2 Next
Topic: Cheney War Crimes
madisonman's photo
Thu 03/26/09 04:37 AM
Im so glad Obama stopped the nazification of america

no photo
Thu 03/26/09 07:08 AM
Edited by JimmyTheGent on Thu 03/26/09 07:09 AM
Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld- the lot of em- should all be hung up by the short hairs. Wait. That's torture. Let's just prosecute them and throw em in jail to live out the rest of their evil, worthless lives.
3 squares and a cot is generous and a lot more than they deserve.

madisonman's photo
Thu 03/26/09 03:03 PM

Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld- the lot of em- should all be hung up by the short hairs. Wait. That's torture. Let's just prosecute them and throw em in jail to live out the rest of their evil, worthless lives.
3 squares and a cot is generous and a lot more than they deserve.
well water boarding int realt torture so we could at least do that to them. :wink:

no photo
Thu 03/26/09 03:44 PM


Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld- the lot of em- should all be hung up by the short hairs. Wait. That's torture. Let's just prosecute them and throw em in jail to live out the rest of their evil, worthless lives.
3 squares and a cot is generous and a lot more than they deserve.
well water boarding int realt torture so we could at least do that to them. :wink:


I love how waterboarding is described as "simulated" drowning. What's "simulated" about it? You can't breathe because there is water in your mouth and nose. Isn't that drowning or am I missing something here?


no photo
Thu 03/26/09 03:57 PM

If you charge him or GWB you also have to charge congress!!!! Then all of us could be chared with aiding and abetting criminals...We all were aware of what was happening!

madisonman's photo
Thu 03/26/09 04:06 PM


If you charge him or GWB you also have to charge congress!!!! Then all of us could be chared with aiding and abetting criminals...We all were aware of what was happening!

Maybe most of you but could be charged but I never aided and abetted it. I have been a member of the resistance for years. :wink:

no photo
Thu 03/26/09 04:09 PM



If you charge him or GWB you also have to charge congress!!!! Then all of us could be chared with aiding and abetting criminals...We all were aware of what was happening!

Maybe most of you but could be charged but I never aided and abetted it. I have been a member of the resistance for years. :wink:
Im not saying I disagree with you.....Im just stating a factdrinker

madisonman's photo
Thu 03/26/09 04:15 PM




If you charge him or GWB you also have to charge congress!!!! Then all of us could be chared with aiding and abetting criminals...We all were aware of what was happening!

Maybe most of you but could be charged but I never aided and abetted it. I have been a member of the resistance for years. :wink:
Im not saying I disagree with you.....Im just stating a factdrinker
I understand. but realy it wasnt people like you or I who sat behind closed doors and tried to find "legal loopholes" around the Nuremburg laws. WHen Bush/Cheney ran for office they didnt run on a platform of torture or unjust wars, had they done such we never would have elected them

no photo
Thu 03/26/09 04:20 PM
Edited by Unknow on Thu 03/26/09 04:40 PM





If you charge him or GWB you also have to charge congress!!!! Then all of us could be chared with aiding and abetting criminals...We all were aware of what was happening!

Maybe most of you but could be charged but I never aided and abetted it. I have been a member of the resistance for years. :wink:
Im not saying I disagree with you.....Im just stating a factdrinker
I understand. but realy it wasnt people like you or I who sat behind closed doors and tried to find "legal loopholes" around the Nuremburg laws. WHen Bush/Cheney ran for office they didnt run on a platform of torture or unjust wars, had they done such we never would have elected them
It was wrong...No doubt about it...But congress is just as much to blame...Since we elected those people some of the blame has to fall on our shoulders whether we voted for the party or not..I will bash Bush just like the next man and clearly alot of the blame layed in his administration...But not all..

Drivinmenutz's photo
Thu 03/26/09 05:56 PM




No one in this current administration is planning on doing anything about laws being broken. This is because they are breaking many of the same laws. To bring Bush/Cheney down, would be to bring themselves down as well. This doesnt include they hundreds of congressmen/women that are guilty of crimes... Think about it.

They all seem to think our constitution is null and void so what's the point?


I don't believe this is true at all. There will be investigations but I don't think anything will be done until we are done with Iraq and that will be a little while longer.


OF course you don't. But there is still proof that this administration, as well as many others, do not believe in the constitution.

Nothing will be done about this as they all have the same agenda. Iraq won't be done with at all. Obama himself mentioned he wanted to leave 50,000 troops in country permanently. Also to increase the budget by 40 billion a year in military/civilian involvement in Africa. AND he wants to reinforce Afganistan (we all no Bin laden is nowhere near anymore). They want war. It's a great excuse to spend billions.


I don't think this is true either. Considering Obama's past he is the best to make sure that the constitution is followed as it should be.

March 28, 2008
Q: Was Barack Obama really a constitutional law professor?
When I was in law school, I addressed all of my course instructors as "professors," regardless of their rank or formal position in the school academic hierarchy (tenured professor, assistant professor, adjunct professor, lecturer, etc.). Was Obama exaggerating or factually wrong in referring to himself as a "constitutional law professor" at the University of Chicago Law School even though his official title was lecturer?
A: His formal title was "senior lecturer," but the University of Chicago Law School says he "served as a professor" and was "regarded as" a professor.
Sen. Obama, who has taught courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, has regularly referred to himself as "a constitutional law professor," most famously at a March 30, 2007, fundraiser when he said, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution." A spokesman for the Republican National Committee immediately took exception to Obama’s remarks, pointing out that Obama’s title at the University of Chicago was "senior lecturer" and not "professor."

Recently, Hillary Clinton's campaign has picked up on this charge. In a March 27 conference call with reporters, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer claimed:

Singer (March 27): Sen. Obama has often referred to himself as “a constitutional law professor” out on the campaign trail. He never held any such title. And I think anyone, if you ask anyone in academia the distinction between a professor who has tenure and an instructor that does not, you’ll find that there is … you’ll get quite an emotional response.

The campaign also sent out an e-mail quoting an Aug. 8, 2004, column in the Chicago Sun-Times that criticized Obama for calling himself a professor when, in fact, the University of Chicago faculty page listed him as “a senior lecturer (now on leave)." The Sun-Times said, "In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter." The Clinton campaign added that the difference between senior lecturers and professors is that "professors have tenure while lecturers do not."

We agree that details matter, and also that the formal title of "professor" is not lightly given by academic institutions. However, on this matter the University of Chicago Law School itself is not standing on formality, and is siding with Obama.

Due to numerous press inquiries on the matter, the school released a carefully worded statement saying that for his 12 years there he was considered to be "a professor."

UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

Contrary to what the Clinton campaign claimed, not all professors have tenure. For instance, academics with the title of "assistant professor" typically work for between five and seven years before being reviewed for tenure.

Furthermore, Obama was not merely an "instructor" as Phil Singer stated. As a "senior lecturer," Obama was in good company: The six other faculty members with the title include the associate dean of the law school and Judge Richard Posner, who is widely considered to be one of the nation's top legal theorists.

-Joe Miller

Update March 28: As originally written this item stated flatly that the law school "confirms that Obama was a professor." We have rewritten the item in parts to more accurately reflect the nuance in the law school's news release.

Sources
Farrington, Brendan. "Obama: Bush Not Respecting Constitution." The San Francisco Chronicle, 30 March 2007. 27 March 2008.

Sweet, Lynn. "Sweet Column Reprise. Obama's Book: What's Real, What's Not." Chicago Sun Times, 8 August 2004. 27 March 2008.

University of Chicago Law School. "Law School Faculty." The University of Chicago Law School Online Catalog, 14 May 2007. 27 March 2008.


In my opinion only sticks in the mud or people with other underlying agendas believe that the constitution is a static document. The constitution and the supporting documents are meant to change with the changes in the population. We do not live in the world that the people who wrote the constitution lived in therefore the constitution has to serve the population of today the best it can, so it must be amended.


I understand your point of view. Problem is:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

This administration is attempting to push through a Fairness Doctrine which overrides the first amendment.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

They are also pushing for more gun control.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

and

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

are both over ridden by Bush's Patriot Act.

Obama voted to reinstate the patriot act. Google it.

This is not the proper conduct of an administration priding themselves on being "constitutional".

The U.S. is not a full democracy. It was never intended to be. It's a democratic republic.

In a republic the law rules, and noone is above the law. You are right. We can amend the consitution to our changing times. Problem is these amendments are NOT supposed to override rules limiting the government. This means, the freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, the right to trial by jury, etc. are supposed to remain in standing no matter what. This is what makes our coutnry so great. The government isn't supposed to have the power to override OUR RIGHTS.


Anyhow, i am done arguing. Goodnight.



2 Next