• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Proof of Conspiracy

iAmerican

Thinker
iAmerican
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
196
How does proof of "a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq," and the American and innocent blood shed because of it, not constitute prima facie evidence to support an indictment and trial for treason?

Open and shut.

Any students of the Law? Lawyers? Plaintiffs' lawyers, that is...or simply Constitutional Law scholars.

Seems Intent is demonstrated by "pattern and practice," leaving overt complicity in 9-11 aside, obviating any defense to be made based on serial stupidity and incompetence.
 
Last edited:
iAmerican said:
Any students of the Law? Lawyers? Plaintiffs' lawyers, that is...or simply Constitutional Law scholars.
Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer, but after reading the first few paragraphs, what stands out in my mind is that the writers have carefully avoided saying that the administration lied. Saying something false if you believe it to be true is not a lie. The headline says "deception" but the text doesn't, because frankly it can't.

Seems Intent is demonstrated by "pattern and practice,"
Click to expand...

Intent to persuade is demonstrated. Intent to deceive is not.

Furthermore, a number of the examples are debatable. Take this one:

In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: "Sure." In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of "compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda." What's more, an earlier DIA assessment said that "the nature of the regime's relationship with Al Qaeda is unclear."
Click to expand...

Having a relationship is different than engaging in "direct cooperation". That the DIA didn't find the latter doesn't discount the former, and being uncertain about the nature of a relationship doesn't mean that you don't know there is one of some sort. While the distinction may not matter to those who think the administration went to far in its public pronouncements, it does matter quite a bit if you want to demonstrate a campaing of deliberate misinformation (something this paper itself seems to imply but doesn't actually state outright - how's that for irony?), especially if you're hoping for legal consequences.

But all this stuff is old anyways. There's nothing actually new here.
 
Being wrong isn't the same as lying.

At one point in time, Saddam had WMD and we know this because he used them. So then the question becomes - what happened to them? The UN inspectors couldn't find them and Saddam refused to account for them so you are left with 2 choices. Assume he destroyed them and is refusing to tell anyone that or assume he is hiding them and keep looking for them. There are other choices as well such as selling them but for the sake of discussion it's either he doesn't have them anymore or he is hiding them. One of those choices is going to be wrong but making the wrong choice and defending that choice isn't the same as lying.

UNSCOM was constantly complaining and passing resolutions condemming Iraq for blocking inspectors and access not to mention the constant appeals for Iraq to account for the WMD it once had. Were the UN inspectors in on it too?
 
Leftus said:
Being wrong isn't the same as lying.

At one point in time, Saddam had WMD and we know this because he used them. So then the question becomes - what happened to them? The UN inspectors couldn't find them and Saddam refused to account for them so you are left with 2 choices. Assume he destroyed them and is refusing to tell anyone that or assume he is hiding them and keep looking for them. There are other choices as well such as selling them but for the sake of discussion it's either he doesn't have them anymore or he is hiding them. One of those choices is going to be wrong but making the wrong choice and defending that choice isn't the same as lying.

UNSCOM was constantly complaining and passing resolutions condemming Iraq for blocking inspectors and access not to mention the constant appeals for Iraq to account for the WMD it once had. Were the UN inspectors in on it too?
Click to expand...

Makes you wonder what the weapons inspectors' MO was, though, doesn't it. Did they really think they'd find weapons that Saddam might have been intent on hiding? They sure weren't "in on it too", but they damned well might as well have been!
 
The question is, then, are the false things Bush said things he knew or should have known, given an assumption of minimal competence, to be true?

Would the 'reasonable person' standard be applied here? Eg, if he had been told fact X in a briefing that morning, then recited false thing X which contradicts fact X, that afternoon, would that count as a lie?

When Dick Cheney said, "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.", was that what his briefings said, that there was no doubt at all? My readings suggest otherwise.

The Nixon allusion is apt: It is possible to tell what these people knew, and when they knew it, by checking the appropriate briefings and memos.
 
iAmerican said:
How does proof of "a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq," and the American and innocent blood shed because of it, not constitute prima facie evidence to support an indictment and trial for treason?
Click to expand...

It depends on your definition of treason. Here in America we use the definition from the Constitution. It states that you must wage war against the US, or give comfort to the enemy during wartime, to be guilty of treason. The rules of evidence are also spelled out clearly.

Unless you consider the Gitmo internments to be "comfort", I don't think there's a case here.
 
False War Dead - War Against the People

aggle-rithm said:
It depends on your definition of treason. Here in America we use the definition from the Constitution. It states that you must wage war against the US, or give comfort to the enemy during wartime, to be guilty of treason. The rules of evidence are also spelled out clearly.

Unless you consider the Gitmo internments to be "comfort", I don't think there's a case here.
Click to expand...

Telling lies, forfeiting all moral authority, to send us to die, in uniform and under the flag, seems the same as the Executive committing murder of the troops. E Pluribus Unum: if one American life is a war loss through lies from the Executive, why is that not the same as warring against The People: de facto treason? Of Many, One. The U.S. blood, taking innocent life not protecting the Constitution is a form of betrayal and treachery as well as murder by the Executive against The People's Armed Forces...against the sovereign People.

If false war is not treason, what constitutional crime is it? If Bush and his faction committed 9-11, would that not be war against us, hence treason?
 
Last edited:
iAmerican said:
If false war is not treason, what constitutional crime is it?
Click to expand...

If it's not treason (and it isn't), then it's not a constitutional crime at all. Treason is the only constitutionally defined crime. All other crimes are defined by law.
 
It’s about as close to treason as you can get without crossing the line of treason (given the current evidence).

What worries me more is congress setting the precedent of not using their powers during the last 7 years to investigate an erroneous (what would be the right word?) President. This is especially true with so much information indicating possible incorrect behavior. The next “bad” President to make office may do more evil because of this precedent.
 
Daylight said:
It’s about as close to treason as you can get without crossing the line of treason (given the current evidence).
Click to expand...

Yes, but fortunately we can't redefine treason whenever we want, just because we don't like the situation.

What worries me more is congress setting the precedent of not using their powers during the last 7 years to investigate an erroneous (what would be the right word?) President. This is especially true with so much information indicating possible incorrect behavior. The next “bad” President to make office may do more evil because of this precedent.
Click to expand...

Members of the opposition party in congress have a way of jumping on presidential wrongdoing at the drop of a hat. Remember Bill and Monica? The Republicans were on him like ugly on an ape, for what was arguably a minor offense having nothing to do with Clinton's execution of office.

Don't you wonder why the Democrats wouldn't try to return the favor, if Bush's "incorrect behavior" were real and not imaginary? Could it be that members of Congress are able to assess the situation more realistically than you?
 
Last edited:
Per "Annuit Coeptis" Death of Innocents is Treason

No, it is treason. The pattern and practice of deception, indirection, and lies, leaving aside 9-11, makes false war, and without a Declaration of War, leading to the morally unjustified death of one member of Our Armed Forces, murder: hence warring on the People, and is therefore Treason.
 
Since it didn't arrive at the conclusions "everybody knows", therefore it is false and part of the conspiracy.
 
iAmerican said:
No, it is treason. The pattern and practice of deception, indirection, and lies, leaving aside 9-11, makes false war, and without a Declaration of War, leading to the morally unjustified death of one member of Our Armed Forces, murder: hence warring on the People, and is therefore Treason.
Click to expand...

Is it the lack of Declaration of War that bothers you? Because that hasn't happened in over 60 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom