Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

We'll discuss that crime when Bush et al are done with their trial.

Posted By: nm on 2009-04-13
In Reply to: not only that, but - hmmm

nm


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial
Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says Nuremberg Prosecutor



Aaron Glantz, OneWorld USFri Aug 25, 8:57 AM ET



SAN FRANCISCO, Aug 25 (OneWorld) - A chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg has said George W. Bush should be tried for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein. Benjamin Ferenccz, who secured convictions for 22 Nazi officers for their work in orchestrating the death squads that killed more than 1 million people, told OneWorld both Bush and Saddam should be tried for starting aggressive wars--Saddam for his 1990 attack on Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq.


Nuremberg declared that aggressive war is the supreme international crime, the 87-year-old Ferenccz told OneWorld from his home in New York. He said the United Nations charter, which was written after the carnage of World War II, contains a provision that no nation can use armed force without the permission of the UN Security Council.


Ferenccz said that after Nuremberg the international community realized that every war results in violations by both sides, meaning the primary objective should be preventing any war from occurring in the first place.


He said the atrocities of the Iraq war--from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the massacre of dozens of civilians by U.S. forces in Haditha to the high number of civilian casualties caused by insurgent car bombs--were highly predictable at the start of the war.


Which wars should be prosecuted? Every war will lead to attacks on civilians, he said. Crimes against humanity, destruction beyond the needs of military necessity, rape of civilians, plunder--that always happens in wartime. So my answer personally, after working for 60 years on this problem and [as someone] who hates to see all these young people get killed no matter what their nationality, is that you've got to stop using warfare as a means of settling your disputes.


Ferenccz believes the most important development toward that end would be the effective implementation of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which is located in the Hague, Netherlands.


The court was established in 2002 and has been ratified by more than 100 countries. It is currently being used to adjudicate cases stemming from conflict in Darfur, Sudan and civil wars in Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.


But on May 6, 2002--less than a year before the invasion of Iraq--the Bush administration withdrew the United States' signature on the treaty and began pressuring other countries to approve bilateral agreements requiring them not to surrender U.S. nationals to the ICC.


Three months later, George W. Bush signed a new law prohibiting any U.S. cooperation with the International Criminal Court. The law went so far as to include a provision authorizing the president to use all means necessary and appropriate, including a military invasion of the Netherlands, to free U.S. personnel detained or imprisoned by the ICC.


That's too bad, according to Ferenccz. If the United States showed more of an interest in building an international justice system, they could have put Saddam Hussein on trial for his 1990 invasion of Kuwait.


The United Nations authorized the first Gulf War and authorized all nations to take whatever steps necessary to keep peace in the area, he said. They could have stretched that a bit by seizing the person for causing the harm. Of course, they didn't do that and ever since then I've been bemoaning the fact that we didn't have an International Criminal Court at that time.


Ferenccz is glad that Saddam Hussein is now on trial.


Saddam Hussein. © Radio Netherlands Wereldomroep This week, the Iraqi government began to try the former dictator for crimes connected to his ethnic cleansing campaign against the Kurds. According to Human Rights Watch, which has done extensive on-the-ground documentation, Saddam's Ba'athist regime deliberately and systematically killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds over a six-month period in 1988.


Kurdish authorities put the number even higher, saying 182,000 Kurdish civilians were killed in a matter of months.


Everyone agrees innumerable villages were bombed and some were gassed. The surviving residents were rounded up, taken to detention centers, and eventually executed at remote sites, sometimes by being stripped and shot in the back so they would fall naked into trenches.


In his defense, Saddam Hussein has disputed the extent of the killings and maintained they were justified because he was fighting a counter-insurgency operation against Kurdish separatists allied with Iran. When asked to enter a plea, the former president said that would require volumes of books.


Ferenccz said whatever Saddam's reasons, nothing can justify the mass killing of innocents.


The offenses attributable to ex-President Hussein since he came to power range from the supreme international crime of aggression to a wide variety of crimes against humanity, he wrote after Saddam was ousted in 2003. A fair trial will achieve many goals. The victims would find some satisfaction in knowing that their victimizer was called to account and could no longer be immune from punishment for his evil deeds. Wounds can begin to heal. The historical facts can be confirmed beyond doubt. Similar crimes by other dictators might be discouraged or deterred in future. The process of justice through law, on which the safety of humankind depends, would be reinforced.








I can't bring myself to conclude that Bush had a hand in the crime...sm
I think his office new an attack was coming and did not inform the public.

There are also some very interesting findings such as the insurance policy taken out on the WTC with a terrorism provision only a few weeks before the attack. There were other actions that were taken by our government in the months preceeding the attacks that do not add up to it being a surprise attack.
Right, it'll be "it's Bush's fault" for at least the next two years. I wonder when O
and his own white house. I'm fearing he won't. It will be "Bush's fault" for a long, long time to come.

Marmann's just proved it.
Yeah, and guess who he'll blame the whole four years....yep...bush...nm

Did he have a trial

that found him guilty?  Did I miss something? 


Hello, unless there has been a verdict in a trial, it IS only an accusation.

nm


This admin. doesn't ALLOW itself to be put on trial.
What a copout! - it's only accusations! And that's all it's ever likely to be because this administration with the help of its corrupt and partisan congressional majority simply refuses to allow any independent inquiry into its crooked dealings. Let's not pretend that we actually have a balance of power in the federal govt. sufficient to allow normal due process to occur. So go on with your just accusations simpering - try these crimes in an international court and see how long they stay that way.
I should have said Lunsford *investigation*, not trial...sm
I don't think that crumb cake has had his trial yet.
They haven't been brought to trial yet....(sm)
because a) some of them would be innocent and would have to be set free, and b) Bush obviously had no plan for those who would be found guilty.  Actually, about half of them haven't even been charged yet, much less had a trial.  I honestly think the whole point of Gitmo is torture.  I think that Bush actually thought it was a viable means for gaining information, which has been proven to be incorrect.  Basically, the longer they can keep them there, the longer they can torture.
trial date set for muzzammil hassan
The "moderate Muslim" who beheaded his wife right here in New York because she served him with with divorce papers and an order of protection. And it's only second degree murder????

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hN-I2OcI1NDn2q5_0TXl11ZhirEQD98JV2080
No free pass - they will be locked up awaiting trial

The President wants the detention center closed within a year. Now the search is on to find new places to hold detainees while they await trial.


One of the places under consideration is Fort Bragg. It's not hard to image the base being considered a possibly site to relocate Gitmo detainees. In the past, Bragg has sent PAO teams and military police units to the detention center in Cuba.






North Carolina congressman David Price says the center should have been shut down long ago.

"it's just unacceptable to have that facility remaining open with people detained indefinitely with no resolution of their cases, no rights at all to even know what they're accused of," he offered.


But Price isn't sure that Bragg should be a serious consideration.


"It will have to be a very high security facility and my understanding of Fort Bragg is there is nothing like the kind of facility that would be required, but I don't know. I'm not going to presume what facilities will be chosen," he said.


Price is right. Right now, soldiers awaiting trial at Fort Bragg on a variety of charges are held in the Cumberland County detention center. Folks who live in Fayetteville have mixed views about bringing suspected terrorists to the community.


"That can be kind of scary actually... having that type of element here in our homeland and where we live," Offered resident Marco Clark.


"Well, we've got to put them some place and in that case Fort Bragg wouldn't be a bad idea," said David McCune.


Military leaders have a year to figure out where they're going to put the detainees. Sources say Camp Pendleton, Charleston Naval Base, and Fort Leavenworth might be better choices than Fort Bragg. Leavenworth may be the number one choice because it's the military's only maximum security prison.


Interesting trial story - warning, kind of racy



This woman, Phyllis, is a friend and former
co-employee of a very good friend of mine.  My friend went to her trial on
Monday.  We'd been following this for the past year.  I was surprised
they found here guilty so easily, but I guess rules are rules.  Now
remember,
Phyllis is a retired teacher from Fox Valley Technical
College and her description was that the guard kept touching her breasts and
crotch over and over like she was enjoying it.  Now bear in mind that this
guard was investigating the privates of a 62-year-old gray-haired retired
schoolteacher from Appleton at the Appleton, Wisconsin airport - a very
small airport.  Wondered what you all thought --- as for me I'm
undecided.  I see this made the national headlines.

 

 

Woman Convicted of Groping Screener



GREEN BAY, Wis. (AP) - A woman who was upset over
being searched bodily at an airport was convicted Tuesday of assaulting a
security screener by grabbing the federal officer's breasts.


A federal jury heard the case against retired
teacher Phyllis Dintenfass, who also allegedly shoved the screener during the
search at the Outagamie County Regional Airport in Appleton in September 2004.


Dintenfass, 62, faces up to a year in federal prison
and $100,000 in fines. The judge set sentencing for Nov. 1.


12px>On Monday, Transportation Security Administration screening supervisor
Anita Gostisha testified that Dintenfass activated metal detectors at a
checkpoint, and she heard Dintenfass say she thought the problem was bobby pins
and barrettes in her hair.



Gostisha said she took the woman to another
screening area, where she used a handheld wand. Gostisha said she was following
protocol when she also performed a ``limited pat-down search.''



Gostisha said she was using the back of her hands to
search the area underneath Dintenfass' breasts when the woman lashed out at her.



``She said `How would you like it if I did that to
you?' and slammed me against the wall,'' Gostisha testified. ``She came at me
and grabbed my breasts and squeezed them.''



Distenfass claimed she acted in self-defense.



``I said, 'What are you doing? No one's done that to
me before,''' she said. ``And she kept going ... for what felt like an
interminably long time.''



Dintenfass denied shoving Gostisha, but admitted
putting her hands on the agent's breasts.



``I was mortified that I had done that,'' she said.
``I was reacting to what felt like an absolute invasion of my body.''



U.S. Attorney Steven Biskupic said TSA officers
perform a vital service and are entitled to protection from assault.


really, remember the OJ trial and the riots, Rodney King, etc. This is a larger scale
s
Like the Nuernberg Trial after WWII or the Internat'al criminalThe Hague Court..sm
what good does it make to show the torture picture to the public? None.
I was trying to discuss things with you

You obviously have a great hatred for our country and our president and cannot see the difference between Bush and world leaders who are set on the destruction of the United States and Israel. The Iranian president has made his intentions known about what he wants to do to Israel and the U.S. In fact, he had a nice little P.R. campaign in his country this past week detailing what he wants to do to us. If you are so naive to believe he just wants his country to have energy from nuclear plants then I guess you deviate from what much the U.S. and the rest of world thinks about Iran's intentions.

I said the nuclear option should be the last resort as I believe our president would make it, but you are so lost in your world of conspiracy theory on Bush's character and intentions that you evidently missed that part of my post.

I would like to know where you got the so-called Bush quotes. This is the first time I've heard people actually use quotes--where did those come from? I hope not a hearsay opinion piece, because that wouldn't lend much credence to those so-called quotes.

I was actually joking with you when I made the *shopping spree* remarks. I know you are much too intelligent to actually go and do that. You may, in my opinionm be a little misguided by your emotions but I know you're not that stupid. I'm sorry you cannot see humor in someone discussing this topic with you. I'm even more sorry that you feel you have to label everyone who disagrees with you as uninformed and unthinking. People will have different opinions with you on many issues but that makes them neither stupid or uninformed. Have a nice day...
I am not asking you to discuss Israel. sm

I know that it happens all the time.  I am sorry that it does.


I refuse to discuss

religion with Moonies or Scientologists.  There is just no common ground.  The same way as I refuse to discuss politics with people who actually consider Fox a news station.  They are indoctrinated and innoculated from the truth by daily coordinated talking points to distort any event (such as saying Charlie Gibson looking down his nose at SP or was too rough on her) to favor their desire to keep the corrupt repubs in power. It's a waste of my time.


 


 


Why can't I continue to discuss
You all carry on about Obama's palling around (re: believing things that simply cannot be substantiated), but you sure can't take it when someone turns around and comments on your precious heroine. How very sad for all of you who hold this vapid, undereducated, unqualified, power hungry example of hollow charm in such high esteem. Perhaps we should be discussing your judgment instead of hers.
No, I don't argue much. I discuss or
post articles I think would be interesting to people on this board. I try not to tear down the people who post, either, not like some on this board. They have their opinion, I have mine.  
No, I don't argue much. I discuss or

post articles I think would be interesting to people on this board. I try not to tear down the people who post, either, not like some on this board. They have their opinion, I have mine.  


Your idea of a reply very often isn't up for discussion. You seem to think it's the only one that matters. End of discussion.


Okay - let's discuss the $9 mac and cheese.
Personally, I love bacon crumbs on my mac and cheese. Anyone else?
What do you expect? You just come to antagonize not discuss.

But you don't do that. You only discuss the democratic past.

In order to smear it.


No talk about the 12 prior years of Reagan and Bush.


A time to dissect and discuss a war...
is after your military is at home and safe, if you want to debate it pubically. The time to discuss the war and how you as an American feel about it is in private until they are safe. If you want to discuss it while they are still at war, discuss it in town hall meetings. Discuss it at your house. Discuss it at Wal-Mart. Discuss it in your front yard. Write to your congressman. But do not do it publically while men and women are still fighting. You are entitled to your feelings and to express them. However, common courtesy, in my opinion, should keep a person from going public while men and women are still fighting. All that does is embolden the terrorists. They have said so themselves and it is pretty obvious that it does. I saw an interesting report on it this morning, how that is the number one *battle front* for AL Qaeda now...just feeding the propaganda machine with the daily stuff from the American public. Frankly, I don't think that is anything to be proud of. But that is just me.
Sam does discuss issues and gets attacked for it.
nm
What about parents who don't discuss with their kids?
And so you know right off, I'm not a Barack fan nor McCain fan. However, my own personal beliefs aside, I believe "it takes a village to raise a child" and there are FAR too many parents NOT doing their jobs these days, which forces schools, governments, etc. to jump in to help. I see far too many parents who'd just as soon go to the bar than raise their child. There are parents who are apathetic, and there are parents who are embarrassed or ill-informed themselves to teach their kids sex ed. I don't think sex ed is a problem at all in school, so long as it's in the context of health education and not presented to students in a biased manner of some sort. It IS how mammals reproduce and therefore does have a place in education.

God gave us free will and if you try to control the free will of someone else, how is that right? I believe in consequences of free will when someone chooses wrong, which is why we have laws in place. I don't believe it's any one person's or party's place to tell another how to live their life, period.

Personally, I'd like to see more parents do their jobs at home so gov't and schools didn't have to do it for them (and all the rest of us too as a result), and sure, ideally I'd like to see more kids abstaining from sex altogether. But I'm also a realist and know that my beliefs and willpower aren't the same as everyone else's. That's what is supposed to be great about USA.

The reality is that not all kids have the willpower to abstain in the heat of the moment, no matter WHAT their upbringing or what wonderful parents they have. As you said, it's everywhere - on TV, movies, ads, games, you name it! It's in their face now more than ever, so to ignore it and act like it won't ever happen isn't the answer, either. No, I don't know what the answer is, either, but I don't think that's it.

Also, to take away any access to sex ed and/or birth control at all is in a sense forcing the ideals/morals of one group of people on another and basically taking the free will of the other group - how do you reconcile that? I'm being sincere, as this question plagues me often when considering these issues.
I never meant to discuss the money -
my point, Kendra, was just that these kids can already be treated without their parents consent, that that part of it was nothing new.
Honey, I would glady discuss this

with you privately. Since you seem to be so well-read, as I am also, we could have a great discussion on this subject. The market can easily be manipulated by speculators and the outrageously rich to sway political minds. When the market is down it favors the dems, it's a fact. When the economy is good, the current administration gets the credit; when it's bad the same also happens. You don't think that can be manipulated at all?


My own humble opinion on why O will be elected are these:  The economy, hatred of Bush, white guilt and uninformed voters, period.


Maybe she just doesn't have anything to discuss with you....pitiful
nm
I like it here. Besides, mostly all they discuss there is current events. Imagine that. nm

Well pardon me, but how can you discuss the present without a history of sm
what shaped it?  It isn't possible.
Well, by all means lets discuss pertinent
xx
Of course, because it takes high thinking to discuss
//
Why don't we discuss the Republican candidates for a change?
This is just like a dog chasing his tail!
Gun ban in UK - crime went up...
nm
Don't worry JR - very easy to trounce them AND discuss the issues.
They're dumb, and they lack conviction, and they do most of the work of exposing themselves for the lackeys they are so that we don't have to spend much effort at it. I mean case in point - that the Freepers would even THINK it was a good plan to tie up liberals on chat boards to keep them from grassroots organizing. Hey, if they can get paid for it more power to them - but sheez, are they really that stupid? Or, just that desperate, heh.
Why don't you discuss like an adult instead of throwing temper tantrums?
Inquiring minds would like to know.
It's like trying to discuss Dante's Inferno with someone stuck in My Little Red Reader. nm
nm
I never said that he committed a crime...
nor did I ever say I found him personally offensive. I do not believe that he will make a good president because I disagree with his stance on most of the issues that I find important. I also believe that he made a lot of promises that he can never keep because he does not have that power. Personally, I am not all that into the birth certificate thing because I think he probably is a natural born citizen. I find it hard to believe that he would have made it this far were he not. Why is it okay for people to dislike Bush, but I MUST like Obama?
Please explain that crime
nm
Of course! O prevents crime
On the other hand, if there had been MORE crime, it would have been blamed on Bush, or possibly Palin.

potentially a crime?

13 firms receiving federal bailout owe back taxes







States Attorney General Eric Holder, left, shares a moment with Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., prior …



WASHINGTON – At least 13 firms receiving billions of dollars in bailout money owe a total of more than $220 million in unpaid federal taxes, a key lawmaker said Thursday.


Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., chairman of a House subcommittee overseeing the federal bailout, said two firms owe more than $100 million apiece.


"This is shameful. It is a disgrace," said Lewis. "We are going to get to the bottom of what is going on here."


The House Ways and Means subcommittee on oversight discovered the unpaid taxes in a review of tax records from 23 of the firms receiving the most money, Lewis said as he opened a hearing on the issue.


The committee said it could not legally release the names of the companies owing taxes. It said one recipient had almost $113 million in unpaid federal income taxes from 2005 and 2006. A second recipient owed almost $102 million dating to before 2004. Another was behind $1.1 million in federal income taxes and $223,000 in federal employment taxes.


"If we looked at all 470 recipients, how much would they owe?" Lewis asked.


Lewis said the panel plans to review tax records from other firms receiving federal money, but he was unsure if it would look at every firm.


"We're not done," he said.


Banks and other firms receiving federal money were required to sign contracts stating they had no unpaid taxes, Lewis said. But he said the Treasury Department did not ask them to turn over their tax records.


Neil Barofsky, special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, told the hearing that if an executive signed a contract knowing that information about unpaid taxes was false, "that would potentially be a crime." He said his office will look to see if crimes were committed.


No one from the Treasury Department appeared at Thursday's hearing. Lewis said he asked Treasury officials for a private briefing on their efforts to uncover unpaid taxes, as well as someone to testify at Thursday's hearing.


"They said no one was available," Lewis said in an interview.


Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is already under fire on Capitol Hill for not preventing $165 million in bonuses from being paid to employees at troubled insurance giant AIG.


People will ask, said Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala., why there are "large companies getting taxpayer dollars, making false representations, and we can't even name them, much less make them pay the money back, much less prosecute them."


Davis continued: "Will they get their day on a billboard, hopefully?"


"Absolutely," said Barofsky. If someone lied, he said, "They need to be prosecuted."


The revelation is sure to spark outrage on Capitol Hill, where the House is expected to vote Thursday on a bill that would impose steep taxes on employee bonuses at AIG and other firms that have received bailout money.


To date, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, has paid out more than $300 billion to private companies, with billions more on the way.


Don't do the crime if you can't do the time!
x
But it's never a hate crime....
....when a black person attacks a white person? Believe me, there are people of every race who hate one race or another for some stupid reason. Don't quote me on this but I think the Chinese are embarrassed and angered if mistaken for Koreans.

We are all God's people. It's a shame.

Obama will be a one termer, not because of an assassination, because in under six months he's managed to anger many folks including the Jews and gays. Broken promises and lies. People believed he would pay their mortgages and gas. Unbelievable. Obama voters are getting their wakeup call. Wow. Even I thought it would take longer than this.
Guess Who's Soft on Crime...sm
Guess Who's Soft on Crime
Our system of “justice” has descended so far into routine thuggishness that even the blogosphere seems to have let this horror pass unnoticed. Sure, it’s only Texas, but still …

A crooked cop named Tom Coleman was hired in 1998 to conduct a drug investigation in Tulia, Texas, which he did by inventing evidence against 39 innocent men and women, almost all black. Most of the victims were jailed on the sole basis of Coleman’s lies, for terms ranging up to 90 years. When this vicious scheme finally fell apart, the governor pardoned 33 of Coleman’s victims, who won a settlement of $6 million. The badge-carrying perp was tried and convicted for perjury, a crime carrying a maximum sentence of ten years in Texas. A judge called him “the most devious, nonresponsive law enforcement witness this court has witnessed in 25 years on the bench in Texas.” Which, in Texas, we may presume is going some.

So a jury of twelve good men and true — none of them black — found this vicious, corrupt rogue cop guilty of what one judge had called “blatant perjury.” And the jurors threw the book at him, recommending seven whole years on probation. This sounded about right to the trial judge, who is expected to slap Coleman’s wrist really, really hard at the sentencing Tuesday.




She's committing a federal crime
Nofify the Federal Marshalls and they'll bust her. I lived down the street from a girl doing that and she went to federal prison!
Rigging Elections is a Crime

   The McCain/Palin GOP is already in the process of stealing the Ohio vote, as was done in 2004. Among those at the center of the GOP strategy is Bush Family computer operative Michael Connell, who programmed the key vote counting mechanisms that were used to give George W. Bush his second term.


ttp://www.truthout.org/article/ten-ways-gop-is-now-stealing-ohio-vote


You see crime being a result of economy, but I see

Oh well don't you know it's not a hate crime when it's against a woman
Only race, religion, etc. No, not a hate crime when it's against a woman... unbelievably, but that's the country we live in. And it's the same reason everything went down the way it did in the primaries, and now in this election.
Do you also blame victims of crime and
inciting the crimes perpetrated against them. Yours is truly an ignorant, ignorant statement.
OMG. Fine...go look at the crime statistics.
nm