So the DOJ acknowledges that the Bush War Criminals are guilty of crimes!

[sabrina 1]

And apparently they do not feel confident that they can defend them.

So rather than present a defense, they move to grant them immunity and, using the Westfall Act, move to shift the responsibility for the indefensible to the US Government:

DOJ pursues immunity for Bush and six others for Iraq war crimes

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.

According to the DOJ, he was just following orders, he was working for the US Government!

That's quite an admission.

But it does explain a lot!

It explains a whole lot.

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.

So for the first time that I remember, the US Government has, publicly, not only admitted that crimes were committed by the Bush Administration, but worse, that they were WORKING FOR THE US GOVERNMENT.

That doesn't sound like 'no, they did not commit crimes. It sounds like 'look, they did commit crimes, but they were working for US'! They were just following orders! That didn't work at Nuremberg, but whatever

And doesn't that shift the blame for the crimes to all of us? It certainly isn't an argument that no crimes were committed.

"A Government of, for, and by the people"

I object strenuously to being implicated in that horrific crime. I opposed it from the beginning.

The US Government IS the American people. So, without our consent, they are forcing the responsibility for Bush/Cheney's massive crimes and lies on to the American people.

I reject that completely. Bush supporters, yes, they were complicit, but Democrats never signed on to that war and never believed the lies.

Perhaps now that we have an admission of guilt, Sundus Shaker Saleh, an Iraqi single mother and refugee now living in Jordan, who filed the suit can refile it.

This time filing it as:

Saleh V The US Government!

[pscot]

1. Give 'em hell, Sabrina

[sabrina 1]

22. That would be a revolutionary act!

Lol, I like your sigline. So true!

[uhnope]

31. if it's "truth" then why is it in Examiner.com, fake news par excellence?

If there is any truth to this, it will be in a real news website. Even DU doesn't allow Examiner.com in their "breaking news" forum because it's just a user-content joke; the article cites other non-news sites for its proof. To repeat, there might be some truth to this story, but from this article we don't know that.

[SidDithers]

36. It's not truth. It's not even on the same planet as truth...

which is why the ODSers here are lapping it up.

Sid

[sabrina 1]

72. What is an 'ODSers'?? Enquiring minds would like to know what insult is being

hurled in their direction this time.

[BuelahWitch]

73. I believe it means "Obama Derangement Syndrome"

I guess that's this weeks slanderous name for anyone who doesn't toe the administrations line.

[sabrina 1]

74. Thanks, it's hard to keep up the epithets being invented for Democrats on this

forum.

So iow, if you believe that Bush and his Cabal are War Criminals, you suffer from ODS??

I can't find the logic in that, it must be me.

The only thing I can deduce from it is that those hurling the epithet are defending Bush and his Cabal??

But that can't be since we are on DU, right?

Maybe we find an interpretor?

[uhnope]

95. No, ODS refers to someone who will irrationally believes anything that puts Obama in a bad light.

In other words, they're so anti-Obama that they are deranged.
The history of it started with right wingers who accused progressives of Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS), for progressives who thought Bush had a secret transmitter on him during the presidential debates, for example. But now we talk about Obama Derangement Syndrome because it is really much more prevalent and serous than BDS (since it was only appropriate to be on high alert of a person who gained the presidency by Supreme Court fiat and proceeded to start two wars and almost collapse the economy). ODS involves such issues as birtherism, secret Muslim religion, plans to confiscate guns, and ideas that Obama is orchestrating an massive increase in unaccountable national surveillance through the NSA and using it for partisan political purposes.

[sabrina 1]

106. And where have you found these people on DU? Eg, the comment in this

thread using ODS was directed at whom, or what?

[uhnope]

112. The OP is ODS and see comment #34

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3540860

[sabrina 1]

158. Explain that please. Where is the word 'Obama' included in the OP?

As for your link, that comment was pure BS. So far, I'm not seeing what you claim to be seeing.


And why is a Right Wing smear which was invented to smear Democrats during the Bush era being used here on a Democratic Forum to smear Democrats?

Do you know the origin of that smear? I just found out thanks to the DUer below who provided us with the information on where it came from. Why are we seeing these Right Wing smears on DU?

[uhnope]

162. Your back and forth with Summer H. shows your argument is impenetrable to facts

Not sure your motivation--attention, anger, whatever--but you just seem to be playing games. Also, using smilies or emoticons or whatever is really embarrassing and further undercuts your credibility.

BTW ODS is used by the progressive community to describe wingnuts at their most irrational. It's only used for "Democrats" as you say if they start acting that way. When you (falsely) charge the DOJ under Obama with protecting war criminals and then claim it has nothing to do with Obama, well that is as ridiculous as your OP, which is lying in shreds now. No one with a molecule of integrity or sense would cite Examiner.com. That is all.

[sabrina 1]

164. Summer H. has no idea what she is talking about regarding this case. My 'motivation'

is obvious. I want WAR CRIMINALS PROSECUTED. Is that clear enough? How about YOU, what is your motivation?

I don't want War Criminals Protected. I want them punished. I want the victims who suffered so horribly at their hands, to get some kind of justice.

THAT is my motivation. And I am supported in this by a majority of decent people ALL OVER THE WORLD.

I am proud of my motivation. I believe in the 'rule of law' for EVERYONE.

And NO, labeling people is NOT a Progressive ideal, using RIGHT WING Epithets rather than discuss issues, is a RIGHT WING tactic and it does not belong on a Democratic forum.

Show me where the DOJ has NOT protected War Criminals.

Where are the criminal charges??? Why after five years have there not been ANY criminal charges against the Liars who got over six thousand of our troops killed?? Where?

Name callers have ZERO credibility in the Progressive Community and never have.

Incredible, so your whole objection to anyone who wants to see War Criminals held accountable is that it MIGHT cast aspersions on the President???? You would rather let War Criminals go free than risk any negative opinion for ONE POLITICIAN? Is that what you are saying?

How about the President joins the majority of people in the world and supporsts prosecuting the crimes committed by the Bush Administration. I would jump and down in support of him.

He is a grown up and makes his own decisions. It is up to him whether people support his decisions or not. NOT up to those who refuse to be complicit in allowing War Criminals go free. Place the blame where it belongs.

That Right Wing label was ridiculous when the Right Wing invented for Liberals and it showed how corrupt they were that they would rather see crimes go unpunished than risk ANY reflection on Bush/Cheney. So they made that term up. I would be ashamed to use a Right Wing term against anyone.

[QC]

98. It's a recycled Charles Krauthammer insult.

He's the one who attributed "Bush Derangement Syndrome" to those who did not share his admiration for Shrub.

[sabrina 1]

107. Really? Then why is it being used here on a Democratic forum against Democrats who

no doubt that moron Krauthammer was also referring to?

Thanks for providing the origin. I've noticed a lot of recycled Right Wing memes being used here against Democrats lately.

[Deny and Shred]

91. The DOJ defense was filed in Federal Court

That makes it ... what do you call it, oh yeah, true. Way to dismiss with insults instead of doing the least amount of digging. Now who is clinging to predetermined dogma?

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

Read the PDF.

[SidDithers]

92. But the filing doesn't mean what the OP says it means...

Do you really think that the DOJ granting immunity to Bush et al. in a civil suit is the same thing as the DOJ admitting that Bush committed war crimes?

Sid

[Deny and Shred]

94. You're changing it

The point I refuted was whether or not the DOJ filed the defense. They did. You can assert it matters less because its Civil, not Criminal, but that isn't the same thing as whether its true or not. The DOJ filed for their immunity.

My opinion on its insignificance is immaterial, as is yours.

[Summer Hathaway]

130. Filing for immunity

and filing a defense are two totally different things.

The defense won't be filed until the appropriate defendant is named in the suit.

[Deny and Shred]

140. Thanks for catching my bad phraseology

I feel totally okay with the DOJ asking for immunity now.

[treestar]

99. They always take these legal situations and twist them into something they are not

In order to inflame the ODS.

[sabrina 1]

2. And when the shit begins to hit the fan, when the NSA is exposed for

spying on the American people? START ANOTHER WAR!

If was not so tragic, it would almost be funny.

Lol, I'm probably on a list somewhere.

I just can't get on board with all this, no matter how hard I try!

[Zorra]

3. "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"

HELP WANTED

The US Government is seeking qualified persons for employment in the position of war criminal.
Must be sociopathic and be willing to murder millions of innocent people.
Immunity from prosecution guaranteed.

Apply in person at the US DOJ, Washington, DC

[sabrina 1]

4. If only we had known what the 'legitimate scope of employment' for the job

of President actually was? We would not have been so 'hopeful'.

Great ad! It probably circulates only in very exclusive publications.

[defacto7]

5. Big K&R

Great post! The facts makes you sick sometimes, but they also empower. Thanks.

[sabrina 1]

6. Sick is a good word for it. They are becoming less and less concerned

about what the people think. It's all pretty blatant now. I wish I had known all this ten years ago.

We thought it was just an aberration, the Bush regime. Kind of explains why the Dems didn't put up a fight over the 2000 election.

It explains why so many Dems voted for the AUMF. So puzzling at the time.

I wonder if it's too late to do anything about it?

They seem to have tied up all the knots.

[defacto7]

7. Tied up all the knots....

That's my fear. But we have to keep looking for the holes; if they think there are holes that needed to be tied, there are bound to be a lot more that they made in the process. People don't want to be ruled or owned and I have a hard time accepting that the human race will continue to settle for war over peace. But how much time do we still have to evolve to the point of peaceful coexistence if the mechanism of pain holds the cards... and the rope?

We just have to keep pushing for the facts and kick the ass of ignorance.

Thanks sabrina 1

[sabrina 1]

14. I know we can't give up. But with new revelation, 'impeachment is off the table'

'we need to move forward' we learn more about how deep it goes.

Looking back, if we had been right and Bush was just an aberration that could be fixed by 'electing Democrats', which we mostly believed, life would have been so much simpler.

But we couldn't have been more wrong. The signs were there, Democrats voting for Bush's policies, Democrats protecting him from consequences.

We point fingers at the blind loyalty of the Right, but we are no better. And that is what keeps it all going. A divided people, and that is what they want.

I agree there are holes. There always are, but I don't think this can be fixed overnight.

[uhnope]

163. Funny, you sound a lot like a right wing infiltrator with the TP "Dems as bad as GOP"

and I heard Occupy was infiltrated by the right wing too

[sabrina 1]

165. You just hurled a personal attack at me. I don't know you. Explain that insult please or

take it back.

Or you have the option to leave it and risk someone alerting it. It is a FALSE accusation and against the Community standards here.

I will not alert on it. I want people to see a perfect demonstration of what many people have here have been pointing out. I sound like DEMOCRAT for the record. You sound like someone who is not interested in dialogue only in flinging around mindless insults.

[Supersedeas]

137. Joe Lieberman flavor democrats

[DeSwiss]

8. K&R

[center][/center]

[Scootaloo]

27. I didn't know apples could grow barnacles

That is indeed a bad apple

[leftstreet]

9. DURec

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Starting wars based on lies that kill hundreds of thousands is just part of their job description.

And, the rest were "just following orders."

Right. We get it. Old song, different singers.

[liberal_at_heart]

38. +1000000

[Rex]

11. They want the war criminals to be immune, laws only apply

to us little people.

[JEB]

12. Thank you Sabrina.

Keep telling the Truth. Seems like that is all we have left.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

13. The Complaint is worth reading, as is the Motion to Dismiss

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

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

[sabrina 1]

18. She is very intelligent woman, she lost her home, and her country

and she clearly states how this happened:

2
.
SUNDUS SHAKER SALEH (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) on behalf of
herself and those similarly situated, alleges against Defendants (1) GEORGE W.
BUSH, (2) RICHARD B. CHENEY, (3) DONALD H. RUMSFELD, (4)
CONDOLEEZZA RICE, (5) COLIN L. POWELL and (6) PAUL WOLFOWITZ
(collectively, “Defendants”), as follows:

NATURE OF THIS ACTION

1. Defendants GEORGE W. BUSH, RICHARD B. CHENEY,
DONALD H. RUMSFELD, CONDOLEEZZA RICE, COLIN L. POWELL, and
PAUL WOLFOWITZ

broke the law in conspiring and committing the crime of
aggression against the people of Iraq.

2. Defendants planned the war against Iraq as early as 1998;
manipulated the United States public to support the war by scaring them with
images of “mushroom clouds” and conflating the Hussein regime with al-Qaeda;
and broke international law by commencing the invasion without proper legal
authorization.

3. More than sixty years ago, American prosecutors in
Nuremberg, Germany convicted Nazi leaders of the crimes of conspiring and
waging wars of aggression. They found the Nazis guilty of planning and waging
wars that had no basis in law and which killed millions of innocents.

4. Plaintiff – now a single mother living as a refugee in Jordan –
was an innocent civilian victim and of the Iraq War. She seeks justice under the
Nuremberg principles and United States law for the damages she and others like
her suffered because of Defendants’ premeditated plan to invade Iraq.

She is correct on every point. Bush drove over four million from their homes, Jordan and Syria took them in. We never even tried to help them.

[Amonester]

15. Sharks can vote (or invent) laws just to protect their ass

that does not make all citizens criminals...

(No offense to any real sharks who could read English.)

[sabrina 1]

20. True, but legally the Government IS us and we don't seem to able

to get them to do the job we hired them for.

I understand that I am not responsible but from across the Globe, it sure looks like 'the American people'.

[Amonester]

25. Very *few people* across the Globe know enough of how American politics works.

A large majority are way too busy searching how to find their next meal (or *portion* of a meal).

That large majority also do love the actual POTUS and FLOTUS very much, and they trust them.

[sabrina 1]

26. I don't believe that at all. Americans know very little about the news anywhere

But when you look at other countries, even Third World countries, the people are far more informed about what we are up to. And no, they don't 'adore' our POTUS and FLOTUS.

Obama's numbers have dropped dramatically in places like Africa. Sure at first people were hopeful, like we were. But they are not blind. After Syria, you should have read the press in several African nations.

South Americans too are most informed about news here and around the world.

Where did you get the idea that people 'adore the Potus and Flotus? I am seeing protests all over the world against this country and its President.

[Amonester]

119. A very small 'fringe' of dreamers in the overall picture (of 7 billion humans) protests.

A bit like we see here on a daily basis.

I'm not saying they're always wrong, but some of the absolute hyperbole they always come up with does not help their cause(s).

[sabrina 1]

133. It is the 'dreamers' as you call them, who have consistently changed the world. Conservatives

pragmatists, generally resist change even when it is necessary.

The problem is we need more dreamers and fewer blind, conservative, pragmatists. A few less war criminals and Wall St. Criminals would help also.

[Amonester]

142. Yes, but you don't convince using hyperbole and crazy speech.

You just make fools of yourself when you do.

[sabrina 1]

144. So what you characterize as hyperbole?

How about The Declaration of Independence'? In those times that was no just hyperbole it was treason. Yet, we treasure the sentiments of that declaration, well we give them lip service. I have a feeling that there are many here who would have been on the other side had they lived back then.

But what is your definition of hyperbole? Asking for accountability for War Criminals? For Wall St. Criminals? I don't know what you mean to be honest.

[Amonester]

146. For an example, I suggest your OP up-thread.

Your OP is not asking for accountability for War Criminals, because War Criminals have not been found guilty of war crimes.

These War Criminals have not even been cited to any Criminal Court as being suspects of having committed war crimes.

And it's a civil case (doomed from the start).

[sabrina 1]

149. How is asking that they have to pay out in a lawsuit for what they did BECAUSE

they have not been held accountable in any other way, hyperbole?

I am not so stupid as to think that losing a lawsuit is anywhere near the punishment they deserve.

I am saying that if one of their victims is asking for at least some accountability, she is entitled to that.

I think it's hyperbole to pretend that I wrote the OP thinking this was a criminal trial. That is just plain ridiculous, an idea put forth by one of the least credible people on this site.

I would love to see Criminal Charges filed against them. But the FACT IS, the Democratic Leadership has made it clear that is not going to happen.

So, considering that terrible decision, here are the choices for those victims.

NO CONSEQUENCES AT ALL for the Bush War Criminals, which YOU are advocating.

Or:

Victims take what they think they can get, Compensation in a Civil Suit, which is better than nothing. AND it has the added advantage of dragging the morons before a Judge and/or Jury, UNDER OATH, to answer the charges outlined in the Plaintiff's claim.

Clearly the DOJ doesn't want them to have to do that. They know they cannot defend them. So they want to immunize them. Reprehensible.

So what you call hyperbole is asking that this Victim of Bush's terrible crimes, should get the chance to obtain some kind of satisfaction for the crimes committed against her and her country.

You are saying they don't deserve even that much justice.

I think we should let the Victim decide whether she wants NO JUSTICE at all, or SOME acknowledgement of the crimes committed her and her fellow citizens.

We owe these victims that much at least.

I consider that to be worse than hyberbole, it looks like an attempt to deny the justice the victim is asking for.

[Amonester]

150. Fabrication: "You are saying they don't deserve even that much justice."

Point me to where it is exactly that I said that, please.

I never said such a thing. I think they managed to commit war crimes, and got away with it (so far).

And how is it that among perhaps thousands, if not millions of Criminal Law lawyers living inside the United States Of America, not one of them have come up with a case against them yet?

Isn't it because they can't make a winnable case?

[Maedhros]

90. Well, there are more suckers born every minute. [n/t]

[bhikkhu]

16. There is some justification for the "collective guilt" argument

in that 75% of people in the US supported the Iraq war in 2003. There's a good review of the history of opinions on that here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1633/iraq.aspx

I never supported the war either, but I recall the dismay I felt looking at its popular support here. Its easy to say after the fact that it was a terrible idea, or that we were conned into it, but the popular support was there nevertheless.

[sabrina 1]

19. Yes, I remember how disheartened I was as I watched the numbers rise in

support of that war.

However, in her suit, Saleh blames the Bush criminals for that: This is from her Complaint:

2. Defendants planned the war against Iraq as early as 1998;
manipulated the United States public to support the war by scaring them with
images of “mushroom clouds” and conflating the Hussein regime with al-Qaeda;
and broke international law by commencing the invasion without proper legal
authorization.

3. More than sixty years ago, American prosecutors in
Nuremberg, Germany convicted Nazi leaders of the crimes of conspiring and
waging wars of aggression. They found the Nazis guilty of planning and waging
wars that had no basis in law and which killed millions of innocents.

Used 9/11. That was the most reprehensible part of it, they used a terrible tragedy and played on the emotions of the people to get what they wanted.

I do blame many of them, however, they should have known better. Some of us did.

[tblue]

21. Most of that 75% believed the lies.

They were gullible, but that's not a crime. It's sure not the sane as lying.

[sulphurdunn]

118. Gullible?

That's one hell of an understatement. Personally, I prefer "willfully stupid."

[summer-hazz]

17. Let's not forget Senator Hillary

Clinton voted yes for that war too!

Also, remember, the government thinks its so clever

to distract us from what we want and what's going on in America and our needs..

War is a great money maker, and the slight of hand works every time..

Pay close attention and don't be fooled again into believing

an untruth!

[sabrina 1]

23. I will never forget Hillary's vote or any of the other Democrats' votes.

Never supported her for that reason and never will.

But I was completely shocked at the time. I couldn't believe any Democrat could not see they were lying.

Now it is all becoming clear, all the little puzzles we couldn't understand.

Maybe it's better to know what is really going on, but sometimes ignorance is bliss. I liked it better when we had hope.

[summer-hazz]

30. Me too Sabrina 1!!!

What a catastrophe we are in...
sigh

Maybe in 2016 and 2014 we can get this mess straightened
out.. If we make it that long..
Some days I think it's all over and we are doomed...

[truedelphi]

128. Your statement about hope - ain't it the truth!

Agree with you on your other statements as well.

[L0oniX]

139. This post was hidden by jury decision.

Well it would be hidden if I said what I really think of Obama and Hillary and many others. Jury pool is tainted with the worshippers.

[sabrina 1]

143. I have the same principles I had when Bush was occupying the WH. I haven't changed one

bit. But something has changed. And it isn't what is right and what is wrong.

Lol, good comment, I think you made your point perfectly.

[Jack Rabbit]

24. I don't think this is an admission of any guilt, let alone war crimes

Before I have to grab my flame-retardant suit, that is a very different thing than saying I do not believe Bush, Cheney & Co committed no war crimes. I believe that it is clear as day that they did.

This is shielding Bush and his gang of liars and thieves from having to shoulder the cost of their own defense. Instead, the taxpayer will foot the bill. You might say the junta's war criminals got a federal taxpayer funded bailout, which is more than they deserve.

I don't like this one bit. I spent hours writing posts and articles demonstrating the Bush junta ginned up a case for war and knew that they were ginning it up. As soon as Ambassador Wilson said in print that he found no evidence of a sale of yellow cake uranium to Iraq by Niger, Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby and the other bastards occupying the Vice President's office swung into action to blow the cover of an agent of Central Intelligence named Valery Plame, also known Mrs. Joseph Wilson. That was perhaps the most reprehensible act by a sitting Vice President since Spiro Agnew took envelopes full of cash from government contractors for services rendered while he was still a commissioner in Baltimore County, Maryland. No, I take that back. Cheney's crimes were much more reprehensible than that. The only thing that saves Aaron Burr's attempt to steal federal land in the west from beating Cheney's outrages are that Burr was no longer the sitting Vice President when he committed the acts that led to his being tried for treason.

The idea that ginning up the case for war was within the normal terms of the defendants' employment with the government is pretty outrageous. There was no need for the war against Iraq. The rationale for the war was a pack of lies. Perhaps the Bushies thought they would find evidence of a biochemical arsenal or an active nuclear program, but Saddam wasn't that much of a fool and took the pledge, swearing off WMDs after the 1991 war. The fact is that the Bushies took evidence from dubious sources, including torture victims and let that find its way into the NIE.

Nevertheless, the government isn't admitting to any war crimes. On the contrary, the government is decreeing that the taxpayer is on the hook for any wrongdoing by the Bush junta and intends to prevent Ms. Saleh from proving that any took place.

[sabrina 1]

45. But the DOJ should have been the prosecutors in a criminal trial.

Instead they defend these criminals from even a civil suit. Unless the President has no power and really is just an 'employee' of the Government, acting within 'the scope' of his 'work', then even though I understand your point, they are saying that these War Criminals are not responsible, and should not be sued for, 'work' they were doing for the US Government.

So if that defense is accepted, if they ARE granted immunity from being sued then what is to stop victims of the crimes from suing the US Government.

It's shameful that victims of their crimes have to resort to civil suits in the first place. If justice had been done I think most of their victims would have been satisfied.

[Dustlawyer]

28. President Truman had a sign on his desk in the Oval Office that read, "The buck stops here!"

It meant that it is the President who makes the decisions and must be accountable for them. This is a slap in the face to Lady Justice! We are in very dangerous times when we start to have a class who is above the law. 1st Bush/Cheney, and then came the Wall Street thugs. BP got a pass again even though they were on probation for killing 15 in Texas City when the Deepwater Horizon blew, killing 11 more, Holder let them off instead of revocation. LIBOR scandal what?
They don't really try hard to hide it anymore.

[Coyotl]

29. So, in theory, Bush was just following orders? Wait a minute, wasn't he the Commander-in-Chief?

So, who gives the orders then?

[uhnope]

32. Dept. of the Rational acknowledges that Examiner.com is guilty of BS!

pls cite a real news site, not a sight for sore eyes

[Samantha]

33. I think the point that this war was planned before they took office is startlingly legitimate

and the U.S. Government, one would think, could not substitute itself for the defendants during that time. I believe there is enough evidence to prove this was on the drawing board before the Bush* selection. Remember those infamous maps of the oil fields in Iraq that Big Oil was salivating to take over? And remember the book, The Price of Loyalty, by Ron Suskind and Paul O'Neill, Secretary of the Treasury?

On page 70, there starts a narrative about a meeting January 30th, ten days after the Bush* inauguration. Bush* made a few introductory remarks at a National Security Council meeting, and then turned the meeting over to Rice. He said she would be conducting these meetings for him. She opened up with the statement how "... Iraq is destabilizing the region." At the end of this specific narrative, O'Neill states it (meaning the meeting) was all about Iraq. Once again, this meeting happened ten days after the Bush* inauguration....

If one were to dig, I am sure there is a lot more than these two incidents I cite.

Sam

[KoKo]

70. Project for the New American Century--Those are the ones to hold accountable!

Project for the New American Century
Statement of Principles

PNAC's first public act was releasing a "Statement of Principles" on June 3, 1997, which was signed by both its members and a variety of other notable conservative politicians and journalists (see Signatories to Statement of Principles). The statement began by framing a series of questions, which the rest of the document proposes to answer:

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's pre-eminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?[5]

In response to these questions, the PNAC states its aim to "remind America" of "lessons" learned from American history, drawing the following "four consequences" for America in 1997:

we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad; [and]
we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

While "Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today," the "Statement of Principles" concludes, "it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next."[5]
Calls for regime change in Iraq during Clinton years

The goal of regime change in Iraq remained the consistent position of PNAC throughout the 1997-2000 Iraq disarmament crisis.[6][7]

Richard Perle, who later became a core member of PNAC, was involved in similar activities to those pursued by PNAC after its formal organization. For instance, in 1996 Perle composed a report that proposed regime changes in order to restructure power in the Middle East. The report was titled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm and called for removing Saddam Hussein from power, as well as other ideas to bring change to the region. The report was delivered to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.[8] Two years later, in 1998, Perle and other core members of the PNAC - Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, Elliot Abrams, and John Bolton - "were among the signatories of a letter to President Clinton calling for the removal of Hussein."[8] Clinton did seek regime change in Iraq, and this position was sanctioned by the United Nations. These UN sanctions were considered ineffective by the neoconservative forces driving the PNAC.

The PNAC core members followed up these early efforts with a letter to Republican members of the U.S. Congress Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott,[9] urging Congress to act. The PNAC also supported the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (H.R.4655), which President Clinton had signed into law.[10]

On January 16, 1998, following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, members of the PNAC, including Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Robert Zoellick drafted an open letter to President Bill Clinton, posted on its website, urging President Clinton to remove Saddam Hussein from power using U.S. diplomatic, political, and military power. The signers argue that Saddam would pose a threat to the United States, its Middle East allies, and oil resources in the region, if he succeeded in maintaining what they asserted was a stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction. They also state: "we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections" and "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council." They argue that an Iraq war would be justified by Hussein's defiance of UN "containment" policy and his persistent threat to U.S. interests.[11]

On November 16, 1998, citing Iraq's demand for the expulsion of UN weapons inspectors and the removal of Richard Butler as head of the inspections regime, Kristol called again for regime change in an editorial in his online magazine, The Weekly Standard: "...any sustained bombing and missile campaign against Iraq should be part of any overall political-military strategy aimed at removing Saddam from power."[12] Kristol states that Paul Wolfowitz and others believed that the goal was to create "a 'liberated zone' in southern Iraq that would provide a safe haven where opponents of Saddam could rally and organize a credible alternative to the present regime ... The liberated zone would have to be protected by U.S. military might, both from the air and, if necessary, on the ground."

In January 1999, the PNAC circulated a memo that criticized the December 1998 bombing of Iraq in Operation Desert Fox as ineffective, questioned the viability of Iraqi democratic opposition which the U.S. was supporting through the Iraq Liberation Act, and referred to any "containment" policy as an illusion.[13]
Rebuilding America's Defenses

In September 2000, the PNAC published a controversial 90-page report entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century. The report, which lists as Project Chairmen Donald Kagan and Gary Schmitt and as Principal Authors. Thomas Donnelly, quotes from the PNAC's June 1997 "Statement of Principles" and proceeds "from the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces."[14][15]

The report argues:

The American peace has proven itself peaceful, stable, and durable. It has, over the past decade, provided the geopolitical framework for widespread economic growth and the spread of American principles of liberty and democracy. Yet no moment in international politics can be frozen in time; even a global Pax Americana will not preserve itself.[14]

After its title page, the report features a page entitled "About the Project for the New American Century", quoting key passages from its 1997 "Statement of Principles":
“

[What we require is] a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities. Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership of the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of the past century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.[14]

”

In its "Preface", in highlighted boxes, Rebuilding America's Defenses states that it aims to:

ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for the U.S. military:

defend the American homeland;
fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions;
transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs”;

and that

To carry out these core missions, we need to provide sufficient force and budgetary allocations. In particular, the United States must:
MAINTAIN NUCLEAR STRATEGIC SUPERIORITY, basing the U.S. deterrent upon a global, nuclear net assessment that weighs the full range of current and emerging threats, not merely the U.S.-Russia balance.
RESTORE THE PERSONNEL STRENGTH of today’s force to roughly the levels anticipated in the “Base Force” outlined by the Bush Administration, an increase in active-duty strength from 1.4 million to 1.6 million.
REPOSITION U.S. FORCES to respond to 21st century strategic realities by shifting permanently based forces to Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia, and by changing naval deployment patterns to reflect growing U.S. strategic concerns in East Asia. (iv)

It specifies the following goals:

MODERNIZE CURRENT U.S. FORCES SELECTIVELY, proceeding with the F-22 program while increasing purchases of lift, electronic support and other aircraft; expanding submarine and surface combatant fleets; purchasing Comanche helicopters and medium-weight ground vehicles for the Army, and the V-22 Osprey “tilt-rotor” aircraft for the Marine Corps.
CANCEL “ROADBLOCK” PROGRAMS such as the Joint Strike Fighter, CVX aircraft carrier,[16] and Crusader howitzer system that would absorb exorbitant amounts of Pentagon funding while providing limited improvements to current capabilities. Savings from these canceled programs should be used to spur the process of military transformation.
DEVELOP AND DEPLOY GLOBAL MISSILE DEFENSES to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world.[17]
CONTROL THE NEW “INTERNATIONAL COMMONS” OF SPACE AND “CYBERSPACE”, and pave the way for the creation of a new military service – U.S. Space Forces – with the mission of space control.
EXPLOIT THE “REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS” to insure the long-term superiority of U.S. conventional forces. Establish a two-stage transformation process which
• maximizes the value of current weapons systems through the application of advanced technologies, and,
• produces more profound improvements in military capabilities, encourages competition between single services and joint-service experimentation efforts.
INCREASE DEFENSE SPENDING gradually to a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually. (v)

The report emphasizes:

Fulfilling these requirements is essential if America is to retain its militarily dominant status for the coming decades. Conversely, the failure to meet any of these needs must result in some form of strategic retreat. At current levels of defense spending, the only option is to try ineffectually to “manage” increasingly large risks: paying for today’s needs by shortchanging tomorrow’s; withdrawing from constabulary missions to retain strength for large-scale wars; “choosing” between presence in Europe or presence in Asia; and so on. These are bad choices. They are also false economies. The “savings” from withdrawing from the Balkans, for example, will not free up anywhere near the magnitude of funds needed for military modernization or transformation. But these are false economies in other, more profound ways as well. The true cost of not meeting our defense requirements will be a lessened capacity for American global leadership and, ultimately, the loss of a global security order that is uniquely friendly to American principles and prosperity. (v-vi)

In relation to the Persian Gulf, citing particularly Iraq and Iran, Rebuilding America's Defenses states that "while the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification [for U.S. military presence], the need for a substantial American force presence in the [Persian] Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" and "Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the [Persian] Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region."[14]

One of the core missions outlined in the 2000 report Rebuilding America's Defenses is "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars."[4][18]


Post-9/11 call for regime change in Iraq

On September 20, 2001 (nine days after the September 11, 2001 attacks), the PNAC sent a letter to President George W. Bush, advocating "a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq", or regime change:

...even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.[4][19]

From 2001 through 2002, the co-founders and other members of the PNAC published articles supporting the United States' invasion of Iraq.[20] On its website, the PNAC promoted its point of view that leaving Saddam Hussein in power would be "surrender to terrorism."[21][22][23][24]

In 2003, during the period leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the PNAC had seven full-time staff members in addition to its board of directors.[1]
Human Rights and the EU Arms Embargo

In 2005, the European Union considered lifting the arms embargo placed on Beijing. The embargo was put in place after the events at Tiananmen Square in 1989. The PNAC, along with other concerned countries, composed a letter to Javier Solana, asking that the EU not lift the embargo until three conditions were met:

A general amnesty of all prisoners of conscience, including those imprisoned in connection to peaceful protest in 1989, and public trials by independent court for those charged with ‘criminal’ acts.
A reversal of the official verdict on the 1989 movement as a ‘counter-revolution riot,’ allowing an independent ‘truth commission’ to investigate and provide a comprehensive account of the killings, torture, and arbitrary detention, and bringing to justice those responsible for the violations of human rights involved.
Adoption and implementation of the International Covenant on Civil Political Rights, taking concrete actions to enforce other international human rights conventions and treaties that China has joined.

The justification for these conditions was explained as follows:

“Doing away with this sanction without corresponding improvements in human rights... would send the wrong signal to the Chinese people, including especially those of us who lost loved ones, who are persecuted, and for all Chinese who continue to struggle for the ideal that inspired the 1989 movement.”[25]

End of the organization

By the end of 2006, PNAC was "reduced to a voice-mail box and a ghostly website", with "a single employee" "left to wrap things up", according to the BBC News.[26] According to Tom Barry, "The glory days of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) quickly passed."[27] In 2006, Gary Schmitt, former executive director of the PNAC, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and director of its program in Advanced Strategic Studies, stated that PNAC had come to a natural end:

When the project started, it was not intended to go forever. That is why we are shutting it down. We would have had to spend too much time raising money for it and it has already done its job. We felt at the time that there were flaws in American foreign policy, that it was neo-isolationist. We tried to resurrect a Reaganite policy. Our view has been adopted. Even during the Clinton administration we had an effect, with Madeleine Albright [then secretary of state] saying that the United States was 'the indispensable nation'. But our ideas have not necessarily dominated. We did not have anyone sitting on Bush's shoulder. So the work now is to see how they are implemented.[26]

MORE AT:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

[sabrina 1]

71. Thank you. That deserves its own OP. There is a certain amnesia setting in

as to where all these policies originated.

And I notice a resistance to any reminder of them regarding those who are supporting the latest war we are about to embark on.

[KoKo]

79. Maybe...

it's just too depressing to think we are going through the same motions we did at the build up to Iraq Invasion. Like nothing anyone learned from that fiasco/boondoggle has made any difference in policy. UN still can't intervene effectively, international law doesn't seem to cover what we decide to do with our "coalitions of the willing." We just keep doing it over and over...because we can get away with it.

I know this is supposed to be a "strategic air strike"....but how can we know what follows after? Iraq and Libya are a mess and Egypt is going through terrible strife. What good can a "strategic strike" accomplish except for us to show off our "War Supremacy Stuff" to make Cheney and the members of the remains of the PNAC and other Globalist Think Tanks very happy.


We shall see.

[bvar22]

80. PNAC was just the vehicle they used to committ the crime.

They burned the Vehicle (PNAC) after it was "Mission Accomplished", but all the main actors are still with us.

Like a reptile shedding its skin,
they discarded the Koch Bros funded Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) too,
once it had served its purpose.


Its not surprising that we see the same MO,
since many of the same people were running BOTH organizations.

(OMG! The PNAC/DLC Connection!)No More Moore: DLC Joins the Witch-Hunt
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2784312

The DLC and PNAC share the same origin
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5686573


[center]PNAC------DLC------Koch Bros[/center]

[Summer Hathaway]

34. Your entire mischaracterization

of what is happening here is astounding in its sheer breadth, and stunning in its misinterpretation of the facts.

Firstly, can you point me to where the DOJ "acknowledged that the Bush War Criminals are guilty of crimes"? That would be quite the acknowledgement, wouldn't it? But the DOJ has not done so.

You then go on to state: "And apparently they do not feel confident that they can defend them. So rather than present a defense, they move to grant them immunity."

The move to grant immunity is not new law that the DOJ just came up with off the top of its head. It is based on established law:

"In 1982, the United States Supreme Court held in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982), a 5-4 decision, that the President of the United States has civil immunity for actions taken while in office."

And for those in the peanut gallery who keep insisting this means protecting war criminals from prosecution, or that Obama has 'pardoned' the previous administration for war crimes, you will note the term "civil immunity". And this IS a civil case that has been brought; it has to do with civil liability, and nothing to do with criminal guilt or innocence.

But you DO go on ...

"According to the DOJ, he was just following orders, he was working for the US Government!"

In actuality, the DOJ said nothing remotely resembling the concept of "just following orders". Their legal position is that Bush et al planned and executed the Iraq War within the scope of their employment. Whether you like it or not, that is the fact of the matter. The fact that you chose to use a loaded term like "just following orders" speaks for itself. You are not opining on facts here - you are inserting your own delusions into the piece and attempting to pass them off as fact.

"So for the first time that I remember, the US Government has, publicly, not only admitted that crimes were committed by the Bush Administration, but worse, that they were WORKING FOR THE US GOVERNMENT."

Again, where has the US gov't admitted that crimes were committed by the Bush Administration? You may think they committed crimes, and I may think it - and all God's children may think it - but the US gov't has admitted no such thing - and where you even got that idea that some kind of 'admission' was made here is beyond reason.

"And doesn't that shift the blame for the crimes to all of us? It certainly isn't an argument that no crimes were committed."

No, it isn't an argument that no crimes were committed - because this is a CIVIL suit, not a criminal prosecution. How can the blame for "crimes" be shifted to the citizenry when this case is not about CRIMES committed by anyone?

"Perhaps now that we have an admission of guilt, Sundus Shaker Saleh, an Iraqi single mother and refugee now living in Jordan, who filed the suit can refile it."

I'll ask one more time: where is the "admission of guilt"? You keep insisting that there was one, but so far have not pointed to a single statement from ANYONE that admits guilt of anything.

This time filing it as: Saleh V The US Government!"

The “Westfall Act certification” (submitted pursuant to the Westfall Act of 1988 above) permits the Attorney General to substitute the United States as the defendant and essentially grant immunity to government employees for actions taken within the scope of their employment.

THAT is why the suit will be refiled naming the US gov't as the defendant, rather than the individuals named in the initial filing. That's a matter of legal procedure, not some nefarious subterfuge.

While the hair-on-fire contingent have been screaming about Bush et al being "pardoned" or having been granted immunity from prosecution for war crimes, what it is REALLY about is a CIVIL suit that has no bearing on war crimes whatsoever.

[SidDithers]

37. Great post...

You absolutely destroyed the mischaracterizations presented in the OP.



Sid

[Violet_Crumble]

40. Thanks for posting that. It made things clearer for me...

I'm getting that lawsuits have to be filed against the government rather than individuals, and in a perfect world I know that the International Criminal Court would have jurisdiction and would lock Bush and his cronies up and throw away the key. But I do find it galling that Bushco haven't been held accountable for their war crimes, and very irksome that the US refuses to cooperate with the international community and give the International Criminal Court some real teeth...

[sabrina 1]

49. If that were the purpose of using this defense, then all the DOJ had to do

was to begin an investigation into the War Crimes, ask that all law suits be set aside until the US Government had time to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.

It is five years since we elected Democrats to begin the 'changes' necessary to get this country back on the path of the rule of law after the eight preceding years of lawlessness.

We would not have to see victim after victim being denied even the right to civil compensation if the rule of law had been applied.

This defense, or as some claim, the necessity for it, would never happen IF the rule of law had been applied by those who are now in a position of defending war criminals and placing the responsibility for those crimes on the US Government.

The Westfall Defense doesn't apply here at all UNLESS Bush et al were not acting on their own 'judgement' but were acting on behalf of a higher authority. So who was this higher 'authority'? As far as I know elected officials ARE the Government.

[Violet_Crumble]

52. I hate it that victims have to take civil action to even have their voices heard...

Have you ever seen a movie called The Trial of Tony Blair? If you haven't, it's worth watching. I sat there thinking I really wish that was real life and it happened to Bush and his thugs...

http://www.primewire.ag/watch-1387863-The-Trial-of-Tony-Blair

[sabrina 1]

54. I haven't seen that, thanks for the link I will definitely watch it later when I

have more time.

I think you might find the entire complaint in this case very interesting also if you have not yet read it.

Here is a link and it is well worth reading. I wish we had a real News media as this should be discussed as much as our pundits discuss the latest Miley Cyrus antics.

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

[Summer Hathaway]

96. Jesus wept.

"This defense, or as some claim, the necessity for it, would never happen IF the rule of law had been applied by those who are now in a position of defending war criminals and placing the responsibility for those crimes on the US Government."

What part of a civil suit for damages not having anything to do with "placing the responsibility for crimes" do you NOT GET?

Apparently, all of it.

A civil suit has NOTHING TO DO with crimes committed. It has to do with a plaintiff seeking compensation for alleged damages.

[sabrina 1]

51. What it is really about is that this DOJ would not be in a position to

defend War Criminals in Civil Suits from their victims if they had done just one thing, investigate and prosecute these criminals, which is why we elected them. To restore the rule of law.

You can ramble on all you want, it all comes back to the fact that the DOJ is once again defending the Bush/Cheney cabal even from some Civil Liability.

What is clear now is that it is not just 'procedure'. We know this administration has not just 'moved forward' from war crimes, they have actively protected them from prosecution even in foreign jurisdictions.

And now they are doing it again.

You certainly deserve credit for the effort to try to defend the indefensible. I gave up even trying to do that long ago. It's just not possible.

[Summer Hathaway]

89. This is a civil suit

and has NOTHING to do with defending war criminals - nothing. And has been pointed out to you several times now, Bush et al are not, in law, 'war criminals', having never been prosecuted for, nor found guilty of, war crimes.

"What is clear now is that it is not just 'procedure'."

It IS procedure. A defendant named in a civil suit is bound by law to file a defense within a certain time; it is not an admission of guilt. Failing to respond to a civil suit can result in being declared in default, whereby a judge can find for the plaintiff without having heard the defendant's case.

"this administration has ... actively protected them from prosecution even in foreign jurisdictions. And now they are doing it again."

There is no "prosecution" here. A civil suit involves liability for damages, not guilt or innocence of a crime.

"You certainly deserve credit for the effort to try to defend the indefensible."

I am not defending anything or anyone. I am pointing out (yet again) that your ignorance of the law is apparent, and yet you persist in stating non-facts as facts.

Now back to your OP:

Can you point me to where the DOJ "acknowledged that the Bush War Criminals are guilty of crimes"?

Can you point me to where the DOJ stated that Bush was "just following orders"?

Can you point me to where "the US Government has admitted that crimes were committed by the Bush Administration"?

You have stated these things with great authority - where are the FACTS that support your statements?

[sabrina 1]

109. Lol, 'this is a Civil Suit and has nothing to do with war crimes'! Really?

An excerpt from the complaint:

108. Defendants, by engaging in the crime of aggression, were the
but-for and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s damages (and others like her) in the form
of property loss, physical pain, shame, humiliation, degradation and emotional
stress, entitling her to damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

109. In light of Defendants’ willful, knowing and intentional violations of law against Plaintiff and others like her, and in light of their reckless and callous indifference to the impact their actions would have on innocent Iraqi civilians, their breach of international peace, their deception and fraud to the democratic polity which elected them, and their reprehensible and cowardice use of a terrorist attack to commit the crime of aggression against another a country
that posed no threat to the United States, endangering the United States armed forces and millions of Iraqi civilians for their own malicious purposes, Plaintiff and others like her seek an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

Nope, 'nothing to do with War Crimes!

One more time: No WAR CRIMES, no VICTIMS, NO LAWSUITS which ARE ABOUT WAR CRIMES!

There, that should put on end to the nonsense.

Although I won't hold my breath.

[Summer Hathaway]

114. Now I KNOW you don't know the difference

between a civil suit and criminal prosecution.

The plaintiff is alleging that she suffered damages "in the form
of property loss, physical pain, shame, humiliation, degradation and emotional
stress" due to the actions of the defendants.

The judge will determine whether the plaintiff has indeed suffered such damages and, if he finds for the plaintiff, he will determine suitable compensation for those damages.

"No WAR CRIMES, no VICTIMS, NO LAWSUITS which ARE ABOUT WAR CRIMES!"

Has anyone established that Bush et al were guilty of war crimes? No.

Do you see ANYTHING in the plaintiff's complaint that refers to "war crimes"? No.

Should a judge determine that the plaintiff is due compensation, it will NOT be a determination that said defendants committed war crimes - it will be a finding that the defendants' actions caused the plaintiff's damages.

I'll say it one more time - although you probably won't get it anyway: This civil suit has nothing to do with the commission of war crimes, or anyone's guilt or innocence thereof.

Are you going to answer my questions now about what you've stated as 'fact' in your OP?

[sabrina 1]

116. If the DOJ is granted its request for immunity, the judge will do nothing of the kind. The

case, like so many others, I see you think this is ONLY such case brought by Bush/Victims, but no, it is not, this case will be thrown out.

That is what the DOJ is ASKING FOR.

I am certain now that you know nothing about the law, nothing about the multiple victims who have been denied even Civil justice and certainly nothing at all about what is going on with this case.

[Summer Hathaway]

124. Exactly WHAT is the 'nothing of the kind'

the judge will not do?

Telling other people that they know nothing about the law, which you continually do, is a classic case of projection.

You have demonstrated, in this thread and others, that it is YOU who knows nothing about the law. CLEARLY, you don't even know the difference between criminal prosecution and a civil suit.

You have been told on numerous occasions, when you start citing your interpretation of the law, that you don't know what you're talking about. And you very obviously don't.

[Bobbie Jo]

58. Thank you...

Again, this shameless, dishonest crap is exposed for what it is.

This bunch puts faux news to shame.

Pathetic.

[SidDithers]

62. Yup...

You nailed it with "shameless"

Sid

[Mr_Teg]

61. Oh look.. the post I wanted to write...

You've already typed it up...

Well done...

Seems like a big case of "You keep using that word but I don't think it means what you think it means"...

[JoePhilly]

76. You are ruining perfectly good outrage by inserting meaningful details.

[SidDithers]

35. You're wrong again...

as was explained to you in a different thread, the immunity is procedural and applies only to civil suits.

You do know the difference between criminal and civil, don't you?

Sid

[Summer Hathaway]

39. I don't think she does know the difference ...

It's the only explanation for an OP this far off the mark.

[sabrina 1]

46. Your question would be valid IF you had read the OP and were capable of

pointing out where it states that this is a Criminal Trial.

Do YOU know the difference between defending a lawsuit on its merits because the evidence will show a lack of responsibility, and avoiding presenting any defense by asking for immunity from guilt based on the claim that the defendants were not working on their own, that they were working in their capacity as employees of the US Government.

Next time read before stepping in to try defend the Bush cabal.

[SidDithers]

47. Yeah, I didn't think you knew the difference...

thanks for the confirmation.

Sid

[sabrina 1]

48. It might be better for your own sake if you refrained from posting 'what Sid thinks'

a lot of the time. The gap between what Sid thinks and the facts is often as wide as the Grand Canyon.



I didn't actually expect you to point out anything in the OP to explain your 'question'.

Mainly because it would have been impossible.

[SidDithers]

50. Keep digging...

It's hilarious to see you be so stridently wrong.

Criminal vs civil. You might want to try google. That seems to be where you get most of your "knowledge".

Sid

[sabrina 1]

53. Why are victims of Bush War Crimes forced to try to get justice in Civil Suits?

Don't strain too hard to try to answer that. I will help you out if you find it too difficult to answer?

But making stuff up doesn't even work when we are in grade school. Someone is going to point what we are doing.

[SidDithers]

57. Because "Bush War Crimes" is all in your head...

no matter how much you and I wish it were so, "Bush War Crimes" don't exist at this time in a legal sense. Have you never had to deal with the legal system before?

Saleh's suit is a civil one. Bush et al. are personally immune from civil action for carrying out their duties as government officials. The civil suit can instead proceed against Government of the United States.

Then you and your misinformed friends will be able to sputter about how the Obama administration is defending itself against Saleh's suit, and a whole new round of misguided outrage can commence.


Sid

[sabrina 1]

63. From Sid: 'Bush War Crimes' is all in your head'!!!

Okay .....

But they are not in the head of Saleh or the millions of other Iraqi's her claim hopes to get justice for. See, they were there, under the bombs and experienced the torture, the lose of their homes and more than three million of them the loss of their homes and country.

In her Civil Suit, which is the topic of the OP btw, CIVIL SUIT, just to make sure you got that, Saleh laws out the crimes committed by the Bush Cabal against the Iraqi people. Just a sample of the CIVIL SUIT claims:

107. Plaintiff is aware of Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) in which the United States Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that the President of the United States possesses immunity in civil court for actions taken pursuant to his official duties as President. Plaintiff submits that Nixon is distinguishable in that she alleges violations of accepted customary norms of international law.

Plaintiff submits that Nixon does not prohibit a cause of action against the
President or any other Executive official who engages in behavior considered
reprehensible in a civilized society, such as torture, crimes against humanity, or the crime of aggression.

To the extent that Nixon stands for the proposition that the person holding the office of President cannot be held civilly liable for violations of accepted customary norms of international law – such as torture, crimes against humanity or the crime of aggression – then Plaintiff submits that Nixon is wrongly decided and in direct contravention of accepted principles of the common law, particularly the principle that rulers are “under God and the law.”

She is a very smart woman, she anticipated the ludicrous defense of the War Criminals by the DOJ, in her CIVIL SUIT.

We have become so predictable in our defense of War Criminals now that victims already know what our lame defenses will be.

I guess Saleh doesn't agree with you 'that are no Bush Crimes'. HER WHOLE LAWSUIT IS ABOUT BUSH WAR CRIMES.


I wish it was Criminal, as you falsely allege, but so far the criminals are subject only to Civil suits until the US Government or some other Government, charges them with the crimes they are accused of. Saleh, a very courageous Iraqi women, lays it all just as, oddly, many of US remember it.

The blood cannot be wiped from the hands of the Bush cabal, no matter how many loyal subjects try to erase it from memory, or no matter how hard this government tries to defend them.

There were just too many victims. And they will not stop seeking justice until someone listens. History is testament to that fact.

[SidDithers]

66. Her civil suit, and I'm really surprised you're actually acknowledging it is a civil suit...

is based on the ACTIONS taken by the Bush cabal against the Iraqi people. It is not based on Bush war crimes, because Bush has never been convicted of war crimes.

The word "crime" has a very specific meaning here, in the real world, where I and most other people live. Only in your fantasy world does your labeling something a "war crime" make it legally so.

Show us which American court has convicted Bush et al. of WAR CRIMES. Without that conviction, BUSH WAR CRIMES do not exist in the legal sense, they exist only in your head.

As for the rest of your voluminous screed, address it to someone who gives a shit.

Sid

[sabrina 1]

67. I thought you did 'give a shit' by your multiple comments in a thread you

were perfectly free to ignore. My bad! Lol!

Just point out where in the OP I called this a Criminal case?? Hint see the last sentence if you are any trouble.

I am growing tired of asking.

It really is a simple question and since you spent some time 'thinking' about it, should not be this hard to answer.

[SidDithers]

68. How many times did you use the word "crime" in your OP?...

I'll wait while you count.

Sid

[sabrina 1]

69. Not nearly enough times, I was restraining myself since this is a Civil Suit

But one cannot mention the Bush War Criminals and their Cabal of Torturers without using the word 'crime'.

And for clarity on why the word 'crime' is appropriate regarding this lawsuit, you might take some time to read the Complaint. It is all laid out perfectly there, just as we all remember.

Well those of us who opposed the Bush War Crimes.

How many times did I use the word 'Criminal Trial' in the OP?? Don't try to think too hard about that. All you have to do is read the OP.

I love it when Sid comes into my threads. As I said it enhances my credibility here on DU more than anything I could do all by myself.

That is why I am so fond of Sid! Lol!

[zappaman]

105. +1000 n/t

[treestar]

102. How would you have it done?

It is typically of the willfully ignorant. Poor victims, they should not have to testify or produce evidence. Whoever they accuse should just be considered guilty without all that awful legal procedure. The whole system should be thrown out. But then it wouldn't be a tyranny? Because Bush is unpopular he does not have any legal rights? How do we decide who has no legal rights? First they came for Bush.

[sabrina 1]

111. How would I have it done? The same way it is done for every defendant in a lawsuit.

If you have a defense against the claims, then present it. If you can't then you try to avoid the whole thing.

I was defendant in a law suit and I couldn't wait to get to court an defend myself, without a lawyer. It wasn't hard, the claims were ludicrous and the judge agreed. I didn't need to ask for immunity from lawsuits because I had a defense.

By trying to stop victims from suing the Bush gang the DOJ is admitting they have no defense.

[Summer Hathaway]

152. No matter how many times you try to spin this

The DOJ has NOT STOPPED the plaintiff from suing; they have merely pointed out that the parties she is trying to sue CANNOT be sued in a civil proceeding. She is free to re-file naming the appropriate defendant. That's the LAW.

To say that by invoking said law they are 'admitting they have no defense' is beyond ludicrous - it is downright laughable.

You really should stay out of discussions about law. You have amply demonstrated that you know nothing about it.

[sabrina 1]

154. She already dealt with that in her Complaint, she anticipated this 'spin' that she

cannot sue those who directly harmed her. The DOJ is protecting War Criminals no matter how you try to spin it.

The woman obviously studied how previous case by victims of Bush War Criminals have been handled and dismissed and chose to cover it in her complaint. She, and we, have seen so many of these attempts by the victims of Bush War Crimes to get just a little justice, be dismissed with these transparent ploys, used to protect them. So she pointed out why this does not apply to her suit.

You should read the cases you decide to expound on before you jump into discussions you know nothing about.

[Summer Hathaway]

156. I have read her complaint

and citing the law is not "spin". It is what it IS - the law:

"In 1982, the United States Supreme Court held in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982), a 5-4 decision, that the President of the United States has civil immunity for actions taken while in office."

Whether you like that law or not, it's still THE LAW.

The plaintiff is free to say whatever she chooses in her complaint; that doesn't mean a judge will accept it as having a sound basis in law.

But let's go back to your assertions as set out in your OP, i.e. that the DOJ took the position that Bush was "just following orders", that the DOJ has "acknowledged" that Bush et al were guilty of crimes, that the US Government has admitted that crimes were committed by the Bush Administration.

I've asked to you back up those assertions over and over.

Should I take it that you are "refusing to defend", and are thereby "admitting guilt" in that you lied about those accusations?

If you have any FACTS to back up what you've stated in your OP, I'm sure we'd all like to hear them.

[sabrina 1]

59. We are all still waiting for something, anything that relates to the actual

topic of the OP.

I know what a big fan of mine you are and I appreciate it, more, way, way more than you know.

You consistently boost my credibility here on DU so how could I NOT be grateful for that!

But the OP isn't about me.

So far, all we have is what you 'think'.

[SidDithers]

60. Your OP is something produced by your fevered imagination...

at least I took the time to think.

Sid

[sabrina 1]

64. Well it's taking the time to 'think' that is the issue.

And what was it that you concluded after all your 'thinking'?

You still haven't told us!

[Summer Hathaway]

97. And we are all still waiting

for you to set out the facts to support your OP.

When did the the DOJ take the position that Bush was "just following orders"?

When did the DOJ "acknowledge" that Bush et al were guilty of crimes?

When did the US Government admit that crimes were committed by the Bush Administration?

Your entire OP is a recitation of what YOU think is happening here, all FACTS to the contrary.

[sabrina 1]

115. Haven't read the DOJ's resonse asking for immunity either. Didn't see the claim that the

'defendants are immune from lawsuits because they, poor dears, were were working 'within the scope' of their employment by the US Government. See, they were just following orders. It's all very easy to understand if you just take the time to do a little reading.

[Summer Hathaway]

123. Yet another deflection from the topic at hand

- which, of course, I have come to expect.

I've set out questions which are based entirely on what you have stated in your OP.

If what you have stated has no basis in fact, just admit it.

Otherwise, please set out the "facts" underlying your assertions that the DOJ takes the position that Bush was "just following orders", that the DOJ has "acknowledged" that Bush et al were guilty of crimes, that the US Government has admitted that crimes were committed by the Bush Administration.

Those are YOUR assertions. If you can't back them up (which we both know you can't) maybe you shouldn't have made those assertions in the first place.

[truedelphi]

129. But the DOJ could do as it wanted to.

Problem being - the DOJ doesn't want to hassle anyone that has ever done right by the One Percent.

[Summer Hathaway]

93. So your 'defense' is that you didn't state

that this wasn't a criminal trial in your OP?

Then why did you bring up issues that would ONLY APPLY to a criminal case?

"Do YOU know the difference between defending a lawsuit on its merits because the evidence will show a lack of responsibility, and avoiding presenting any defense by asking for immunity from guilt based on the claim that the defendants were not working on their own, that they were working in their capacity as employees of the US Government."

Do YOU know the difference? Apparently not.

The DOJ is not "avoiding presenting any defense" - they are pointing out that the inappropriate defendants were named. This suit will presumably go forward after the plaintiff refiles, naming the United States as the defendant.

Happens all the time in civil suits. A plaintiff sues the human resources director of a corporation because they were unjustifiably fired from their job. The plaintiff would be instructed to re-file naming the corporation as the defendant, as the individual who handed them their pink slip would NOT be the appropriate party to be held liable for the plaintiff's alleged damages.

You keep accusing people of "defending the Bush Cabal". The only thing people are defending here is the law - which you persist in assaulting by declaring your non-facts about what the law IS and how it is applied.

[sabrina 1]

103. Your comment makes no sense at all.

Try writing it again, stick to the facts, think about what you are writing, and I will attempt to sort through it and respond.

[Summer Hathaway]

108. Okay, I'll go slower this time ...

You have asserted that you know the difference between a criminal prosecution and a civil suit.

You go on to defend your stance that you are aware of the difference by pointing out that you didn't use the term "criminal trial" in your OP.

True - you did not use the term "criminal trial" in your OP. However, you raised issues in the OP that would ONLY be applicable to a criminal prosecution, and not to a civil suit.

Apparently, you don't know the difference between the two. If you DID know the difference, you would also know that references to "crimes committed", etc., have absolutely nothing to do with a civil case.

And while you're here, could you please answer the questions I've posed, being:

When did the the DOJ take the position that Bush was "just following orders"?

When did the DOJ "acknowledge" that Bush et al were guilty of crimes?

When did the US Government admit that crimes were committed by the Bush Administration?

I do savor the irony of you telling someone to "stick to the facts", when your entire OP is based on things you are asserting as "facts" which actually have absolutely no basis in reality.

[sabrina 1]

110. This comment is ALL ABOUT ME! Lol! While I'm always flattered to be the focus of attention

as I said before, it makes no sense in relation to the OP.

Have you read the Complaint? Have you read the DOJ's response re asking for immunity?

If you are innocent of the claims in a Law Suit, you won't have much problem defending yourself. I've done it even without an attorney.

When you can't defend the claims, you look for some way out.

And if you are lucky enough to have friends in high places you try to make the whole thing go away so you don't have to deal with claims you know you can't defend.

That is why the DOJ is asking for immunity for these War Criminals, because their crimes are laid out very carefully in the Complaint.

The refusal to defend them is an admission of guilt.

Do you think the Bush gang are guilty of war crimes? I can't tell for sure but you appear to be trying to defend them. You sure aren't trying to ANSWER the charges, maybe because, like the DOJ, you can't??

[Summer Hathaway]

120. Your lack of knowledge of the law

is astounding.

"The refusal to defend them is an admission of guilt."

There has been no "refusal to defend". The plaintiff has been advised that according to
the 1982 Supreme Court decision in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982), citing that that the President of the United States has civil immunity for actions taken while in office, she has named the wrong defendant(s) in her suit.

Pointing out that the plaintiff will therefore have to refile naming the correct defendant is in no way an admission of guilt, nor a refusal to defend. It is part of the legal procedure which must be followed when a plaintiff attempts to sue someone who is NOT, by law, able to be sued.

Do I think the Bush gang are guilty of war crimes? Yes, I do. But my believing that does NOT make them guilty in law - only a judge can make a determination of guilt, and it would have to be based on provable FACTS, not my personal beliefs.

"That is why the DOJ is asking for immunity for these War Criminals, because their crimes are laid out very carefully in the Complaint."

There are no "crimes" set out in the plaintiff's pleadings. What is set out is a list of "actions" on the part of the named defendants which, the plaintiff alleges, led to her personal damages. The suit asks for compensation for those damages - it does not, and CANNOT, ask for a finding of guilt or innocence on criminal charges.

[1StrongBlackMan]

138. Darn you, Summer …

and you, too, Bigtree ...

I spent a good amount of time preparing a response this tripe … but reading your post #34, makes it completely unnecessary; first, because you are exactly correct on the legal points; but more, because by the time I got to your post #93 (which is also on point … though I used the example of a delivery driver that suffers a tire blow out and collides with another vehicle, killing a passenger in the vehicle, who is then sued, personally, by the victim's family), it is clear that she knows nothing of the relevant law, or its application, is unwilling to accept information that would properly inform her opinion, and is merely arguing … to save face(?) ... to make her uninformed opinion hold the same weight as fact(?) ... or, whatever.

The bottom-line being ... she has her mind made up ... there is nothing that will give her pause, let alone, change her opinion. So why try?

There was a time when liberals prided ourselves in our letting facts inform our opinion ... I guess that time ended about 4 1/2 years ago, when outrage became the end all.

[treestar]

101. If the Bush cabal is charged, does it not get a defense?

It is my understanding that defending the Bush cabal is allowed - they too get to defend on charges. Being unpopular does not mean the law does not apply. The Obama or whatever administration at the time any charges are brought will be part of the defense, since the Bush cabal was the elected and appointed members of the government at the time. The government continues on - it is a system that has continued on for over 200 years. There's no exception in the Constitution for the Bush Cabal.

[sabrina 1]

113. Do you know what this OP is about? The Bush cabal have been sued by a victim of their

war crimes. They have every right to defend themselves.

Who said they didn't? I am saying the opposite, DEFEND YOURSELVES if you can.

But the DOJ is refusing to defend them. The DOJ is trying to make the case go away so they don't have to defend themselves. The DOJ by asking for immunity from all lawsuits is admitting that they cannot be successfully defended.

.

[Summer Hathaway]

131. Keep diggin' that hole, sabrina

The DOJ has NOT refused to defend, nor has the DOJ ADMITTED that the presently-named defendants cannot be successfully defended, nor has the DOJ asked for immunity from ALL lawsuits, but only CIVIL litigation.

They have invoked the LAW that establishes that a president CANNOT be sued in a civil suit based on actions undertaken as part of his/her duties while in office.

Yet again you persist in stating non-facts about WHAT the law is, and how it is to be applied.



Why can't you just admit that you DON'T know what you're talking about when it comes to the law?

[zappaman]

135. wow.

This thread reminds me of saying my late grandmother used to say...
"You can stop digging now, sweetie. That hole is plenty deep enough."

[Bobbie Jo]

145. Here's the thing..

Take a look at this thread, they don't care and she knows it.

They will continue the squawking and back patting, completely ignoring how you exposed this deliberate attempt to mislead and manipulate.

I applaud your efforts, nonetheless.

[Summer Hathaway]

159. Thanks, Bobbie Jo

And you're right in that the squawking and back-patting still goes on, facts being expendable if and when convenient.

[Enthusiast]

41. Kicked and Recommended! nt

[Scuba]

42. Kick

[avebury]

43. In other words: The Westfall Act is the US version of the Nuremberg Defense.

Talk about hypocrisy.

[sabrina 1]

65. Yes, exactly. And it didn't work too well back then. The plaintiff in this case

goes into detail in her complaint about that very issue. It is well worth reading as she anticipated this defense in advance.

[hack89]

87. Except that it does not apply to criminal cases such as War Crime prosecutions

this is for civil cases only.

[avebury]

100. Which totally sucks! Civil cases are the only legal remedy when

our own legal system refuses to hold government officials accountable for their illegal actions.

[sabrina 1]

117. Where are the Criminal Charges?? And why should it apply to ANY case involving the Bush

Criminals. And most of all, why is a Democratic DOJ trying to protect the Bush War Criminals even from a little Civil Liability?? Can you please answer some of these questions? A whole lot of people are asking, around the world.

[hack89]

122. It is settled US law

this is an old issue resolved legally decades ago. If she wants to sue for her suffering, she has to sue the US government, not individual office holders. Nothing is stopping her from having her day in court - she just has to sue the right party.

I don't know why Obama did not press criminal charges - perhaps because he does not want the next president to do the same to him.

[sabrina 1]

132. She addressed that in her complaint. She explained why the immunity claim doesn't apply

in this case. She is a very smart woman who has obviously familiarized herself with US law. She sure knows a lot more about it than a few of the commenters in this thread. The DOJ had the option to agree with her rationale, and let the case go forward, or not. They chose not to do so.

[hack89]

134. The Dems in power now will not open themselves up to such law suits

in the future.

[sabrina 1]

141. I understand that, now. At one time not so long ago, I was naive enough to believe that they

would do the right thing.

IF Dems think that they are going to commit war crimes in the future, then they should step down as should Republicans of course.

And IF they anticipate committing war crimes, then they should be willing to pay the price.

What a shame that we have a Government that actually anticipates committing war crimes.

How about we stay home and mind our own business, unless we are in imminent danger, in which case it would be better to have the Military HERE ready to DEFEND us.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

44. Kick

[WillyT]

55. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[MotherPetrie]

56. K&R

[idwiyo]

75. K&R

[KansDem]

77. It has been noted by DUer's above that this is a civil action...

...and not a criminal one. Fair enough, however, there are many of us angered by the Bush Administration's actions. From ignoring intel that strikes were imminent inside the US to invading a country that had nothing to do with those attacks.

1.5 million people are dead because of Bush's lies and murderous actions. And, barring a miracle, he will not be held accountable. There is no one with the power and clout who will pursue this.

So let those of us frustrated and angry with Bush and his co-conspirators take some measure of relief, albeit minuscule, with the knowledge that they will seek immunity from this civil lawsuit.

Remember, laws are written by powerful folks in suits and corner offices to protect powerful folks in suits and corner offices.

[The Wizard]

78. Nuremberg defense

declared invalid in 1946.

[Hubert Flottz]

82. I'd blame the five Supreme Court judges who...

appointed the Bush gang to the levers of power.

[99th_Monkey]

83. K & R ~ nt

[felix_numinous]

85. What a major shift.

It's better than nothing, but needs to be pursued as a possible gateway to some actual prosecutions and accountability. The world demands it.

[Octafish]

86. ''Money trumps peace.'' -- George Walker Bush*, ''president'' of the United States, Feb. 14, 2007

The guy admitted what he and the Have-Mores he represents are about.

#t=0s

No one makes me angrier than a warmonger.

[Corruption Inc]

88. Well said. Rec'd.

All of the criminal Bush admin crimes were done in our name as Americans and I never supported a single one of the crimes and still don't and never will. F those criminals.

[Cleita]

121. I remember millions marching in protest not only here but around the world.

Yet, they pushed their agenda through anyway against overwhelming unwillingness for war of any sort. If they don't get justice in this life may they burn in Hell for eternity.

[tritsofme]

125. Well, that is some crack legal analysis there.

Not even worth it.

[sabrina 1]

127. And that was some crack legal response. But thank you anyhow. I guess you don't have any

opinion on any of this ...

[zentrum]

126. It's to protect Obama

...from being charged with war crimes because of his drone strikes around the world. Or even for some things in the Snowden documents that haven't come to light yet. Many say we're in an "undeclared war" with Yemen, for example, which is surely against the Geneva Conventions.

And also, it's so O, the Nobel Peace Medalist, can travel in the future, with greater immunity to countries where they might try to arrest him as they did Bush.

I voted and worked for Obama, but given the people he appoints, and his protection of the Wall Street criminals and now this--I am stripped of all my illusions.

[L0oniX]

136. Their lies broke trust with America ...and that trust will never come back!

They lied and 100's of thousands died. Women ...children ...whole families ...and people are still suffering from DU poison. IRAQ DID NOT ATTACK US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What don't you understand about war crimes? A whole nation gets lied into a war and the people behave like sheep ...pathetic and sick! What Democrats did NOT vote for the Iraq war? A few? That's a deep and dark shame on Democrats and a stain that won't come out with a change of the guard.

[Abq_Sarah]

147. The government will always protect the power of government

Over every other interest.

I'm sure the DOJ and administration wouldn't look kindly at a future administration throwing them under the bus for bombing Libya in violation of the WPA. It's kind of hard to scream illegal wars at the other guy when you engage in them yourself.

[truth2power]

148. Just following orders. where have I heard that before? n/t

[Summer Hathaway]

153. Well, you DIDN'T hear it from the DOJ ...

despite sabrina's claims that the DOJ said it!

[sabrina 1]

160. Yes, we most certainly did hear it from the DOJ. Still haven't read their response?

Btw WHO is the US Government? You are so knowledgeable about EVERYTHING, I though maybe you could tell us they are.

[Summer Hathaway]

161. Please post the response here, sabrina

adding your commentary along the way describing exactly where the DOJ stated that Bush was "just following orders".

And if you are going to drag out the idea that 'acting within the scope of ones employment' is equal to 'just following orders', save it. It is a ridiculous and incredibly desperate notion.

Given the 'scope of employment' that a president operates within, he would not be "just following orders" in any sense of the term.

As for the US Gov't question, we've been through this before, sabrina. You always attempt to change the subject when you've been cornered by your own lack of knowledge, and you know you're losing the argument as a result thereof.

And you still haven't backed up the assertions you made in the OP - but I'm not holding my breath for an answer. I never do - because they're never forthcoming.

[dflprincess]

151. Lying us into a war was "within the scope of their employment"

Curiouser and curiouser.

[sabrina 1]

157. Yes, that was a very interesting way of putting it. So who is this US Government that

employed Bush/Cheney? I must be extremely naive because I thought it was we, the people.

I wonder if we the people could file a class action suit about this invisible Government the DOJ is referencing. The discovery phase should be very enlightening if nothing else.

So here's my question, if you can't sue the Perps who were 'just following someone else's orders', can we sue that 'someone else'?

[polynomial]

155. Keep war crimes A live

The DOJ gives immunity. There is the flag of tradition law, not the system law. This is the most difficult issues for anyone in office to discuss. But for we the people the first time in American recorded history to honestly show all through time what the real experience was. It was a dishonest, bad, ugly, crime, loaded with lies, deception, wild profiteering, illegal secret metadata collection, the worst part in all this era was complicit to media control the key players that convinced America that war is necessary.

The issues now also to perpetuate a war system in Syria, in other words keep the secret metadata collection and profiteering system going. Stay the course, lie via the mainstream media to the public.

From my view it always seems to be some extra pressures that play a political game. If it’s not the Soviets giving advanced weapons to fuel a situation it is the Chinese, or India, or Iran or anyone else the news war mongers need to gin up hatred and retaliation. This is an industry built on hate and secrecy. Profiteering through the manipulation of the military is perpetuating new war crimes. Now chemical bullshit, yes we the American goody goodies that dumped chemicals all over Vietnam now say oh that it is bad to do now. Such are the neurotic ways of war.

To give immunity, openly suggest a person was told by the government to do those things. You mean when the joint chiefs of the military are in a round table discussion some one person who is the chairman, the CEO of war says whatever it takes is O.K. that chief executive the person we call the president by tradition can say whatever he wants all knowing the profiteering involved especially with drown war mongers. That’s where I am disappointed in president Obama.

Stand down in Syria get the hell out of Afghanistan stop all war machine stuff now. It is only my opinion I don’t care what happens in that part of the world. America has far too many issues and problems here at home. The international community needs to take charge. Like one news radio talk show called our military should use drowns to take out and level the Syrian presidential palace and the leader a stinker. The United Nations should decide about drown strike not an American president.

Why the United Nations because they are the combined Democracy we are part of. America needs to start making decisions with the world we are part of. For today’s politicians Its all about money, if it was about Democracy the 911 hijackers would have likely crashed into the United Nations building but they choose the Twin Towers that had the seriously centered bond trading stock market connection to the Bush administration. The Iraq war was the profiteering war of the new millennium and if not honestly addressed America will never develop into the country of life liberty and pursuit of happiness anyone might dream about, except the one percenters get it all.