s'funny how what sounded impossible a coupl'a years ago sounds like a slam-dunk today ...
nader: what about the more serious violations of habeas corpus. you know after 9-11 bush rounded up thousands of them, americans, many of them muslim americans or arabic americans and they were thrown in jail without charges, they didn't have lawyers, some of them were pretty mistreated in new york city. you know they were all released eventually. napolitano: correct. nader: is that what you mean also about throwing people in jail without charges violating habeas corpus? napolitano: well that is so obviously a violation of the natural law, the natural right to be brought before a neutral arbiter within moments of the government taking your freedom away from you. and the constitution itself, as the supreme court in the boumediene case pretty much said, wherever the government goes, the constitution goes with it and wherever the constitution goes are the rights of the constitution as a guarantee and habeas corpus cannot be suspended by the president ever. it can only be suspended by the congress in times of rebellion which in read milligan says meaning rebellion of such magnitude that judges can't get into their court houses. that has not happened in american history. so what president bush did with the suspension of habeas corpus, with the whole concept of guantanamo bay, with the whole idea that he could avoid and evade federal laws, treaties, federal judges and the constitution was blatantly unconstitutional and is some cases criminal.
nader: what's the sanction for president bush and vice president cheney? napolitano: there's been no sanction except what history will say about them. nader: what should be the sanctions? napolitano: they should have been indicted. they absolutely should have been indicted for torturing, for spying, for arresting without warrants. i'd like to say they should be indicted for lying but believe it or not, unless you're under oath, lying is not a crime. at least not an indictable crime. it's a moral crime. nader: so you think george w. bush and dick cheney should even though they've left office, they haven't escaped the criminal laws, they should be indicted and prosecuted? napolitano: the evidence in this book and in others, our colleague the great vincent bugliosi has amassed an incredible amount of evidence. the purpose of this book was not to amass that evidence but i do discuss it, is overwhelming when you compare it to the level of evidence required for a normal indictment that george w. bush as president and dick cheney as vice president participated in criminal conspiracies to violate the federal law and the guaranteed civil liberties of hundreds, maybe thousands of human beings. (hat tip to crooks and liars)
Monday, July 12, 2010
shoulda, woulda, coulda
Labels:
bush,
cheney,
constitution,
crime,
geneva convention,
guantanamo,
habeus corpus,
impeachment,
subpoena,
surveillance,
war,
war crimes,
war on terror,
warrant,
wiretap
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment