Page 1 of 10
(OT): IN YER FACE BUSH! cant buy the supreme court
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 5:14 am
by forge
well, they havent kicked him out or tried him for war crimes, but they have made a start !
http://au.news.yahoo.com/060629/23/zlls.html
Immoral evil freedom hatin evil doer.
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 5:44 am
by djshiva
i *heart* you, forge.
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:03 am
by forge
aw shucks!
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:05 am
by robtronik
this is also a good example of why people shouldn't be so quick to make the fascist govt. accusation either. this is why we have checks and balances, and a system of public review for our laws and the application of them, etc.
Notice that Bush said he will comply with the courts which are at odds with his current policy?
.02,
rob.
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:08 am
by forge
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 7:04 am
by Meef Chaloin
haha the court had a problem with giving them a military trial but they weren't bothered that people were kept for years with no representation?!
hmmm
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 11:37 am
by subterFUSE
Meef..... what are you talking about?
This whole thread was started because a Yemeni terror suspect who was granted a Navy JAG defense attorney has successfully brought his case all the way to the US Supreme Court, and won a temporary victory.
What do you mean, no representation? He has representation, and the USA provided it.... AND it is actually working.
Hmmmmm.... I wonder if a Muslim country would do this for an American prisoner, or for any prisoner for that matter?
Think about that for just a minute, please.
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 11:48 am
by subterFUSE
And Forge..... the title of this thread: "Can't buy the Supreme Court"
Please explain how Pres. Bush attempted to buy the court? I'm curious about this one? You seem to be such an intelligent and well informed person, because I've been paying attention and this fact seems to have eluded me completely.
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 11:59 am
by Hatchets McGee
whoop-tee-doo
george w has been up to no good since 2000, he's only got a year and a half to go. It seems obvious to me he'll leave to a chorus of boos and maybe even disgrace, which of course will all be part of the show. The damage will be done, what he wanted to achieve will have been achieved. but the impotent masses will feel good about themselves that 'justice' has been done (on the surface), yet the funny thing is he was allowed to run amok for 6 years doing what he pleased
its just a farce at this stage, even if he's impeached...thats meaningless. just part of a show for your benefit.
he wouldnt be the only official to do this either. corporations do it all the time. They break a law to achieve what they want, and they pay a fine. No biggie. Calculated cost for the goals they set out to achieve.
2p
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 12:03 pm
by Hatchets McGee
subterFUSE wrote:Please explain how Pres. Bush attempted to buy the court? I'm curious about this one? You seem to be such an intelligent and well informed person, because I've been paying attention and this fact seems to have eluded me completely.
it seems to me he's suggesting that the bush administration tend to buy their way into and out of most things, but not the supreme court.
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 12:11 pm
by subterFUSE
I'm not suggesting anything. I asked the topic started to explain his statement.
And now there's your statement. What law has Bush broken, my friend? Please explain your assertions above.
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 12:14 pm
by Hatchets McGee
subterFUSE wrote:What do you mean, no representation? He has representation, and the USA provided it.... AND it is actually working.
when you say the USA provided it, elaborate.
That statement suggests the US government provided his lawyer. I havent found anything to suggest that.
Infact, The ruling came in response to a case brought by Osama Bin Laden's ex-driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan. If he has any links with Osama Bin Laden, I think its fair to assume he may have access to immense wealth. And thus he can pay for a good lawyer.
but forget about that.......please provide some sort of evidence that the USA provided his lawyer.
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 12:15 pm
by Hatchets McGee
subterFUSE wrote:I'm not suggesting anything. I asked the topic started to explain his statement.
I was answering YOUR question, and I was refering to FORGE.
Hatchets McGee wrote:subterFUSE wrote:Please explain how Pres. Bush attempted to buy the court? I'm curious about this one? You seem to be such an intelligent and well informed person, because I've been paying attention and this fact seems to have eluded me completely.
(hey subterFUSE) it
seems to
me he's (forge) suggesting that the bush administration tend to buy their way into and out of most things, but not the supreme court.
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 12:18 pm
by subterFUSE
Hatchets McGee wrote:subterFUSE wrote:What do you mean, no representation? He has representation, and the USA provided it.... AND it is actually working.
when you say the USA provided it, elaborate.
That statement suggests the US government provided his lawyer. I havent found anything to suggest that.
Infact, The ruling came in response to a case brought by Osama Bin Laden's ex-driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan. If he has any links with Osama Bin Laden, I think its fair to assume he may have access to immense wealth. And thus he can pay for a good lawyer.
but forget about that.......please provide some sort of evidence that the USA provided his lawyer.
Hamdan is the Yemeni I spoke of. And the US Navy JAG provided his defense attorney.... and he is very good. I watched an interview with him last night on TV. He was appointed by the Navy, and was even asked before he started if he had any personal qualms with representing a terror suspect.
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 12:19 pm
by Hatchets McGee
duely noted, thanks