Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

Showing Original Post only (View all)

mwyn8

(84 posts)
Fri Jul 25, 2014, 09:21 AM Jul 2014

Bush Administration Lawsuit Hearing Scheduled for Sept. 11th [View all]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by DonViejo (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: Quiet Mike

Earlier this year, the Department of Justice, who is defending the six Bush Administration officials, responded to the lawsuit by requesting that the case be dismissed. The Bush tribe is claiming that the planning of the war occurred within the scope of their employment and therefore they have immunity.

Rather than dismissing the case, the Judge asked for additional information. So Mr. Comar filed a 2nd amended complaint back in June. The amended complaint provides more details about the planning of the Iraq war and when it started.

Comar’s evidence, shows the Bush/Cheney team started planning the invasion of Iraq as far back as 1997. The amended complaint also explains that the war was motivated by personal enrichment and the war was a “crime of aggression.”

Earlier this week. Inder Comar got his chance in court to respond to the motion to dismiss and explain the 2nd amended complaint further. He essentially made two points to the court.

Read more: http://quietmike.org/2014/07/25/bush-administration-lawsuit-hearing/



FINALLY. I would add my two cents but these couple snips sums it up for me. - Comar’s evidence, shows the Bush/Cheney team started planning the invasion of Iraq as far back as 1997. The amended complaint also explains that the war was motivated by personal enrichment and the war was a “crime of aggression.” and - In light of the treaties and charters that the United States has signed, Comar stated that the defence can’t now claim that acts of aggression are above a leader’s authority. In this case, the Bush Administration.
15 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Bush Administration Lawsu...