the mother of all smoking guns

[EVDebs]

A Reputation in Tatters
by Paul Craig Roberts

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/roberts.cgi

<snip>

Abundant evidence now exists in the public domain to convict George W. Bush of the crime of the century. The secret British government memo (dated July 23, 2002, and available here), leaked to the Sunday Times (which printed it on May 1, 2005), reports that Bush wanted “to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. . . . But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. . . . The (United Kingdom) attorney general said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defense, humanitarian intervention or UNSC (U.N. Security Council) authorization. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult.”

This memo is the mother of all smoking guns. Why isn’t Bush in the dock?

Has American democracy failed at home?

[brainshrub]

1. Yes. (eom)

[in_cog_ni_to]

2. The memo doesn't exist.

The MSM is ignoring it. Ignore it, it goes away....that's how this cabal works.

[tsuki]

4. Ignore it long enough, and it becomes "old news." Courtesy of the NYT.

[Straight Shooter]

3. Yes, it has failed at home, as it is failing elsewhere. (eom)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

5. The average Joe has been suckered for going on 230 years, now.

:patriot:

[murray hill farm]

6. this is the smoking gun...

and it is clear evidence that democracy is dead in the USA

[Applan]

7. Any lawyers out there, riddle me this

Okay as long as Bush owns the senate, congress and supreme court you are never going to get him impeached. But how about if somebody brought a private lawsuit against him and his cronies, like unlawful death (of 100,000 people including 1600 plus Americans and Brits). Why on earth wouldn't this fly?
It has been on my mind a lot recently, especially since the Downing St memo and Galloway's speech.

[Mr Rabble]

8. I thought that had already happened?

I think lawsuits have been filed against * for 9/11 complicity.

[EVDebs]

10. William Rodriguez's RICO against Bush

WTC Rescue Hero Sues Bush and Others under RICO Statute
By Philip J. Berg, Margaret Atheling Rowe
YubaNet.com

Saturday 23 October 2004

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/102404K.shtml

snip

"Now, this native of Puerto Rico and remarkable American hero is taking his 9-11 activism to an even higher level. He has commenced, as Plaintiff, a federal court lawsuit against George W. Bush, Richard B. Cheney, Donald H. Rumsfeld and others alleging that they and others were complicit in the 9-11 attacks, and either planned the attacks, or had foreknowledge of the attacks and permitted them to succeed, in order to exploit a "New Pearl Harbor" to launch wars against Afghanistan and Iraq. (The phrase "New Pearl Harbor" comes from a declaration of principles by the neo-conservative "Project for the New American Century," in which it is proposed as an event needed to steel American public opinion to support the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and U.S. military domination of the Middle East.)...

The action, filed in the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia on 10/22/04, is Rodriguez v. Bush, et al., Civil Action No. _04 CV 4952_. "

[kanrok]

9. It would be ironic wouldn't it?

The neo-cons prodded the Supreme Court to allow a sitting president to be sued in a civil lawsuit when Clinton was in office. The answer to your question is an unqualified "yes." A lawsuit agianst Bush would not only be appropriate (if there are allegations sufficient to make a prima facie case against him), but he would be ordered to sit for a deposition. THAT would be FUN!

[Internut]

11. The answer to his question is a "no".

A sitting President has full immunity for for actions taken as President and cannot be sued for them. The lawsuit filed against President Clinton in 1997 concerned actions that were taken by him prior to becoming President. See

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/politics/052897scotus-clinton.html

and

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0457_0731_ZS.html

"Petitioner, as a former President of the United States, is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts."

[leftofthedial]

12. 2000 was a coup

the criminals are in charge here now.