Impeachment?

Well here's 18 possible reasons:

Ramsey Clark's Articles of Impeachment

* Former Attorney GeneralRamsey Clark's Articles of Impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Attorney General John David Ashcroft:

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.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_case_for_impeachment_of_President_George_W._Bush
 
UPDATE: Nevermind. Don't read what i wrote below.







"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."

As was his power as commander-in-chief.

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

Even if the information was wrong, I seriously doubt Bush purposely "lied".

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

See part on "commander-in-chief". It wasn't a felony.

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

Well, threatening the independence and sovereignity of Saddam Hussein over the Iraqui people. But he had every right as commander-in-chief.

"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."

Torture of non-citizens isn't mentioned in the constitution.

"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."

How is this a felony again?

"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.""

You might have something hear but I've yet to hear of him actually using that power.

"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."

Not a felony. The president can do whatever the fuck he wants to non-citezens. The constitution says nothing about it.

"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."

Not citezens...





Look, if you want to get rid of Bush, pass an ammendment so that you can get rid of an executive simply because no one likes him. But Bush has committed no felonies.
 
Last edited:
Because they've committed no felonies? I don't know. Read the constitution.


You read it. Impeachment is a political sanction, not a criminal one. In 18th century lexicon "high crimes and misdemeanors" was not limited to persons breaking a criminal statute. It was much broader than that. It can theoretically cover any abuse of power, whether it involves breaking a criminal statute or not.
 
To convict. I don't think they'd be convicted and thus it would be a waste of money, just as big a waste as Clinton's impeachment was. A waste of money and time that could be better spent on more successful legislation.
 
yeap its a shame ,we could be rid of these assholes but because the Rs acted like huge hemroids back in the 90s we will have to live though this.

I really cant help but hate the current R party leadership.

They seem to destroy everything the founders put in place to protect us.
 
There has been this presence in the R party since Nixson got caught.

It just seems to escalate with every scrap of power they gain.

Nixson did his shady dealings to hold onto power and got hi ass caught and then the Rs looked on and went "hey he didtn even go to jail", "hey people still treat him kindly", "he still got to keep his wealth" , "that wasnt so bad I think I will risk it".

Then we traded arms for hostages and nothing happened to anyone and they even made Heros out of the fucking cohorts.

Then they smeared and lied their selves back into office and impeached a president for lying about cucie while the vast majority of Americans hated the idea.

I did not realise it then but I now know it was to Smear the idea of impeachment as well as smearing the most popular pres in years.

Now here we have it that impeachment means bullshit to Americans now instead of the ability to rid ourselves of a highly destructive admin.

The Rs are smart but fucking evil who care nothing about what the country ends up looking like.
 
All in all, I agree that his list is mighty "picky" but IMHO some pf it is valid, and thus some of your comments are not. TO WIT:


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

Even if the information was wrong, I seriously doubt Bush purposely "lied".
After the congress gave him permission to engage Iraq at his "Disgretion" the Administration learned that some of the reasons that the congressAfterrelied upojn were false and untrue, and he said nothing. that is deceptive, and thus effectively a lie

Torture of non-citizens isn't mentioned in the constitution.

But "LAWS"against such ARE on the books (Impeachment is not just in regards to the written constitution)


"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.""

You might have something hear but I've yet to hear of him actually using that power.
What do you think the discussions regarding GITMO are all about?

"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.



Not citezens...
perhaps not but still absolutely wrong, (And it is still up in the. air whether portions of the constitution applies to our treatment of non-citizens (I personally think they do)

But Bush has committed no felonies.

I personally don't beleive that, but the fact remains that actually felonies are not a prerequsite of imperachment, but failure to uphold the provisions of his oath of office fills that provision rather FURTHER:

He didn't mention Signing statements which imply intention to subbort the intention of the bill nor illegal warrantless wiretapping ----both of which, (plus others), which I believe are impeachable offenses.
 
we should put somebody up better than Dukakis and keep them away from tanks, goose hunting trips, and Eeehaaahhs!!!
 
'Impeach' all left of center Liberals...for treason'..hows that???

Are you in love with George Bush? :room:


Or, do you something akin to a high school girl's crush on him? :lov1:


Because it seems like you always take criticism of George Bush very personally. And you direct your anger about criticism of George Bush outwardly, against all "liberals" -- Instead of at one public figure, or another. That's how you spend 90% of your time here: Defending that stud muffin, George Bush.

I'm I portraying your relationship to George accurately?: :kiss2:
 
Right....!

Are you in love with George Bush? :room:


Or, do you something akin to a high school girl's crush on him? :lov1:


Because it seems like you always take criticism of George Bush very personally. And you direct your anger about criticism of George Bush outwardly, against all "liberals" -- Instead of at one public figure, or another. That's how you spend 90% of your time here: Defending that stud muffin, George Bush.

I'm I portraying your relationship to George accurately?: :kiss2:


kinda akin to 'your' ilk who spend 99% of their time on message boards bashing GW...well since you seem to have missed it... I bash all idiots on both sides of the aisle..you included...***sigh***
 
Seriously, BB - I can't figure out why you spend most of your time defending George Bush. It's like he's your husband, or boyfriend or something. You take criticisms of him very personally.

I mean, you claim your not a republican partisan. That can't be the reason you spend 90% of your time here defending him.

Likewise, he's not personal friend, wife, or family member of yours. I could understand a consistent and passionate defense of relatives, spouses, and friends.


I mean seriously -- is it because you have some kind of weird, emotional bond with him? One that compels you to aggressively and consistently defend him?

Do you have a crush on him? :lov1:
 
***sigh***

Seriously, BB - I can't figure out why you spend most of your time defending George Bush. It's like he's your husband, or boyfriend or something. You take criticisms of him very personally.

I mean, you claim your not a republican partisan. That can't be the reason you spend 90% of your time here defending him.

Likewise, he's not personal friend, wife, or family member of yours. I could understand a consistent and passionate defense of relatives, spouses, and friends.


I mean seriously -- is it because you have some kind of weird, emotional bond with him? One that compels you to aggressively and consistently defend him?

Do you have a crush on him? :lov1:


A classic Freudian slip on your part...I only defend GW when you bring him up...go figure...now back to Psych 101 with ya..Cippie!
 
Back
Top