All rise. The Honorable DUvian Judges presiding; this court is in session

[LynnTheDem]

Case DUXXXXXX1; Legality vs Illegality of Iraq invasion under International Law.

Prosection charges: ILLEGAL.

Prosecution's Evidence

Exhibit 1

The international legal rules governing the use of force take as their starting point Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter, which prohibits any nation from using force against another. The charter allows for only two exceptions to this rule:

-when force is required in self-defense (Article 51) or

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter1.htm

-when the Security Council authorizes the use of force to protect international peace and security (Chapter VII).

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm

Under Article 51, the triggering condition for the exercise of self-defense is the occurrence of an armed attack ("if an armed attack occurs"). Notwithstanding the literal meaning of that language, some, though not all, authorities interpret Article 51 to permit anticipatory self-defense in response to an imminent attack. The application of the basic law regarding self-defense to the present U.S. confrontation with Iraq is straightforward. Iraq has not attacked any state, nor is there any showing whatever that an attack by Iraq is imminent. Therefore self-defense does not justify the use of force against Iraq by the United States or any state.

Added to this, bush himself has repeatedly said Iraq was a "future threat", that we "can't afford to wait until a future attack becomes imminent" and that he "never said the threat from Iraq was 'imminent'".

As well, the "gold standard" of US intelligence is the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate, in which CIA Director George Tenet called the threat from Iraq "low";

George Tenet; "My judgment would be that the probability of him initiating an attack--let me put a time frame on it--in the foreseeable future, given the conditions we understand now, the likelihood I think would be low."

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0306/S00211.htm

The Bush administration's reliance on the need for "regime change" in Iraq as a basis for use of force is also barred by Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."

Article 2(4) barring the threat or use of force has been described by the International Court of Justice as a peremptory norm of international law, from which states cannot derogate. (Nicaragua v United States, 1986; ICJ Reports 14, at para. 190)

Equally, Chapter VII does not apply, as the Security Council clearly voted against invading Iraq and have in fact declared the invasion illegal and in violation of the UN Charter.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2004/s1200535.htm

Any claim that "material breach" of prior cease fire obligations by Iraq justifies use of force by the United States is unavailing. The Gulf War was a Security Council authorized action, not a state versus state conflict; accordingly, it is for the Security Council to determine whether there has been a material breach and whether such breach requires renewed use of force.

Under the UN Charter, which is the foundation of international law, the invasion of Iraq is illegal, and has been deemed so by the UN Security Council.

Exhibit 2

Pearl Harbor.

Very few Americans would declare Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor to have been legal. Yet the motivation for Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbour was to prevent a feared military buildup by the United States. In other words, a preventive strike of a perceived future threat. Also known as the 'Bush Doctrine'.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-03/ps-pwa030503.php

Witnesses:

International legal experts regard Iraq war as illegal

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) in Geneva expressed its “deep dismay that a small number of states are poised to launch an outright illegal invasion of Iraq, which amounts to a war of aggression.”

The rule governing self-defence applies only when an enemy attack has already taken place or is imminent. There is no legal sanction for a preventive war. Should a state regard itself as threatened by another a state, although no hostilities have taken place, the threatened state is obliged to call on the Security Council—the only body authorised to legitimise military action in such a case.

http://www.icj.org/IMG/pdf/Iraq_war_18_03_03_.pdf

Canadian law professors declare US-led war illegal

The US-led coalition’s war against Iraq is illegal, declared 31 Canadian professors of international law at 15 law faculties.

A US attack “would be a fundamental breach of international law and would seriously threaten the integrity of the international legal order that has been in place since the end of the Second World War,”

http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2003/msg01357.html

Australian legal experts declare an invasion of Iraq a war crime

Forty-three Australian experts in international law and human rights legislation have issued a declaration that an invasion of Iraq will be an open breach of international law and a crime against humanity...

...the indictment of the German Nazi leaders at the 1945-1949 Nuremberg War Crimes Trials was precisely for carrying out preemptive military strikes against neighbouring countries. They were tried and convicted of “planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances”.

http://law.anu.edu.au/cipl/Media/Waging%20war%20crimes%20Feb03.pdf

War on Iraq was illegal, say top lawyers

-Professor Philippe Sands QC Director of the Centre on International Courts and Tribunals, University College London

-Professor Robert Black QC Professor of Scots law, Edinburgh University, and architect of the Lockerbie trial in The Hague

-Professor Sean Murphy Associate professor of law at George Washington University, Washington DC

-Professor Vaughan Lowe Chichele Professor of Public International Law, All Souls College, Oxford

-Professor James Crawford Whewell Professor of International Law, Jesus College, Cambridge

-Professor Mary Kaldor Professor of global governance, London School of Economics

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2003/0525warillegal.htm

Iraq War Illegal but Trial Unlikely, Lawyers Say

Most experts in international law say they are not convinced either by the argument that military action against Iraq is authorized by earlier U.N. resolutions nor that the U.N. Charter allows self-defense against a perceived future threat.

http://middleeastinfo.org/article2270.html

War would be illegal

We are teachers of international law. On the basis of the information publicly available, there is no justification under international law for the use of military force against Iraq.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,909275,00.html

Lawyers Tell Senate: Use of Force Against Iraq Without New Security Council Resolution Is Unlawful; Urge Congress to Uphold U.N. Charter

http://www.wslfweb.org/docs/iraqpr.pdf

British Prime Minister Tony Blair breaks Code, refuses to release advice he received on the legality of the invasion of Iraq.

Tony Blair is facing calls for a formal investigation after it emerged that he breached the official code of conduct for ministers by failing to show the Attorney General's full advice on the legality of the Iraq war to the Cabinet.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=618151

In that Mr. Blair is under extremely heavy fire from all sides, including from his own Party, and his political career is at serious risk over the entire issue, the only conclusion that can reasonably be drawn by his refusal to release the legal statement is that the advice stated the invasion would be illegal.

bush administration Richard Perle; War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal.

...influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal. In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London:

"I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html

Let us pray, Mr. Perle, that the entire rest of the world continues to disagree with wars of aggression; their idea of what constitutes "morally unacceptable" may not be of benefit to America's health.

Conclusion: Under international law, under the UN Charter, declared illegal by the UN, in agreement with most international lawyers, and by bush's and Mr. Perle's own words, it's a clear case; the invasion of Iraq was illegal.

Court will now listen to Defense arguments.

Will Defense please present its case.

[tkmorris]

1. Lacking a credible defense by defense lawyers

The prosecution moves that we proceed directly to the penalty phase. The prosecution wishes to tie up no more of this busy courts time than is neccessary, and given that this is such an open and shut case we would offer the defense the opportunity to spare the nation an expensive and certainly embarrassing trial.

Your honor? What say you?

[LynnTheDem]

3. The DUvian Judges will vote yea or nay later...we need some pro-war

posters to lay out their "legal" arguments. I say let's give Defense time to make shit up (hey, I'm on the prosecutor's team!) and besides, I'm looking forward to the rebuttal. :D

Edit to add: LOL and I agree with you but damn the expense, let's cream them! :D

[Silverhair]

21. Problem: Freepers are not allowed to post on DU.

Anybody that would argue that the Iraq war was justified would almost certainly have already been banned from DU. On some things we don't have very much diversity around here. So there isn't anybody available to argue the defense.

Kind of like it once was in a small community where no one wanted to be the defense lawyer for someone obviously guilty of a horrible crime. Many people would think you were really on the guys side, even if you were only playing devil's advocate.

[LynnTheDem]

22. Hmmm. Good point. So what we need are some devil advocates.

Oh pardon me *cough* I mean we need some devil's advocates.

[Silverhair]

27. Doesn't matter. Thread has gone in a humor direction.

I was thinking that it would be a serious thread and so a serious defender would be needed. But DUers have taken it in a fun direction, and that's a good thing.

[LynnTheDem]

28. Anyone willing to "play devil's advocate" and advance a serious defense

in either a serious or fun way is great, (just provide real links to back up the defense) and I have my serious (and legally factual) rebuttal all ready.

I thought doing it this way would be a fun way to pick up info one may have missed previously. :D

[Silverhair]

34. That would make my head hurt. I'll pass. Anybody else? NT

[Hissyspit]

2. LynnTheDem, if you don't mind my asking....

How come you stay up so late? I know why I'M up at 5:30 a.m. (it's Spring Break, for one thing), but I was just wondering. Are you on the West Coast? Are you on your husband's time schedule? Are you just about to go to sleep or are you just getting up? None of my business, of course. :-)

Another great informational thread, by the way.

[LynnTheDem]

5. Ya noticed, huh. :D

1. On hubby's (incredibly stupid crappy) schedule (military) :eyes:

2. Am self-employed and I do my work all hours of the day & night and while things are being processed, I DU. Beats staring blankly into the distance. :D

3. Texas; Central time zone (4.30am now)

4. Neither; not gone to bed yet, will do so tonight.

5. I'm not a big sleeper, 3-4 hours at a stretch is about it for me.

6. Thanks! :)

[countryjake]

4. Objection!!

Argumentative.

Counsel is obviously trying to change some minds here!

[LynnTheDem]

6. I OBJECT to the objection! That was a private conversation after Counsel

for the prosecution had finished opening arguments!

My esteemed colleague is obviously listening in to PC's private conversations in order to disrupt this court!

[Padraig18]

24. Overruled!

Argument is permtted in opening and closing statements!

*BANG!*

[Swamp Rat]

7. - A witness barges into the courtroom with 'damning' evidence -

*pant pant* ... "I took this photo of Bush right after the stolen 2004 election! It shows that George W. Bush is truly in league with the Devil" ... :scared:

[LynnTheDem]

9. Counsel requests a brief recess to allow time for Counsel to review the

status under international law on "the devil made me do it" defense.

...and to allow Counsel time to regain composure after the shock of viewing the witness's photographic evidence of the horrifyingly frightening evil-doer satanic war criminal. :scared:

[Swamp Rat]

17. Witness feels intimidated... fear of retaliation.

Witness is concerned the "Dumbya Defense" will succeed, and then there will be no place on Earth to hide.

[LynnTheDem]

19. Your Honor, I insist the witness is immediately given $200,000

in US tax-payer dollars for the witness protection program. I have here a clear bush administration precedent;

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1001-07.htm

[soup]

10. -a collective gasp as the court recognizes the esteemed

gentleman from Louisiana-

[LynnTheDem]

15. *An anonymous member of Prosecution's Counsel whispers only loudly

enough for entire court to hear*

"The entirely totally undoubtable and of the very highest integrity 'gentleman from Louisiana'."

[Hissyspit]

8. Entering Into Evidence: Mushroom Cloud

Oops, withdrawing the evidence. Jury will disregard any mention of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Instead we draw your attention to this bloody glove we found on Saddam's property...

"If the '9/11-Saddam Connections' fit, you must acquit!" -- DICK CHENEY (o.k., not really)

[LynnTheDem]

13. My learned colleague is in the wrong courtroom; the trial of

Docket # DUXXXX2 World vs GW bush in the case of "I never said 'weapons of mass destruction', I said "wiping my ass does suck some'" is being held in Court Room 13B.

[Hissyspit]

11. Nominated, by the way n/t

[ET Awful]

12. Hi Ladies and Gentleman, Your Honor, I'm Jonny Cochran for the defense

Now, ladies and gentleman, this is Chewbacca.



Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it. That does not make sense.

Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor with a bunch of two-foot-tall Ewoks. That does not make sense. But more important, you have to ask yourself what does this have to do with this case.

Nothing. Ladies and Gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case.

It does not make sense. Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major republican administration and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and Gentlemen I'm am not making any sense. None of this makes sense. And so you have to remember when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No. Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed jury it does not make sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor you must acquit. The defense rests.

[LynnTheDem]

16. I OBJECT!!! I OBJECT!!! Your Honor, this witness was not on our list!

And besides, Mr. Cochran isn't making any sense.

[ET Awful]

20. Of course I'm not making any sense, and that doesn't make any sense

So, as the ladies and gentlemens of the alleged jury can plainly see, they must acquit.

Or, we could settle, yeah, that's it, we'll settle the case. I'll settle now and not counter-sue if you give me 10 billion barrels of oil and a Cheeseburger.

[LynnTheDem]

23. Sidebar, Your Honor!

Surely my learned *cough* colleague knows a cheeseburger is out of the question! With the Canadian beef ban, we'd have to get the beef from Argentina, and they were the most opposed (89%) to bush's Iraq invasion of all western nations! They'd never agree to sell to us! Why we'd have to inva...what would Counsel like on that cheeseburger?

[ET Awful]

25. Hmmm, how about some falafel?

:evilgrin:

[LynnTheDem]

30. Sidebar Your Honor!!!

Your Honor, we have reason to believe the Defense Counsel is not actually a licensed attorney, and is, in fact, a known serial falafel-abuser. As such, we request his immediate removal from these proceedings.

[ET Awful]

38. LOOK OVER THERE IN THE CORNER!

Someones rights are being violated!!!!!

(runs and puts on costume so as to be unrecognizable when I return to the counsel table).

[LynnTheDem]

40. For a moment there I thought I heard one of those incredibly

annoying "terra terra terra!" alerts. Heh. Imagine tha...Your Honor, it appears Defense Counsel has left the court. The prosecution would be willing to recess now for the morning coffee and donut break.

[ET Awful]

41. Your Honor, before we recess, I would like to once again bring the

attention of the jury back to the subject of hand, to whit, Chewbacca.

As previously discussed, Chewbacca is from Kashyyyk. He lives on Endor, that does not make sense. He lives among ewoks, this also does not make sense (I won't even get into the fact that Lucas was insane enough to create said ewoks in the first place).

While the prosecution rants on and on about reasons for this and reasons for that, we are drawing attention away from the facts that prove conclusively that although it has nothing to do with this case, Chewbacca living on Endor does not make sense.

Okay, we can recess now.

[countryjake]

14. Order!! (plus excruciatingly loud sound, reminiscent of NBC drama)

Judge calls attorneys to the bench. "Counselors, I've just been handed a note indicating that Richard Clarke insists he be included on the witness list. He's willing to testify for either side, tho at this date, he'd prefer to go with the prosecution. You could list him as potentially hostile & hold his testimony strictly to previously published documents."

From his book Against All Enemies Chapt.11, Right War, Wrong War pg 265:

"President Bush has said that September 11 was a turning point in his thinking about Iraq. There was also a supposed decision point when the President decided to go to the U.N. and another when he decided not to wait further for the U.N., but all along it seemed inevitable that we would invade. Iraq was portrayed as the most dangerous thing in national security. It was an idee fixe, a rigid belief, received wisdom, a decision already made and one that no fact or event could derail." ~ Richard A. Clarke

[LynnTheDem]

18. Prosecution has no objection to adding Mr. Clarke to our witness list,

your Honor. In fact we've recently heard rumors that he knows more than he's said.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/040504_Clarke_orchestra.html

[soup]

26. shuffling paper and anxious whispers

as the defense scrambles for a response.

What to do? What to do? Raise the terra alert to panic? deny? deny? deny? Point the finger at each other and stand back?

27 rationales for war in Iraq
http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/04/0510war.html

---

“Uncovering the Rationales for the War on Iraq:
The Words of the Bush Administration, Congress, and the Media
from September 12, 2001 to October 11, 2002”

Devon M. Largio
Senior Honors Thesis
Department of Political Science
University of Illinois

Abstract and Table of Contents
88.5 KB (note: pdf file format)

Executive Summary
75 KB (note: pdf file format)

Thesis
634 KB (note: pdf file format)

http://www.pol.uiuc.edu/news/largio.htm

---

27!? Surely one will suffice to sway the court. But which one?

---

Rummy sez, 'Hey let's float this one. and if that doesn't fly, we'll bring up that he tried to kill your dad.' -

He said if the US behaved as nations did in the 20th Century and reacted militarily only after being attacked with a biological or nuclear weapon, the price to be paid for waiting would be enormous.

When pointed out that some are accusing the US of taking the law into its own hands, Rumsfeld said the "right of self-defence is inherent in the sovereign state. That issue is clear and self-evident".

"He (Saddam) has killed a pile of people. He has attacked a number of nations. He has used chemical weapons on his own people and on his neighbours. And he has got a very effective denial and deception programme.

"And if someone is sitting here thinking, 'well, wouldn't it be nice if somebody walked up and handed you a chemical or biological weapon, or physical evidence that they are within 15 minutes of having a nuclear weapon', that would be wonderful. It isn't going to happen. It will only happen if he decides to do it," Rumsfeld said.
http://news.indiainfo.com/2003/01/16/16rumsfeld.html

'maybe a short recess? George doesn't look so good.'

[RuleofLaw]

29. Defense council would like to

point out that the United States does not recognize the authority of this Court.

According to the Charter of the Court, the Court by itself cannot bring charges against a member state. From the pleadings, it does not appear that this case is based upon a complaint from a member state with standing before this court.

Without the proper jurisdiction, this court cannot and should not accept this complaint. (Article 36)

The Defense refers the courts attention to the courts own charter, specifically:

http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments/ibasictext/ibasicstatute.htm#CHAPTER_II

CHAPTER II - COMPETENCE OF THE COURT

Article 34
1. Only states may be parties in cases before the Court.

2. The Court, subject to and in conformity with its Rules, may request of public international organizations information relevant to cases before it, and shall receive such information presented by such organizations on their own initiative.

3. Whenever the construction of the constituent instrument of a public international organization or of an international convention adopted thereunder is in question in a case before the Court, the Registrar shall so notify the public international organization concerned and shall communicate to it copies of all the written proceedings.

Article 35
1. The Court shall be open to the states parties to the present Statute.

2. The conditions under which the Court shall be open to other states shall, subject to the special provisions contained in treaties in force, be laid down by the Security Council, but in no case shall such conditions place the parties in a position of inequality before the Court.

3. When a state which is not a Member of the United Nations is a party to a case, the Court shall fix the amount which that party is to contribute toward the expenses of the Court. This provision shall not apply if such state is bearing a share of the expenses of the Court

Article 36
1. The jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in force.

[MadisonProgressive]

32. And council for the procecution, the Honorable William O'Reilly

says: SHAADDAAAAPPPPPPPPPPP!

[LynnTheDem]

35. May I remind the Hon. RuleofLaw that we are in fact in the

DUvian Supreme Court Of All The World, All The Known And Unknown Galaxies, All Solar Systems Large and Not As Large, and All Alternate Realities (except the little freepy one when we couldn't find a single DUvian willing to put up with the rank smell) and as such we have the Bigger-God-given right to try any nation-state we choose.

[RuleofLaw]

36. Facing overwhelming

persuasive arguments as to the jurisdiction of the court, the defense rest for later arguments.

(I really tried to come up with a plausible defense, and an attack on the jurisdiction of the court was the best I could think of. The US used the same defense in the case of Nicaragua v. United States. When the court claimed jurisdiction, the US simply withdrew from the proceedings. After a while, when the Court basically ruled in favor of Nicaragua, Nicaragua stopped the proceedings because they knew they would never see a dime in restitution from the US)

Any way, its hard to be the defense for this group of criminals


Defense Counsel will now, with the courts permission, join the prosecution?

[LynnTheDem]

39. Your Honor, the prosecution feels the right Honorable RuleofLaw admirably

fullfilled his sworn and icky duty to defend his war criminal who waged an illegal war client to the best of his abilty and has fully discharged his obligations to that end and suffered mental anguish far beyond the call of mere duty.

We would be proud to have such a highly qualified advocate with the prosecution counsel.

[guinivere]

31. Clear the area

of Dignitaries, especially the Japanese. Bush the Latter looks close to blowing.

[LynnTheDem]

37. It's not the having another international embarrassment I object to.

(4 years of bush guarantees immunity to embarrassment)

It's that smell I can't stand! That freepy Alternate Reality place has a similiar smell. :puke:

[LynnTheDem]

33. The prosecution will cross-exam Mr. Rumsfeld now, Your Honor,

although we may later recall Mr. Rumsfeld to the stand when further lies of his come to light.

Mr. Rumsfeld, you speak about Saddam Hussein having "used chemical weapons";

Are you aware, sir, of this photo?



And are you aware, sir, that in fact this photo was taken AFTER alleged use of CW by Iraq, and that you knew of these allegations, and that in fact, according to the US National Archives declassified documents (Document 31), you declined to even speak with Saddam Hussein about the allegations?

You also mention "nuclear weapons", sir.

Yet during the spring of 1984 the U.S. reconsidered policy for the sale of dual-use equipment to Iraq's nuclear program, and its "preliminary results favored expanding such trade to include Iraqi nuclear entities" (Document 57)

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/index.htm

IN FACT YOU WERE FULLY AWARE OF AND COMPLICIT WITH THE VERY CRIMES YOU USED AS AN EXCUSE TO WAGE YOUR ILLEGAL WAR, ISN'T THAT RIGHT SIR!!! I said ISN'T THAT RIGHT, SIR!

And all the US government -YOUR government, sir!- reports and US military reports, the very reports that say both Iran AND Iraq were using CW, but it was more likely Iranian blood agent that killed the Kurds...were they just MORE LIES FROM YOU, SIR? Or were they in fact true, and you're lying NOW?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3135341

Do we believe what you said THEN or what you say NOW, Mr. Rumsfeld!

SPEAK UP, SIR!

[soup]

42. Objection! Badgering the witness with facts!

www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/badgers.php

or to quote

Jon Stewart - "I got nothing."

Personal note: great work on your post. Kudos! and thank you.

[LynnTheDem]

43. LOL!!! That one made me spew my mountain dew.

:D :D :D

Personal note reply: Thanks! :)

[bloom]

44. Guilty on all counts... eom

[LynnTheDem]

49. That works for me.

:)

[cyberpj]

45. Wow. I'm going to have to start getting up earlier.

This morning crowd is amazing, although appearing a little over-caffeinated.

Great work all and I will bookmark and nominate!

[LynnTheDem]

48. A "little" over-caffeinated?

Wee bit of an understatement there. :D

[countryjake]

46. Hushed voice of reporter..."Yessiree folks, things are crackling...

like a hickory fire tonight!

I'm standing here outside the Court House of World Opinion, where early this morning, moving like a tornado thru a trailer park, authorities rushed in to lock down a courtroom tight as the pages in a book.

We're not sure what got their shirt tails on fire, but according to undocumented reports, members of the current administration had been seen sweating like a sauna, some jumping up like they got stuck by hat pins, & just when it seemed the prosecution was winning its ding-dong, knock-down, get-up case, & it was cardiac-arrest time for this president, a hippopotamus ran thru the room.

Yes folks, you heard me right, put on a cup of coffee, this poker game isn't going to be over for awhile. We don't know what to do; we don't know whether to wind a watch or bark at the moon. Colleagues in the gallery have said some defendants began running around like squirrels in a cage, confiscating cell phones & cameras, then they turned the lights down & the party just got wilder.

Conflicting statements say that the Counsel for the Prosecution may have been beaten down like a rented mule, others claim that two hands worth of white knuckles are still hanging ten, even tho the courtroom doors are locked as tight as the rusted lug nuts on a '55 Ford, but I can tell you this, when it comes to a case like this, I'm a long distance runner & an all-day hunter, so this reporter is standing by til our leaders are plum out of excuses & Slim has left town.

[LynnTheDem]

47.

That's HILARIOUS!!! rotflmao!!! I don't know who had more tears of laughter streaming down our faces; me or the hubby! :D GREAT post!!!

[countryjake]

51. "Smelling salts for all Democrats please."

Credit can only go to many decades of enjoying Dan's idioms!

[Laurab]

50. country jake - I hope you're a writer

if not, you SHOULD be. If I'd a had a cup of coffee, I KNOW I would have spit it out and wrecked my keyboard, too!

[hfojvt]

52. I must object to the prosecution, in accordance with article 9

to whit: 'all posts more than a mile long must leave the court-room.'

For the Defense, we call Cornelius Vanderbuilt, a respectable American businessman of American history. Mr. Vanderbuilt, will you describe your philosophy to the court?

Mr. Vanderbuilt: "Law, what do I care about law? Ain't I got the power?

So it is the respected opinion of respectable American businessmen that might makes right?

Mr. Vanderbuilt: Well, duh.

Thank you, that is all. For our next witness, we have another respectable American businessman from the past, Mr. J.P. Morgan. According to Derrick Jensen, Mr. "Morgan was called by Pope Pius X, "a great and good man". According to a London paper, he had been 'a toweriing constructive force,' and 'a generous benefactor... The New York Tribune said, 'he left great riches, but he also left a good name more priceless than great riches.'"

Now, Mr. Morgan, according to the same Mr. Jensen, a lawyer once told you: "I do not think you can do that legally". Can you tell us your reply?

Mr. Morgan: Certainly, I said: 'I don't know as I want a lawyer to tell me what I can and what I cannot do. I hire him to tell me how to do what I want to do.'

So it is your respectable opinion that law is nothing more than an obstacle to be circumvented whenever you wish?

Mr. Morgan: What else are money and power for?

Thank you, Mr. Morgan. For our next witness we call the people of Athens, Greece. Long ago and far away, the democratic city of Athens attacked and destroyed the island city of Melos. Sir, as an Athenian what did you tell the people of Melos about your justification for this invasion?

Athenian: "We will forget entirely about what is fair or what is right and wrong, since you know as well as we that what is just, what is fair, is arrived at in human arguments between powers of equal strength. As the world went, the strong did what they could and the weak suffered what they had to." Picture This Joseph Heller 1988 p. 193

Your Honor, it is the position of the Defense that America is doing what America always has done, and in fact continuing the "honorable" traditions of western civilization. If need be I can get Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky to testify. If is in this spirit that I am asking, nay I am demanding that the prosection and all its witnesses and supporters and fellow travellers be suppressed in accord with the provisions of Patriot Act III. They need to be stuffed into a pillowcase and then sat upon.

[LynnTheDem]

53. Your Honor, prosecution counsel heartily agrees with learned counsel

in the first part, insofar as the rightwing elite and dead Athenians have never met a ratified treat, law, charter, or contract they didn't like to break. Or country, for that matter.

But Counsel requests that my esteemed colleague's final remarks demanding suppression be stricken from the record, Your Honor. Fraternity pranks and fun & games is inappropriate in a court of law during the midst of a trial.

Perhaps during the noon recess?

(It's just always the same with you bunch, isn't it, Honorable hfojvt! "Liberate and free 'em, then stuff 'em in a pillowcase and squish 'em"!)

*mutter* one of these days *mutter* *mutter* liberate you upside your head *mutter*

[hfojvt]

54. Your honor may remember telling me the precedence

during our last duck hunting trip of suppression in the case of the missing tarts. Queen of hearts vs. all 1916 yada yada yada. I cite:
http://www.literature.org/authors/carroll-lewis/alices-adventures-in-wonderland/chapter-11.html
Although my further research shows that it was a canvas bag rather than a pillowcase, and that it is rule 42.
Furthermore, the process of putting things down the memory hole, or the rabbit hole is strictly reserved for the state. The state, as Odo said, recognizes no coinage but power, and it issues the coins itself.
Since the right to free speech does not include the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, nor does it include the right to treasonably oppose the war efforts of profiteering American businessmen. The state, of course, reserves the right to suppress all rabble rousers for the common good, as well as the sole right to define both "rabble rouser" and "common good".
I trust, your honor, that you will find that this whole trial is out of order and that we will meet on Saturday for our usual game of raquetball.
Of course, all mention of raquetball and hunting trips shall be stricken from the record - quack, quack.

[LynnTheDem]

55. your last duc...RECUSE!!! RECUSE!!!

MISTRIAL!!!