The Prosecution of GW BUSH for MURDER

[Dreadsox]

No. But if "he was ordered to do it" is proof of a conspiracy is it not???
Never mind the lone gunman theory or any of the other sometimes crazy sounding theories...IF JACK RUBY" WAS ORDERED TO DO IT" MEANS THAT SOMEONE ORDERED HIM TO DO IT...THUS A CONSPIRACY!!!

Harry, what can I say, he was either ordered to do it or he was a nut. Your contention has been that there was more than one shooter and that Oswald was a patsy.

If he was a patsy, he had nothing to do with the assassination. Something I believe is false. I believe he was the lone gunman.

I do not believe I have ever argued in here that Oswald was not involved with some shady people. Ruby killing the assassin falls more in line with my belief that Oswald was involved with governement operations, involving Cuba. Operations that history has demonstrated the MOB worked hand in hand with the CIA.

You shout at me like I am an idiot, however, you do not take the time to think about my legnthy posts on the topic.

Like many believers in conspiracy, you seem to throw a bunch of shit up against the wall to see if it sticks.

If Ruby were ordered to do it, then it would support my contention that Oswald had been involved in something that others wanted kept quiet. It does not mean there was more than one shooter. There does not need to be more than one shooter to have other people involved in the conspiracy. If you are going to make a case, stop grasping at random factoids and try putting together an argument.

So I ask you, how does Jack Ruby, who was NOT in any way a high level mob operative suddenly become a hit man? Where is the proof that this was not a spontaneous act? There is PLENTY of evidence that it was spontaneous. How does Ruby equate with your theory that there was more than one shooter?

And stop shouting at me. Make an argument with facts and proof.

 

[Harry Vest]

JFK: Eyewitness statements, assassination of President John F. Kennedy, murder of J. D. Tippit and arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald: Arnold Louis Rowland

 

[Diemen]

Not quite sure what support this gives to your side of the story, Harry. Could you explain? All he says is that he saw a man standing in the book depository window with a gun, and that he heard 3 gunshots. How is that proof of a conspiracy?

Off topic slightly, but "I am a student at Adamson High School" sure isn't something you normally associate with someone who then goes on to say "my wife Barbara and I..."

 

[U2girl]

SECRETS OF A HOMICIDE: JFK ASSASSINATION - Project Home

Well,

- this, as all of the tests/simulations etc is based upon the findings of the Warren Comission, and presumes those were 100 % true. You said it yourself you had doubts in the timing of the shots - who's to say they didn't make other mistakes ?

- we don't really know the location of the potential second shooter; the "grassy knoll" is just a hypothesis. I notice that this link, and the "physics" link, does acknowledge a possibility.



I looked up Ruby to see what he said but he had conflicting statements (it's true he died of cancer) :

When Ruby was arrested immediately after the shooting, he told several witnesses that his killing of Oswald would show the world that "Jews have guts," that he helped the city of Dallas "redeem" itself in the eyes of the public, and that Oswald's death would spare Jacqueline Kennedy the ordeal of appearing at Oswald's trial. Ruby stated that he shot Oswald to avenge Kennedy. Later, however, he claimed he shot Oswald on the spur of the moment when the opportunity presented itself, without considering any reason for doing so.
---
A year after his conviction, in March 1965, Ruby conducted a brief televised news conference in which he stated: "Everything pertaining to what's happening has never come to the surface. The world will never know the true facts of what occurred, my motives. The people who had so much to gain, and had such an ulterior motive for putting me in the position I'm in, will never let the true facts come above board to the world." When asked by a reporter: "Are these people in very high positions Jack?" he responded "Yes."
---
Dallas Deputy Sheriff Al Maddox claimed: "Ruby told me, he said, 'Well, they injected me for a cold.' He said it was cancer cells. That's what he told me, Ruby did. I said you don't believe that ____. He said, 'I damn sure do!' [Then] one day when I started to leave, Ruby shook hands with me and I could feel a piece of paper in his palm.... [In this note] he said it was a conspiracy and he said ... if you will keep your eyes open and your mouth shut, you're gonna learn a lot. And that was the last letter I ever got from him.
---
Not long before Ruby died, according to an article in the London Sunday Times, he told psychiatrist Werner Teuter, that the assassination was "an act of overthrowing the government" and that he knew "who had President Kennedy killed." He added: "I am doomed. I do not want to die. But I am not insane. I was framed to kill Oswald." This was in addition to his claims that Jews were being systematically exterminated (presumably in America), and that he was to be a victim too due to his own heritage.
---
Ruby made a final statement from his hospital bed on December 19 that he and he alone had been responsible for the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald. "There is nothing to hide," Ruby said. "There was no one else."

edit: whatever happened to that third Oswald bullet ? If he fired 3 times shouldn't they have found 3 bullets - or are we to believe he missed everything - his target, and in fact the entire car ?

 

[Dreadsox]

Well,

- this, as all of the tests/simulations etc is based upon the findings of the Warren Comission, and presumes those were 100 % true. You said it yourself you had doubts in the timing of the shots - who's to say they didn't make other mistakes ?

- we don't really know the location of the potential second shooter; the "grassy knoll" is just a hypothesis. I notice that this link, and the "physics" link, does acknowledge a possibility.

If there were any physical proof of another shooter, then I would buy into the other theory.

The findings of the Warren Commission have stood up for how many years. I believe they have the shots off. That does not invalidate the premise that all three shots came from behind.

1. The President was hit twice (by most accounts) There is a theory that was put forward by the FBI that the President was his three times. The "pristine bullet" fell out of his back while they were massaging his heart. It wound up being found on the gurney while they worked on Johnson.

2. It is pretty much universally agreed that either Shot 1 or 2 missed, since almost EVERY witness agreed that the shooting stopped on the 3rd shot as his head exploded.

3. Third bullet? Great question. If there were say five bullets, that is an awful lot of missing bullets. There were three. One missed the vehicle entirely. That bullet to my knowledge has not ever been found, although, one theory is that it is that bullet that hit the curb near James Tague causing concrete to come up and hit his face. Another theory, which I do not believe is that there were only two shots. That echos again caused issues. The theory is that the third shell was still in the rifle from his assasination attempt on General Walker. That he had never manually ejected the empty cartridge. They never found a shell from the Walker attempt. I have not had the time to research this theory, and I actually find it pretty damn intriguing. If echos caused people to think there were multiple shots, then, it is sort of plausable, and it COMPLETETLY makes it probably that he was able to fire two bullets in the time frame.

3. AS for the links I gave you, they do include the possibility of a knoll shooter. That said, their analysis does not include the physical analysis from the autopsy. If you throw that into the mix, there could have been no shooter from any other direction than the back. There are soooo many conspiracies, you will find that in the assassination community, people will tend to focus on one area and become and expert. That tends to make them lose some focus on other evidence. The point of the link however, was that his research demostrated that the dictabelt recording, was NOT proof.
---------------------------------------------------

Ruby - I have admitted in here is a problem for me. He is probably the strongest piece of evidence that Oswald had been involved in something he should not have been. There is plenty of evidence that the man was losing his mind. There is plenty of evidence that he acted spontaneously on the morning he killed Oswald. He is an area I need more work on, I will admit.

Over the last few years, I have really focused on the Oswald story. Trying to get a pictire of his life, and understand how he could possibly have made so many connections with the KGB, CIA, FBI to have been just an normal citixen. Another thing that I am trying to learn about is the CIA File that was opened on him, follows the pattern of files opened on phony defectors in the past. The KGB files released on him indicate that the KGB felt he was CIA. Gary Powers felt that Oswald had given the Soviets information that allowed them to shoot down the U2 spy plane. He was also allegedly an FBI informant -S-172 was his number. All of these things, are theories, due to the fact that the files have been sealed, and some to this day, for national security are still sealed. Someday, the files will be opened.

I found some great quotes by the autopsy Dr.'s saying that they were worried about saving his life, and they were not examining the wounds to interpret what happened, so they made mistakes in their press conference which has led to so many conspiracies that the body was altered. One Dr. in particular really sounded frustrated. If you are interested, I will post them.

Thank you for taking the time to look at the links.
Peace

 

[Dreadsox]

Off topic slightly, but "I am a student at Adamson High School" sure isn't something you normally associate with someone who then goes on to say "my wife Barbara and I..."

\

It is Texas ----lol

 

[U2girl]

If there were any physical proof of another shooter, then I would buy into the other theory.

The findings of the Warren Commission have stood up for how many years. I believe they have the shots off. That does not invalidate the premise that all three shots came from behind.

1. The President was hit twice (by most accounts) There is a theory that was put forward by the FBI that the President was his three times. The "pristine bullet" fell out of his back while they were massaging his heart. It wound up being found on the gurney while they worked on Johnson.

2. It is pretty much universally agreed that either Shot 1 or 2 missed, since almost EVERY witness agreed that the shooting stopped on the 3rd shot as his head exploded.

3. Third bullet? Great question. If there were say five bullets, that is an awful lot of missing bullets. There were three. One missed the vehicle entirely. That bullet to my knowledge has not ever been found, although, one theory is that it is that bullet that hit the curb near James Tague causing concrete to come up and hit his face. Another theory, which I do not believe is that there were only two shots. That echos again caused issues. The theory is that the third shell was still in the rifle from his assasination attempt on General Walker. That he had never manually ejected the empty cartridge. They never found a shell from the Walker attempt. I have not had the time to research this theory, and I actually find it pretty damn intriguing. If echos caused people to think there were multiple shots, then, it is sort of plausable, and it COMPLETETLY makes it probably that he was able to fire two bullets in the time frame.

3. AS for the links I gave you, they do include the possibility of a knoll shooter. That said, their analysis does not include the physical analysis from the autopsy. If you throw that into the mix, there could have been no shooter from any other direction than the back. There are soooo many conspiracies, you will find that in the assassination community, people will tend to focus on one area and become and expert. That tends to make them lose some focus on other evidence. The point of the link however, was that his research demostrated that the dictabelt recording, was NOT proof.
---------------------------------------------------

Ruby - I have admitted in here is a problem for me. He is probably the strongest piece of evidence that Oswald had been involved in something he should not have been. There is plenty of evidence that the man was losing his mind. There is plenty of evidence that he acted spontaneously on the morning he killed Oswald. He is an area I need more work on, I will admit.

Over the last few years, I have really focused on the Oswald story. Trying to get a pictire of his life, and understand how he could possibly have made so many connections with the KGB, CIA, FBI to have been just an normal citixen. Another thing that I am trying to learn about is the CIA File that was opened on him, follows the pattern of files opened on phony defectors in the past. The KGB files released on him indicate that the KGB felt he was CIA. Gary Powers felt that Oswald had given the Soviets information that allowed them to shoot down the U2 spy plane. He was also allegedly an FBI informant -S-172 was his number. All of these things, are theories, due to the fact that the files have been sealed, and some to this day, for national security are still sealed. Someday, the files will be opened.

I found some great quotes by the autopsy Dr.'s saying that they were worried about saving his life, and they were not examining the wounds to interpret what happened, so they made mistakes in their press conference which has led to so many conspiracies that the body was altered. One Dr. in particular really sounded frustrated. If you are interested, I will post them.

Thank you for taking the time to look at the links.
Peace

I guess since there is no evidence on the second shooter, no one ever really investigated that...

1. Maybe that would account for the secret "third bullet" missing.

2. Did they ever find all three catridges from Oswald's gun in Dallas ? That would be proof he fired 3 times.

You mean JFK autopsy quotes ?

Thanks for the links, it's a good discussion. I just posted a few things I found interesting on this assasination, but you seem to have done lots of investigating.

BTW, what did you think of Jim Garrison's investigation ?

edit: I was looking for a date of release of additional documents and stumbled upon this

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1019-21.htm

 

[Dreadsox]

1. Maybe that would account for the secret "third bullet" missing.

2. Did they ever find all three catridges from Oswald's gun in Dallas ? That would be proof he fired 3 times.

The third bullet that you refer to is normally credited as the first shot Oswald fired. Most people feel it missed and it was never recovered.

There were three cartriges...however he was firing a bolt action rifle. If he NEVER fired the rifle after the attempt on Walker - then the first shell he ejected would have been from the Walker attemt, accounting for three shells, two shots.

You mean JFK autopsy quotes ?

Nope, the Doctors from the ER.

BTW, what did you think of Jim Garrison's investigation ?

I really think Garrison opened the door for people to explore the truth. I do not respect his methods once David Ferrie passed away, his case fell apart and he resorted to shady tactics (Hypnosis of witnesses). He completely ignored the MOB connection to Ferry (Oswalds Civil Air Patrol Compatriot), Guy Bannister (FBI Retired) and Carlos Marcello, Godfather of New Orleans. Oswald's Uncle was also a low level player in the Marcello organization. If there were a serious MOB involvement in this assassination, these would be the people I would look at. However, Garrison was on the take from what I have read, and was on the Marcello payroll.

Marcello hated the Kennedy's, in particular, Bobby. He was illegally deported by Bobby and dropped into the jungles of Guatemala. He made his way back to the USA, and adding to the strange twist of things, I believe if memory serves me correct, won his court case against the USA on or near the day the President was killed. He in my opinion, is the MOST likely Mob person to have taken action against the president. I wish there were a stronger amount of information to link him to Ruby, but in my research I have not found it. Without at doubt, David Ferrie, Guy Bannister, and Oswalds Uncle Duff, were connected to Marcello.

 

[Dreadsox]

I want you to know, I typed the information about Marcello before I clicked your link. LOL My wife is encouraging me to write a book.

AS for your link, I hate the article, because it does not reference sources for information. RE: Bobby knew who killed his brother. I have not come across anything that demonstrates that he knew who killed his brother. I know he had suspicions, but I have never seen definitive proof. There was a recent book about the Kennedy brothers in which the author showed that Bobby knew who Lee Harvey Oswald was instantly upon hearing the name.

Decent enough article, but I wish there were source references.

 

[deep]

My wife is encouraging me to write a book.

Might as well,

that or a book on U2.

 

[Dreadsox]

A few months back I pointed out that there were two books that had just been published that interested me. Our Man in Mexico was one of them, and I just finished it. It really hits upon my theory that Oswald was running in some dangerous circles. It also touches upon the fact that those circles included a number of CIA operatives.

But it does reveal some troubling facts:

A group of senior CIA officers were not only monitoring Lee Harvey Oswald’s political activities while President Kennedy was still alive. They were manipulating information about him.

Among those most deeply involved in the selective handling of information about Oswald were Angleton, the chief of the counterintelligence staff who died in 1986; Phillips, the chief of anti-Castro operations in the Western Hemisphere, who died in 1988; his boss Tom Karamessines, the deputy director of the clandestine service who died in 1976; and, possibly, Phillips’s subordinate, George Joannides, an up-and-coming undercover officer who was running psychological warfare operations out of Miami in 1963. Joannides died in 1991. (The exact nature of Joannides’s involvement is hard to discern because the CIA is fighting in federal court to block disclosure of virtually all records related to his secret operations in 1963.)

There is no evidence that any of these men were involved in a conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy. There is lots of evidence, however, that they were very discreet about what they knew of Oswald’s political activities, travels and intentions before Kennedy was killed. They certainly never cooperated with assassination investigators in any meaningful way.


In October 1963, senior officials at CIA headquarters deliberately cut Scott, the CIA’s top man in Mexico, “out of the loop” of the latest FBI reports on Oswald.


Scott rejected a key finding of the Warren Commission report on JFK’s murder. The Agency told the Commission that its personnel did not learn of Oswald’s contacts with Cuban embassy officials on September 27 1963 until after Kennedy was killed. Win Scott said that was not true--and the CIA’s own records confirm his point. In fact, Win Scott and David Phillips knew about Oswald’s contacts with Cuban consular officials within a few days of when the occurred and well before Kennedy was killed.

The Mystery of Oswald's Contacts with the CIA in Mexico

This book is well written and includes recent information and documents.

Finally.....

There is a court case that has been fought since 1997. I suggest watching this video. The CIA continues to keep 17 months of reports on a group, the DRE, that Oswald had attempted to infiltrate, and had had a public confrontation with in NO. The files they are attempting to keep locked up are during 1963 months.

Withheld In Full - Episode 1: "Morley V.CIA" // Current

CIA Still Stonewalls on JFK Mystery Man
By Jefferson Morley 04/30/2008 07:20PM
Flouting a federal court order, the CIA refused Wednesday to make public long-secret records related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963.

At a federal court hearing in Washington, CIA attorneys declined to provide any records related to the secret operations of a deceased undercover officer named George Joannides whose role in the JFK story has never been explained by the agency.

A three-judge appellate court panel ruled in December that the agency had to search its files for records of Joannides' secret operations in 1963, when he served undercover in Miami running "psychological warfare" operations against the government of Fidel Castro. The court also ordered the CIA to explain why 17 reports on Joannides' secret operations in 1962-1964 are missing from the National Archives.

The CIA provided no written explanation of its actions during a hearing before Judge Richard Leon. Afterwords, agency attorney John Truong claimed orally that a search of files on Joannides operations found no records responsive to my 2003 Freedom of Information Act request.

Truong offered no explanation, written or oral of the missing records, In December, Judge Judith Rogers ruled that the CIA's previous explanation of the 17 missing reports was inadequate. "On remand the CIA must supplement its explanation," she wrote. That has yet to happen, despite the agency promising to comply with the appellate court order by April 30.

John Tunheim, a federal judge who chaired the Assassination Records Review Board in the 1990s, said the Joannides files should be made public.

"Had the Review Board known the truth about George Joannides everything bearing his name would have been made public," Tunheim said in an interview. The ARRB, a civilian review panel created by Congress in the wake of the controversy over Oliver Stone's "JFK," declassified thousands of assassination records between 1994 and 1998

Joannides, who died in 1991, is the most curious figure to emerge in the vast JFK literature in recent years. Unbeknownst to investigators, Joannides' propaganda network proved influential in the media reaction to JFK's murder. Declassified CIA records show that he gave $25,000 a month to the leaders of a Cuban student group whose members had a series of encounters with Lee Harvey Oswald in August 1963. When Kennedy was shot dead on a Dallas street three months later, the CIA-funded group made headlines around the world by publicizing Oswald's pro-Castro activities and linking him to the Cuban leader.

Joannides' role in enabling that story remained secret for 38 years. His financial support for Oswald's Cuban antagonists was not disclosed to the Warren Commission which investigated Kennedys' death and concluded that Oswald acted alone. In 1978 Joannides was called out of retirement to serve as the Agency's liaison to a congressional committee that reopened the JFK investigation. The Agency did not disclose his role in the events of 1963 to Congress. The story of Joannides' actions did not begin to emerge until 2001 when I published a story in a Miami newspaper.

Tunheim said the JFK Records Act of 1992 requires an independent evaluation of the Joannides files. "He was central to the time period, and central to the [JFK] story. There is no question we were mislead on Joannides for a long time," he said.

Officials of the National Archives have also sought access to the Joannides files in recent years but have been rebuffed by the Agency.

The CIA must explain its actions in writing to Judge Leon by June 11.

And the CIA has been given more time:

CIA Response On Joannides Delayed Again

by DALE K. MYERS

Back in April, journalist Jefferson Morley reported that the CIA refused to cough up any records related to the secret operations of deceased undercover officer George Joannides in response to Morley’s lawsuit to secure such records.

A three-judge appellate court panel ruled in December 2007 that the agency had to search its files for records of Joannides' secret operations in 1963, when he served undercover in Miami running "psychological warfare" operations against the government of Fidel Castro. The court also ordered the CIA to explain why 17 reports on Joannides' secret operations in 1962-1964 are missing from the National Archives by April 30, 2008.

In the April hearing before Judge Richard Leon, the CIA provided no written explanation of its actions despite the earlier court order. Afterwords, agency attorney John Truong claimed orally that a search of files on Joannides operations found no records responsive to Morley’s 2003 Freedom of Information Act request.

Judge Leon ordered the CIA to explain its actions in writing to the court by June 11, 2008.

At a hearing last Wednesday, June 11, the CIA asked the court to extend the deadline for their respond. Mr. Morley and his counsel Jim Lesar did not oppose the motion for extension, which was then granted by Judge Leon.

The CIA now has until July 2, 2008 to respond in writing to the appellate court's 2007 ruling.

Meanwhile, a group of independent assassination researchers organized by New York attorney Charles J. Sanders have sent a joint letter to Congressman Henry A. Waxman, Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, asking the representative to establish oversight hearings regarding implementation and enforcement of the JFK Records Act.

What the hell are they hiding forty-five years later?

 

[Muldfeld]

Dread wrote something about murder of American soldiers?
I don't know what that is about.

I don't think Bush will ever be prosecuted.
But is he guilty of murder?

When Bush approves an air strike on a target, and he knows there will be "other people" killed in that strike,
is he not killing those other people, unlawfully? with malice aforethought?

Amen.
I'd go so far as to prosecute him for the continuing suffering of the poor in America. With reckless abandon he and the right wing have left them to suffer.

Just look at this Bill Moyers story about how the federal government, backed by the Bush administration, has poured millions in funds to help corporations build casinos and expand hotels in the wake of Katrina. Meanwhile, the poor recipients of those needing financial aid and living in trailer parks in dismal conditions get very little.

Bill Moyers Journal . Watch & Listen | PBS

This is a travesty. It's one thing to screw up preparation for the hurricaine. It's another to not make any effort for years after the fact. This is a crime against humanity and a violation of the responsibility of the president to the people of America, not just the rich or those that vote for him!

 

[Dreadsox]

Amen.
Just look at this Bill Moyers story about how the federal government, backed by the Bush administration, has poured millions in funds to help corporations build casinos and expand hotels in the wake of Katrina. Meanwhile, the poor recipients of those needing financial aid and living in trailer parks in dismal conditions get very little.

Yes, damn you Bush for trying to bring the businesses back that made the tourists come and spend money, creating jobs. Damn you for not just handing out the $$$$ for a short term fix.

This is a travesty. It's one thing to screw up preparation for the hurricaine. It's another to not make any effort for years after the fact. This is a crime against humanity and a violation of the responsibility of the president to the people of America, not just the rich or those that vote for him!

Yes, because the state and local government had no responsibility in any of the the preparation. It is your fault George Bush.

 

[deep]

Originally Posted by deep

Dread wrote something about murder of American soldiers?
I don't know what that is about.

I don't think Bush will ever be prosecuted.
But is he guilty of murder?

When Bush approves an air strike on a target, and he knows there will be "other people" killed in that strike,
is he not killing those other people, unlawfully? with malice aforethought?

Amen.
I'd go so far as to prosecute him for the continuing suffering of the poor in America. With reckless abandon he and the right wing have left them to suffer.

I was not thinking about any thing that broad or abstract

but more along the lines on extra judicial killings


Some in here went on to mention other Presidents during declared Wars for civilian deaths. Again not my thinking.


Let's say if Bin Laden was believed to be in a village in Pakistan, we had a good source on the ground that did confirm he was there.

So Bush authorizes a couple of 2000 pounds bunker buster bombs and kills Bin Laden along with 150 villagers, babies, grand parents, men and women, and many or most of them did not even know Bin Laden was there.

 

[Diemen]

Amen.
I'd go so far as to prosecute him for the continuing suffering of the poor in America.

Kneejerk much?

 

[deep]

I did find a audio interview on this Book, with the Author on the Gary Null show

Vincent Bugliosi- preeminent prosecuting attorney & author; best known for prosecuting Charles Manson & other defendents accused of the Tate-LaBianca murders. His latest book “The Presecution of George W. Bush for Murder” presents detailed evidence to pin 1st degree murder charges on Bush, Cheney, Rice & Rowe for the murder of over 4000 American soldiers killed so far in Iraq; chronicling the lies & deceptions leading to the invasion of Iraq, and revealing Bush’s inherent malicious character, the stupidity & lack of courage of the media- and citizens.

you can listen to (or download) the interview online here:

The Gary Null Show: The Gary Null Show - 6/25/08

 

[Vincent Vega]

I was not thinking about any thing that broad or abstract

but more along the lines on extra judicial killings


Some in here went on to mention other Presidents during declared Wars for civilian deaths. Again not my thinking.


Let's say if Bin Laden was believed to be in a village in Pakistan, we had a good source on the ground that did confirm he was there.

So Bush authorizes a couple of 2000 pounds bunker buster bombs and kills Bin Laden along with 150 villagers, babies, grand parents, men and women, and many or most of them did not even know Bin Laden was there.

I don't know about the US constitution or US law, but in Germany that would be unlawful.

 

[deep]

I don't know about the US constitution or US law, but in Germany that would be unlawful.

The Bush Administration (and to be fair, there were some targeted killing under other Presidents, including Clinton) gives itself the Authority to do many things that international treaties and laws would not permit.

The Bush Administration has set itself apart with bizarre "legal findings" that permit it to do just about anything.


There is a lot of criticism throw at Bill Clinton because there was a time when the CIA had found BinLaden in Afghanistan sometime in the 90s.
And he did not launch bombs and kill him along with several other people.

The 'reason' given is that it was not a "good" identification. Just a tall Arab, surrounded by several other people, and also there were several members of the Saudi Royal family present.

These excuses are "given" in my opinion, to suggest that extra judicial killings are permissible and lawful?

Let's keep in mind that BinLaden prior to 911 was mostly unknown to the average person.

 

[deep]

I don't know about the US constitution

This President has very little "respect" for the U. S. Contitution.


And his "Oath of Office" is to protect and defend it.

"I do solemnly swear 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."

I guess his escape clause is: to the best of my ability

 

[Dreadsox]

Let's keep in mind that BinLaden prior to 911 was mostly unknown to the average person.

Why do you say that? I said who it was ten minutes into the attack. All you had to do was watch the news for the last ten years prior to 9/11 to know who it likely was.

 

[deep]

We know you are not the average person.

What I was eluding to, is that with 911, it is universally (internationally) accepted that the U. S. killing Binladen would get very little out cry.

In 1997? there would have been more fall out to deal with, killing a "hero" that beat the Soviets and liberated Afghanistan.

Not saying I buy all that.

But, that is what would have been thrown out back then.

 

[deep]

I also think it is a little naive to think that in BinLaden died in the 90s that Al-Qaeda would not have gone on.

There is a no 2 guy that would have stepped up.

And there was plenty of funding from rich Saudis for Al-Qaeda

perhaps without BinLaden the attacks may have been worse ?

More than 2800 deaths.

 

[Vincent Vega]

The Bush Administration (and to be fair, there were some targeted killing under other Presidents, including Clinton) gives itself the Authority to do many things that international treaties and laws would not permit.

The Bush Administration has set itself apart with bizarre "legal findings" that permit it to do just about anything.


There is a lot of criticism throw at Bill Clinton because there was a time when the CIA had found BinLaden in Afghanistan sometime in the 90s.
And he did not launch bombs and kill him along with several other people.

The 'reason' given is that it was not a "good" identification. Just a tall Arab, surrounded by several other people, and also there were several members of the Saudi Royal family present.

These excuses are "given" in my opinion, to suggest that extra judicial killings are permissible and lawful?

Let's keep in mind that BinLaden prior to 911 was mostly unknown to the average person.

Well, that's right, some things I've read about this administration really have left me puzzled at how corrupt and outright criminal their doings would have been had it been another country's government.

As far as I understood it Bin Laden always was more of a money backer to al Quaeda and a TV person to the world.

 

[maycocksean]

I continue to maintain that trying to make hay out of prosecuting Bush for murder (or for neglecting the poor) is just nonsense.

All it really does is make it more difficult for those who oppose Bush's policies and actions on legitimate grounds to make their case (though these days, granted, most people accept Bush's abyssmal failures as a president).

Deep, my understanding was that the "collateral" deaths of civilians have been happening since the beginning of warfare. The only time it becomes an incident is when that is the primary purpose of the killings (Take the Mai Lai massare in Vietnam for example).

 

[Dreadsox]

I am going to have to read the book to decide. I am wondering if he is going on the premise that there was never any official declaration of war, coupled with the fact that it is VERY easy to make the case the CIA officials who were opposed to the cherry picking of the intel that was shared with the congress, were forced out. I am thinking it may be a good read.

 

[Dreadsox]

"{FYI - One of my older theories was that he was shooting at John Connoly and not Kennedy..."

You're kidding right???

It took me a while Harry, but I found it. The manuscript George DeMonschildt was writing about his good friend Lee Harvey Oswald.

In the transcript he writes about Oswald's hatred of Connoly.


AARC Public Digital Library - HSCA Appendix to Hearings - Volume XII, pg

Like I said, it was a theory that I had. Not necessarily one I believe anymore, but a theory none the less.

DeMonschildt was a personal friend of Jackie Kennedy, George HW Bush and Lee Oswald.

Maybe Jackie used him to get Oswald to bump off Kennedy for his philandering?