This is a carry over from last week's discussion on the infamous aluminum tubes. I spent the weekend in Tacoma. What a party town.

I personally do not think congress has a case for Impeachment.

(Unless Jason or LisaP want to try there hand at this)

Here's a start.




Articles of Impeachment

of

President George W. Bush

and

Vice President Richard B. Cheney,
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice,
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales

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 State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales 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 over one hundred thousand Iraqis, and thousands 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) Instituting a secret and illegal wiretapping and spying operation against the people of the United States through the National Security Agency.

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

6) 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.

7) 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.

8) 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.

9) 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."

10) 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.

11) 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.

12) 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.

13) 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.

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

15) 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.

16) 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."

17) Engaging in criminal neglect in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, depriving thousands of people in Louisiana, Mississippi and other Gulf States of urgently needed support, causing mass suffering and unnecessary loss of life.

18) 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.

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

20) 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.

did you write that? God I hope not.

quote:

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 over one hundred thousand Iraqis, and thousands of U.S. G.I.s.

Congress cant impeach on this one because what power he has, came from them in the form of AUMF resolutions. Our laws Trumps UN laws, so you have nothing there either.

quote:

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

That one is getting tiresome. I'm still waiting for a good example. Especially on that rises to the level of Impeachment.

Maybe if he is sworn in under oath and tells a bold face lie on camera.

.....oooops....

that was the other guy.


Good luck getting anything more than the same tired jibber jabber from the lib fringe.
Some of those that James posted are funny.

quote:

Good luck getting anything more than the same tired jibber jabber from the lib fringe.

Yea but there all different. Brent last week has the lie being about the Aluminum Tubes. the Plame thing is near laughable. i was just hopeing to get them to gather in one spot. Maybe I haven't heard all of them before.

quote:

Some of those that James posted are funny.

I seriously hoping he didn't write it. that first one sort of set the tone for the rest.

quote:

I seriously hoping he didn't write it. that first one sort of set the tone for the rest

actually, i think #9,10,14,and 15 hold some merit.

stripping americans of their rights, for ANY reason, is wrong. therefor, i feel bush suspending hapeas corpus under the MCA is an impeachable offence. it doesnt matter what reasons he did it. king george (no relation to current one) in colonial times also did this to the colonists, and was one of the reasons leading to the american revolution

ANY ordering to detain ANYONE who hasnt been accused of a crime is wrong and an impeachable offence. this ties in to what i talked about above

secret arrests and denial to the right of trial by jury is also wrong. this goes against a very fabric of the constitution and is a VERY impeachable offence. its akin to the nazis snatching jews during the night and detaining them.

#15 ties into above.

ftmyersfishrman seems to cover the basics. Bungeling of an incompetent fool doesn't seems to be an impeacheable offense.

The Comptroller General of the U.S. said Bushes financial/tax policies being phased in will bring the U.S. to the point of using its entire national income to pay interest on our debt with nothing left for the military or any other program.

I suppose putting the nations security at risk might be included some way.

When we can't afford the fuel to float an aircraft carrier, that may not be too good.

When N. Korea has a bigger military budget than we do, that may not be too good.

Will be a bad thing when we can no longer afford to maintain a military force...just to pay interest on Bush's expanding loans that are being forced upon us.

I don't think that is an impeacheable offense, but it should be. He was told what his policies would do, and continues doing it anyway. Treason maybe, for destroying our means for self-defense down the road??

He's not only brought the gov't. to the point where it can be drowned in a bathtub...the nation is going to be drowned right along with it.

Retired Monk

i agree polycarp. although stupidity and ignorance from our president is bad for america, it is not an impeachable offence. however, when that ignorance tosses away parts of the constitution, then thats a differnt story.

this is from the us constitution:

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.



now essentially all 3 amendments tie into detaining people without legal council or the charges against them. bush has tried to get around these amendments by claiming:

*we are in times of war (art 5)
*we are in times of public danger (art 5)
*they are not trials by jury, but military tribunals (art 6)

despite those claims, his very creation of military tribunals for non military people goes against the constitution. we might be in a time of war, but it is a war which he started. it is not a time of public danger, no matter how many boogeymen they say are lurking in the shadows. there is more chance of getting hit by lightning then dying in a terrorist attack.

his disregard of these articles of the constitution are impeachable offences. for in order to be impeached, there must be misconduct of office. the president, before taking office, swears this statement:

""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."

PRESERVE, PROTECT, and DEFEND the constitution of the united states. anyone who tries to skirt around the constitution is obviously not protecting or defending it. that means they believe their power to be greater than the constitution itself. that is impeachable.


this is where i got my info:
constitution

Yea… coming out of the kiddie pool. Habeas Corpus Big one, very complicated. Now let me tell you why you cant impeach for it.

First the original presidential order was for the Detention, Treatment and Trial of Certain NON-CITIZENS in the war on terror.
Here

New and controversy , but hardly unprecedented. It certainly had some flaws that ultimately would get sorted out in Courts.

Second, was the US Citizen captured in Afghanistan and detained as an unlawful combatant. Yaser Esam Hamdi. Or Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. Court does it’s job and reaffirms the constitutional rights of Hamdi as a US citizen. Before you get to indigent, that was a beautiful display of the way the court should function.

Thirdly, and the Rub that makes impeachment against Bush completely impossible
Military Commission Act of 2006

In the wake of Hamdan v. Rumsfield CONGRESS passed a bill that that made it legal to suspend Habeas Corpus for resident Aliens (non citizen) and Foreign Fighters. Thus leaving the provisions of US citizens rights to Habeas Corpus intact. Therefore you may rest easy knowing your rights are not infringe.


But as I said you can’t impeach a president on a issue already settled by both the Courts and Congress. There is no case. Capturing us citizens in a foreign war was a true legal gray area. No crime was committed by Bush.

quote:

Maybe if he is sworn in under oath and tells a bold face lie on camera.

.....oooops....

that was the other guy.

Have you ever noticed that Bush refuses to be sworn in under oath? Isn't that odd?

quote:

Have you ever noticed that Bush refuses to be sworn in under oath? Isn't that odd?

Only that he is not stupid. I am sure under any other circumstances, Clinton would not have sworn in.

Loganthor - two things:

1. You strike me as a reasonable fellow. Certainly you believe Bush's actions rise to an intolerable level of ineptness. Didn't the framers believe impeachment as a public mechanism to remove a president simple negligence?

2. Don't you think there should be hearings to better understand the present's role in the major events (WMD, radical Constitutional interpretations, Valery Plain (sp?), 911, Katrina, etc.)? Are you in favor of investigations to better understand the office of the VP of President's role in these things?

Not a fishing expedition...

Is the executive exempt from accountability (fishing), Ron? Isn't it the obligation of everyone to question authority in a democracy?

George Bush lied to the American people when he said that wiretaps always had to have a warrant. In 2005 it became known that they were using the NSA and FBI (through "Security Letters") in a domestic spying program to illegally obtain information on American citizens.

Here is what one of the most conservative members of Congress said about the domestic spying program:
"What's wrong with it is several-fold. One, it's bad policy for our government to be spying on American citizens through the National Security Agency. Secondly, it's bad to be spying on Americans without court oversight. And thirdly, it's bad to be spying on Americans apparently in violation of federal laws against doing it without court order."

Bush then summoned the publisher & editor of the New Your Times to the White House, to try and stop them from running the story of these illegal activities.

Then there is the dubious over-use of "signing statements", which is basically a way for Bush to ignore or unilaterally change laws put before him.

Loganthor, I have no interest in debating with you and "we" over whether or not Bush should be impeached. I'm not sure that impeaching Bush will make what he's done to screw up things suddenly OK. History, imo, will be the judge and I don't believe history will judge Bush too fondly unless some pretty smooth propagandists control the input. Rather than expend energy pursuing impeachment, I'd like to see congress pursuing other things to try and get the US on track.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Quondam,

quote:

STATEMENT: Maybe if he is sworn in under oath and tells a bold face lie on camera.

.....oooops....

that was the other guy.

REPLY:
Have you ever noticed that Bush refuses to be sworn in under oath? Isn't that odd?
REPLY:
Only that he is not stupid. I am sure under any other circumstances, Clinton would not have sworn in.

Seriously Loganthor you must see the circular argument and non sequitor, "at least Bush hasn't sworn in and lied under oath (like Clinton did)..but Bush refuses to be sworn in, hence he cannot lie "under oath". He can tell lies every which way but loose as long as he isn't sworn in under oath.

Because he's not stupid (and Bill Clinton is?). If you actually believe that Bush is somehow smarter than Clinton, you should seek help. However, it is true that not swearing in under oath is a "smart" move, in an obnoxious devious way; but I don't think I'd credit that tactic to Bush. I think his handlers earn their keep.

LisaP,

I do not recall Clinton swearing in for any other reason then the civil matter in Jones v Clinton. In a situation where I dont believe he had a whole lot of choice.

In this matter. Bush IS smarter then Clinton. For any number of reasons.

Hi Simon,

quote:

1. You strike me as a reasonable fellow. Certainly you believe Bush's actions rise to an intolerable level of ineptness. Didn't the framers believe impeachment as a public mechanism to remove a president simple negligence?

Article II says: Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Since most of our laws derive from English common law. Misdemeanors is sort of a catch all. In early English history they did in fact impeach officials negligence. However it has never been tested in the American system. I believe it would be viewed a a political witch hunt. Ultimately setting a precedent that neither party wants. It would cost the Dems the 2008 presidential run for sure.

quote: