George Bush Ruled a Felon

[RideTheDirt]

http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2008/07/federal-judge-ruling-george-w-bush-is.html

Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of the US District Court in California has ruled that President George W. Bush is a felon. The ruling stems from the case of Al-Harmain Islamic Foundation Inc. v Bush, a case which will now be remembered as making it official that Bush's program of 'warrantless spying' is illegal.
To bad you would need an army to arrest this man. The March is tommorow maybe an attempted citizens arrest should be in order?

[AJ Antimony]

http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2008/07/federal-judge-ruling-george-w-bush-is.html

To bad you would need an army to arrest this man. The March is tommorow maybe an attempted citizens arrest should be in order?

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/2382/ks65555xo5.gif

"In the name of the United States Constitution, you are under arrest Mr. President"

[Roxi]

im a bit skeptical, the blogger didn't do a whole lot of research here, just quoted from a site with no reputability.

the quote used from sott.com is actually "Judge Walker ruled, effectively, that President George W. Bush is a felon." the bold being my emphasis...

im not saying this isn't true or couldn't be enforced, and i would LOVE to see him arrested, but id hate to be the guy speaking in public about arresting him, without any proof that its even a possibility... its hard to describe what im saying, but imagine how embarrasing it would be to bring this "ruling" up in public or on TV based on a rumor that essentially came from a blog.


edited to add: (i like sott.com, i wasn't saying that it wasn't a good site)

and heres the pdf of the court docket from Al Haramain Islamic Foundation v. George Bush et al

http://fas.org/sgp/jud/statesec/ahif090706.pdf




edited again to add: although i am obviously skimming, my initial interpretation of the court docket in no way makes me believe that the judges ruling constitutes as a felony against bush.

here is an excellent site that explains this case, and what it means in terms that are easily understandable. i don't know the site owner or the reputability of the site either, but it doesn't seem to be unresearched nonsense.

http://www.zombietime.com/al-haramain_surveillance/

[Roxi]

also two of the judges presiding over this case (Hawkins included) are clinton appointees

[Roxi]

you definitely need to check out the site above


and finally from http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/07/analysis-pendin.html


Thursday, July 03, 2008

Court Rules in Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation Case

The New York Times reports that in Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation v. Bush, a federal judge for the Northern District of California ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) preempts the state secrets privilege. Al-Haramain sued the government after receiving a document proving they were subject to warrantless surveillance. The judge "said that the wiretapping law established by Congress was the 'exclusive' means for the president to eavesdrop on Americans, and he rejected the government's claim that the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief trumped that law." But the judge refused to throw out the lawsuit, giving the charity's lawyers 30 days to restructure their claim. The Court found that Al-Haramain had not provided a sufficient showing that they were "aggrieved." The Wired.com's Threat Level Blog has a very detailed posting.

[Soccrmastr]

so what exactly is going on?

[RideTheDirt]

Nevermind. I posted it w/o doing my h/w. My bad. Thanks for posting that.

[acptulsa]

Respect your Constitution. No judge in the nation has the power to jail Dubya. Congress has to present him to that judge first through impeachment. Of course, there will come a day next January when jailing Dubya and his gang of forty thieves won't violate the Constitutional prohibition of the judiciary derailing the elected government because (be it for good or ill) someone will have replaced the criminal.

And that's beginning to look like an interesting day.

[Roxi]

no problem... its not your fault... its the bloggers too, and sotts, and bad journalism really.

this right here is one of the reasons i LOVE this message board...

i love to research stuff, im doing it constantly and every day at least a thread is posted that makes me go.. "wait a minute, that doesn't sound right" so i delve into finding out about the subject at hand... i had personally never paid attention to this particular case, and now i know about it, same goes with a different subject every day

so you guys are like my mentors :D and the internet is my professor

[Roxi]

here is an excellent site that explains this case, and what it means in terms that are easily understandable. i don't know the site owner or the reputability of the site either, but it doesn't seem to be unresearched nonsense.

http://www.zombietime.com/al-haramain_surveillance/

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Respect your Constitution. No judge in the nation has the power to jail Dubya. Congress has to present him to that judge first through impeachment. Of course, there will come a day next January when jailing Dubya and his gang of forty thieves won't violate the Constitutional prohibition of the judiciary derailing the elected government because (be it for good or ill) someone will have replaced the criminal.

And that's beginning to look like an interesting day.

Do you honestly feel that charges will be brought against President Bush? The Neocon purpose to support Jewish hatred against the Arabs is a political one after all. Although fervant and extreme, such views are supported by many in this Christian nation. So, a nation with an economy in shambles is not enough evidence to convict President Bush of high crimes and misdemeanors.

[acptulsa]

Do you honestly feel that charges will be brought against President Bush? The Neocon purpose to support Jewish hatred against the Arabs is a political one after all. Although fervant and extreme, such views are supported by many in this Christian nation. So, a nation with an economy in shambles is not enough evidence to convict President Bush of high crimes and misdemeanors.

I'm just beginning to have a glimmer of hope. No more than that.