BS: Cheney Indicted: Arraignment Friday Nov 21

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Indicted: Arraignment Friday
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Dec 08 - 01:16 AM

From: Peace
Date: 15 Dec 08 - 11:23 PM

GfS: You are MUCH too nice in regard to Cheney. Your remark will give snakes a bad name--hell, they still have a bad rep from the Garden of Eden.

You know, interestingly enough, that occurred to me just after I hit the 'Submit Message' button!....True story!

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Indicted: Arraignment Friday
From: Peace
Date: 15 Dec 08 - 11:23 PM

GfS: You are MUCH too nice in regard to Cheney. Your remark will give snakes a bad name--hell, they still have a bad rep from the Garden of Eden.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Indicted: Arraignment Friday
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Dec 08 - 07:32 PM

GOOD!!!..He's a snake, in the form of shit!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Indicted: Arraignment Friday
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 15 Dec 08 - 02:42 PM

Sorry - couldn't resist ...

"until you come up with some evidence that stands up to the rigours of critical examination and proves guilt beyond any reasonable doubt those men are innocent until proven otherwise - True??."

followed later by

"they charged into Iraq to make damn sure that by the end of the exercise there were none [WMD] and establish that fact as being the case beyond any reasonable doubt"

So by that logic, a fair way of determining whether any of these politicians were innocent of anything beyond reasonable doubt would be to invade and destroy their homes and kill some of their family looking for evidence?

interesting quandary.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Indicted: Arraignment Friday
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Dec 08 - 01:58 PM

"... I mean, come Bill D they've had the best part of 5 years to find it."

The real hard evidence necessary to either impeach OR indict & and convict has come to light only slowly....it's not as if they (Bush & Co.) published daily updates on their shenanigans! And, to repeat...it takes VOTES to proceed with an impeachment process, even after the basic facts are known.
Up to the last couple years, it was the usual routine for Bush et al to assert "just bad intelligence" or "unilateral behavior at lower levels" to explain invasions, torture, and other transgressions. Being confident that you KNOW where ultimate responsibility lies is not the same as PROVING it. Our ultimate fallback was the election, and we DID use that. I do, as I said, hope that prosecutions WILL follow next year...but I will not hold my breath.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Indicted: Arraignment Friday
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Dec 08 - 01:20 PM

Bollocks.....the whole world now believes that they made it all up to suit their agenda!

and I bet they wish they hadn't!!

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Indicted: Arraignment Friday
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Dec 08 - 04:09 AM

Well now Akenaton, as to there being no evidence. The only evidence relating to Iraq that was ever required to prevent what happened in the early hours of 20th March, 2003 was evidence of compliance.

Here's one small example Akenaton:

Taken from United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 dated 8th April 1991

"30. Decides that, in furtherance of its commitment to facilitate the repatriation of all Kuwaiti and third country nationals, Iraq shall extend all necessary cooperation to the International Committee of the Red Cross, providing lists of such persons, facilitating the access of the International Committee of the Red Cross to all such persons wherever located or detained and facilitating the search by the International Committee of the Red Cross for those Kuwaiti and third country nationals still unaccounted for;"

Now then Akenaton there were 605 Kuwaiti nationals abducted when Saddam went on his little excursion to Kuwait in 1990. At Safwan, the Iraqi Government, agreed to the above. Now just as an exercise in comprehension Akenaton, to ensure thaat we are both on the same page, I would venture that if one had taken 605 foreign nationals and the requirement was that they should all be repatriated in the terms outlined above. Then 605 foreign nationals should have been transported back to, in this particular instance, Kuwait. Saddam however seems to have had a bit of difficulty understanding the requirement because by 20th March, 2003, which I make almost 13 years later, only three of the 605 people abducted have been repatriated - It was later discovered that the rest were dead, executed on Saddam's orders, some in the weeks before the invasion, you see Saddam couldn't release them, he couldn't let them go, because if he had, then they would have told their stories.

As to there being no evidence relating to WMD; stockpiling of WMD materials; research & development into WMD and associated deliver systems. The only "evidence" as to the possible existence of WMD in Iraq was the final report by the UNSCOM Inspectors delivered to the UN in January 1999, thereafter until March 2003 Iraq becomes somewhat of a "black hole". The UNSCOM report of January 1999 was signed off by both Dr. Hans Blix and by Scott Ritter, who both helped compile it. If any of you actually read the UN mandate for UNMOVIC you would see that there job was not to go into Iraq to find WMD, it was to go into Iraq and establish by verifiable means that Iraq did not have WMD; was not stockpiling WMD materials; did not have any research & development programmes relating to WMD and their associated deliver systems. The US, the UK plus the 41 other countries who made up the "coalition of the willing" did not go charging into Iraq to find WMD, although at the time the world and its dog were totally convinced that there was a very good chance that WMD would be found, they charged into Iraq to make damn sure that by the end of the exercise there were none and establish that fact as being the case beyond any reasonable doubt, and that Akenaton they have done. The various aspects of WMD programmes that were discovered were destroyed in a verifiable manner.

My support for the actions taken by the US, the UK and their partners is based upon the honest answer to one question, namely -

"Was Iraq in full compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, otherwise known as the Safwan Cease-fire Agreement to a degree and in a manner that had been verified and acknowledged by the International Community, i.e. The United Nations Security Council?"

The honest answer to that question Akenaton is of course, "No it was not". The resulting consequence of that answer is equally simple to understand - If you as a former belligerent are not in compliance with what you have agreed as being the terms of a "cease-fire", then you have broken its terms, the "cease-fire" no longer is in effect and your adversaries are at liberty to resume hostilities in order to force your compliance.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Indicted: Arraignment Friday
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Dec 08 - 03:33 PM

Teribus......you surely have balls of steel!
"My, my all that in the face of this "mountain" of "evidence" that one hell of a lot of people on this forum repeatedly insist exists. Of course it doesn't in real fact, its just that one hell of a lot of people on this forum would not know what actually constitutes "evidence" if it jumped up and bit them on the arse."

And that after you've spent the last five years defending the US and UK's rush to war on non existent evidence!

Get a grip lad!!

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Indicted: Arraignment Friday
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Dec 08 - 02:02 PM

Being able to find it and doing something about it are two entirely different things. The Congress is reluctant to hold the Bush administration accountable because they share the responsibility for what was done during the Bush administration and they know it.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Indicted: Arraignment Friday
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Dec 08 - 08:59 AM

Well, one thing I learned along time ago is that all things that should happen don't and life isn't always fair... In America we have several levels of "justice" and it's hard to find any that are "just"...

Cheney and Co. will beat the rap here in this life... But I wouldn't want to be any of them waiting in line for that ineterview by St. Peter at the Pearly Gates... No, sir... That, I would pay to see... Talk about squirmmin'...

Actually, there are folks here in Mudville who are gonna have that same little situation because they have supported Cheney and Co's war against humanity... That oughtta get them a long ride in the down elevator, too...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Indicted: Arraignment Friday
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Dec 08 - 03:19 AM

"Indicted and convicted" Bill D??? Both result from criminal prosecutions don't they? As far as I am aware the only thing that Congress can decide upon is impeachment and the only sanction that can be leveled against the person who has been impeached is that they have to resign from office.

I would agree that over the last 2 years, the majority of politicians in the USA have been focused solely on the 2008 elections, but there have been a few, Dennis Kucinich (The darling and hero of oh so many on this forum) who have been hammering on relentlessly about impeachment - all to no avail. Now if there had been ANY, repeat, ANY evidence upon which to base impeachment proceedings on, don't you think somebody would have found it by now, I mean, come Bill D they've had the best part of 5 years to find it.

One thing is for certain, they couldn't possibly find any grounds relating to the run up to the invasion of Iraq, because it was a Congressional Committee that identified Iraq as posing the greatest potential threat to the USA and advised the President accordingly, they can hardly impeach him for following their own advice, which by the bye, they then voted for use of force.

And sorry SRS, until you come up with some evidence that stands up to the rigours of critical examination and proves guilt beyond any reasonable doubt those men are innocent until proven otherwise - True??. What your opinion of them is doesn't matter a damn.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Indicted: Arraignment Friday
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 14 Dec 08 - 12:34 AM

Teribus, stay tuned. And if you want to avoid eating too much crow later, I suggest you moderate your crowing now. These folks are truly criminals.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Indicted: Arraignment Friday
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Dec 08 - 10:23 PM

Karl Rove & Bush & Cheney....and Alberto Gonzales...and a couple more... SHOULD be indicted & convicted....that they have not been is reference to the VERY slim margin the Democrats have in congress & the lateness in Bush's term..plus the campaign & the war. Adding impeachment proceedings into the furor of the last 12-18 months would have torn the country apart and distracted ALL of us from 'getting on'.
Everyone knew that Bush was going, and that the Republicans had a slim-to-none chance of being elected, so the prevailing wisdom was to just wait.
Will there be ANY indictments & prosecutions in 2009? I'd give it 50-50. I sure would hate to see those at the top of the pyramid of shame we have had the last few years get off scott-free...but......

we shall see...

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Indicted: Arraignment Friday
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Dec 08 - 05:33 PM

Eh No folks it was the man who instigated the arraignment proceedings who was told to "cool it". Further on up the thread I stated that this clown would be lucky if he wasn't charged with wasting the courts time. Apparently the guy who raised the whole thing, one Juan Angel Guerra, was pissed off about losing the election for Willacy County District Attorney's office. He has got less than a month to serve in that office and the Judge told him to "cool it" for his remaining time in office.

So let's see

- Karl Rove not in prison
- Vice-President Cheney not impeached or under arraignment for anything.
- President G.W.Bush not impeached.

My, my all that in the face of this "mountain" of "evidence" that one hell of a lot of people on this forum repeatedly insist exists. Of course it doesn't in real fact, its just that one hell of a lot of people on this forum would not know what actually constitutes "evidence" if it jumped up and bit them on the arse.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Indicted: Arraignment Friday
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Dec 08 - 03:51 PM

I hope they put the trial AFTER Bush leaves office...so George II, can't pardon him!..Interesting to see if Oblabbo will..'Birds of a feather....'

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Indicted: Arraignment Friday
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Dec 08 - 01:22 PM

Telling the prosecutor to "cool it" seems to prove Cheney's guilt rather than his innocence. Otherwise his innocence would stand up in court.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Indicted: Arraignment Friday
From: Amos
Date: 13 Dec 08 - 12:36 PM

I am sure justice was done, T. It's obvious. Why else would the prosecutor be told to cool it?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Indicted: Arraignment Friday
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Dec 08 - 12:30 PM

Just thought I'd refresh this one to let everybody, including Amos know that Cheney's "come-uppance" came with complete dismissal of and on all charges on 1st December 2008. The man responsible for instituting proceedings was told to "cool it" for the remainder of his term in office.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Indicted: Arraignment Friday
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Nov 08 - 10:43 AM

His wife's cousin made war profits from unbid contracts?

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Indicted: Arraignment Friday
From: jeffp
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 11:02 PM

A breach of the peace is a breach of the peace. And an injured party can sue for damages. OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder in criminal court, but was successfully sued for wrongful death by the survivors of the victims. And my fiancee is entitled to sue her attacker for damages as well.

In Britain, prosecutions are listed as Crown vs., aren't they?

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Indicted: Arraignment Friday
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 08:24 PM

So does that mean that even a pardon wouldn't give immunity from a tort-based prosecution by someone who claimed to have been injured by the actions of a person who had received a presidential pardon?
.....................

And how about an alleged crime against non-citizens? What would be the basis of there being a presidential power to pardon in respect of that?

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Indicted: Arraignment Friday
From: jeffp
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 05:16 PM

Crimes against people are defined to be crimes against the people as a whole (government) and are prosecuted as such. The case will read "United States of America vs. John Doe" or "State of XXXX vs. John Doe." Torts are person vs. person. This represents the government's interest in keeping the peace. At least, that is how they explain it in Civics class.

When my fiancee was stabbed and nearly killed, the indictment read, United States of America vs. James Patrick Davis. Very sobering to read that. He is now in federal prison, by the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Indicted: Arraignment Friday
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 05:06 PM

This Presidential Pardon bit - the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2, states that the President "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."

So how does it comes that he seems allowed to pardon people for things that aren't offences against the United States? For example, in this case (allegedly) offences against prisoners, who might not even be US citizens. Or in another context, alleged responsibility for war crimes against people who were definitely not US citizens.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Indicted: Arraignment Friday
From: heric
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 04:33 PM

Tom Horne said: "I guess they might as well hang me for that as for the things I actually done."

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Indicted: Arraignment Friday
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 04:26 PM

Different Vanguard, I think, PG.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Indicted: Arraignment Friday
From: PoppaGator
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 04:19 PM

My late mother, along with many other ordinary people, had some money tied up in Vanguard Group mutual funds. I can't imagine her/them being held responsible for any of this stuff.

Like I said before, I'm glad there's at least a possibility for Cheney to suffer. The more I learn about the particulars of the case, the less likely it seems that anything much will come of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Indicted: Arraignment Friday
From: Big Mick
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 04:16 PM

Pretty thin. And a Presidential Pardon will end it at any rate.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Indicted: Arraignment Friday
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 04:14 PM

An indictment is far from a conviction. I wonder if the judge is doing a "Jim Garrison" (who tried to indict people for the JFK murder).

Cheney sure needs to answer for some of the stuff he has pulled, but I won't hold my breath.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Indicted: Arraignment Friday
From: Amos
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 04:02 PM

The argument is that a senior government official with direct influence over prison contracting held the posiution while at the same time being vesated in commercial interests in the prison industry. Seems pretty plainly to be a conflict of interest.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Indicted: Arraignment Friday
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 03:49 PM

"Cheney is charged with engaging in an organized criminal activity related to the vice president's investment in the Vanguard Group, which holds financial interests in the private prison companies running the federal detention centers. It accuses Cheney of a conflict of interest and "at least misdemeanor assaults" on detainees because of his link to the prison companies."

So let's get this right, a private investor (seperate entity in law) invests in a Company (seperate entity in law) with in turn has shares in yet another Company (seperate entity in law) and a court down in Texas is trying to hold the original private investor accountable for the actions/practices and procedures of a company that he personally has no shares in, and only has an indirect connection with because of holdings held by the company he originally invested in.

I'm with pdq on this, I hope that all you people who are looking forward to seeing Dick Cheney in a cell over this aren't holding your breath. It's kinda like holding a person accountable for a crime actually committed by their wife's cousin.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Indicted: Arraignment Friday
From: PoppaGator
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 02:03 PM

I'm pleasantly surprised that Cheney might actually be punished!

I'd rather see him punished for his actual worst offenses, but if they have to resort to financial technicalities to get him, so be it.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Indicted: Arraignment Friday
From: pdq
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 12:50 PM

"Cheney is charged with engaging in an organized criminal activity related to the vice president's investment in the Vanguard Group, which holds financial interests in the private prison companies running the federal detention centers. It accuses Cheney of a conflict of interest and "at least misdemeanor assaults" on detainees because of his link to the prison companies."

This indictment is a pile of crap.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Indicted: Arraignment Friday
From: Charley Noble
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 12:40 PM

I am so shocked!

Somewhere there may be a cell with Cheney's name on it. He's certainly earned it.

I hope he enjoys sharing it with whatever roommate he's assigned.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Indicted: Arraignment Friday
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 10:27 AM

If Cheney were somehow were to wake up in Beligium he WOULD be arrested under their standing indictment.

Rumsfeld had a close call the last time he was in France and had to make a run for it to avoid arrest.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Indicted: Arraignment Friday
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 10:20 AM

It's a start, at least. Thanks, John.

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Indicted: Arraignment Friday
From: Amos
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 08:45 AM

Well, it's nioce to see him get some come-uppance, even if from behind...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Cheney Indicted: Arraingment Friday
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 05:21 AM

An earlier report may add some info:

Cheney, Gonzales indicted in Texas county

The indictment involves prison-related charges
The Associated Press
updated 8:36 p.m. CT, Tues., Nov. 18, 2008

McALLEN, Texas - Vice President Dick Cheney and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales have been indicted on state charges involving federal prisons in a South Texas county that has been a source of bizarre legal and political battles under the outgoing prosecutor.

The indictment returned Monday has not yet been signed by the presiding judge, and no action can be taken until that happens.
The seven indictments made public in Willacy County on Tuesday included one naming state Sen. Eddie Lucio Jr. and some targeting public officials connected to District Attorney Juan Angel Guerra's own legal battles.

Regarding the indictments targeting the public officials, Guerra said, "the grand jury is the one that made those decisions, not me."

Guerra himself was under indictment for more than a year and half until a judge dismissed the indictments last month. Guerra's tenure ends this year after nearly two decades in office. He lost convincingly in a Democratic primary in March.

Experts testified to grand jury

Guerra said the prison-related charges against Cheney and Gonzales are a national issue and experts from across the country testified to the grand jury.

Cheney is charged with engaging in an organized criminal activity related to the vice president's investment in the Vanguard Group, which holds financial interests in the private prison companies running the federal detention centers. It accuses Cheney of a conflict of interest and "at least misdemeanor assaults" on detainees because of his link to the prison companies.

***

More at the link if it stays up.

John

Subject: BS: Cheney Indicted: Arraingment Friday
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 05:15 AM

Cheney's indictment moves forward

Judge sets arraignment for Cheney, other officials in prisoner abuse case
The Associated Press
updated 7:30 p.m. CT, Wed., Nov. 19, 2008

RAYMONDVILLE, Texas - A Texas judge has set an arraignment for Vice President Dick Cheney, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and other officials accused of involvement in prisoner abuse.
Presiding Judge Manuel Banales said Wednesday he will allow them to waive arraignment or have attorneys present rather than appear in person Friday.

Banales also said he would issue summonses, not warrants. That allows them to avoid arrest and the need to post bond.

Willacy County District Attorney Juan Guerra accuses Cheney, Gonzales, a state senator and others of involvement in prisoner abuse at a federal detention center in south Texas.

Defense attorney Tony Canales accuses Guerra of "prosecutorial vindictiveness" and not following procedure.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.

Not quite what we'd all hoped for, but it should make the news outside Texas in a few days.

John