Bush tries to grant himself and entire administration immunity for war crimes dating back to 9/11/01

This is where your focus should be:


Is my answer to the immunity question

Does anyone know if this passed?

I'd bet money it did.......not that the pussies in this Congress would go after him anyway.......

We need to hope some other country does, though!

Senate Bill Number?

This should be sent far and wide. Our senators should be notified that this is totally unacceptable, especially after the failure of the Habeas Corpus legislation today. First we need a Senate Bill number- does anyone have this information? This is no time to sit idle.

Please forgive my ignorance

Is that story today???

It sounds like it was from last year

If you listen to Jack Cafferty it sounds like this story was from last fall before the Nov. 2006 election. He says "if the Democrats gain control of the House".

It doesn't really matter in the long run

The Supreme Court will just strike it down as unconstitutional.


At least there are a few MSM reporters who are doing a halfway decent job.

Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Principle Investigator, Forensic 9/11ologist


Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein

The Critical Mass.

The Critical Mass is the only solution. The only answer. And the only hope. The media hasn't done their job. The Congressmen haven't done theirs. The Supreme Court. Well we'll see. The Critical Mass can clean this mess up. The Media will have to bow to them. The Congress will have to follow them. We have to continually and creatively spread the materials. Understand and affect the Consciousness of the Nation. Figure out where the envelope is and push it. The materials, technology, and opportunities are out there. Bottom Line.

yes it would be good to know

yes it would be good to know the date of this show and the HR number.
My questions:
* By doing this, are they not tacitly admitting that they have committed war crimes?
* Is there and should there be such a thing as "immunity" to prosecution for war crimes?

Rumsfeld, immunity, and Military Commissions Act of 2006

My searches found several hits from May-June 2004 and this good article from Nov 2006 at Democracy Now:


Specifically, see the "Military Commissions Act" reference about granted? immunity in Michael Ratner's 2nd answer block. There was another good article from Dec 2006 at:


This could make it appear that Impeachment before 2008 is the only answer for Bush/Cheney/Rice's war crimes (and obstruction of justice/evidence tampering in the 9/11 WTC investigations), but the "recently retired" like Rumsfeld/Rove/Gonzales/Powell &Giuliani? might be open to prosecution from my brief review. Getting a class action lawsuit filed against Bush/Cheney/Rice would be a good step to prevent our 2008 President from granting a "sprinkling powers" full pardon, ala Gerald Ford/Nixon, in January 2009.

don't see when this was yet . . .

This was posted on You Tube 4 days ago. But I see no mention of it on Cafferty File.


This is merely

This is merely psychological. For those who still consent to being governed by the constitution I recommend you actually read it. For the bulk of you who continue to be too lazy to read the document you want upheld I will cite for you the pertinent clause: Article I Section 10 - No State shall ...pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or ..." That's all the spoon feeding I'm going to do. Now go look up ex post facto Law like a good Citizen. For the average dumbed down person living in the territory called the US, they have no clue that what they discuss on CNN is banned in the Constitution. This is why CNN presented it and made it sound like it could work. Do you recall the OJ Simpson trial? CNN has it's own lawyers and they obviously could have requested their opinion on this matter but they didn't because they are in the business of PSYCHOLOGICALLY CONDITIONING the population. When you watch the news you need to go read up on what they talk about to see if it's legit.

And for crying out loud, if you want to be ruled by the Constitution go read the damn thing!

"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)


Published on Saturday, September 23, 2006 by the Chicago Sun-Times
Bush Seeks Immunity for Violating War Crimes Act
by Elizabeth Holtzman

Here's the guy who posted it on YouTube 4 days ago . . .


This should be edited to have a note by the moderators so people don't send this out mistakenly, as I did. I flagged it on YouTube --- 400+ views in 4 days but no one says when it is from, only that they've never heard about it. Probably in the middle of a Britney or OJ or Miner-disaster issue.

But the importance of the UN is right here. Imagine if there were no UN . . . which is what Ron Paul wants.

US drops war crimes exemption plea
Associated Press
Thursday June 24, 2004
The Guardian

The United States was yesterday forced to drop a UN resolution giving American peacekeeping troops renewed immunity from prosecution for war crimes, after facing determined opposition in the security council.

Constitution clarification on Article 1 Section 9

Hello Whitey,

Very good post- I noticed that Article 1, Section 10 involves States' powers and restrictions per se, where Article 1, Section 9 immediately preceding states among other things:

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. [there was no rebellion or invasion on 9/11/2001]

No Bill of Attainder or EX POST FACTO Law shall be passed. [uppercase added for emphasis]

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time. [really needs some investigation in light of "secret" 1947 National Security Act NSA/CIA/DoD/DoJ budgets, Afghanistan/Iraq Occupational Wars, and Homeland Security budgets, including "white, black, & gray" front corporations, "black" secretive budgets, and official "white" GAO budgets]

The early Bill of Rights states:
"The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent MISCONSTRUCTION or ABUSE of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added. [uppercase added for emphasis]
Article the eleventh [Amendment IX "Ninth"]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article the twelfth [Amendment X "Tenth"]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, OR TO THE PEOPLE." ***[uppercase added, since this is KEY to the legality of the illegitimate 1947 National Security Act, Executive Orders, Signing Statements, and Presidential Security Directives]***

This is an EXCELLENT set of references for ALL U.S. Citizens to bookmark:

http://www.constitution.org/indexco_.htm [index]

http://www.constitution.org/cs_found.htm [Founding Documents]

Also, while I'm politically independent and not really affiliated with the Populist Party (or any other party for that matter), my search found 4 prophetic articles from 2006 on repairing the "Bush/Cheney Trainwreck" at:





P.S. I can't seem to edit my earlier post above- any legal action taken against the PNAC Bushites still holding public office would likely need to include a court injunction to stop any pardons or "legistative" loophole snafus.

It's still there

The early Bill of Rights states:
"The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent MISCONSTRUCTION or ABUSE of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added. [uppercase added for emphasis]

That is still the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. Just ask yourself why it is rarely ever included when the BOR is reprinted.

Most sheeples believe that CONgress, in their beneficent wisdom, has granted them their Rights.

Thanks for the recomendations for Constitutional study. I had just visited Roland's site a few days ago. This is an excellent primer for anyone:

Summary of Constitutional Rights, Powers and Duties


"Discussions of rights are sometimes confused concerning what are and are not rights of the people or powers of government or the duties of each. This is an attempt to summarize the rights, powers, and duties recognized or established in the U.S. Constitution, in Common Law as it existed at the time the U.S. Constitution was adopted, or as implied therein. Not included are certain "internal" rights and powers that pertain to the various elements of government within each level with respect to each other."

For a number of eye-opening treatises, go here:


Click on the Education link. Dave Champion, a gentleman who appeared briefly in America: Freedom to Fascism, has written these excellent articles.

"But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."
~~ Dr. Shyam Sunder - Acting Director Building and Fire Research Laboratory (NIST)

This is From Nearly ONE YEAR AGO!!!

The Bill was H.R.6054. The CNN show date was around Sept. 28th, 2006. So, while I don't specifically remember this one, does anyone know if this bill passed?

BTW, 911Blogger ought to get this off their front page. WE SHOULDN'T BE LOOKING AT IT! The video, as someone already allude to, was from last year!!!



This is not

This is not NEW

911dvds@gmail.com - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

This Bill was passed

of course. It became S.3930 and signed into law 10/16/06'.