Breaking, then changing the Laws. Can they do that?

[Philosoraptor]

I guess they can if no one stops them. It looks as if all sorts of war crimes were committed by the neocons, and now that its all coming out, they are trying to change the laws AFTER they've been broken.

Wouldn't it make more sense to change the laws, THEN break them? Then you wouldn't even have broken a law, but how can one break the law, THEN change it to avoid prosecution?

I wish I could do that don't you?

[Skidmore]

1. They can't and there was a legal reason for this on another thread

in the past couple of days. If they would succeed it would be because of a combination of corrupt judges and an in different citizenry--the same combination that lead to the Supreme Court deciding the 2000 election, as far as I'm concerned.

[sutz12]

2. No problem....

it's only in the Constitution....you know, the prohibition against "ex post facto" laws in article 9 clause 3.

Just a scrap of paper. No problem.

:sarcasm:

[Journeyman]

3. No. Why would I want to be a lawbreaker . . .

and place myself outside the comity of the social contract? Why debase the value of my life and that of those I love? For a temporary gain, a Machiavellian advantage that would ultimately prove ephemeral? Where's the personal and social enrichment in that?

[Robbien]

4. Turn that around. What laws are they actually following? None.

When you have a one party rule, no one in power needs to pay attention to any laws.

[flordehinojos]

5. this question somehow makes me think of that story of the

mouse and the elephant in which the mouse scares the elephant to death. Bush being the rat that he is having power over an easily manipulate court, an easily manipulated senate, an easily manipulated press.

and, as long as the rat terrorizes the people who are supposed to, and should, stop him no one is going to stop him.

[fasttense]

6. I asked this same question in another post.

If they can change the law after they have broken the law, could we repeal the law that protects them? Someone wrote in and said that their war crimes would not be tried under US law and that the "retroactive" law is illegal anyway. Hitler would not have been tried in Germany, what Hitler did was legal in Germany.

[acmejack]

7. The Tyrant doesn't follow the laws in the first place.

We cannot allow him the shelter of changed laws to counbtenance his outrageous conduct. Bind him over for trial! He is admitting he knows he did wrong!