Is George W. Bush's Impeachment Legally Justified?

  • News
  • Thread starter Amp1
  • Start date
In summary, a book by the Center for Constitutional Rights presents a clear and objective discussion on the legal arguments for impeaching President George W. Bush. The book outlines four separate articles of impeachment, including charges of warrantless surveillance, misleading Congress on the reasons for the Iraq war, violating laws against torture, and subverting the Constitution's separation of powers. The book also provides a history of impeachment, explanation of its procedures, and previous articles of impeachment brought against Presidents Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton. While there is growing support for impeachment, some argue that it would be a political lynching.
  • #1
Amp1
From China the times forum, this is of interest to me as I saw other articles somewhere else. This one; however, takes into account some more recent events.
:bugeye:
Book Description
IS THERE REALLY A LEGAL CASE AGAINST GEORGE W. BUSH?
Saying aloud what’s being said behind the scenes in the corridors of power. . .

In these highly-charged political times, it is the word that dare not speak its name: impeachment. Democrats and other opponents of the President, as well as people in the media, are afraid to raise the topic for fear of being called too partisan or extreme.

But the startling revelation of the President’s warrantless wiretapping campaign may be the straw that broke the camel's back: In the halls of Congress and on the front pages of a growing number of mainstream periodicals, impeachment is being discussed more and more openly. And many leading constitutional scholars agree: there has never been so strong a case for impeachment since Richard Nixon.

In a gripping new book, one of our nation's leading institutions of constitutional scholarship, the Center for Constitutional Rights, sets out the legal arguments for impeachment in a clear, concise, and objective discussion. In four separate articles of impeachment detailing four separate charges –warrantless surveillance, misleading Congress on the reasons for the Iraq war, violating laws against torture, and subverting the Constitution’s separation of powers – it is, say the CCR attorneys, a case of black letter law, with abundant evidence.

ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST GEORGE W. BUSH details that evidence, the relevant laws and the legal precedents. It also explains what the Constitution says about impeachment – an informative discussion further illuminated by supplemental material that includes a history of impeachment, explanation of its procedures, and the previous articles of impeachment brought against Presidents Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton.

With leading Republicans calling for investigations of the domestic spying campaign, a special prosecutor investigating the suppression of evidence used to launch the Iraq war, and hearings on innumerable instances of torture, ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST GEORGE W. BUSH may be more timely than any of us would like to admit.

About the Author
Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights demonstrators in the South, the Center for Constitutional Rights is a non-profit legal and educational organization dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Most recently CCR has filed a case against the President and NSA for warrantless wiretapping.

I think I know who would agree and who would disagree with this. I really just want to know what some of your reasons for or against this are.
And should a special prosecutor (in the image of Ken Starr) be impowered to investigate. :cool:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Here are some sites, mind you just a sample:

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0552,ridgeway,71265,2.html

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0552,ridgeway,71265,2.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff01092006.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush

http://www.vermontguardian.com/loca...l: [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/

Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? * 222,843 responses


Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.
86%


No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors."
4%


No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching.
8%


I don't know.
2%


http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/

http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=%5CPolitics%5Carchive%5C200602%5CPOL20060217a.html

http://www.impeachbush.tv/

Related to above:

http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/bystate.html

http://www.impeachpac.org/

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0910-01.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/030306bushimpeachment.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
Wow, you guys are staying away from this one. I know it is a hot potato issue. And I can't shake the feeling that the reason PF has been crashing or crashed is due to some of the debates that go on here, specifically when they have to do with Bushco.
 
  • #4
I didn't believe Clinton's activities warranted impeachment.

I don't know law to say whether Bush acted illegally on the wire taps.

I would think "fixing intelligence" (whatever that means) to the American people and other branches of congress, in order to invade a foreign country, is a worse offense than what appears to be a questionable reading of the constitution. If he were impeached, I would hope that the reasons surrounding invading Iraq were brought into it.
 
  • #5
Amp1 said:
MSNBC poll: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/

Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? * 222,843 responses


Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.
86%


No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors."
4%


No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching.
8%


I don't know.
2%
Just as a reality check, MSNBC's explanation about their live votes and surveys: About our Live Votes and surveys - How 1,000 people can be more representative than 200,000
I would concede one thing - an impeachment of Bush is more justified than Clinton's impeachment was. At least a Bush impeachment would be for an issue that actually mattered.

I still think impeachment would be wrong.

(Why didn't they have a "No, impeachment would just be a political lynching of the village idiot" option?)
 
  • #6
BobG said:
Just as a reality check, MSNBC's explanation about their live votes and surveys: About our Live Votes and surveys - How 1,000 people can be more representative than 200,000
I would concede one thing - an impeachment of Bush is more justified than Clinton's impeachment was. At least a Bush impeachment would be for an issue that actually mattered.

I still think impeachment would be wrong.

(Why didn't they have a "No, impeachment would just be a political lynching of the village idiot" option?)
A private citizen has the right to behave as the village idiot with impunity but when the president of the US behaves like one and causes the deaths of others then he should be held accountable.
 
  • #7
Art said:
A private citizen has the right to behave as the village idiot with impunity but when the president of the US behaves like one and causes the deaths of others then he should be held accountable.

You're referring to Waco?
 
  • #8
That is relevant, and point taken BobG.
Just as a reality check, MSNBC's explanation about their live votes and surveys: About our Live Votes and surveys - How 1,000 people can be more representative than 200,000
It depends on who is polled. The numbers are interesting in that I don't think it is as misrepresentative as the types of audiences typically picked for speeches by Bush and Cheney.
 
  • #9
After reading a bit and a half of the outright lies and bungling by Bush I think he should be impeached ASAP. This is really disconcerting and I really knew nothing about it until I read this (though I had heard/read about weapons being looted from storage sites I didn't know it was from the sites the inspectors had control of):
Though enhancement of the threat of terror and proliferation was anticipated, the invasion did so even in unanticipated ways. It is common to say that no WMD were found in Iraq after exhaustive search. That is not quite accurate, however. There were stores of WMD in Iraq: namely, those produced in the 1980s, thanks to aid provided by the US and Britain, along with others. These sites had been secured by UN inspectors, who were dismantling the weapons. But the inspectors were dismissed by the invaders and the sites were left unguarded. The inspectors nevertheless continued to carry out their work with satellite imagery. They discovered sophisticated massive looting of these installations in over 100 sites, including equipment for producing solid and liquid propellant missiles, biotoxins and other materials usable for chemical and biological weapons, and high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear and chemical weapons and missiles. A Jordanian journalist was informed by officials in charge of the Jordanian-Iraqi border that after US-UK forces took over, radioactive materials were detected in one of every eight trucks crossing to Jordan, destination unknown. The ironies are almost inexpressible.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/06/09/international2202EDT0830.DTL

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4108755
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related to Is George W. Bush's Impeachment Legally Justified?

What does "This is probably a repeat, but" mean?

It means that the topic or information being discussed has most likely been mentioned before or is a common topic that has been discussed multiple times.

Why is the phrase "This is probably a repeat, but" commonly used?

This phrase is often used to acknowledge that the information may not be new or original, but it is still relevant and worth discussing again.

Is it necessary to mention "This is probably a repeat, but" before sharing information?

No, it is not necessary. However, it can be a polite way to acknowledge that the information may not be new to everyone and to avoid any potential misunderstandings.

How can one avoid repeating information while still acknowledging it?

One way is to briefly mention that the information has been discussed before or is a common topic, and then focus on adding new insights or perspectives to the discussion.

As a scientist, is it important to avoid repeating information?

Yes, it is important to avoid repeating information in order to contribute to the progress and advancement of knowledge in a particular field. However, it is also important to acknowledge and build upon existing information in order to further develop ideas and theories.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
3
Replies
88
Views
12K
  • General Discussion
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Back
Top