.

[magical thyme]

126. huh?!? nobody stopped you from buying health insurance in the past.

Now you are forced to buy it, or pay a penalty.

And people who could pay a small amount for actual health care will have to fork that over to the insurance companies, plus come up with co-pays, deductibles, whatever.

[MrNJ]

171. Double-huh?? Nobody stopped you from buying, true enough

But nobody was selling to you if you had a pre-existing condition and weren't a part of the employee group.

[magical thyme]

202. oh, sorry, you're right. But now that those w/pre-existing conditions can buy health insurance

they will be able to join the rest of us who were denied payment for (or care) regardless.

Believe me, they will find new ways to refuse to pay. They paid doctors bonuses to not test and not treat in the past. They will find a way to do that, or something else, again.

They do not make profits by paying for health care. They make profits by not paying for health care. And they exist only to make profits. That is their sole purpose.

[ctsnowman]

96. Yup.

[AllyCat]

100. I asked my insurance company how denying coverage was anything different than

practicing medicine without a license? I was told they were just denying payment...the doctor could still provide the medicine needed if I wanted to pay for it out of pocket ($1000s).

They do not provide medical care. You are absolutely right.

[raouldukelives]

109. Yep. The same problem we had before.

Incredibly sad really. We had a good storm of energy. Moore's Sicko had raised public debate. People were demanding a change. They got it.
The problem, like in everything else, is the volume of the voice demanding change.
The people can speak pretty loud when they want.
Investors & Wall St workers ensure corporations can always speak the loudest.

[Catherina]

123. ^ Thank you ^ n/t

[no_hypocrisy]

104. It's one thing to do nothing about the war criminal re. prosecution.

It's entirely another thing to grant immunity which would be in force for a future administration.

[Skittles]

167. eh, just another extension

they were never interested in holding anyone accountable for senseless war, ever - now if you make any of that information public, WATCH OUT!!! They'll come after you like gangbusters.

[pitbullgirl1965]

4. BHAHAAAAA!!!

Well I hoped there would be a change in his last term, but the jokes on me!! This is sick. We need a real liberal in office, not this neo lib crap!

[Skittles]

31. I don't see through you

not at all

[mtasselin]

33. Not Hillary

If all things go according to their plans it will be Hillary, she is by no means a liberal. This whole mess started when Bill took money from Wall Street then Obama, we need Senator Warren, Russ Feingold someone not married to the gangsters and banksters.

[AllyCat]

102. The banksters will never allow anyone on that podium who won't work for them.

We need to go for the local elections and work our way up. That's my take, but I know there are many out there.

[7962]

189. IMO, it IS Hillary for '16. I see no Dem that can beat her.

After Obamas speech at the 04 convention, I knew he'd be trouble for Hillary. I see no one to realistically challenge her if she runs. And the GOP has no one who wants to run who can beat her either. Not that any here who dont like Hillary would vote for the GOP, I'm just covering all the bases. Their best bet, to me, would be Christie, but all the tea partiers wont back him.
So we'll have President Clinton. Again.

[pitbullgirl1965]

193. No she isn't a liberal BUT

she is far more aggressive about defending reproductive rights, and I doubt if she'll be as conciliatory towards the Republicans as President Obama has. :/

[Link Speed]

5. Whadya expect?

The Handlers would have never allowed Obama to run for Pres unless he agreed to never, ever pursue action against the prior Show Dogs.

"the legitimate scope of their employment" pretty much sums it up.

Different Dogs, same Handlers...

[Supersedeas]

15. But we are a nation of cowards...so say our great AG of these United States

[Nay]

73. More projection -- they are the real cowards. nt

[aquart]

6. Appalling.

But necessary for when Obama leaves office and the private lawuit harassment begins.

[Heather MC]

7. Ford did the same thing for Nixon

[Demeter]

28. that doesn't make it right either.

Ford's pardon was unpardonable.

[avebury]

36. And the lesson learned by that is that

being President, VP, or one of their minions means that you can commit whatever crimes you want to without any consequences. If this is true then there is no hope whatsoever for this country because the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans.

I am so fed up with politicians, corporate hacks and the 1% getting away with murder while the little people are the ones thrown into jail. Democracy is long dead in this country. Let there be a pox on both houses.

[Heather MC]

67. The lesson is they will always protect each other no matter what

[The Wizard]

80. No stained blue dress

no consequences. We're a nation that's 40% weirdos and crackpots. It's all been done before by other failed empires, and the United States is an empire on the skids.

[avebury]

92. Agree 1000%! nt

[CanSocDem]

98. Only "40%"...??? (eom)

[Ken Burch]

53. Nixon insisted on the pardon as his price for resigning.

Ford's mistake wasn't in pardoning Nixon...it was in covering for the fact that it was Nixon's demand.

Ford should just have said "look, the fucker wouldn't go without a pardon&quot he could have more presidential phraseology, of course).

If Ford had done that, he'd likely have beaten Jimmy Carter going away(remember, Carter blew a 30 point lead during that fall campaign).

I'm not saying that as someone who'd have liked to see Ford get re-elected, but it is the hardball political truth.

It's comparable, in one sense, to Humphrey not going public with the proof he had that Nixon's campaign had interfered in the Paris Peace talks in order to prevent a peace agreement being reached before the 1968 election. If Humphrey had done that, Nixon would immediately have been branded a traitor for putting American troops at risk in the name of winning the election, and his support likely would have cratered(I think it's possible Nixon would have finished behind Wallace in that particular scenario).

Weird how, in that era, the operating phrase among the leaders of BOTH parties somehow always seemed to be "whatever you do, always cut Nixon a break".

[Heather MC]

68. I would love to watch a YT video of Ford say "the fucker wouldn't go...."

Ha hs ha

[sabrina 1]

118. And Clinton did it for Bush Sr. n/t

[markpkessinger]

137. And you supported Ford's decision? n/t

[Heather MC]

160. Merely stating this is nothing new

[markpkessinger]

161. I don't think anybody has said it is particularly new . . .

. . . just that it is indefensible.

[Heather MC]

163. Most of the stuff we read about that's happening in our country is indefensible

Every five mins we learn something new that pisses us off. EX police in raleigh NC denying hungry poor people free food.

Gotta pick your battles, admit it deep down you always knew Bush Co would get away with it. Maybe I am just jaded.

[markpkessinger]

138. Ford granted a Presidential pardon to Nixon

. . . for any crimes committed. He did NOT interfere in a CIVIL lawsuit in order to seek immunity from civil liability.

[Logical]

8. Wow. Unbelievable. But nothing shocks me anymore. But at least Pot users are still being jailed! n-t

[babylonsister]

9. I wonder why no one else except this author

is reporting this? As for the source here...

Globalresearch.ca


http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch.ca

Globalresearch.ca (also under the domain name globalresearch.org) may best be described as a left-wing equivalent to WingNutDaily. It is the website of the Montreal-based non-profit The Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), founded by Michel Chossudovsky. The website describes itself as an "independent research and media organization." Globalresearch.ca takes pride in being a reliable "alternative news" source serving as a major repository of a broad range of "news articles, in-depth reports and analysis on issues which are barely covered by the mainstream media" (such as the New World Order). Its politico-economic stance is strongly anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, anti-militarist, "internationalist but anti-globalization." Its view of science, the economy and geopolitics seems to be broadly conspiracist.

Many of globalresearch.ca's articles discuss legitimate humanitarian or environmental concerns, but the site has a strong undercurrent of reality warping and bullshit throughout its pages.

Despite presenting itself as a source of scholarly analysis, globalresearch.ca mostly consists of polemics many of which accept (and use) conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and propaganda.

The prevalent conspiracist strand relates to global power-elites (primarily governments and corporations) and their New World Order. Specific featured conspiracy theories include those addressing 9/11, vaccines, genetic modification, Zionism, HAARP, global warming, and David Kelly. Analyses of these issues tend follow the lines of the site's political biases.

Apparently, contributors to globalresearch.ca consider information sourced from anyone who seems aligned to their ideology as reliable; during the 2011 Libyan civil war the site was an apologist for Muammar al-Gaddafi, reproducing his propaganda and painting him as a paragon of a modern leader.

[cherokeeprogressive]

22. Oh I don't know... a Google search for "Sundus Shaker Saleh" returns over 94,000 hits.

Someone's talking about it.

[abelenkpe]

23. Thank you! nt

[Hissyspit]

88. Filed Court Papers:

http://warisacrime.org/sites/afterdowningstreet.org/files/Certification%20of%20Scope%20of%20Employment.pdf

It comes from the law firm, apparently:

http://warisacrime.org/content/obama-doj-asks-court-grant-immunity-george-w-bush-iraq-war

[delrem]

55. Regardless of messenger, and there are many,

I think that to stay in character you'll have to change attitude from skepticism based on source of the info to wholehearted endorsement of immunity for war crimes committed by Cheney, Bush, and co.
Surely you knew this was coming?

[Hissyspit]

87. Here's a PDF of the court papers:

http://warisacrime.org/sites/afterdowningstreet.org/files/Certification%20of%20Scope%20of%20Employment.pdf

Comes from her law firm, best I can figure.

[treestar]

122. So a judge found they were in the scope of their employment

Of course they were. What is this outrage about? Does anyone even know?

Of course the government argues for them. When the government is sued, it defends itself.

How many times does this have to be explained? It is not a political position. It is just the government's job to defend the government when sued, including all of its minions.

[saidsimplesimon]

174. treestar, so, it's OK refusing to defend DOMA? snark

[NealK]

179. "What is this outrage about?"

In her lawsuit, Saleh alleges that:

-- Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz began planning the Iraq War in 1998 through their involvement with the “Project for the New American Century,” a Washington DC non-profit that advocated for the military overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

-- Once they came to power, Saleh alleges that Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz convinced other Bush officials to invade Iraq by using 9/11 as an excuse to mislead and scare the American public into supporting a war.

http://warisacrime.org/content/obama-doj-asks-court-grant-immunity-george-w-bush-iraq-war

Gee I wonder why most people, except for the Obama-can-do-no-wrong clique, are outraged about war criminals getting immunity.

[AikidoSoul]

208. I wouldn't trash them completely

GlobalResearch provided the DOJ decision to grant immunity, and that item has not appeared ANYWHERE in the mainstream press. See the DOJ document here:

http://witnessiraq.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Aug-20-2013-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf

[AikidoSoul]

209. And here's the link to the civil suit against Bush, et al

http://witnessiraq.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/SalehBush.pdf

[bowens43]

10. Obama continues to disappoint what a fuck up

[cigsandcoffee]

11. He's protecting the Presidency as an institution, not Bush. /nt

[orpupilofnature57]

14. The president is only part of an institution, he's a person, like a corporation.

Justice my ass, just another assault on the constitution .

[cigsandcoffee]

17. I read once that all Presidents take it as a mission to protect the executive powers of the office.

They're part of a pretty exclusive club.

I don't think Obama has any warm feelings for Bush or the Iraq war. But he wouldn't want to see the office of the Presidency diminished by having his predecessor face a trial like this, thus making it possible he may someday face a trial like this.

[summer-hazz]

61. Maybe cigandcoffee

even if a sliver of the OP is true...and it most likely is...

How about this... and I'm angry right now, so sorry if
I mis speak.

I don't recall anyone stepping up to defend
the "CLUB" members when Clinton was trashed
all to hell and back!

Apparently, Bush's X AG and Obama are doing many things
that don't add up for the Left wing..
If this continues, its going to hurt the Left, and the "New" DLC...

[Half-Century Man]

79. "The office of the President diminished"

I want to chip in on that topic.
Pres. Ford publicly stated he pardoned ex-Pres. Nixon to preserve the dignity of the office of President (paraphrase by me). At the time and now I thought the the Office of President was not preserved but in fact tarnished by not holding the temporary occupant accountable for their actions while holding that office.

Think of the Office of the President as a nationally treasured statue and the current office holder as the chief pigeon atop the statue. The way to keep the statue looking good is to clean it occasionally, not ignore the pigeon shit.

[hueymahl]

117. I agree, 100%, but

This is not exactly the same situation. Nixon violated US law. Bush/Cheney did too, but this is not what this lawsuit is about. It is about the presidency being subject to an international tribunal, and Obama is taking a principled stand that the US Executive Branch should never be subject to an international court.

[Harry Monroe]

205. "The office of the Presidency diminished...."

Do you mean like when Clinton was impeached over a blow job? Sorry to break it to you, but the office has already been diminished. We strengthen it when we hold Presidents accountable for war crimes and felonies, but diminish it when we dismiss these crimes. Seems that Presidents can get away with anything nowdays (except blow jobs).

[Electric Monk]

18. He's protecting the Presidency as an institution, and Bush, and himself. (fixed it for you) nt

[winter is coming]

21. He's damaging the Presidency by covering for a war criminal. n/t

[Supersedeas]

82. Exactly.

[JEB]

99. Let alone the concept of damaging the Presidency

by committing war crimes.

[NealK]

180. +1 n/t

[bhikkhu]

35. That is true

if you look back at the last few wars, and the people involved at the top acting on behalf of their administrations, a precedent set here could lead to endless litigation by millions of affected parties. I don't like the whole thing, but I don't see that the president has any choice.

Even Obama could spend the rest of his life fighting court cases based on the Afghanistan war, and certainly the "war on terror". Protecting state actors from international liability is pretty much the standard in every government. It would be really nice if there was no reason to, but such is the world.

[Jack Rabbit]

66. Perhaps the presidency as an institution is the problem

It seems it doesn't matter who we elect president any more. The President -- or the presidency, if you prefer -- is an institution with elephantiasis, like our largest corporations. It's too big and too imperious to represent a democracy as a head of state.

If I could rewrite the US Constitution, I would make the most changes in the executive branch. There would be no unified executive. Cabinet officers would be appointed by the Prime Minister with the approval of parliament and oversee a bureaucracy made up of technocrats, whose job, collectively, is to execute the law as passed by parliament. A national coordinator could be appointed to make sure everyone is on the same page as to enforcing the law. This would be the closest thing to a chief executive we would have, but he, too, would be a technocrat with no real power to make policy. All policy making authority rests in parliament, whose members are elected by the people.

We could have a president, a figurehead to officially call election after parliament has sat for a set period of time or when the PM resigns in a crisis of confidence and then ask the leader of the party with the most seats to form a new government after the election. Otherwise, the president can be assigned duties as parliament sees fit, such as finding lost puppies in our national parks. You know, things that you could actually trust Ronald Reagan to do right. Under no circumstances should this president be given enough power to make any mischief. That kind of president will be a thing of the past.

[burnodo]

77. And that's a good thing?

[Enthusiast]

133. Thanks for the satisfying explanation

As long as it's just the institution, that makes it all better.

[Chisox08]

195. No you protect the office of the President by prosecuting the people who abused their power.

By giving immunity to Bush and his war criminal administration it allows for future war crimes to be committed future Presidents. Reagan and Bush Sr. should have been prosecuted for their involvement in Iran-Contra but they wasn't just like Bush Jr. should be prosecuted for the unprovoked, illegal Iraq War.

[orpupilofnature57]

12. And Manning and Snowden are criminals ? no shit. How about purger's, knowingly lying ?

[russspeakeasy]

90. You, in my estimation, are the winner. Thanks.

[Autumn]

13. Here is is a link that is better than the one you are using

http://warisacrime.org/content/obama-doj-asks-court-grant-immunity-george-w-bush-iraq-war#.UhPHfrX5o3Q.facebook

globalresearch is a CT site and a lot of people object to it.

[snooper2]

97. This whole thread is full of fail...I wonder if anybody has actually "read" the 2 page PDF

But that doesn't make for good a good stir-up---

How about-

OBAMA IS LETTING BUSH OFF THE HOOK FOR WAR CRIMES!


There, that is better

[Downwinder]

16. Nuremberg defense??

[GoneFishin]

19. Yep. The fucking Nuremberg Defense.

[chuckstevens]

20. Impeachment is Off the Table!

I love Nancy Pelosi, but that was the worst political move in US History. These war criminals knew once the Democrats stated it, they were home free!

[Maedhros]

185. That was when I knew the Democratic Party had jumped the shark.

All that sturm-und-drang prior to the 2006 midterms: Elect a Democratic majority! Give us subpoena power so we can hold Bush accountable!

So, when they got the majority they craved the very first thing out of Pelosi's mouth was "impeachment is off the table." [cue sad trombone] Now we have to keep our powder dry for the Presidential Election - but HOO BOY! Once we get our guy in the White House, we'll fix everything.*

*Some restrictions apply. Consult Wall Street for details.

[tblue]

191. The Repubs put it back on.

At least they talk about it a lot. Not like the Dems. No, we keep our powder dry.

[Elmergantry]

24. Professional Courtesy nt

[sabrina 1]

25. Why would you need immunity if you had done nothing wrong?

It seems that the DOJ KNOWS they have committed crimes, doesn't want to try to argue the case in court knowing they would lose, so they are trying to stop the judicial process from going forward by claiming they are 'not responsible for what they did'.

It is shameful. It is even more shameful that WE are responsible for this. At least with Bush we were not responsible, we didn't vote for them.

Talk about being scammed! I feel like someone who was just robbed by their closest friend.

[Logical]

27. Great point! n-t

[L0oniX]

45. +1 ^^^this^^^

[JEB]

95. No accountability for the big shots.

Little people have to suffer in silence.

[ctsnowman]

103. Nailed it.

[NealK]

182. "Why would you need immunity if you had done nothing wrong?"

Well said.

[Phlem]

29. not surprised in the least.

I was disappointed in him on day 1 with the bipartisanship babble. We all new that shit wasn't going to work and you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

Bipartisanship, his perfect excuse for not getting anything done. I saw that one a mile away.



the rest is just to much to bear.

-p

[MNBrewer]

30. Perhaps he wants to set a good example

for his successor. Syria, here we come!!!

[madinmaryland]

32. Since 1789, has any US President allowed the prosecution of a previous President?

[delrem]

56. Well, Bill Clinton faced impeachment hearings.

But that wasn't for lying the country into a war of aggression that cost $trillions$ and over a 100,000 deaths, the destruction of a country and destabilization of a sub-continent. It was for a much more serious crime, in the eyes of the US public.

[JoePhilly]

76. That's not one President going after a prior President.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

69. Has any US President INTERFERRED WITH A PRIVATE CIVIL LAWSUIT AGAINST a previous President?

No one is prosecuting or trying to prosecute Bush. Or Cheney who went on TV and openly admitting his involvement with the war crime of torturing a prisoner.

[markpkessinger]

139. Thank you! n/t

[orpupilofnature57]

192. In fact Ford was ridiculed for giving Trickie Dick a pardon .

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/ford-pardons-nixon

[WCLinolVir]

34. No wonder none of those SOB's lose sleep.

When do we get justice for a war that has destroyed us in so many ways, not to mention what it did to others? A war in name only as it was clearly not about weapons of mass destruction, except our own.

[MannyGoldstein]

37. #$%&ing Awesome!!! The wonder and the majesty of it all.

I want to weep. Really weep. Seriously sob. Scream. Wail.

[Amonester]

38. Because they want the same be done to them in case...

From one administration to the next, you know?

[Harry Monroe]

207. You really expect Obama to be given "professional" courtesy, if the next President is a Republican?

Especially if that next President is, God forbid, a lunatic, foaming at the mouth, ignorant Teabilly?

Delusional much?

You lie down with dogs, expect to wake up with fleas:


There’s a native American tale of an old rattlesnake who asks a passing young boy to carry him to the mountain top to see one last sunset before he dies. The boy was hesitant, but the rattlesnake promised not to bite him in exchange for the ride. After that concession, the boy carried the snake to the top of the mountain where they watched the sunset together.

Upon carrying the snake back down to the valley floor, the boy prepares him a meal and a bed for the night. In the morning the snake asks:

"Please little boy, will you take me back to my home now? It is time for me to leave this world, and I would like to be at my home now." The little boy felt he had been safe all this time and the snake had kept his word, so he would take it home as asked.

He carefully picked up the snake, took it close to his chest, and carried him back to the woods, to his home to die. Just before he laid the rattlesnake down, the rattlesnake turned and bit him in the chest. The little boy cried out and threw the snake upon the ground. “Mr. Snake, why did you do that? Now I will surely die!” The rattlesnake looked up at him and grinned:

"You knew what I was when you picked me up."

[forestpath]

39. Isn't that touching. Obama knocks himself out to cover Bush's ass, while

the Republican party is agitating to impeach him.

You can't make this shit up.

[surrealAmerican]

40. If it's a violation of international law ...

... why would this matter? Wouldn't the case need to be tried by someone other than the US court system? There's something here that I 'm just not understanding, and the article was not much help.

[NYC_SKP]

41. ~~~~~~~~~~ globalresearch is a shit source, it used to be forbidden on DU ~~~~~~~~~~

It's still a shit source, though permitted.

What else have you got?

[L0oniX]

44. Why do you hate Canada?

[NYC_SKP]

46. It's their coinage!

Canadian dimes?

I mean really, be original!

[L0oniX]

49. No wonder they don't tip.

[markpkessinger]

48. Read it and weep

http://warisacrime.org/sites/afterdowningstreet.org/files/Certification%20of%20Scope%20of%20Employment.pdf

[NYC_SKP]

51. Yes, I actually just found that in Sabrina's post.

This is interesting, but it's not surprising.

Not taking action would be an unprecedented move.

Besides, the DOJ is complicit, too many skeletons.

Did you actually ever think any president would condone prosecution of a former president?

We're all complicit in a way.

[markpkessinger]

52. "We're all complicit in a way" - what a bullshit rationalization n/t

[NYC_SKP]

64. Sorry to disappoint you, oh my!

I'm not going to expect an adult conversation with you, not in the mood you're in tonight.

Take care.

[ctsnowman]

107. X 1000

[PowerToThePeople]

114. We're all complicit in a way.

Bullshit.

You are not taking me with you if this shit-for-justice-country gets it's shit called from the rest of the world.

[NYC_SKP]

115. Yup, kiddo.... You should be calling bullshit on this OP.

But if you want to buy it hook line and sinker then you'd better take responsibility, pal.

You either didn't vote, so you're partly to blame.

Or you voted for Obama, the bad man who's doing this, so you're to blame.

Or you voted Republican, shame on you.

Unless you voted third party, by your own reasoning, then you're complicit.

So, how did you vote, buddy?



FTR I voted for Obama and I stand by it and this drama is bullshit.

[markpkessinger]

136. Granting immunity to war criminals is now reduced to "drama" . . .

. . . Now I've truly seen everything.

To be complicit in something, you have to have had knowledge of it. Where, in either of Obama's campaigns, did he inform us that he would seek immunity for BushCo?

[NYC_SKP]

140. Rather than either of us have a pointless battle over semantics, how about better sources?

How do you explain the fact that only two obscure and conspiracy prone websites are running this story?

[markpkessinger]

141. I've already provided a link to the filed papers n/t

[markpkessinger]

142. Is Daily Kos now a "conspiracy prone website?"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/22/1233110/-DOJ-Asks-Court-to-Grant-Immunity-to-Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-for-Iraq-War

[NYC_SKP]

151. Daily Kos, like Drudge and Huffington, is not an original source in most instances.

It's a combination or repostings and editorializing, not a journalistic or investigatory enterprise.

Nice try tho.

[markpkessinger]

152. So you are disputing that this motion was even filed? n/t

[markpkessinger]

156. (((crickets)))

[DisgustipatedinCA]

168. Cat got your tongue?

.

[NYC_SKP]

170. No. I happen to have a job that takes considerable attention away from having foolish arguments.

It's a terrific job, I love it, hard work but good pay.

However, it prevents me from having as much time as others to wage wars of words with anonymous people on the internet.

Now where were we and what is it that you want?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

172. I wanted to know if you plan to back up your accusation. Get to it when you get to it.

[NYC_SKP]

175. What accusation was that?

And seriously don't you have anything better to do, like go for a walk, do some gardening, or look up the word "twerk"?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=twerk

[markpkessinger]

145. Are you claiming this motion has not been filed?

Because unless you are asserting that claim, your issue about the "conspiracy prone" nature of the websites reporting it amounts to little more than attempt to side track the discussion.

[LanternWaste]

153. I imagine conflating precise communication with " pointless battle over semantics"...

I imagine conflating precise communication with " pointless battle over semantics" allows one the convenience of glossing over the relevant.

[SidDithers]

149. Not sure David Swanson's site is any better than globalresearch...

anybody remember "Osama bin Lynched"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1034139

Sid

[NealK]

184. Is this one a shit source too?

http://warisacrime.org/content/obama-doj-asks-court-grant-immunity-george-w-bush-iraq-war

If you also disapprove of this site then just google the headline and pick a link among the 7,530,000 results.

[Ash_F]

42. Meanwhile, pubs are clamoring to impeach Obama

Maybe he just hasn't been licking their boots hard enough.

Sooner or later he will earn their respect.

[NuclearDem]

43. So basically, go fuck yourselves, victims.

I mean, proud, happy inhabitants of a new righteous democracy! Can't you just be happy?! We brought democracy!

[Pterodactyl]

47. This makes sense. Otherwise the following adminstration would be open to prosecution...

...for Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya and the upcoming war in Syria.

[KoKo]

143. yep.... cover it up...cover it up...keep on digging. Sad isn't it.

[Pterodactyl]

194. Yeah, and they would have had to prosecute Lyndon Johnson, of course.

[flvegan]

50. If true...Don't blame me, I voted for Kucinich.

I'm going to keep wagging that in your faces, "dems" for the rest of my days.

[sabrina 1]

54. This is very interesting. I just read through the whole thing and it appears

that the DOJ is basing its contention that the Bush gang ARE immune due to their job description under the Westfall Act.

But this Iraqi Woman appears to have preempted that defense because she is accusing them of plotting all of this BEFORE they stole their jobs in the WH.

In her lawsuit, Saleh alleges that:

– Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz began planning the Iraq War in 1998 through their involvement with the “Project for the New American Century,” a Washington DC non-profit that advocated for the military overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

– Once they came to power, Saleh alleges that Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz convinced other Bush officials to invade Iraq by using 9/11 as an excuse to mislead and scare the American public into supporting a war.

From her attorney, it sounds like they expected this response which may be why they went back to their PNAC days where they pre-meditated the crime in Iraq:

“The good news is that while we were disappointed with the certification, we were prepared for it,” Comar stated. “We do not see how a Westfall Act certification is appropriate given that Ms. Saleh alleges that the conduct at issue began prior to these defendants even entering into office. I think the Nuremberg prosecutors, particularly American Chief Prosecutor Robert Jackson, would be surprised to learn that planning a war of aggression at a private non-profit, misleading a fearful public, and foregoing proper legal authorization somehow constitute lawful employment duties for the American president and his or her cabinet.”

In a just society they would all be in jail by now and all of their ill-gotten wealth would have been used up in law suits with nothing left for their heirs, assuring that we wouldn't have to deal with the next generation of potential criminals, as we are seeing with Cheney.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

70. Rec

[Catherina]

124. I wish all our victims luck If the day ever comes where our so-called leaders are brought to justice

I'll be standing with the victims.

[KoKo]

144. And, those who say "we didn't try"...that we were

just "Good Germans" ....well they will see how it turns out.

We tried against a stacked deck.... We just didn't know that our votes for change would be cast aside. That our work to get a Dem House and Senate was just for show. That much has been ....just for show.

[SidDithers]

57. And another outrage widget hits the shop floor...

**clunk**

Sid

[Union Scribe]

60. Are you for pardoning Bush, Cheney et al? nt

[rhett o rick]

63. Maybe you should alert and see that this type of discussion is smote. nm

[Warren Stupidity]

78. He did. He will attempt to convince the gd hosts to lock it because of the source.

And the source is generally dubious, but in this case it is accurate. Tis lawsuit is real as is the response from the administration.

[rhett o rick]

120. What response from the admin? nm

[Capt. Obvious]

157. Normally he just locks it

Has he stopped going rogue?

[SidDithers]

183. Bullshit...

I've never locked a post without Host consensus.



You got nuthin'.

Sid

[Capt. Obvious]

196. Yeah, just the ATA threads about your locks

that were summarily unlocked.

[SidDithers]

197. One was a 5-0 vote to lock among Hosts when it was locked...

the other was 4-1.

Skinner also locked this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023523421 despite the vote among Hosts being 7-3 to Leave it.

Hosts sometimes get it wrong, but nothing is done without consensus.

Your accusation of going rogue is pure, unadulterated bullshit.

Sid

[Capt. Obvious]

198. Knock yourself out if it makes you feel better

[SidDithers]

200. Calling you out on your bullshit accusation makes me feel better...

Sid

[Hissyspit]

94. ?

http://warisacrime.org/sites/afterdowningstreet.org/files/Certification%20of%20Scope%20of%20Employment.pdf

[another_liberal]

58. This is a joke post, right?

Tell me our President did not do this.

If he truly did, it is among the most obvious cover-your-own-ass, self-serving moves ever made by an American leader. Presidents of this country are not supposed to be above the law.

[YOHABLO]

59. They are including Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice.

They, among others, should be tried for war crimes .. they knowingly took us into an invasion of a sovereign country under false pretenses (a lie). Thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens lost their lives, were injured, or displaced because of the intentional avarice. And thousands of U.S. military lost their lives as well. If they become immune to litigation .. people of the world should be outraged. For once I would like to see justice done. Just once.

[WinkyDink]

62. "legitimate scope of their employment" = lies to commit a crime against humanity?

[PDJane]

65. The USA will not prosecute their own war crimes,

And the USA is not a member of the International Court at the Hague. After it was set up and finished with the German War Crimes tribunals, the US refused to join, and hasn't to this day. That tells me that the US feels it's above the laws it helped write, and no American war criminal, from the president on down, is going to be prosecuted.

It's part of that American privilege stuff, y'see.

[Ghost in the Machine]

204. "After it was set up and finished with the German War Crimes tribunals, the US refused to join,....

...and hasn't to this day." <~~~ This is just a *little* wrong. Clinton signed the treaty in 2000, Bush unsigned it in 2002..

Monday, 6 May, 2002, 21:53 GMT 22:53 UK
US renounces world court treaty

The United States has withdrawn from a treaty to establish an International Criminal Court (ICC), provoking outrage from human rights organisations.

In a letter to the United Nations delivered on Monday, the US says it will not consider itself bound by the treaty - even though Bill Clinton signed up to it in 2000.

The US has vehemently opposed the setting up of the ICC, fearing its soldiers and diplomats could be brought before the court which will hear cases of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The Washington Working Group on the ICC - an umbrella group of organisations supporting the court - said withdrawing from the treaty was a "rash action signalling to the world that America is turning its back on decades of US leadership in prosecuting war criminals since the Nuremberg trials."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1970312.stm

Peace,

Ghost

[thesquanderer]

71. Obama MUST support immunity for Bush because...

if no immunity is available for these things, then after Obama leaves office, he could likewise be held accountable for the civilians killed in drone strikes.

(Yes, I'm repeating what I said the last time someone posted this...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1178&pid=1446
though more people seem to be seeing this one!)

[AnotherMcIntosh]

127. What about the forced feeding of Gitmo prisoners?

[KoKo]

147. 200 Days Now. But, he did set up a Board of Review or something....

I think that was a month ago... Gitmo Prisoners are still being force fed and their consolation according to several reports is that some were given the Bestseller "50 Shades of Grey" for their reading entertainment.

You can't make this stuff up...it's there.

[NealK]

187. Speaking of books at Gitmo:

Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago has been banned by Guantanamo Bay authorities.

"However, Mr Aamer has now told his lawyers that he never received the book. Of course, this isn't the first time that 'The Gulag Archipelago' has had problems with the authorities: when it was completed in 1968, it had to be smuggled out of the Soviet Union on microfilm so that it could be published in the West."

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/25/guantanamo-bay-authorities-ban-solzhenitsyns-the-gulag-archipelago/

[KoKo]

188. Ha! "50 Shades of Grey" is Approved but Not Gulag Archipelago?

As I said...You can't make this stuff up. And we aren't Torturers...We don't kill Women and Children...We do Clean Drone Strikes the "collateral stuff" just happens because you were in the "wrong place at the wrong time."

It get's so OTT how can one make sense, anymore.

[NealK]

190. So true.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

72. You would think that international law would still hold them responsible

even though the US didn't.

I never thought of Bush and Cheney as employees!

[A Simple Game]

111. Nor are you alone, Bush and Cheney didn't think of themselves as employees either.

But why should we hold our Presidents accountable? It's not like we have supported the imprisonment of foreign leaders or imprisoned them ourselves for similar or lesser crimes. And we certainly wouldn't support the capture and execution of a foreign leader for any crimes.

[KoKo]

148. Also...Nuremberg Trials are but a distant memory these days..

And, International Law didn't hold up when we invaded Iraq...and the aftermath.

Nuremberg Trials...
Coordinates: 49°27.2603?N 11°02.9103?E The Nuremberg Trials were a series of military tribunals, held by the Allied forces of World War II, most notable for the prosecution of prominent members of the political, military, and economic leadership of Nazi Germany. The trials were held in the city of Nuremberg. The first and best known of these trials, described as "[t]he greatest trial in history" by Norman Birkett, one of the British judges who presided over it,[1] was the Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal (IMT). Held between 20 November 1945 and 1 October 1946,[2] the Tribunal was given the task of trying 23 of the most important political and military leaders of the Third Reich, though one of the defendants, Martin Bormann, was tried in absentia, while another, Robert Ley, committed suicide within a week of the trial's commencement. Not included were Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, and Joseph Goebbels, all of whom had committed suicide several months before the indictment was signed.[3] The second set of trials of lesser war criminals was conducted under Control Council Law No. 10 at the US Nuremberg Military Tribunals (NMT); among them included the Doctors' Trial and the Judges' Trial. This article primarily deals with the IMT; see the Subsequent Nuremberg Trials for details on those trials.

[stevenleser]

74. Ugh. nt

[bluedeathray]

75. They're not out of the woods

Internationally.

Although "supposedly" President Obama put pressure on Spain to halt an investigation of alleged war crimes against Bush and his cabinet.

And they were found guilty of war crimes in Malaysia.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/13/1091353/-Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-etc-Convicted-of-War-Crimes

[Javaman]

81. My take away from this is...

the administration and all involved know fully well they george w. moron* and his good squad are guilty.

more of the 1% allowed to get away with murder.

Oh there was a president once upon a time that said, "It's not illegal if the president does it". and that president was pardoned. So in a way, I guess old tricky dick was right.

they might have to jump through some hoops, but at the end of the day, they still will get away with it.

And is it any wonder why no one trust politicians?

[Alkene]

85. I guess that pretty much wraps it up for me.

Any unfinished business about the blatant and severe crimes against humanity by the Bush II administration are being addressed.

Swept away, the foul detritus of an awful period in human history. The doors closed and bolted, that wing of the building sealed off from inspection.
Please move on down the hall; it's what we do: turning away and moving on from our own unpleasantness.

End of sentence, end of paragraph, end of chapter.

[JoeyT]

112. Not quite the end yet.

They still have to rewrite history so the blame for the failed invasion falls to the people that opposed it from the start instead of the ones that fucked it up. This lays the groundwork for it, though.

For revision to work, it's imperative the courts not be allowed to rule that it was a massive clusterfuck of lies by people that wanted to give no-bid contracts to their friends surrounding an idiot president with daddy issues.

[MisterP]

158. "the President said it, I believe it, that settles it": 2004 bumper sticker updated for all admins!

[Alkene]

166. Indeed.

Past, present and future.

[AzDar]

101. Wow. Just...wow.

[limpyhobbler]

106. And the next gop President will return the favor

by granting immunity to Obama, Hillary Clinton, Paneta, and the rest.

[polichick]

181. They HOPE Republicans will return the favor...

They're crazy to count on it.

[merrily]

108. Duh? Obama wants the same courtesy from the next POTUS.

Not sure why this is a surprise. Obama intervened in Spain several years ago, when a judge wanted to declare Bushco war criminals.

That's what "look forward, not back" (when it comes to rich and powerful criminals) means.

[valerief]

110. It's 59-dimensional chess. nt

[ancianita]

113. This is the stuff that foments deep seated hatred by the people and a desire for overthrow.

Gradual legalized betrayals by stealth are how they get the public to eat their globalist elephant one bite at a time.

[WillyT]

121. K & R !!! - Being Reported Here Too...

Link: http://www.ringoffireradio.com/2013/08/department-of-justice-asks-court-to-grant-bush-admins-immunity-for-iraq-war/

[joanbarnes]

125. I just threw up

[felix_numinous]

128. The pardon only exists inside their bubble

of reality, which has long since proven itself to be neither just nor respectful for life.

[Swede Atlanta]

130. Those in power will continue to protect one another.....

Obama will protect the Bush criminals and expects, as a matter of course, that the next president will protect him and his peeps for their criminal acts.

Our government is nothing but serial criminal activity but we are procedurally and otherwise prevented from doing anything about it. Obama and his cronies (unless he appoints Summers to head the FED and that criminal from NY to head DHS) will be insulated from any possible criminal or civil charges for their crimes. It is what people in power do.

Power to the people from which it all originates!!!

[Enthusiast]

131. K&R

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[alp227]

146. Government protecting their own, what's new?

Even Holder's DOJ practices the Blue Code of Silence.

[Rex]

150. Did you really expect something different?

I didn't. No way would the govt admit that someone in govt invaded another national illegally and caused millions of deaths. That would require for the laws of the land to be equal for all people and principle actors alike. And we know that ain't about to happen. Not in America.

[NYC_SKP]

155. Seems like a no-brainer. People really have to manage their expectations.

And now while they're being all pushed out of shape, shit is happening that they could actually do something about.

[Corruption Inc]

159. I wonder if they'll ask to have the Statue of Liberty removed too

Might as well, this country is no longer a beacon for anything.

[BlueJac]

162. Bull shit

he must be fucking nuts. He wants the same and will get no good will from the right wing...........CRAZY. I wasted my vote twice on this fool!!!! NEVER AGAIN!

[Octafish]

164. BFEE Forever!

"The best slave is the one who thinks he is free." -- Johann von Goethe

[Marr]

169. From the same office that says Snowden should've used "proper channels" to expose their crimes.

It's fucking laughable.

[MrMickeysMom]

173. Think about it, Barack Obama...

.... therefore... think about it...

[BlancheSplanchnik]

176. :( n/t

[truebluegreen]

186. It is all about protecting the powerful, not about justice.

Makes me ill.

[ladyVet]

201. I don't know why anybody would be surprised at this.

It's the same thing Obama and his administration will expect from the next president, for the things they're doing. Tit for tat, as they say.

[Harry Monroe]

206. Except if, God help us, that President is a looney bin-Teabilly Republican

There’s a native American tale of an old rattlesnake who asks a passing young boy to carry him to the mountain top to see one last sunset before he dies. The boy was hesitant, but the rattlesnake promised not to bite him in exchange for the ride. After that concession, the boy carried the snake to the top of the mountain where they watched the sunset together.

Upon carrying the snake back down to the valley floor, the boy prepares him a meal and a bed for the night. In the morning the snake asks:

"Please little boy, will you take me back to my home now? It is time for me to leave this world, and I would like to be at my home now." The little boy felt he had been safe all this time and the snake had kept his word, so he would take it home as asked.

He carefully picked up the snake, took it close to his chest, and carried him back to the woods, to his home to die. Just before he laid the rattlesnake down, the rattlesnake turned and bit him in the chest. The little boy cried out and threw the snake upon the ground. “Mr. Snake, why did you do that? Now I will surely die!” The rattlesnake looked up at him and grinned:

"You knew what I was when you picked me up."

[AikidoSoul]

203. This is the FINAL FUCKING STRAW!!!!!!

We should all be screaming in the streets!!!!