Impeach Bush or Vote Him out

Uh no Colonel I did define High Crime (go to the websites in my Clinton Thread).

High Crime covers felonies...and lying is not a felony if not under oath.

While it might make him lose an election, it's not grounds for Impeachment.

As I suggested, with my challenge, there are no grounds for impeachment of Bush.

PS. Oh...and Nixon wasn't being impeached for "Misuse of CIA//FBI" but for what he did with them. Which was harm the function of the government.

PPS. A president can now take us into military action for limited amounts of time without Congressional consent, check War Powers Acts and the Emergency Acts.

Not that I necessarily agree but if it's legal you can't nail them, only change the law and not let it happen again.

[Edited on 17-7-2003 by FreeMason]

Oh and don't forget Bush passing the Patriot Act I which is unconstitutional in nature and than going for a second round with Patriot Act II which is also unconstitutional. Both of them granting unconstitutional powers to authorites and other government agencies to feel free to screw over any citizen or immigrant at their will, with out court orders or any liable cause. You could be jailed just for here say and than imprisoned for as long as they wish, without a court trial.

So who's screwing who here, now??!! If that's not a major crime than what is?


[Edited on 17-7-2003 by Micah]

[Edited on 17-7-2003 by Micah]

Bush can't pass the Patriot Act, Congress can, not his problem, not an impeachable event if the Legislature goes with it.

MA: Thank you. I think we can impeach and process for removal one George W. Bush for HIGH CRIMES against the peole of the United States of America.

Originally posted by FreeMason
Uh no Colonel I did define High Crime (go to the websites in my Clinton Thread).

High Crime covers felonies...and lying is not a felony if not under oath.

While it might make him lose an election, it's not grounds for Impeachment.

As I suggested, with my challenge, there are no grounds for impeachment of Bush.

PS. Oh...and Nixon wasn't being impeached for "Misuse of CIA//FBI" but for what he did with them. Which was harm the function of the government.

PPS. A president can now take us into military action for limited amounts of time without Congressional consent, check War Powers Acts and the Emergency Acts.

Not that I necessarily agree but if it's legal you can't nail them, only change the law and not let it happen again.

[Edited on 17-7-2003 by FreeMason]

Very deft but you can't get over on the Colonel.

You say High Crimes "covers" felonies and quickly excluded lying. Well, does it include defrauding the United States government to manipulate the armed services for your own purposes or those of your associates? Ya think that would fall in as a felony?

[Edited on 17-7-2003 by Colonel]

Originally posted by FreeMason
Bush can't pass the Patriot Act, Congress can, not his problem, not an impeachable event if the Legislature goes with it.

Yet he's in violation of his Presidential duties, which is to protect the the constitution and the Bill of Rights and to defend the U.S. against any foreign power. Bush has blatantly sought to dismantle the constitution and the Bill rights, by passing through congress these two bills hiding behind the fact these Patriot bills are suppose to protect America from other entities who wish to destroy America. But in his due process proceeds to destroy America by his blatant enactments of these Patriot bills violating the constitutional rights of the American people.

1) Defrauding the government is monetary. Which Bush has not done.

2) Patriot Act is not necessarily anti-constitutional, and definately not Bush destroying the constitution. If Bush did that then there'd be no supreme court which could draw attention to the constitutionality of the Patriot act.

Originally posted by FreeMason
1) Defrauding the government is monetary. Which Bush has not done.

2) Patriot Act is not necessarily anti-constitutional, and definately not Bush destroying the constitution. If Bush did that then there'd be no supreme court which could draw attention to the constitutionality of the Patriot act.

Ok, you're gonna get cute on me. Fine. Checkmate is still checkmate.

"Well, does it include making misrepresentations and false statements to the United States government to manipulate the armed services for your own purposes or those of your associates? Ya think that would fall in as a felony?"




[Edited on 17-7-2003 by Colonel]

Impeach him, over-throw the current government and exile Rumsfield, Cheney and Bush to Iraq...

See, FM remains silent. I mean, is there no penalty for a president LYING us into a war where thousands of people are dead? Is this not murder on a mass scale? Is there nothing but "let's move on?"

This is getting to be a sick country.

International Laws Violated:

Article 2 of the United Nations Charter.

Text of Article 2, Section 3- 4. �All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. .... [and] refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.� [UN Charter, Article 2, Sections 3,4]

Violation. The US used force to settle its dispute with Iraq, ignoring calls from UN Security Council members for a peaceful resolution.

Articles 39 - 50 of the United Nations Charter.
Summary of Articles 39-50. Articles 39 - 50 of the United Nations Charter clearly stipulate that no member state is authorized to use military force against another country without the UN Security Council first determining that certain criteria have been met. (1) There must be a material breach of its resolution; and (2) All nonmilitary and peaceful options to enforce the resolution must be fully exhausted. Once it has been decided that the necessary conditions for military action have been met, only the UN Security Council can authorize the use of military force.

Violation. The United States and its conscripted coalition invaded Iraq without the approval of the UN Security Council. The Bush administration chose not to take the issue to the council because it knew that a resolution to use force against Iraq would not pass.

Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.
Summary of Article 51. Article 51 allows for a nation to use military force to defend itself only in cases of an ongoing or impending attack. It only provides this military solution as a temporary one �until the UN Security Council can find the appropriate peaceful response. The intention of this article was not to set criteria for the justification of war. Quite the contrary; its intent was to prevent conflicts from escalating into war.

Violation. The US and its conscripted coalition invaded Iraq - calling it a preemptive defense strike, a concept with no legal meaning - despite being unable to prove its allegations that it posed an imminent threat to the US Although the US claimed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, that Iraq was developing these weapons, and that Iraq intended to use these weapons against the US, the US failed to provide any evidence to substantiate these claims. UN weapons inspectors who examined suspected banned weapons facilities in Iraq found no support for the US assertions. The US also alleged that Iraq had ties to terrorist groups and would likely provide these organizations with weapons of mass destruction. No evidence was presented to the UN to support the accusation.

Kellog-Briand Pact of 1928.
Summary of Article 51. The Kellog-Briand treaty, ratified by the United States in 1929, requires that all disputes be resolved peacefully. It prohibits war as an instrument of foreign policy. As a testament to this fact, in 1932, the secretary of state, Henry L. Stimson stated, �War between nations was renounced by the signatories (including the US and Britain) of that Treaty. This means that it has become throughout practically the entire world... an illegal thing. Hereafter when nations engage in armed conflict... we denounce them as law breakers.�

Violation. The US used force to settle its dispute with Iraq, ignoring calls from UN Security Council members for a peaceful resolution.

US laws violated.
Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution.
Summary of Article VI. The article states that international treaties such as the U.N. Charter, which was ratified by the US in 1945, are the �supreme law of the land.� The article reads:�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; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.�

Violation. The United States Congress violated Article VI of the Constitution when it passed Joint Congressional Joint Resolution 46 [S.J. Res 46] 'authorizing' the President to order "the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq." The President then violated this article when he ordered the commencement of the official invasion of Iraq.

The War Powers Resolution passed by Congress in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks.
Summary. The resolution authorized the President to use military force only against those countries and groups responsible for the September 11 attacks. The resolution stated: �The president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.� [Joint Congressional Resolution 23, 9/18/01]

Evidence that President Bush did not have legal authority to send US troops to invade Iraq under the provisions of the War Powers Resolution. The Bush administration failed to make any connection between Saddam Hussein's regime and the September 11 attacks.

Public admissions by Bush administration officials that there was no evidence that Iraq played a part in the September 11 attacks.

President George W. Bush. He admitted there was no such evidence. During a January 31, 2003 joint press conference with British Prime Minister Blair at the White House, the two leaders were asked by a reporter, �One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?� Bush answered succinctly, �I can't make that claim.� [US President, 1/31/2003]

White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. On September 26, 2002, Ari Fleischer confirmed that there was no evidence that Iraq had been involved in the 9/11 attacks. [White House, 9/26/03]

Statements made by influential people, experts, officials.
Brent Scowcroft, one of the Republican Party�s most respected foreign policy advisors. He downplayed Iraq's alleged link to terrorism. In an op-ed piece published by the Wall Street Journal he stated, �[T]here is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed Saddam's goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them. He is unlikely to risk his investment in weapons of mass destruction, much less his country, by handing such weapons to terrorists who would use them for their own purposes and leave Baghdad as the return address.� [Wall Street Journal 8/15/02]

Unnamed administration official. On January 28, 2003, immediately after President George Bush delivered his 2003 State of the Union Address, Knight Ridder Newspapers published a report quoting an unnamed US official who said that �there was no evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda had cooperated on terrorist operations and no evidence of any Iraqi role in the Sept. 11 attacks.� [Knight Ridder, 1/28/03]

Unnamed US Government official. Referring to the alleged link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, one US Government official told the New York Times, �We�ve been looking at this hard for more than a year, and you know what, we just don�t think it�s there.�� [New York Times 2/3/03]
Read More . . .

No Legal Justification.
The United States and its 'coalition of the willing' attempted to justify their invasion on grounds that previous UN resolutions allowed for the use of force in the event of Iraq's failure to comply with those resolutions. Legal experts disagree.

UN Security Resolution 687
Legal apologetics for the US invasion of Iraq have alleged that UN Security Council Resolution 687, which declared a cease fire at the end of the Gulf War on the condition that Iraq accept the resolution's terms, authorized the continued use of force in the event of Iraqi noncompliance. But legal experts disagree insisting that only the UN Security Council has the legal authority to mandate the additional use of force against Iraq. Stephen Zunes, [8/20/02] an advisor to Foreign Policy in Focus, explained:�As is normally the case when it is determined that governments violate all or part of UN resolutions, any decision about the enforcement of its resolutions is a matter for the UN Security Council as a whole�not for any one member of the council.� Professor Colin Warbrick [Reuters 3/28/02] of Durham University agreed: �There is no provision for enforcement in the resolution which authorizes states to carry out military action. It's for the Security Council to decide what action to take.� Legal experts reiterated this assessment after the start of the war. "No state or coalition of states acting outside the authorization of the council retains the right to use force, even to punish Iraq for breaches of the resolution or to compel its compliance," wrote Devika Hovell and Professor George Williams of the Gilbert and Tobin Centre of Public Law at the University of NSW in Australia. [Sydney Morning Herald, 3/19/03]

UN Security Council Resolution 1154
Even though UN Security Council Resolution 1154 warned Iraq that its continued refusal to abide by Res. 687 would result in the �severest consequences,� the UN Security Council clearly stated that it alone was authorized to �ensure implementation of this resolution and peace and security in the area.� [Zunes 8/20/02]

UN Security Council Resolution 1441
The resolution states �that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council� which will �convene immediately � in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security.� Only the UN Security Council had the authority to take punitive action against Iraq. [UN Security Council 11/08/02]

The President can violate any international law he so chooses, in the US only the Constitution applies, and the President Bush does not meet constitutional guidelines for impeachment.

���������?

And colonel false statements does not fall under a felony as the President has the right to declare those statements were made such for National Security and it can not be challenged.

* FM currently exhibits the traits of another man with a can of paint right next to him, a paintbrush in hand, and a freshly painted floor between himself and the only door, in the corner opposite to where he is. *

* Perhaps there is a window behind him, with a group of concerned citizens holding a placard outside, that says "Resignation". *

(As yet undrawn unpublished political cartoon for early August 2003. No donkey-a$$es featuring).

Current ATS polling:

Get rid of Bush - 15
Vote for Bush - 6
Sit on fence - 1

Yes but again MA, most ATS members know very little about the US Constitution. So of course they are saying Impeach, as if he is even elligable for one...

Originally posted by FreeMason
MA come on man you can read.

They have NO case.

They had a case against clinton because he possibly performed either a High Crime or Misdemeanor. (Purgery).

Bush has done neither.

And Treason can't fit in ANY way at all...so I can't believe you just said "yes" to that one...

*Shakes head* don't be one of the misinformed my good friend lol...

PS. Lying under oath is lying after you have sworn (whether on the bible, the religious book of your choice, or some other item that you find "binding" just as in masonry), which he has yet to do.

[Edited on 17-7-2003 by FreeMason]

========================================

how about this just to be fair for starters. same charge purjury under oath on his innaugural adress ' to protect and defend the United States' .
911 was a clear lack of defense by the current government none of those airplanes after violating FAA flight plans should have been allowed to proceed to any destination without NORAD intervention, let alone NYC and the Pentagon. sounds like a failure of defense to me.
at any rate it is a lot moe of an incident than lying about a blow job
furthur more what would motivate the largest industrial/military organization on Earth to not defend itself

TUT

That won't hold up in court Tut.

Originally posted by FreeMason
And colonel false statements does not fall under a felony as the President has the right to declare those statements were made such for National Security and it can not be challenged.

Really, under what law does that fall under? Where did you find that? I know the Constitution doesn't say that. Look at what you are saying. As president, I LIED for National Security reasons. Does that make ANY sense? The norm would be "NO COMMENT" based upon National Security concerns.

Do you just make this stuff up as you go along?

[Edited on 18-7-2003 by Colonel]

War Powers and Emergency Acts Colonel, again I said before, I don't necessarily agree with them, but until they're removed it's fair game. And congress put them in there