Bushs' Impeachable offences in the
Cannabis Cafe forums; For all you right wingers that think Bush hasn't done anything that is an impeachable offense, think again:
THE PRESIDENT'S ...
Bushs' Impeachable offences
For all you right wingers that think Bush hasn't done anything that is an impeachable offense, think again:
THE PRESIDENT'S IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES—President George W. Bush has engaged in acts that violate his obligations as president on a range of issues. These impeachable offenses include:
• Deceiving Congress and the people in taking the country to war in Iraq.
• Directing an illegal domestic wiretapping program and other surveillance of Americans.
• Permitting and condoning the use of torture or cruel treatment of detainees.
• Showing reckless indifference to human life in the face of Hurricane Katrina, in inadequately equipping U.S. soldiers, and in insufficiently planning for the occupation of Iraq.
• Covering up his war deceptions with the leak of misleading classified information, an act that became entangled with the outing of a CIA agent, a possible crime.
1. For Deceptions in Taking the Country into War in Iraq: War, in the view of the framers of the Constitution, would create one of the greatest temptations for a president to abuse power. Edmund Randolph, a member of the Constitutional Convention, noted, "The Executive will have great opportunities for abusing his power; particularly in time of war when the military force, and in some respects the public money will be in his hands."
President Bush used false premises to drive the country to war, insisting that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons and linking Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda and 9/11. The consequences have been enormous, and there is no end point to the duration or to lives lost in Iraq.
Taking our country into war based on false information is a misuse of presidential war-making power. Deceit nullifies the right and obligation of Congress to understand the issues at stake and to decide whether to support the war. The right of the American people to participate in the decision is cast aside. The actions "subvert the Constitution," under founder George Mason's definition of impeachable offenses.
James Iredell, a Justice on the first Supreme Court and a participant in the North Carolina ratification debates on the Constitution, commented that "the President must certainly be punishable for giving false information to the Senate." In responding to a complaint that the Senate would be too cozy with the president to vote for impeachment, Iredell disagreed, insisting that the Senate would not react kindly if a president "concealed important intelligence which he ought to have communicated, and by that means induced them to enter into measures injurious to their country."
Unless a clear message is sent, there is no way to ensure that the use of deceptions to lead the country to war will not be repeated by this president or another.
2. For Violating the Law on Wiretapping: President Bush admitted that he has not complied with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and is engaging in domestic surveillance without seeking court orders. He said he plans to continue this conduct, even though his actions may invade the privacy and constitutional rights of thousands of American citizens. The president's refusal to obey the wiretapping statute, which carries a criminal penalty, violates his duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. It contravenes his oath of office, which requires him to obey the laws, and preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. Over the years, the president has publicly misrepresented the wiretapping programs, stating that no surveillance was being undertaken without a court order. President Nixon's repeated lying to the public formed the basis of one of the grounds for impeachment against him. President Bush's deceptions may form the grounds for impeachment, as well. A second secret domestic-surveillance program, exposed in May 2006, is engaged in collecting and tracking the telephone calls of millions of Americans under the guise of foreign-intelligence surveillance. This program, begun without the approval of Congress or the courts, poses many potential violations of the law, and as details are uncovered, further grounds for impeachment also may be identified. http://http://www.washingtonspectato...playbook_2.cfm
Last edited by medicineman; 11-24-2006 at 03:06 PM.
Once upon a time...................
Bush impeach II
Heres more reasons to impeach, or as I would have done, Execute for treason:The People's Case for Impeaching Bush
By Elizabeth Holtzman | November 15, 2006 (page 3/3)
President Bush has attempted to justify his illegal surveillance as falling within his power as commander in chief. The president's failure to recognize that he is bound by a constitutional system in which he is only one of three players and his abuse of his role as commander in chief threaten our democracy to its core, and are grounds for impeachment and removal from office.
3. For Permitting and Condoning the Mistreatment of U.S. Detainees: Congress has enacted laws prohibiting the mistreatment or torture of prisoners in U.S. hands. The War Crimes Act of 1996 makes it a crime to violate the ban in the Geneva Conventions regarding torture and cruel or degrading treatment. Ratified by the United States in 1955, the Geneva Conventions are the law of the land, as is the Convention against Torture. The U.S. government has long adhered to the laws and treaties that prevent mistreatment of prisoners.
President Bush unilaterally changed U.S. practice and policy by a 2002 memo rejecting the application of the Geneva Conventions and enabling U.S. personnel to conduct brutal interrogations without fear of prosecution. In so doing, the president voided a U.S. law and permitted others to break it. The president may not violate treaties or interpret them in ways designed to nullify their essential purpose.
In addition, when evidence emerged of abusive treatment of persons in U.S. military detention facilities, the president had a duty to institute a thorough investigation of everyone in the chain of command, from top to bottom. He has not done so. This responsibility is spelled out in the Geneva Conventions. The president is also required to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, including the War Crimes Act and the Anti-Torture Act. President Bush failed to ensure a full investigation and to see that the responsible parties, including higher-ups, were held accountable. These failures are impeachable offenses.
When Congress reaffirmed its opposition to torture and cruel or degrading treatment of detainees in a statute passed in 2005, the president added a statement when he signed the bill, signaling that he intended to violate it. Impeachment is the only way to prevent a president from continuing to disregard his obligations to enforce the law, not to break it.
4. For Reckless Indifference to Human Life during Hurricane Katrina: President Bush showed a reckless indifference to human life in failing to marshal emergency resources in response to Katrina. This type of gross negligence is also apparent in his decision to invade Iraq without providing protective equipment to soldiers and without having an adequate post-invasion plan.
If the president's actions were simple negligence, they might not amount to impeachable offenses. During the debates at the Constitutional Convention, one of the grounds initially raised for impeachment was "neglect of duty." At the convention, the Committee on Detail changed that language to "treason and bribery," which was in turn expanded by adding the term "high crimes and misdemeanors."
The framers were undoubtedly familiar with the history of that British term. At least two noteworthy impeachments for neglect had occurred in Britain: one involved the neglect of the commissioner of the Navy to prepare adequately against an invasion; the other related to neglect by an admiral who had failed to safeguard the seas. In a classic nineteenth-century text on constitutional interpretation, Thomas M. Cooley of the Michigan Supreme Court states that impeachment can result from "inexcusable neglects of duty, which are dangerous and criminal because of the immense interests involved and the greatness of the trust which has not been kept."
Bush's actions during Katrina and in regard to Iraq are "inexcusable neglects." When Hurricane Katrina threatened New Orleans, President Bush was personally informed of an impending catastrophe, but did not take the necessary actions to protect human lives. Under law, he alone was empowered to mobilize additional federal resources. He did not take care that the laws were faithfully executed.
In addition, the president's failure to provide sufficient body armor and protective equipment for our troops in Iraq or to develop a proper plan for the occupation of Iraq after the invasion are violations of his obligation to "take care." U.S. soldiers and the American people trusted the president to exercise special care in making thorough preparations.
The president neglected his duty over matters of vast consequence and in situations where the trust placed in him was great. This conjunction of his failure to take care and his reckless indifference to human life provides the basis for impeachment.
5. For Leaking Classified Information: After the U.S. invaded Iraq, Bush authorized a top White House aide to leak passages of a classified document to key reporters. The leak came in response to criticism that the president had deceived the country about Iraq's nuclear weapons capability in his State of the Union address. The criticism was accurate, but the leak had the effect of distorting the truth. The leak was intertwined with the "outing" of a covert CIA agent married to the Bush critic. Declassifying information to mislead the public and cover up presidential deceptions about war making is an abuse of power. If the facts, as yet unknown, show that President Bush had any role in releasing the identity of the CIA agent, a potential violation of federal law, that would be an impeachable offense. President Bush has committed a great many grave and dangerous offenses, and subverted the Constitution. The evidence is clear and strong. Congress cannot shirk its responsibility to protect the nation from tyranny. This is what the founders of this country intended when they added presidential impeachment to the Constitution.
Once upon a time...................
Personally I dislike Bush, but the one that really pulls the chain is Cheney. And though I believe both should be dismissed from office, it won't happen. But then again, I think everyone on the Hill should be yanked off as well. Too much time = too much power = too much greed = tyranny.
It's just sad when around 1 million civilians are dead in a country because we went there. Almost getting around to the figure of how many folks Saddam killed. We just caused it in a shorter amount of time in the name of so-called freedom. Hurray for democracy!!! And now maybe they too might get the main events in the Tom Cruise saga, Jerry Springer, and Rosie, Hollywood entertainment here we come, I'm already excited for their newly found freedom.
When will people realize, their way of life is not the same as western ways. Democracy has never worked, and will never work, and will always lead to a power corrupt government, based on a central bank, to demoralize the people even more. Oh the USA is not suppose to be a democratic country to begin with, but a complex republic, based on a simple constitution, which would have worked just fine, until they unleashed the reserve bank, and from that point on, this country has started a downward spiral, and will continue in this spiral until the people wake up.
Oh I went off track, in order to impeach Bush, you would have to start at the source, and this includes bring charges against those that were President before him. This crap that we see just didn't start with Bush, he's just the latter part of this madness. Clinton is just as much to blame if you start digging deeper. The facts might not be seen clear, but they are there if you dig deep enough, and run back far enough to Bush's daddy, and Johnson, and if we dig deeper, bush's grandfather, and deeper still we get to the banks. The central banks are the deep root of most of the madness in the world. They make more money in times of disaster than in any other time. And when the people loose everything, they get to buy it all up for pennies on the dollars, then start the madness all over again for later generations. A viscious circle that's there for everyone to see, but most are blind. Again, hurray for democracy!!!! The end of the free world!!!!!
A democratic society, a communist society, a dictator society are all the same if you ask me. The only difference is, they want to control the other. And the people all fear the government in all of them. That's not what this country is suppose to be about. But all I see lately is big brother probing where big brother doesn't need to be.
Flowerman says: "Personally I dislike Bush, but the one that really pulls the chain is Cheney. And though I believe both should be dismissed from office, it won't happen. But then again, I think everyone on the Hill should be yanked off as well." I can certainly agree with the Cheney thing! He is the Devil incarnate!
Once upon a time...................
By medicineman in forum Politics
Last Post: 01-16-2007, 04:36 PM
By medicineman in forum Politics
Last Post: 12-03-2006, 02:46 PM
By medicineman in forum Politics
Last Post: 11-30-2006, 12:05 AM
Tags for this Thread