PDA

View Full Version : Should Bush be Impeached?


LightHeart
01-14-2006, 12:40 PM
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 GeneralAlberto Gonzalez
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.

=====

www.voteToImpeach.org

NicoMoon
01-14-2006, 05:23 PM
Not my usual style to respond with a one liner, but:

I'm so fed up with our elected officials, I think they all should be impeached!

:(

Franklin
01-14-2006, 05:56 PM
Hi LightHeart,

Ramsey Clark makes a good case. I would like to see more evidence of some of the accusations, though.

As to whether Bush lied about WMDs, that would depend on the the meaning of "lie" (to paraphrase Bill Clinton). Technically it would only be a lie if Bush knew it to be false. That is not likely to be proven. But I do believe that he was extremely biased in the direction of having an excuse to invade Iraq. As evidenced by his initial response to 911 - "Find out if Saddam Hussien had anything to do with this", and the letter to Clinton in 1998, signed by Rumsfeld and Cheney, among others, begging him to oust Hussien.

If the CIA really screwed up as badly as claimed, why didn't heads roll? And how are we to be confident that similar mistakes won't happen in the future?

Of course if it can be proved that he lied - in a legal sense - about the WMDs, he absolutely should be impeached.

The issues which most implicate Bush are the wiretaps and the lack of due process. Either of which could have been done legally if Bush didn't have contempt for the legal system and the Constitution. The wire taps could have been done with a warrant from the FISA court. If it was an emergency, they could legally obtain a warrant within 72 hours after it was implemented, so the only reason I can come up with for not doing it is contempt.

The due process issue could have been done legally with a declaration of war. Granted, he probably could not have declared war on Terrorism, but he could have declared war with Afghanistan and Iraq. Especially given that the excuse he gives for undermining the Constitution is that "we are at war". Then make it official.

One reason Bush and his apologists give for invading Iraq is that Iraq did not respect the UN's demands. Firstly, that's very debatable, given that there were inspectors in Iraq up until the invasion. Secondly, if invasion is justified by non-compliance with the UN, then we should be invaded for going against UN resolutions to not invade Iraq.

Of course I'm hoping that we succeed in Iraq - i.e. that Iraq will become a viable stable democracy. But some of the criteria for deciding to go to war is risk versus benefit. Bush didn't listen to the intellegence that said it would be extremely difficult to stabalize Iraq after Hussien was ousted. He selectively disregarded that intelligence but embraced the intelligence about WMDs.

So now we have a volitile situation with Iran which may require military intervention, but alas, we're too busy in Iraq to be able to respond to Iran.

I think I'm convincing myself that he should be impeached :)

Cheers, Franklin

LightHeart
01-14-2006, 06:11 PM
Franklin first let me say how much I enjoy your posts!!!

I really think Bush is his own way as well as ours is his worst enemy. I think the only way he will get our troops out of Iraq is by putting them into Iran. Trust me Bush has his eye on Iran, and he will find the troops to move in. Smart huh all our troops are overseas fighting a war we have no business being in, what a great time for the terrorists to hit us. Bush is a clear danger to his OWN country.

factsuall
01-14-2006, 08:27 PM
Lightheart thank you all that very informative post. I will refrain from passing judgement as I am NOT American... but if it could slip you a private note in public I would say I CONCUR!

Franklin
01-14-2006, 09:34 PM
Hi LightHeart,

You wrote:Franklin first let me say how much I enjoy your posts!!!

Thanks, LightHeart. I prefer quality to quantity. :)

The reason I suggested that Iran may require military intervention is that I was watching something on the telly the other night about Iraq's nuclear (or as Bush would say, "nucular") program. It said that it would be impossible to simply bomb the installations because many are deep underground. Well, as I understand it, we've had very effective burrowing bombs available for years, so this may also be hawkish propaganda. And we would probably have support from the Europeans on this one.

Bush likes to use fear to control people. Like his Social Security "reform" idea - private accounts. He did finally admit thath private accounts would not fix the insolvency issue with SS. But only after months of claiming that insolvency would destroy SS. I'll write a diatribe about that fiasco elsewhere. Mind you, he might have thought that private accounts would fix SS because he's an idiot.

WileyCoyote
01-18-2006, 09:44 PM
Damn right he should be impeached! And Cheney too, cheney's worse. Whose next in command Trent Lott? Newt? We're in trouble.

Why do you suppose the Shrub kept reading to the school kids when he was told what happened on 9/11? He didn't want to scare them? Excuse me, but scaring kids should have been the last thing on his opuny little mind. Anyway that's all he does is try to scare people into letting him thumb his nose at the constitution. If the systems were in place like they should have been the second tower should not have been hit. If they can't track a huge aircraft what can they do to protect us? Oh yeah, tap our phones.

LightHeart
01-19-2006, 12:18 PM
Damn right he should be impeached! And Cheney too, cheney's worse. Whose next in command Trent Lott? Newt? We're in trouble.

Why do you suppose the Shrub kept reading to the school kids when he was told what happened on 9/11? He didn't want to scare them? Excuse me, but scaring kids should have been the last thing on his opuny little mind. Anyway that's all he does is try to scare people into letting him thumb his nose at the constitution. If the systems were in place like they should have been the second tower should not have been hit. If they can't track a huge aircraft what can they do to protect us? Oh yeah, tap our phones.

Couldn't agree with you more, and I'll tell you what I really hate is that dumb damn smirk of his. Oh geez, I better not get started.

Kokotai
06-25-2006, 08:44 PM
I think that any president that has changed, dodged and/or ignored the basics of the law needs to answer. It is like with Cheney and the shooting thing, anyone else would have been arrested.

Kokotai
06-30-2006, 12:42 AM
Did anyone read the story about Berkley California putting the question on the ballot for November? They are hoping to make a statement. I hope other cities follow suit.

NicoMoon
07-09-2006, 08:48 AM
Did anyone read the story about Berkley California putting the question on the ballot for November? They are hoping to make a statement. I hope other cities follow suit.

On what Constitutional grounds, specifically, do you believe that Bush should be impeached?

NicoMoon
07-15-2006, 02:27 PM
No reply from Kokotai on a simple question, so I'll keep the ball rolling.

Here is a 2003 article from John Dean, former counsel to President Richard Nixon.

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

It's quite interesting, IMO, and a bit scary, as I have to agree that Dean's thinking on the impeachment issue should be accurate, considering that he takes the time to provide specific quotes made by Bush in which he strongly asserts actual knowledge, not just of WMDs, but specific types, and in specific amounts. The conscientiously referenced citations add a significant element of credibility to Dean's perspective that are largely missing in those of knee-jerk Bush haters, some who don't evidently even know the difference between the Supreme Court and Municipal Court, or how to differentiate a quote about some one from one that is actually a first person reference.

"To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."

This is scary to me, because it's certainly a viable interpretation of the facts, yet Bush is not cooked all these years later, nor is there much in the way of any credible movement to impeach Bush on the basis of these factual statements. Let's face it, no one who is still belly aching that "Bush stole the election" is going to gain much in the way of a respectful audience, and some of these Bush bashers can't even outline why they want Bush to be impeached, beyond saying that he's stupid. When pressed for some solid details, they tend to go silent, attack the questioner, or divert the topic completly.

Sometimes I think that Bush's loudest bashers are his best friends.

I also found this statement to be relevant to our discussions here, as it is also true of much of the anti-Bush rhetoric.


Graham suggested that the Administration, by cherrypicking only evidence to its own liking, had manipulated the information to support its conclusion.


Yes, cherrypicking the facts is manipulation, and that's a bad thing regardless of which side is doing it. Bush Bashers, take heed! Self-respecting and informed people don't play that game, it's a loser. As Dean states in the article, Bush has a lot more leeway to get away with something like this, because he actually is an authority, and by all rights, a President's researchers, cabinet, and legal advisors should not permit him to offer inaccurate information, distortions or flat out mistruths. So what happened? Why did they, in this case?

What reall interests me is that John Dean, who describes himself as a Goldwater Republican makes a far better case for an impeachment of Bush than any Democrat or far left radical I've ever heard speak on the topic.

More on John Dean in another post, as he recently published a book that sounds quite interesting, "Conservatives Without Conscience".

vicki2
07-17-2006, 02:58 AM
I'll have to order the John Dean book as it sounds interesting. I am also amused by the title which, of course, is a direct knock-off or reference to Barry Goldwater's "Conscious of a Conservative" from the early 60s.

NicoMoon
07-21-2006, 09:35 AM
Ahhh, I didn't realize the reference, vicki, but it makes sense.

I'm perusing the book now myself and I'd be interested to hear your take on it as well!

kelkat
07-25-2006, 10:04 PM
I don't think we have to worry much about any one following Berkley in anything. Come to think of it, is Berkley still part of the United States?

LyricB
08-25-2006, 03:07 PM
You guys talking about moving the troops from Iraq to Iran makes me shudder. It's a wonder we still have an all-volunteer force.

hokeshel
10-24-2006, 01:58 AM
I think impeachment is a little extreme. I see no proof of any of those accussations. By the way, I didn't even vote for him so, I that is not why I am speakign against this. People are upset about the war, upset about other things pertaining to the war and are afraid of certain decisions that were made such as wiretapping civilians, but, accussing him of treason etc. is just silliness.

Fluffernutter
11-09-2006, 06:05 PM
Bush is a lying, corrupt, idiot!! His whole presidency is about stealing from the middle-class and giving to the supper-rich.

The whole Iraq War is about stealing their oil. It’s a fact that the Saudis are running out and that’s why oil prices are going up at such an accelerated rate. It's no coincidence. Iraq has the second largest oil reserve on Earth.

Rather than develop alternatives he’s invaded Iraq. What an idiot!

Toyota just announced that they’re going to have 10 hybrids available by next year. By doing nothing, Bush has given away our auto market. The Chinese are pouring a lot of money into developing alternative energy. They’ve identified this as their future industry. Once again, we’re losing the future.

Global warming is a fact. Just watch the news. Weather patterns are changing. The main cause of the problem is coming from humans. From our manufacturing and auto emissions. The US is the number 1 polluter in the world. That’s why the world is looking to us to help. Bush tells the world that he’s not sure if there even is a problem.

Ozone depletion is another HUGE global problem. It’s already having an effect in the southern hemisphere. The plankton in the oceans is beginning to die from the increased radiation levels. Plankton is the base of the food-chain.

Our constitutional freedoms are disappearing under the Patriot Act. Bush doesn’t seem to care about our freedom. He wants to strengthen the Patriot Act.

He lied to get us into the war. This war is costing us, the people, billions and 10’s of billions- but the billionaires don’t have to pay, they gat a tax cut.

Halliburton is getting no-bid contracts that we are paying for. Dick Cheney has thousands of stock options that will make him millions when he is out of office. You do the math? This is blatant corruption.

I could go on and on but I’m out of time.

Why would any thinking person not want to impeach him?