Log in

No account? Create an account
bear by san

March 2017



Powered by LiveJournal.com
speak truth to power

We have met the evil empire, and he is us.

There's an update to Baghdad Burning today.



serious shit... Somebody needs to buy that guy a ticket out of there. This... ah screw it, words are worthless.
It's a woman, AFAIK.

And I suspect she'd rather we bought our ownselves that ticket. :-P
If i could i would.. This hasn't even gotten bad yet.. As i have been saying for years, fuck impeachment, Bush needs to be tried for treason and then handed over to the World Court for war crimes.

He will be lucky to escape Sharia Justice.
bush, rumsfeld, cheney, the list goes on. I don't think it will be done, but yes it would be a good signal to the world "looks guys, we're sorry and we are putting this behind us"
Instead, Southern Methodist University is planning to spend a half-billion dollars on a George W. Bush Presidential Library, including a think tank dedicated solely to producing material that will give Bush a good name long after he's gone back to Hell. (SMU looks at Bush as a local hero: not only did Laura graduate from there, but the specter of a brain-damaged cokehead fratboy going to the highest office in the land offers hope for each year's MBA graduates.) The really scary part is that the Library will be financed solely by private contributions: considering the number of SMU brat ego projects in the Dallas area that get funded with public moneys, the fact that they aren't even going to try to stick this to taxpayers gives an indication of how much money Bush has made for the war profiteers, oilmen, and other vermin that bellow "You know, MY GOOD CLOSE FRIEND GEORGE W. BUSH says..." at every opportunity.
well, the question is: why let this stand unobjected? I am outside the US and hence can't do anything. But I wonder whether it would be possible to file charges against them?
A private institution? For building a library?

Alas, just because it's misguided doesn't mean it's illegal....
no. file charges against Shrublet, Rumsfeld, Cheney. I know this can't be stopped, but I think counterbalancing action might not be such a bad thing.
First we'd need to impeach, which means we'd need to get Congress moving. However, comma, this is one of the things some of us are hoping for in having installed a Democratic majority House of Representatives.

The chances are slim that anything will happen, alas.
do you? Rumsfeld is not in office any more. And if need be I'd wait till the other 2 are gone as well. And can't any private citizen file charges against another such?
Legally? Not under these circumstances.

Treason is a federal crime. It's not something you can file charges against your neighbor for. The aggrieved party is the nation, not me.
but murder is for instance.
Murder must be prosecuted in the jurisdiction in which the murder occurs. And you have to find a governmental agency that's willing to press charges.
The trouble is, it was glaringly obvious that this was going to be the outcome, as early as spring of 2002. By late 2002/early 2003 I was going on anti-war marches for the first time in my life -- I'm no habitual peacenik -- because I could see what was going to happen.

All you had to do was listen to the spin and watch the smoke signals coming out of the White House, then remember what William Shirer was writing about the noises coming out of the Chancellery in Berlin in summer 1939 over Poland.

Moreover, the glaringly obvious question nobody in the mainstream media actually had the bottle to ask was, "if you're so sure Iraq has WMDs/Al Qaida/the elixir of youth, then why not show us the evidence?" Instead it was spin, spin, "trust us, we know what's good for you" and more spin, all the way.

If the evidence had existed, if the WMDs had been real, then simply publishing the evidence would have shut up all the anti-war protesters and made that UN vote on the invasion a rubber-stamp deal (which Bush never got, potentially leaving him -- and Blair -- open to the charge of waging aggressive war, which was the main thing we nailed the Nazi high brass for at Nuremberg in 1946-47).

Final cue: ask most Americans on the street how many people died in Vietnam and the first answer you get is "60,000". Considerably fewer will have the nous to say "two and a half million". Fewer still will go the whole way and cough to "we don't know, but somewhere in the range five to seven million" (if you count the collateral in Cambodia and Laos, and the Khmer Rouge takeover, and the consequences). Americans (and Brits too) have been carefully trained not to notice the other guy's blood on the floor. So it's no surprise that the big headline is "more US soldiers killed than citizens died in 9/11", not "extrapolating from the Lancet figures, Iraq death toll probably passes one million" (which is the real news this festive season).
Ahh... Another historian.. And the whole Iraq deal was just a ploy so the Neo/Theo/Paleo-cons could generate their "Permanent Republican Majority".

I submit that that is treason.
"Treason never prospers; for if it prospers, who dare call it treason?"

Plus, treason is an external crime; an internal affair like this ... well.

We learned where they thought they were coming from in 2004 with that guff about the "reality based community". Trouble is, not enough people were paying attention.

Maybe if history was taught properly in America ... but you'd also need to issue 80% of the population with passports and more importantly, make sure they used them (for travel outside the immediate continent, at that) before the lessons sank in.

Not just history...

I know someone (in the US) who thought Puerto Rico was, "Somewhere over by Asia."
TREASON - This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

What google says.. Now if Saudi Arabia and the Wahhabi were defined as enemies of the United States, or if it could be proven that Bin Lauden had ties to some part of the Saudi Government, then the neocons could be convicted of treason strictly on the basis of public documents. I personally think that the invasion of Iraq gave "aid and comfort" to our enemies in al queda more than any other single act in American history.
Thinking about all this makes me so angry, and so depressed, I don't even know what to say. Especially because this is exactly the outcome I predicted before we went to war.
Shit. My little brother is in Anbar right now, and yet all I can think of are the people who live there, not the ones that can "go home" after all of this is over. Anyone want to explain to me again why Bush and Cheney aren't up in front of a tribunal on charges of war crimes?
Because we have a great big dick. :-P
Considering their behavior, I suspect that Bush and Cheney both masturbate by slicing pubic hairs until they find the one that bleeds.