What legal problems may President Bush face in the future... one wonders...
By whiteheron
@whiteheron (4222)
United States
November 3, 2008 1:43pm CST
One of my friends has posted an email letter that is a satire of a letter of resignation by George Bush... out of respect for her I did not post this there but I thought there was a statement made that should be looked at...
as in this letter there was a statement that President Bush had done nothing illegal... and that he is facing no future problems as a result of something that he may have done...
The CDC has leaked information that the GM foods that President Bush said were safe were not and that in fact they might be causing that odd Morgellons disease in which the fibers sprout through the skin... The fibers apparently have been tested and found by the CDC to contain a fungus that is often utilized in genetically engineered crops... http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9891 There are some who say that it is a growing epedimic in this Country... And we are not being told about it because of this:
From the moment he came into office, before 9-11, he made more things classified than Clinton did in all four years of his office. In addition, under three other little-noticed executive orders, he increased the number of officials who can classify records to include the secretary of agriculture, the secretary of health and human services, and the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Now, all three can label information at the "secret" level, rendering it unavailable for public review.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/secrecy/22secrecy.htm
I think that perhaps President Bush making product information and food information classified is not quite legal... I would suggest that if there are any class action suits against the food companies who manufacture GM foods, his name might be mentioned.
Then we have that wonderful spying on United State citizens which is quite frankly illegal and was unwarrented... He has been found guilty of that in at least one court. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/washington/03fisa.html
He was rather clever in this action that will make it easier for all others who want to abuse power to violate 4th amendment rights and liberties... I read in the Boston Globe... March 14, 2008
WASHINGTON - Almost 32 years to the day after President Ford created an independent Intelligence Oversight Board made up of private citizens with top-level clearances to ferret out illegal spying activities, President Bush issued an executive order that stripped the board of much of its authority. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/14/president_weakens_espionage_oversight/?page=2 I predict that this action of his will be looked at again if the Democrats take office. I must admit as a person who has studied the Constitution and who wants our 4th Amendment right to be protected against unreasonable search and seizure, I hope it is.
I must admit that I have found it fascinating that the President managed to avoid ever using the veto as he did not want to give Congress any opportunity to override it but instead that he simply signed bills into law but wrote these little statements on it which exempted him from following them and which altered the legistlation which was enacted. He has been said to have in his many signatory statements attempted to make himself immune from more than 750 laws... more than 750 laws... that was rather creative of him.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/ This use of signatory statements is said to be an attempt to strengthen the presidency overturning the balance between the executive, legistlative and judicial branches of government that were guaranteed in the Constitution.
Some have quoted President Bush as saying "GD the Constition" http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml
and then he said repeatedly that this whole dictator thing would be a lot easier as long as he was the dictator http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvUEsm0wNIA
I must admit that was not a great thing to say on national television... Honestly now... didn't he take this oath of office:
Each president recites the following oath, in accordance with Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The comments he made above are not illegal but no doubt will be used against him by those who are trying to convict him on charges as it illustrates that there is a part of him that holds himself above the law.
And then we have the wonderful torture thing... Yes I know that those in Iraq and Afganistan that we are fighting did worse to our citizens but frankly we have different standards of conduct. We have a rules that we must follow and must set a good example. We are, after all, Americans. It is possible that with the book by the Red Cross and other books out there which tell the truth about the CIA conducted torture that he and/or others in his Administration might indeed be facing some penalties for war crimes. I am not wishing this on him. He is though going to have to have some uneasiness upon leaving office as he will not have immunity any longer.
http://www.slate.com/id/2195533/
http://bushadministrationwarcriminals.blogspot.com/2008/10/bush-war-crimes-trial.html
Whatever he does,now or after he leaves office, I am hoping he will not go to Vermont as they have said there that they will arrest him:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-03-05-vermont_N.htm
2 responses
@Lakota12 (42600)
• United States
4 Nov 08
What a great post girl!
I have to admit that I havent kept up with all that bush has done or not done but for the war.
750 law?! We dont need any more new laws the laws we had was good enough that many wrote in how do we know what we may be breaking and dont know it lol
If he is all that bad why wasnt he inpeached!.?
I have always wondered about this others have been with less things they have done. hmmmmmm makes ya wonder.
1 person likes this
@whiteheron (4222)
• United States
8 Nov 08
It is sad that those in power did so much against the Constitution and the GOP did not do anything to stop it as they had a lust for continued power.
It was sad too that the branch of the Democratic Party that was holding onto and defending the Constitutional liberties for all Americans got labelled "liberals" and worse.
It is a sad thing that most Americans have not been taught to know what their Constitutional rights are and have given up their function as watch dogs to insure that the government stays true to the Constitution and does not sacrifice parts of it for fleeting security needs or anything else. It is the responsibility of all Americans to do this. It is not just the responsibility of a few brave souls... All people, you, me, every one else should be alert, watchful and active in insuring that the Constitutional rights get preserved for all people. To do otherwise... to sit back on the rear and think that others are going to do it for you is almost criminal.
@whiteheron (4222)
• United States
4 Nov 08
There were some very couragous Democrats, Republicans and Independents who pointed at the illegalities...
As to why Bush was not impeached...
It could be that the Democratic leaders squashed their own in this area as there were many in the left and in the right of center who did point at the Unconstitutional nature of what he was doing in the spying, etc.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/04/AR2008010404308.html
http://republicansforimpeachment.com/2008/05/06/open-letter-to-republicans/
I will say that part of the desire not to impeach may have been because many people did not think that the Country could go through another impeachment.
Also, we knew that if Bush was impeached, Cheney would have been in power and we distrusted him even more and believed that he would be far worse...
There was also initially a feeling that as there was a war going on, and that Bush as a commander in chief during a wartime could not as easily be impeached even if his actions warrented it...
This perhaps explains why those in the Democratic Party who were for this did not get their satisfaction even when he did far worse than Clinton ever did in that lying under oath is less dangerous to the Nation and to the Constitution than the invasions of privacy with violated the 4th amendment right's against illegal search and seizure; the loss of first ammendment freedom of speech in the arresting of protesters, etc.; the threats against the media which gagged many of them and which denied our access to free information; the violations of the court orders on the part of his staff; the lying under oath on the part of his staff; the violations of international treaties and airspaces which threatened our national security, etc.
The signatory statements which made him immune from the laws and which changed the wording of the laws which the people voted on to mean something else entirely
are something that is interesting legally...
The first time that this practice got a lot of attention was in
early 2006, when the President issued a statement in conjunction with his signing of a torture statute, pushed through by Senator John McCain. After signing the statute, which was crafted in order to make illegal approved torture by the executive branch, President Bush wrote the following statement:
"The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the Constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander-in-Chief and consistent with the Constitutional limitations on the judicial power which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."
President Bush has most often asserted his deemed constitutional duty "to supervise the unitary executive," as reason why his Administration has chosen not to execute a specific aspect of a law.
As Bruce Fein explained before the Senate Judiciary Committee:
"If all other avenues have proved unavailing, Congress should contemplate impeachment for signing statements that systematically flout the separation of powers and legislative prerogatives. The epitome of an impeachable offense, as Alexander Hamilton amplified in the Federalist Papers, is a political crime against the Constitution."
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/signing_statements.html
His Administration has been a bad time for our government...
We will have to be on guard to make sure that this new Administration respects the Constitution.
And we will have to protect it.
@newtondak (3946)
• United States
3 Nov 08
Genetically modified seeds have been used for many years - including, but not limited to, corn, wheat and soybeans - all used in the production of many foods as well as animal feeds.
1 person likes this
@whiteheron (4222)
• United States
3 Nov 08
I think that there are two different approaches and that the biological selection process has been around a lot longer than the GM process and with no ill effects... The same cannot be said for the GM procss.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/sakko.html
"For thousands of years farmers have used a process of selection and cross breeding to continually improve the quality of crops. Even in nature, plants and animals selectively breed, thus ensuring the optimum gene pool for future generations. Traditional breeding methods are slow, requiring intensive labor: while trying to get a desirable trait in a bred species, undesirable traits will appear and breeders must continue the process over and over again until all the undesirables are bred out.
In contrast, organisms acquire one specific gene or a few genes together through genetic modification, without other traits included and within a single generation. However, this technology too is inherently unpredictable and some scientists believe it can produce potentially dangerous results unless better testing methods are developed."
There have been some problems with GM seeds for awhile... from a fair trade stance as the seed companies were guilty of pressuring some farmers to purchase their seeds year after year when with their own crops they were able to collect seeds and replant them without paying for the seeds year after year.
And cross pollination caused the organic and other farmers who used heritage seeds to wind up having GM crops in his fields even though they did not plant them as these were more hardy at times... thus bio-diversity has been threatened.
The present problems are because of the insertion of a bacterium and a fungus into the plant to spur the adaptation of the desired genetic traits in the GM plants... the ones that have been implicated are not known for sure... but it is known that the ones that are for pest resistance are most likely causing some toxicity in the environment and could potentially cause it in the people as well.
There have also been some allergies as the characteristics of one plant that one is allergic to can along with the allergins get transferred to another which one is not allergic to thus creating allergic symptoms in an unaware individual.
@newtondak (3946)
• United States
3 Nov 08
Planting seed harvested from prior crops does not generally provide the results wanted by most farmers as the % of seeds that will germinate and grow decreases with subsequent crops. New seed is usually purchased each year to maximize yields - something absolutely necessary considering all the costs involved in producing their crop.
While I do prefer heirloom varieties for my garden, as I like the qualities of those varieties better, I don't necessarily feel that GM is something that needs to be regulated by the government.
1 person likes this
