Pendragon_6
10-07-2005, 02:31 PM
Not my idea, I just wanted to expose what the left is up to.
Pendragon_6
10-07-2005, 03:11 PM
My fault. I should've made my position clear.
I posted this for two reasons.
1. To show what the left is up to.
2. To show how pathetic they are.
<!--IBF.ATTACHMENT_129362--><!-- THE POST -->
Teenager
10-07-2005, 04:12 PM
I wonder if you can vote multiple times. Wouldn't surprise me, since it's coming from the left.
Simple fact: The left have absolutely no grounds whatsoever to impeach Bush. Oh, except for the "Bush Lied" rhetoric, which is thoroughly debunked every time.
Eagle1
10-07-2005, 04:29 PM
and have cheney run things for a while, they wont seriously consider it.
just like nobody wanted gore to be pres
Joe Spout
10-07-2005, 05:14 PM
I know that the libs who run around saying "Impeach Bush" have given no serious thought to what would happen if he was impeached. It's not like impeaching Bush would put a Democrat in the White House.
Some people just like to jump on the bandwagon without knowing where the wagon is headed.
I have to admit that the liberals do make life more interesting when Republicans are in control. Their true character is revealed like never before.
Elgalad
10-07-2005, 06:44 PM
Realizing this whole movement is an exercise in futility, it might still prove mildly amusing to shred the infantile assumptions embraced by its supporters.
These are the so called 'Articles of Impeachment' that the proponents are supporting..
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 General John David Ashcroft 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:
Most likely a minor issue, but I am fairly certain that impeachment cases can Only be presented on an individual basis. There are no 'class action' impeachment trials.
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.
A) No power was seized since Constitutionally, the President of the United States acts as Commander in Chief of all the United States' Armed Forces.
B) Under the War Powers Act of 1973 (http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html), the President of the United States is not bound to first seek a Declaration of War from the Senate in order to introduce military forces into hostilities. The Constitution was never violated.
C) The United Nations hold No jurisdiction whatsoever over the forces of the United States and have No legal control whatsoever over the Orders given by the Commander in Chief to these forces. That being said, the President's actions were actually in Support of U.N. Resolutions (http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm) : USNCR 678 (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18076.pdf), USNCR 686 (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18077.pdf), USNCR 687 (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18078.pdf), USNCR 688 (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18079.pdf), USNCR 707 (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18080.pdf), USNCR 715 (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18081.pdf), USNCR 949 (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18082.pdf), USNCR 1051 (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18083.pdf), USNCR 1060 (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18085.pdf), USNCR 1115 (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18086.pdf), USNCR 1134 (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18087.pdf), USNCR 1137 (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18088.pdf), USNCR 1154 (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18089.pdf), USNCR 1194 (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18090.pdf), USNCR 1205 (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18091.pdf), USNCR 1284 (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18092.pdf), and USNCR 1441 (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18252.pdf).
D) The Rule of Law was strictly upheld, that was the point of Operation Iraqi Freedom: To enforce the United Nations Resolutions that had been approved by the Security Council.
E) No new war was ever actually declared. Terms of a ceasefire between the United Nations Coalition during Operation Desert Storm and the Republic of Iraq were violated by the Iraqi Government. Having forfeited the terms of the ceasefire, combat hostilities were resumed.
2) Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war.
A) Lying to the People of the United States is not something any politician could ever be convicted of.
B) Lying to Congress would be tantamount to throwing a water balloon at someone during a torrential downpour. :smirky: This is also not a convictable offense.
C) Lying to the United Nations might actually be construed as an action worthy of decoration.
D) Yet it has never been and never Will be proven with any significant information whatsoever, that the President of the United States deliberately mislead any of these bodies for the purpose of resuming hostilities with Iraq.
E) Nearly every major intelligence service of every world power including the members of the U.N. Security Council were in full agreement that the reasons presented for resuming hostilities were completely valid: That Saddam Hussein had possession of and intent to use Weapons of Mass Destruction. The United States did not originate this intelligence information, it was mostly obtained from allied sources including the U.N. itself. To be more precise, CIA Assets in the middle east were severely limited after having been gutted and redirected/downsized during the 1990's. In summation; the information the President presented before Congress, the American people, and the United Nations was to the best of his knowledge, completely accurate.
3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties were unavoidable.
These sensational charges have never been proved. That is, not against President George W. Bush. However, it has been publicly acknowledged that his predecessor did in fact target civilian facilities including an aspirin factory and various other non military assets for the purpose of redirecting public attention from his own.. 'peccadillos.'
4) Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently changing its government by force and assaulting Iraq in a war of aggression.
The Iraqi Government had ceased being legitimate by the United Nations' own resolutions. It violated its sovereignty when it chose to violate that of its neighbors and the human rights of its own citizens. No free public elections had been held within its borders during the Baathist regime. Those elections that were held were considered a farce, and not representative of the Iraqi public will.
4) 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.
(note: there were two (2) separate charges both referred to as 'charge 4' in the impeachment articles. I left them numbered as they were)
A) There is no evidence that any American citizens or non citizens on the territory of the United States have been assassinated, summarily executed (this basically means without trial), kidnapped, imprisoned, tortured, or coerced in any unlawful manner that violates the Constitution of the United States or any of its Amendments.
B) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights) is not a legally binding document.
C) The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm) was indeed violated.. by Iraq. :smirky: This was another of the justifications the United States and Allies used to resume military operations.
5) 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.
A) I wonder if the supporters have ever heard of Halabja (http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html)?
B) Or Susangerd (http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-1984.html)?
C) Or maybe Kuwait (http://www.indict.org.uk/crimedetails.php?crime=Kuwait)?
D) But if they don't want to trust the Kurds, Kuwaitis, or Iranians? Fine, let the Iraqis speak for themselves (http://www.iraqfoundation.org/hr.html).
E) Still not good enough.. Alright, maybe they'd at least accept reports from Amnesty International.. such as This (http://web.amnesty.org/pages/irq-article_6-eng) or This (http://web.amnesty.org/pages/irq-article_3-eng)?
False information? Propaganda? Manipulation of the press? Artificial climate of fear? Please. For that to be the case, they would have to be suggesting a global conspiracy of unprecedented proportions Including nearly Every single nation of the Earth. (The civilized ones at least..)
6) 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.
Patently False, no war crimes were committed, no 'war of aggression' was engaged, and unfortunately, no so called 'powers of the United Nations' were usurped.
See above, Operation Iraqi Freedom was a resumption of the Ceasefire at the end of Operation Desert Storm. There Were treaties violated yes, and that was the point of bringing the illegal Iraqi government to account.
7) 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."
No American citizen were deprived of any Constitutional or human rights that they were entitled to, save those who have been kidnapped and murdered by enemy Terrorists. No foreign terrorists were deprived of their basic human rights as un-uniformed enemy combatants. The designation of 'enemy combatant' is not defined by the Chief Executive, but rather, the Geneva Conventions themself. Those individuals who do not fulfill the obligations of a legitimate military organization are not protected by the Geneva Conventions. Spies, criminals, and terrorists all fall under this 'non-protected' category.
8) 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.
See above. The Constitution is not a universal document. It exists to guarantee and protect the rights of Citizens of the United States. It Does apply to non citizens who legally enter the territory of the United States. It does Not apply to illegal enemy combatants captured outside of the United States or to enemy combatants who enter the United States Illegally.
9) 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.
The detainee this claim refers to, Jose Padilla, was an illegal enemy combatant captured upon entering the territory of the United States during wartime. The Court has traditionally held that under such circumstances, the military has Full jurisdiction over such individuals. There are still open cases pending on this issue in Appeals Court and petitions before the Supreme Court. Until these are resolved, this claim cannot be proven and has no weight whatsoever on the potential for Impeachment of either the Attorney General or the President of the United States.
10) 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.
This one's a doozy. Secret Military Tribunals? Summary Executions?
How about black helicopters and cattle mutilations?:laugh:
Baseless claims are a dime a dozen. Kindly show a single shred of supportable evidence.
11) 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.
Demonstrate this as well. Since Congressional (http://www.boston.com/news/world/latinamerica/articles/2005/06/26/guantanamo_conditions_improving_lawmakers_agree_af ter_tour/) Representatives (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8379650/) have made Numerous trips to visit Club Git'mo Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, this claim holds no substance. However, it Is true that U.N. representatives have been denied visitation priveleges. Darn. :whistle:
12) Use of secret arrests of persons within the United States and elsewhere and denial of the right to public trials.
Baseless claims are a dime a dozen. Kindly show a single shred of supportable evidence. (If this refutal is needed again, I may need to start using an asterisk to save time. :grin: )
13) 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.
This privilege does Not apply to the incarcerated illegal enemy combatants at Club Git'mo Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.
14) 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."
This practice is quite similar to those performed by RICO statues that are applied to Federal Racketeering charges (organized crime). The Patriot Act of 2001 (http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html) which passed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 357-66 and in the Senate by 98-1 is the law of the land. It is not without faults and continues to be tweaked and improved. But to suggest that the Chief Executive is acting in a criminally impeachable manner by attempting to enforce it is preposterous.
15) 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.
It would be irresponsible for any government Not to investigate suspicious behavior that may reveal threats to the personal security and welfare of its citizens. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has for many years investigated domestic terrorist activity, this is hardly a new phenomenon, nor can it be linked exclusively to the current President or Department of Justice. Yet the motivations for its current application countering terrorism appear far more Noble than those of the former President (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/14/hillary/) who applied such techniques to build dossiers on White House staff members illegally.
16) Refusal to provide information and records necessary and appropriate for the constitutional right of legislative oversight of executive functions.
This claim would need to be clarified since it's vague enough to include just about Any disagreement between the Legislative and Executive branches reagarding Jurisdiction.
17) 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.
A) The ABM Treaty was signed by the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The latter no longer exists.
B) The United States does not recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. (http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/15158.htm) Never has. Never will.
C) This should eliminate anyone's doubts (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/9968.htm) that the last minute signature by Slick Willie President Clinton is still in effect regarding the ICC...
-Elgalad
DoctorDoom
10-07-2005, 07:25 PM
Thanks, guy! That's a keeper. :thumb:
DesertFox
10-07-2005, 07:30 PM
These aren't people. Remember the movie Aliens? The aliens couldn't get to earth, but did sneak aboard some dwarf mutants of their species. Hence liberals.
Sabbah
10-08-2005, 12:22 AM
Fantastic post. Great to see someone putting some effort into a thread. Im not sure if you guys have some sort of archive but if you do something like this should go there. great reference.
Having said that, I do disagree. Unfortunaly I dont have the time to reply in length but I will make a couple of points.
C) The United Nations hold No jurisdiction whatsoever over the forces of the United States and have No legal control whatsoever over the Orders given by the Commander in Chief to these forces.
While I understand that the UN is not exactly the 'rights' number on favorite ,and you are correct in saying that it has no direct control over the US, it is also clear that all countries are obliged to abide by the provisions of the UN Charter. In the case of the US this is spelled out explicitly in article VI US Constitution (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html). Specifically "Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land"
As you will be aware the UN Charter specifically prohibits the use of force except in defence, or under the explicit instruction of the security council. The resolutions you provide links for, speciffically 1441, do not explicitly authorize the use of force, and in all cases the security council 'remained seized'. This phrase is important because, in this context, it means that the security retains the authority over the matter at hand.
In short, by using force without the authorization of the security council, the US acted contrary to its own constitution.
I dont know enough about US constitutional law to know if this is grounds for impeachment or not.
My second comment relates to your dismissal of the Universal Declaration of Human rights as a non-binding document. This is a simplistic, narrow view for two reasons.
1- The declaration has, since its inception, been codified in a fairly diverse range of treaties. The US is party to many of these.
2- The principles in the declaration have become international common practice and therefore they are binding on individual states. This concept is similar to common law in domestic situations.
Obviously there is a tension between international humanitarian law and State sovereignty. The declaration, and events such as the Nurenburg trials errode the sovereignty of individual nations and elevate individual rights.
A good general book on international politics and law is 'World Politics: Trends and transformations (9th edition)" Worth getting out of the library....bit too expensive unless you are really serious.
Hi to Desert Fox and Warlady. Its good to see some of the old (Not too old)regulars still going strong.
Elgalad
10-08-2005, 01:52 AM
In reference to UNSCR 1441, perhaps you missed this phrase:
"Recalling that U.N. Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area.."
(My highlighting)
I will maintain that the use of force had been already authorized by Iraq's failure to maintain the conditions of the ceasefire post Desert Storm and additionally by violation of UNSCR 678 (and each of the other resolutions that referenced it). Additionally, Iraq was presenting a specific threat to international peace and security in the middle east area (referenced in UNSCR 1441) by firing upon UN aircraft charged with patrolling the 'no fly zones' set aside by international law as well as fostering Terrorist actions in Israel by compensating family members of Terrorists killed performing these missions. I have only referred to these last two violations since they are universally accepted as fact. But had I the time or energy, I would exhibit further violations of the 'security and peace' of the region conducted by the Iraqi government. They are most certainly Not limited to these two examples.
I will also maintain that the U.N. actually had no grounds to withdraw their approval for Member nations to enforce these resolutions by 'any necessary means.' The possibility that such a drastic change in policy would ever have been approved is highly doubtful because it would have never received a majority vote by member nations, and even if it Had succeeded, it would have been vetoed by at least two permanent members of the Security Council.
The Constitution, Article II, Section 4 refers to the specific charges that must be proven in order for a public official (President, Vice President, civil officers) to be removed from office. These require both impeachment by the House of Representatives and Conviction by the Senate, presided over by the Chief Justice of the United States. The specific charges are: Treason, Bribery, and other High Crimes and misdemeanors. None of these have any relevance to international law, they refer only to crimes against the People of the United States. But what is a "High Crime or Misdemeanor?" Quite simply, whatever the United States House of Representatives by a majority vote, decides it is.
The fact that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has become incorporated into other documents does not change the fact that the Declaration itself Is a non-binding agreement.
The other documents mentioned would indeed be binding.. If the United States was a signatory and party to them. It is not. As mentioned, the Treaty of Rome was hastily signed by the former President on the eve of his departure from office. It was never ratified by the Senate (as international treaties must be) nor was it required to be accepted by that President's successor, George W. Bush. Whether a treaty or accord is 'commonly accepted' by other nations or not is totally irrelevant in regards to this debate unless the United States itself has ratified it. And in a clear message (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/9968.htm) to the Secretary General of the United Nations, the United States informed the U.N. that it does not accept the provisions of the International Criminal Court.
-Elgalad
dPrasse
10-08-2005, 07:12 AM
Elgalad,
Great posts .. not that the Dimbats can read that much or comprehend what you wrote ...
In my opinion , Iraq violated athe ceasefire nd should have had their asses kicked the first time the shot at Ameican pilots in the "No Fly Zone " during the Klintoon era ...
Proud American
10-08-2005, 07:55 AM
There is no case to impeach Bush. He never did anything grievious like cover up an extra maritial affair.
how lame. And now theres just ONE MORE reference to this site on the net :) Thanks.
"Liberalism is the justification of immorality."
sunsettommy
10-16-2005, 10:17 PM
Mighty fine job Elgalad! :claps:
I have had to deal with a few ignorant people on another forum on this very thing.You covered this very well indeed.:grin:
Ceasefire is always a TRUCE situation that is dependent on the "peace talks".There is often two ways to decide such a Ceasefire.Settle a peace treaty or resume hostilities.In this case Saddam Hussein agreed to the TERMS of the Ceasefire.Therefore it was a long term Truce,dependent in this case to a number of conditions.The condition that are fulfilled to the U.N.'s satifaction does a ceasefire situation then changes to a peace treaty to end the war.
Iraq many times VIOLATED the Ceasefire terms over the years.Numerous times Iraq flouted U.N.resolutions.This clearly show that America had the LEGAL right to resume hostilities with Iraq.
So all anyone has to do with a Moonbat is ask them if Saddam violated the Ceasefire.If they say yes,then you won the argument since that is tantamount to agreeing that America can RESUME hostilities,due to the Ceasefire being voided by Iraq.:whistle:
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.