News Impeach Bush/Cheney: Take Action Now!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Astronuc
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the perceived corruption of high-ranking officials, particularly President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, with calls for their removal from office. Participants express a desire to hold these individuals accountable for actions such as misleading Congress regarding the Iraq war and other alleged misconduct. Specific charges suggested include malfeasance, high crimes, and misleading Congress about the reasons for war. The Plame affair is mentioned as a potential avenue for charges against Cheney. The conversation also touches on the impeachment process, comparing Bush and Cheney's actions to past impeachments, particularly that of Bill Clinton, emphasizing the political nature of impeachment and the challenges of achieving it in a Republican-controlled Congress. Participants argue that the severity of Bush's actions warrants serious legal consequences, including potential treason for misleading the public about the Iraq war. The discussion reflects a strong sentiment for accountability and reform in government, with some advocating for a revolutionary change rather than just impeachment.
  • #61
Skyhunter said:
Nixon resigned before the accusation was formulated, whatever that means in US law. I think the technicality is that the House had not brought formal charges, although one might argue that impeachment proceedings had definitely already begun.
Clinton and Johnson were both impeached, tried, and acquitted.
http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html
Then there is a splitting of hairs: "An impeachment trial may result in either an acquittal or in a verdict of guilty. In the latter case the impeached official is removed from office." Note the word "trial" and if acquitted (found not guilty), impeachment then means nothing.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
SOS2008 said:
Then there is a splitting of hairs: "An impeachment trial may result in either an acquittal or in a verdict of guilty. In the latter case the impeached official is removed from office." Note the word "trial" and if acquitted (found not guilty), impeachment then means nothing.
Exactly. Just like indictment, it means that a formal accusation has been made. Legally there is a point where the indictment, is made formal.

Impeachment is for a trial by the Senate to remove a president from office. Indictment is for a criminal trial.

Nixon wasn't technically impeached, he resigned because he knew that if tried, he would not be acquitted.
 
  • #63
SOS2008 said:
...impeachment then means nothing.

If the law of the land, the US Constitution, means nothing than you are correct. I thought the `founders’ would have omitted items of little consequence.

Never the less, spin it as you may, Clinton was impeached.

Re: Nixon, the House never voted on “The Articles of Impeachment” referred to the floor by the Committee by a 23-17 vote, hardly a convincing majority. Many committee recommendations go to the floor with negative results. We will never know what the vote may have been.

I witnessed first hand the national tumult caused by the desire to impeach a president. I had to fire an engineer who could not unglue his eyes from a TV tuned to the Congressional hearings in the employee lounge. It serves no good purpose to impeach a president for the reasons thus far used.

Chirac may be indicted after he leaves office, it seems even the French know enough to avoid disrupting the government.


.
 
  • #64
SOS2008 said:
Do you really believe the only thing Dubya has done wrong is be an idiot or jerk?
He's also a poor speaker.

SOS, if you think he's done something criminal, by all means, answer the question I posted: what should the charges be?

All this talk about Clinton is pointless. Regardless of whether or not it was just a political ploy, there were still charges! So I'm asking: what should the charges against Bush be? Since no one has given any, I must assume that you guys just want to impeach him out of spite, not because you actually think he comitted "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Edit: and I love how going for factual accuracy is splitting of hairs. Even better that finding the factual answer to a Constitutional question makes people go to news articles instead of the Constitution. :rolleyes:
Clause 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Ie, voting to hold the trial means that Clinton was impeached. He just wasn't convicted.

As already said, "impeached" is a synonym for "indicted", with the House taking the place of the grand jury, and working in pretty much the same way. The Senate's vote is the trial and it doesn't overturn the impeachment, since there isn't anything to overturn - it's just a formal bringing of charges/accusation.

So, again, the fact: two presidents were impeached: Clinton and Johnson.
 
Last edited:
  • #65
You Americans may discuss the real meaning of these terms until you're blue. For the rest of the world, Clinton was innocent and Nixon was a crook and there is nothing you can change about that view.
 
  • #66
GENIERE said:
Chirac may be indicted after he leaves office, it seems even the French know enough to avoid disrupting the government.
.

Your wishful thinking fools you again Geniere.
 
  • #67
russ_watters said:
He's also a poor speaker.

SOS, if you think he's done something criminal, by all means, answer the question I posted: what should the charges be? All this talk about Clinton is pointless. Regardless of whether or not it was just a political ploy, there were still charges! So I'm asking: what should the charges against Bush be? Since no one has given any, I must assume that you guys just want to impeach him out of spite, not because you actually think he comitted "high crimes and misdemeanors.".
This has been addressed above (if you read the whole thread, I was merely quoting websites). Nonetheless, the matter of charges has been answered in many threads—the breaking of international and U.S. laws for a starter. But I agree all this talk about Clinton is pointless in that Whitewater does not compare to Watergate, and certainly not to misuse of our military that has resulted in loss of nearly 2,000 American lives so far.
russ_watters said:
Edit: and I love how going for factual accuracy is splitting of hairs. Even better that finding the factual answer to a Constitutional question makes people go to news articles instead of the Constitution. :rolleyes: Ie, voting to hold the trial means that Clinton was impeached. He just wasn't convicted.

As already said, "impeached" is a synonym for "indicted", with the House taking the place of the grand jury, and working in pretty much the same way. The Senate's vote is the trial and it doesn't overturn the impeachment, since there isn't anything to overturn - it's just a formal bringing of charges/accusation.
Well of course when it comes to definitions you are elated, but unfortunately you are defending the misuse of the term. Clinton-haters constantly use the word impeachment to convey conviction--they know it, and we all know it. They sure as heck don't go around saying he was "charged and acquitted." I'm tired of the propagandistic spin.
Mercator said:
You Americans may discuss the real meaning of these terms until you're blue. For the rest of the world, Clinton was innocent and Nixon was a crook and there is nothing you can change about that view.
True.
 
  • #68
SOS2008 said:
This has been addressed above (if you read the whole thread, I was merely quoting websites). Nonetheless, the matter of charges has been answered in many threads—the breaking of international and U.S. laws for a starter.
And yet, I'm still waiting... Once again, you have alluded to crimes, but you haven't specified any. That's what this whole thread has been about! Ie: "breaking of...U.S. laws..." Great! Tell me which laws?
Well of course when it comes to definitions you are elated, but unfortunately you are defending the misuse of the term. Clinton-haters constantly use the word impeachment to convey conviction--they know it, and we all know it. They sure as heck don't go around saying he was "charged and acquitted." I'm tired of the propagandistic spin.
Huh? You want to reread that and, perhaps, correct it? Or do you just still not understand that "impeachment" is what the House did and "acquittal" is what the Senate did? They are separate acts: Clinton was both impeached and acquitted. It's just too funny, SOS: you are accusing people of using the word in the factually inaccurate way that you are using it! I know Clinton wasn't convicted. I say he was impeached and I mean he was impeached!

Smurf, I don't fault you for not knowing - it is a subtlety and a great many people missed it at first when it happened. But now that you do know, don't assume everyone else is making the same mistake.
 
Last edited:
  • #69
In essence Clintons impeachment became irrelevant the moment he was acquitted. Why does the right feel that they have to bring it up to defend Bush?

The charges against Clinton were for lying about something most men would lie about. The whole multimillion dollar witch hunt was aimed at finding anything on Clinton, not a specific incident. When nothing could be found in the area of the original investigation, Kenneth Starr was allowed to move on to another, then another.

Neither Bush or his Administration could stand up to that kind of in depth scrutiny and I mean in depth scrutiny. Cheney was allowed to keep secret the names of the persons who attended his "national energy policy meeting". The administation even opposed having a 9/11 commission. Hell eveything is a secret in the Bush administration.

But when the effects of the secrets start to adversly affect true national security and violate federal law, as in the Plame incident, it is time to pull off the veil and take a close look at the truth.

Sadly that will never happen. Every thing this administration has done has been carfully and deliberately wrapped in secrecy and cloaked with the flag.

The Bush administration has removed from the public domain millions of pages of information on health, safety, and environmental matters, lowering a shroud of secrecy over many critical operations of the federal government.

The administration's efforts to shield the actions of, and the information held by, the executive branch are far more extensive than has been previously documented. And they reach well beyond security issues.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/usinfo/press/secrecy.htm

The Bush Administration has even coverd it's behind for the future by changing The Presidential records Act.

Historians and others who have seen the proposed order called it unprecedented and said it would turn the 1978 Presidential Records Act on its head by allowing such materials to be kept secret "in perpetuity."

Under the order, incumbent and former presidents "could keep their records locked up for as long as they want," said Bruce Craig, executive director of the National Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of History. "It reverses the very premise of the Presidential Records Act, which provides for a systematic release of presidential records after 12 years."

Other critics voiced concern about the impact of the order "in the post-September 11 world," with its wartime atmosphere.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A20731-2001Oct31

Even historians will be blocked from ever finding what was within the vast secrecy of the Bush administration.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #70
edward said:
Why does the right feel that they have to bring it up to defend Bush?
Scroll back to page 1 and check who brought Clinton's impeachment up and why. :rolleyes:

And in all due deference to the many liberals and foreigners who wanted to discuss Clinton (and Nixon and Johnson), historical precident is relevant. Ie, if they can show that Clinton's impeachment was just a political shenanegan, then that's all that is needed and Bush could be impeached under the same criteria. The problem with that, of course (not claiming anyone missed this), is that the republicans control the House, so a purely political impeachment is unlikely.

edit:...which is why I keep asking about actual crimes. Since a purely political impeachment is unlikely, there needs to be some decent evidence of actual crimes being comitted. Hence, I'm harping on people specifying actual crimes Bush comitted.

edit2: ...and if there is good enough evidence of it, and with his popularity low, Republicans in Congress will abandon him if they think it'll help them retain their seats.
 
Last edited:
  • #71
russ_watters said:
Huh? You want to reread that and, perhaps, correct it? Or do you just still not understand that "impeachment" is what the House did and "acquittal" is what the Senate did? They are separate acts: Clinton was both impeached and acquitted. It's just too funny, SOS: you are accusing people of using the word in the factually inaccurate way that you are using it! I know Clinton wasn't convicted. I say he was impeached and I mean he was impeached!
So everyone admits that there is confusion over what impeachment means, and the confusion is understandable. Why not also admit that most people say it or take it to mean conviction, and admit to the problem of perpetuating this inaccuracy?

Regarding the current administration - it is against international (and US law) to attack a country without provocation. The claims of WMD were pushing this envelope due to lack of clear and present danger. Then when WMD were not found, there was no question the US had violated these laws. The argument that intelligence was faulty is like arguing you did not see the signal, but you ran the red light and broke the law just the same. And of course the popular method of vindication is to change the laws (e.g., DeLay changing ethics committee rules), thus the sudden embracement of the neocon vision and the Bush Doctrine. When the world still did not buy into the legality of preemptive strikes, the reason soon became regime change, which interestingly enough also is illegal.

And like the crime of murder, there are various degrees with premeditation being the first degree. The Downing Street Memos showed premeditation to deceive congress and the American people, then inappropriately diverting funds, unnecessarily placing troops in harms way, etc., etc. Add to that the Plame leak, and you have acts of treason. And you ask why people believe there is cause for impeachment? Come on man, stop with the coy little games.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #72
russ_watters said:
Scroll back to page 1 and check who brought Clinton's impeachment up and why. :rolleyes:
And in all due deference to the many liberals and foreigners who wanted to discuss Clinton (and Nixon and Johnson), historical precident is relevant. Ie, if they can show that Clinton's impeachment was just a political shenanegan, then that's all that is needed and Bush could be impeached under the same criteria. The problem with that, of course (not claiming anyone missed this), is that the republicans control the House, so a purely political impeachment is unlikely.
edit:...which is why I keep asking about actual crimes. Since a purely political impeachment is unlikely, there needs to be some decent evidence of actual crimes being comitted. Hence, I'm harping on people specifying actual crimes Bush comitted.

If "actual crimes" were known and could be proven Bush would be long gone.
Finding an impeachable offence within the administrations cavernous labarinth of secrecy is most likely quite impossible, unless someone from the inner circle steps forward.
 
Last edited:
  • #73
edward said:
If "actual crimes" were known and could be proven Bush would be long gone.
Finding an impeachable offence within the administrations cavernous labarinth of secrecy is most likely quite impossible, unless someone from the inner circle steps forward.
I agree. It appears that some folk here are suggesting that Bush must be proven guilty before he can be impeached and tried by the senate and as folk cannot provide that proof he should be left alone.

I would have thought the normal course of events would be, suspicion a crime has been committed, followed by an investigation and then if warranted charges brought and finally conviction or acquittal by the senate.

There is certainly widespread suspicion and circumstantial evidence that a crime has been committed so I'd have thought that following precedent it is now time to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate and report to congress to see if Bush should be impeached.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #74
Informal Logic said:
So everyone admits that there is confusion over what impeachment means, and the confusion is understandable. Why not also admit that most people say it or take it to mean conviction, and admit to the problem of perpetuating this inaccuracy?
Because that would be a delusion. Since conviction automatically means removal, for someone to say that Clinton was convicted would be the same as saying he was removed from office, and clearly he wasn't.

It's a catch-22: a Republican simply can't use the word incorrectly when talking about Clinton because if he doesn't know the definition, he wouldn't use the word because he'd believe he would be incorrect to use it and if he knows the definition, he'd be right to use it!
edward said:
If "actual crimes" were known and could be proven Bush would be long gone.
Art said:
I agree.
That is exactly my point.

Props to both of you for being forthcoming about that.
I would have thought the normal course of events would be, suspicion a crime has been committed, followed by an investigation and then if warranted charges brought and finally conviction or acquittal by the senate.
Yes, and so far the Democrats in power have not seen fit to make noise about that or push for widespread investigations. Any opinion on why that is?
 
Last edited:
  • #75
russ_watters said:
Yes, and so far the Democrats in power have not seen fit to make noise about that or push for widespread investigations. Any opinion on why that is?
Democrats in power?:confused:

Where?

If Bush is to be impeached, it will be because of what is revealed by Fitzgerald's investigation, which in turn might lead to some Republicans gaining a conscience and sense of duty to their country and launching a more widespread investigation into the conduct of this administration.

Democrats can not even have a Congressional hearing let alone an investigation into the Downing Street memo. They are certainly not going to be allowed to bring articles of impeachment against Bush.

What do you suggest they do?

Use their 5 minutes or whatever when they can address the congress on any topic to call for investigations?

There are currently no legal grounds that I am aware of to impeach Bush. This, IMO would change if Congress would launch an investigation. Even though many would say it is a waste, even nailing them for obstructing justice would be a blow for justice. There is a difference of many degrees between trying to hide an extra-marital affair, and trying to cover up the outing of a covert operative. Obstructing justice, when the crime is possibly treason is orders of magnitude more injurious to the Nation.

The whole issue of impeachment is tied to A Republican prosecutor and what he and the Grand jury have discovered.

[edit]My mistake, Fitzgerald is apolitical, I heard that when he found out that "Independent" was a political party he declined to register as an independent.[/edit]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #76
Mercator said:
Your wishful thinking fools you again Geniere.

Well I always believe Al Jazeerah!

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2004%20opinions/Feb/1%20o/The%20Verdict%20on%20Jupp,%20Arab%20News.htm

“…If however the president seeks to protect himself by protecting his political protégé Juppé, their patience may well run out. A rescue attempt for Juppé would further compromise Chirac himself and increase the already strong probability of indictment if he leaves the Elysée at the next election in 2007 when he is 74. On the other hand, if he now leaves well enough alone, pressure for prosecution may ease in the next three years…”
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #77
russ_watters said:
Once again, you have alluded to crimes, but you haven't specified any. That's what this whole thread has been about! Ie: "breaking of...U.S. laws..." Great! Tell me which laws? Huh?
Now that I have some time to respond, let's start at the beginning:

1) Election Fraud – 2000: Think Florida, which Bush won by a measly 537 votes, which gave him 25 Electoral College votes, which gave him the Presidency. Think of poorly designed butterfly ballots, his Florida campaign manager Republican Secretary of State Kathleen Harris and his brother Governor Jeb Bush. Think 57,700 voters removed from the rolls (it’s estimated that 90% of them were Democratic).

2) Violation of International and U.S. laws: According to our Constitution, International Treaties are part of the "supreme Law of the Land". Bush's violations of the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Charter are, therefore, impeachable offenses.

3) Lying under oath of office: Bush and his team consistently lied to Congress and the American Public about the rationale for war.

4) Gross abuse of authority, including illegal special favors for Enron and others. Dick Cheney is in violation of a court order by refusing to divulge what went on in meetings with Enron and other energy companies. Thwarting investigations by the FBI into the September 11th bombing, conspiracy to conceal evidence in the airplane crash of Paul Wellstone., etc.

An explanation of the grounds for impeachment was given in a recent memo to Rep. Conyers from attorney Bonifaz. Among the preliminary formal charges made against the Bush administration as proposed by Clark include the following allegations that:

President Bush fabricated evidence regarding Iraq's threat to the United States in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, specifically, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction;
1) President Bush violated various sections of the United States Constitution and Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
2) President Bush committed crimes relating to "bribery and coercion of individuals and governments;"
3) President Bush has concealed "information vital to public discussion and informed judgment;" and
4) President Bush has caused or is responsible for assassinations, torture, and indefinite detentions such as the Camp X-Ray, Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, Bagram torture and prisoner abuse, desecration of the Qur'an at Guantánamo Bay and other such matters including the persecution of U.S. and non-U.S. Muslims.
5) President Bush has violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution on numerous occassions with the prohibitive measures on any protests or marches by the people of the United States.

Many activists charge that Bush committed obstruction of Congress, a felony under 18 U.S.C. 1001, by withholding information and by supplying information Bush should have known to be incorrect in his States of the Union speeches. This law is comparable to perjury, but it does not require that the statements be made under oath. Martha Stewart recently went to prison for violating this law by making false statements to investigators. Caspar Weinberger was indicted under this law in relation to his involvement in the Iran-Contra affair, but he escaped prosecution by being pardoned by Bush's father.

A number of legislators, journalists, bloggers and citizen activist groups see the heretofore secret Downing Street memo as proof that Bush was willingly and knowingly untruthful about Iraq's possession of WMDs, and had lied in the year (2002) leading up to the Iraqi Invasion of 2003, and that the president intentionally planned to invade Iraq regardless of the whether or not Iraq has any such weapons. Congressional democrats sponsored both a request for documents and a resolution of inquiry. The minority party does not have subpoenas power, and therefore cannot force the production of documents.

Patrick Fitzgerald, the Special prosecutor investigating the Plame affair has subpoenaed phone records made from Air Force One, and the court filings in support of these subpoena's have alleged "serious breaches of security." The closeness of Karl Rove and Scooter Libby to the president and vice-president respectively has led Frank Rich to draw comparisons to Watergate in recent columns.

Official Democratic Party organizations, including the DCCC and the DSCC have used phrases such as "worse than Watergate" and accusing Bush and the Republicans of "abuse of power". The latter phrase is significant because "abuse of power" was the meaning attached to the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the Constitution's impeachment standard by the Congress in the Impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon. To date, neither organization has endorsed impeachment explicitly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush#Charges

Some folks also feel the Patriot Act is in violation of the constitution, and could be another impeachable offense.
 
  • #78
SOS2008 said:
Now that I have some time to respond, let's start at the beginning:
1) Election Fraud – 2000: Think Florida, which Bush won by a measly 537 votes, which gave him 25 Electoral College votes, which gave him the Presidency. Think of poorly designed butterfly ballots, his Florida campaign manager Republican Secretary of State Kathleen Harris and his brother Governor Jeb Bush. Think 57,700 voters removed from the rolls (it’s estimated that 90% of them were Democratic).
2) Violation of International and U.S. laws: According to our Constitution, International Treaties are part of the "supreme Law of the Land". Bush's violations of the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Charter are, therefore, impeachable offenses.
3) Lying under oath of office: Bush and his team consistently lied to Congress and the American Public about the rationale for war.
4) Gross abuse of authority, including illegal special favors for Enron and others. Dick Cheney is in violation of a court order by refusing to divulge what went on in meetings with Enron and other energy companies. Thwarting investigations by the FBI into the September 11th bombing, conspiracy to conceal evidence in the airplane crash of Paul Wellstone., etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush#Charges
Some folks also feel the Patriot Act is in violation of the constitution, and could be another impeachable offense.

On the international front, you have the http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/kbpact.htm" Which was used to prosecute people like Tojo after WWII for crimes against peace.

And we all know what happened to the Japanese 'Class A' War criminals ...

Get the rope.

Oh, and you will notice Kellogg-Briand originated with the President of the USA and has never been repealed as a treaty.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #79
I guess I need to stick in my two cents!:biggrin:

Russ, you have asked for specific charges and here they are according to Clark:
Articles of Impeachment
of
President George W. Bush
and
Vice President Richard B. Cheney,
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and
Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. - - ARTICLE II, SECTION 4 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Attorney General John David Ashcroft have committed violations and subversions of the Constitution of the United States of America in an attempt to carry out with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes and deprivations of the civil rights of the people of the United States and other nations, by assuming powers of an imperial executive unaccountable to law and usurping powers of the Congress, the Judiciary and those reserved to the people of the United States, by the following acts:

1) Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law;
carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of tens of thousands of Iraqis, and hundreds of U.S. G.I.s.

2) Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war.

3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties were unavoidable.

4) Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently changing its government by force and assaulting Iraq in a war of aggression.

5) Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, kidnappings, secret and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of prisoners to obtain false statements concerning acts and intentions of governments and individuals and violating within the United States, and by authorizing U.S. forces and agents elsewhere, the rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

6) Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda about the conduct of foreign governments and individuals and acts by U.S. government personnel; manipulating the media and foreign governments with false information; concealing information vital to public
discussion and informed judgment concerning acts, intentions and possession, or efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction in order to falsely create a climate of fear and destroy opposition to U.S. wars of aggression and first strike attacks.

7) Violations and subversions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, both a part of the "Supreme Law of the land" under Article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, in an attempt to commit with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes in wars and
threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and others and usurping powers of the United Nations and the peoples of its nations by bribery, coercion and other corrupt acts and by rejecting treaties, committing treaty violations, and frustrating compliance with treaties in order to destroy
any means by which international law and institutions can prevent, affect, or adjudicate the exercise of U.S. military and economic power against the international community.

8) Acting to strip United States citizens of their constitutional and human rights, ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to counsel, without charge, and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the Executive of a citizen as an "enemy combatant."

9) Ordering indefinite detention of non-citizens in the United States and elsewhere, and without charge, at the discretionary designation of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Defense.

10) Ordering and authorizing the Attorney General to override judicial orders of release of detainees under INS jurisdiction, even where the judicial officer after full hearing determines a detainee is wrongfully held by the government.

11) Authorizing secret military tribunals and summary execution of persons who are not citizens who are designated solely at the discretion of the Executive who acts as indicting official, prosecutor and as the only avenue of appellate relief.

12) Refusing to provide public disclosure of the identities and locations of persons who have been arrested, detained and imprisoned by the U.S. government in the United States, including in response to Congressional inquiry.

13) Use of secret arrests of persons within the United States and elsewhere and denial of the right to public trials.

14) Authorizing the monitoring of confidential attorney-client privileged communications by the government, even in the absence of a court order and even where an incarcerated person has not been charged with a crime.

15) Ordering and authorizing the seizure of assets of persons in the United States, prior to hearing or trial, for lawful or innocent association with any entity that at the discretionary designation of the Executive has been deemed "terrorist."

16) Institutionalization of racial and religious profiling and authorization of domestic spying by federal law enforcement on persons based on their engagement in noncriminal religious and political activity.

17) Refusal to provide information and records necessary and appropriate for the constitutional right of legislative oversight of executive functions.

18) Rejecting treaties protective of peace and human rights and abrogation of the obligations of the United States under, and withdrawal from, international treaties and obligations without consent of the legislative branch, and including termination of the ABM treaty between the United States and Russia, and rescission of the authorizing signature from the Treaty of Rome which served as the basis for the International Criminal Court.
http://www.votetoimpeach.org/


This list does not even include what Fitzgerald will probably lay on this administration. So you can guess that list does get longer. BTW, outing Plame could carry the death penalty! That was a law enacted by Bush Sr. It is a strange small world up there in D.C, isn't it?

My suggestion would be to not put any faith in politicians, if they didn't have that wealth behind them they would all probably be petty criminals.

Oh yeah, who cares what Clinton did? How is that even remotely relevent? IMHO, it only provides a partisan distraction to the matter at hand!

We'll have to wait and see what the specific charges will actually be when it does come to pass!

This has been a long time coming!:bugeye:
 
  • #80
Oh, yes ... and what was the CIA doing in Italy kidnapping people, chucking them on a plane and spiriting them off to Egypt for 'Extrordianry Rendition'?

Doncha' love that phrase? :!)

Let's see ... Clinton = BJ ... Bush = Kidnap and torture.

Anybody here see the difference? One requires a handywipe and a 'Shout' Sachet the other a firing squad.
 
Last edited:
  • #81
And there is a possiblity of a civil suit by the Wilsons.
 
  • #82
I read the list of charges at votetoimpeach.org, and most are pretty weak, particularly the violations of international law. The question is whether they fall under the definition of an impeachable offense.

As for violations "First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments", technically they only apply to US citizens, especially after the Patriot act.

I would agree that the Bush Administration has subverted the Constitution.

The indefinite detention and torture certainly would seem to be grounds for impeachable offenses - they would seem to constitute high crimes.

Some folks also feel the Patriot Act is in violation of the constitution, and could be another impeachable offense.
Congress produced the legislation and the President signed it. Congress would have to impeach itself if they went after Bush for that. Actually, I think Congress should resign en masse, and no incumbent should run for office in 2006+.

President Bush fabricated evidence regarding Iraq's threat to the United States in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, specifically, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction
Actually another congress person has mentioned this.

As for torture, assassination, kidnapping, . . . Bush does not have a declaration of war from congress, so technically the US is not at war. On the other hand, like so many times in the past, the US government has military and paramilitary (mercenary) units in Afghanistan and Iraq. The use of paramilitary is very problematic because they do things outside the law, such as kidnapping and torture, and that seems to be endorsed by the Bush administration since they set it up.
 
  • #83
I still think we need an investigation before there is enough evidence to impeach. To get a congressional investigation we need Republicans to call for it, Democrats will get nowhere without some bi-partisan support.

The reason Clinton's impeachment is being brought up is because the republican talking points are that perjury and obstruction of justice are secondary charges to justify 2 years of investigations that lead to nothing. Unfortunately for them their statements during the Clinton impeachment are exactly the opposite.
 
  • #84
Skyhunter said:
I still think we need an investigation before there is enough evidence to impeach. To get a congressional investigation we need Republicans to call for it, Democrats will get nowhere without some bi-partisan support.
This is the point made time and again whenever I read anything on the topic. After Katrina, people could see the incompetence at the minimum, and with the array of scandal, corruption at the maximum. Many have decided we can't afford three more years of this (including some Republicans). They are signing petitions, writing their Congressmen, etc. Do we have a republic with representation or not? Perhaps this is the real question here.
 
  • #85
SOS2008 said:
This is the point made time and again whenever I read anything on the topic. After Katrina, people could see the incompetence at the minimum, and with the array of scandal, corruption at the maximum. Many have decided we can't afford three more years of this (including some Republicans). They are signing petitions, writing their Congressmen, etc. Do we have a republic with representation or not? Perhaps this is the real question here.
Bingo.

Activism by the voting public will get results, especially leading into an election year. Look at how fast they backed off of PBS when a petition received over a million signatures in 24 hours. (a record)

Writing or emailing your representative, is extremely important, it helps them to know what their constituency is concerned about. Even when they do what you want, let em know, having the support of your constituents makes it easier for elected officials to take tough positions, because they know it is what the people they represent want.

My representatives are Congresswoman Barbara Lee, (The only member of Congress to vote against invading Afghanistan) Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein. My guess is that they will support a move to impeach.
I still let them know what I think at least once a week. Especially Dianne, I agree with her less than with the other two.

I for one will participate November 2nd in "The World Can't Wait for 2008! Drive out the Bush Regime!" protests.

If you want to find out what Bushco has been up to, write/email your representatives and demand a little congressional oversight!

If you want to demonstrate your seriousness, don't go to work or school on November 2nd.

This is still our government, let's take back control. If we exercise the "of the people, by the people" aspects of our government the "for the people" aspect will be returned.
 
  • #86
Where have all the Red States gone?

http://mydd.com/story/2006/5/15/202917/008 is the latest county by county, State by State map based on the latest polls.

I am not sure that running away from Bush is going to help the Republicans much in the mid-terms. It appears that the American people have figured out that the Emperor really is naked. It won't take much to show them that the Republican controlled Congress has been complicit in Bush's agenda, and has failed to provide oversight.

Pelosi is saying that the House won't impeach if the Dem's gain a majority. I believe that will change early in 2007, as soon as Congress starts exercising it's subpoena power and the sordid details of the lies told to engage us in this tragedy in Iraq become common knowledge. When the people learn the truth they will demand justice.

A Democratic House will vote to impeach. I think that the mood of the Country will compel a super majority of Senators to vote for removal from office.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #87
Skyhunter said:
http://mydd.com/story/2006/5/15/202917/008 is the latest county by county, State by State map based on the latest polls.

Err, there are no county-level approval polls! That map looks highly suspect.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #88
That's an estimate constructed by combining election results with that recent poll, Rach3.
 
  • #89
You mean they used an approval poll to make that map? :rolleyes:

edit: Apparently that's exactly what the idiot did. Someone tell all the fundamentalists who've turned against Bush, they are now statistically considered Democrats.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #90
Just to be clear, I didn't say it has any meaning, I just said that's how he did it. I think the author knows it is meaningless, too - he doesn't claim any meaning for it on that page, just explains how he made it. So I must conclude that the only meaning it has is that Democrats prefer the color blue to the color red. And blue being my favorite color - I like it too. :rolleyes:

It would be cool, though, if he could make one plaid.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 298 ·
10
Replies
298
Views
73K
  • · Replies 150 ·
6
Replies
150
Views
22K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K