If you lie while taking an Oath is it criminal?

You live in a class syestem - There are 2 laws one for the rich and the powerful and another for the rest of us

If you did it - It would be ilegal and so on and you would be put in jail

When Bush does it he is a hero for defending the freedom of Americans

I believe the above is true in that it is the reality we live in BUT I also think it is pure evil that it is allowed to happen

Two Laws Two America's both defined by you personel price tag - Upper and not upper class determines your rights and the law as in concerns you - Everthing that was fought against is now gone and I suspect it has been gone for while now

When Bush took office it was prior to the war. Also the oath is to uphold american law not international law of which the United States is guilty of. He justifies this my the terms of illegal combantants now there's a knew one since no war actually exists. He's basically violated or I should say the U.S. military has violated every amendment to the Geneva Convention then again illegal combantants aren't covered by the Geneva Convention.

I do agree with what you said if it was anybody else and we in a court of law would lie it would be perjury and jail time would be the consequence.

Ah, Presidents do not take an Oath to uphold the Law and the Virtue of the Law.

The Oath the President takes :

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Knowing about something does not make you an accessory after the fact.

Even if your assumptions were true (which I doubt) it would not lead to your conclusions.

And to answer your question, an Oath is a promise. You cannot lie when making a promise, but you can fail to keep your promise. The Oath of Office is puffery, so it would never be clear if someone broke that promise

While lieing under oath is called prejury, but there's always ways to get around the law. If you can jusitfied why you lie under oath, like for instance to save some people's life or another good reasonable cause, then you can get off, I have read lots of cases when people have commited prejury. But because they had good reasonable cause, they got off. So it really depends if they have good reasonable causes.

Yes, when the common man does it it is called perjury and it is punishable by imprisonment. When an elected official does it, high priced lawyers put a fancy spin on it and claim that their client "misinterpreted some facts" or "did not get the whole story" and he will usually walk.

What is it that people don't understand that the prisioners don't fall under the Geneva convention?So he did not lie,it would be nice if people such as yourself were more concerned as to the torture of Nick Berg and the others that were beheaded which you need to watch on www.michaelsavage.com and then tell me which is torture,water boarding and panties or cutting someones head off.Get real.Sick of these sympathizers for the terrorists right they dont have.Unfreaking real.

Clinton got by with it.....and still is.

The mild torture of terrorists was never deemed a crime. We stopped doing it because terrorists supporters raised so much hell about it.

They never complained about the be-headings of Americans.

nicely, there are a gaggle of questions here, so in my commonly used perverse way (not interior the DatelineSence) i'm going to respond to the lat one first. bill did his terrific to avert attesting below oath. He lost. Ther are 3 subjects in touch interior the testimony being required. a million)That this is public, so as that not basically the investigators, however the yankee people ahve the oppertunity to observe the demeanor of the respondents. The white abode has properly surmised that this would possibly not flow nicely for them. 2)that this is below oath, so as that the respondent could nicely be prosecuted in the event that they lie 3)that this is recorded, so as that comparisons between the testimony and the information being subpoena'ed could nicely be made. of direction, with an rather conservative terrific court docket in place, I actual have my doubts that the White abode willbe compelled to grant this testimony. there's no actual provision for "govt privilege" interior the form, so the project here is that compelling testimony might volume to one branch of the government interfereing with yet another branch. of direction, in the two the Nixon and Clinton circumstances, the Supremes (the court docket, not the 60's making a music group) rulled that compelling testimony did not violate the form, so the court docket might could desire to discover flaws in those judgements, to avert the testimony of White abode officers.

Yes, it's right here http://www.takebackthemedia.com/howtoimpeach.html