the primary basis for impeachment is that this president and his administration purposefully lied to congress and the american public in order to engage the country in a war with a sovereign country ...
I am not trying to defend anyone here, but if he lied and they accepted it (congress I mean) without checking the facts themselves, are they not also responsible?
so this writer's opinion is that the Afghanistan War is "illegal" so that makes it illegal?
did you even read it?
how about in your own words why the invasion was illegal? or maybe expand on "sovereign entity that we invaded illegally"
the article expands what I meant by it, I don't need to repeat anything.
They planned, coordinated, and launched an attack on this country from their base of operations in Afghanistan, all while being protected and harbored by the government of Afghanistan.
The government of Afghanistan was not provided with any proof that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 like they asked from the U.S. The United States told Afghanistan "give us Bin Laden or you'll get bombed." Not to mention the fact that Osama bin Laden is not even on the FBI wanted list...
If you kill 3,000 people and i hide you out at my house, i would expect to get my door kicked in...
Not to mention the fact that Osama bin Laden is not even on the FBI wanted list...
Hey, you're right. They're not looking for Osama bin Laden, they're looking for the totally different Usama Bin Laden. Man, that guy must be really bad if he knocked Osama off the list.
Hey, you're right. They're not looking for Osama bin Laden, they're looking for the totally different Usama Bin Laden. Man, that guy must be really bad if he knocked Osama off the list.
"Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world."
"Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world."
where's the mention of 9/11?
But who cares? Contrary to your post, he is on the list.
Besides, why wouldn't Afghanistan surrender him on the grounds that he's responsible for the deaths of the 200 people actually mentioned?
But who cares? Contrary to your post, he is on the list.
Besides, why wouldn't Afghanistan surrender him on the grounds that he's responsible for the deaths of the 200 people actually mentioned?
On my post, I meant wanted for 9/11, not in general.
1. Afghanistan asked for proof.
2. It infringes on Afghanistan's sovereign right to invade them for someone living there.
3. Since when was the U.S. the world police? why should Afghanistan have to turn him over to the U.S.?
On my post, I meant wanted for 9/11, not in general.
1. Afghanistan asked for proof.
2. It infringes on Afghanistan's sovereign right to invade them for someone living there.
3. Since when was the U.S. the world police? why should Afghanistan have to turn him over to the U.S.?
1. Osama's organization taking responsibility was proof enough.
2 & 3 . It has nothing to do with being the world police, and calling a nation sovereign doesn't remove that nation from the possibility of war with other nations. Plain and simple, Osama's organization attacked us, that organization was based in and working with the Taliban, we responded.
I am not trying to defend anyone here, but if he lied and they accepted it (congress I mean) without checking the facts themselves, are they not also responsible?
no doubt congress is partly responsible for this clusterfuck ... but the buck starts at the oval office ...
1. Osama's organization taking responsibility was proof enough.
2 & 3 . It has nothing to do with being the world police, and calling a nation sovereign doesn't remove that nation from the possibility of war with other nations. Plain and simple, Osama's organization attacked us, that organization was based in and working with the Taliban, we responded.
uhh... being sovereign and thinking you're a world police does make a difference, so that post that you consider a response is just you moving away from the bigger picture to suit whatever you want to prove (I assume it's that the war on Afghanistan was legal?)...
how about you answer this: if the U.S. wanted a terrorist like Bin Laden, and he was in China, would they go to war with China?
Oh, and your "working WITH the Taliban" comment is pretty ridiculous. there's no proof of that either.
uhh... being sovereign and thinking you're a world police does make a difference, so that post that you consider a response is just you moving away from the bigger picture to suit whatever you want to prove (I assume it's that the war on Afghanistan was legal?)...
You can argue that the war with Afghanistan was right or wrong - but it was legal.
Oh, and your "working WITH the Taliban" comment is pretty ridiculous. there's no proof of that either.
The Taliban might not have been directly involved in 9-11, but bin Laden had a long working relationship with the them. There's plenty of proof of that.
You can argue that the war with Afghanistan was right or wrong - but it was legal.
No, it wasn't.
The Taliban might not have been directly involved in 9-11, but bin Laden had a long working relationship with the them. There's plenty of proof of that.
No proof that anything they did was illegal.
Sorry, but the war was not legal. The military intentionally bombed many civilian infrastructure, resulting in plenty of deaths... no, it's not "collateral damage" either.
no doubt congress is partly responsible for this clusterfuck ... but the buck starts at the oval office ...
That may be but I think with the whole system of checks and balances in this case one branch of government can't really do anything without the others approval. And it would seem pretty hypocritical for congress to impeach the president for something that they were totally a part of.
That may be but I think with the whole system of checks and balances in this case one branch of government can't really do anything without the others approval. And it would seem pretty hypocritical for congress to impeach the president for something that they were totally a part of.
uhhh ... i'm not sure if you get the reason for impeachment - it is for lying to congress ... and although i'm not exactly sure about this - congress did NOT actually declare war on Iraq which is what is supposed to happen according to law in the US however, there was some semantics involved with a resolution passed that allowed bush to take the country to war unilaterally from the UN ...
but in any case - at the end of the day ... it boils down to whether you think lying to congress and the american public is an impeachable offense or not ...
but legal under what body? ... legal in an american court of law which afghanis do not subscribe to?
Yeah, pretty much. We also had international support to back us up. Besides, most nations didn't recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan anyway.
The truth is, though, questions of legality in regards to warfare are grey at best.
uhhh ... i'm not sure if you get the reason for impeachment - it is for lying to congress ... and although i'm not exactly sure about this - congress did NOT actually declare war on Iraq which is what is supposed to happen according to law in the US however, there was some semantics involved with a resolution passed that allowed bush to take the country to war unilaterally from the UN ...
but in any case - at the end of the day ... it boils down to whether you think lying to congress and the american public is an impeachable offense or not ...
I think lying to congress is an impeachable offense, but I don't like the idea of the people who would handle this impeachment are the same people who 1) approved the invasion and its funding in the first place and 2) in the least didn't practice due diligence by double checking his claims to see if he was lying or not. To me ignorance and a "we didn't know" isn't really a good excuse since to me it should be their job to find out. It would be like if a mob boss was arrested and at his trial, the 12 people on the jury are all the guys who work for him.
I think lying to congress is an impeachable offense, but I don't like the idea of the people who would handle this impeachment are the same people who 1) approved the invasion and its funding in the first place and 2) in the least didn't practice due diligence by double checking his claims to see if he was lying or not. To me ignorance and a "we didn't know" isn't really a good excuse since to me it should be their job to find out. It would be like if a mob boss was arrested and at his trial, the 12 people on the jury are all the guys who work for him.
well ... 1) that is a different topic altogether but i understand and agree with your position. 2) this one is tough in that the expectations is that the executive office would not be engaged in some plot to convince americans and congress of this war. This is not as simple as Saddam had WMD - it was carefully crafted in speeches and false documents and staged incidents.
Article I
Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq.
Article II
Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression.
Article III
Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War.
Article IV
Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States.
Article V
Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression.
Article VI
Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114.
Article VII
Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War.
Article VIII
Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter.
Article IX
Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor
Article X
Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes
Article XI
Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq
Article XII
Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation's Natural Resources
Article XIIII
Creating a Secret Task Force to Develop Energy and Military Policies With Respect to Iraq and Other
Countries
Article XIV
Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency
Article XV
Providing Immunity from Prosecution for Criminal Contractors in Iraq
Article XVI
Reckless Misspending and Waste of U.S. Tax Dollars in Connection With Iraq and US Contractors
Article XVII
Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely And Without Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign Captives
Article XVIII
Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official Policy
Article XIX
Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against Their Will to "Black Sites" Located in Other Nations, Including Nations Known to Practice Torture
Article XX
Imprisoning Children
Article XXI
Misleading Congress and the American People About Threats from Iran, and Supporting Terrorist Organizations Within Iran, With the Goal of Overthrowing the Iranian Government
Article XXII
Creating Secret Laws
Article XXIII
Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act
Article XXIV
Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment
Article XXV
Directing Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens
Article XXVI
Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements
Article XXVII
Failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas and Instructing Former Employees Not to Comply
Article XXVIII
Tampering with Free and Fair Elections, Corruption of the Administration of Justice
Article XXIX
Conspiracy to Violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965
Article XXX
Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt to Destroy Medicare
Article XXXI
Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil Emergency
Article XXXII
Misleading Congress and the American People, Systematically Undermining Efforts to Address Global Climate Change
Article XXXIII
Repeatedly Ignored and Failed to Respond to High Level Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist Attacks in the US, Prior to 911.
Article XXXIV
Obstruction of the Investigation into the Attacks of September 11, 2001
Article XXXV
Endangering the Health of 911 First Responders
You need an actual violation of an actual law. Not an idea, a thought, a misjudgment. A statute! Do you have one of those? I mean I love the whole impeachment idea. Its lovely and all but for one it must be a violation of U.S. law. Not International Law. Further even if you succeed you get President Cheney. Id rather keep the moron instead of taking the lunatic.
I think lying to congress is an impeachable offense, but I don't like the idea of the people who would handle this impeachment are the same people who 1) approved the invasion and its funding in the first place and 2) in the least didn't practice due diligence by double checking his claims to see if he was lying or not. To me ignorance and a "we didn't know" isn't really a good excuse since to me it should be their job to find out. It would be like if a mob boss was arrested and at his trial, the 12 people on the jury are all the guys who work for him.
If lying to Congress in a speech is a crime, that would make every President a criminal
You need an actual violation of an actual law. Not an idea, a thought, a misjudgment. A statute! Do you have one of those? I mean I love the whole impeachment idea. Its lovely and all but for one it must be a violation of U.S. law. Not International Law. Further even if you succeed you get President Cheney. Id rather keep the moron instead of taking the lunatic.
How about #s 14, 17, 18, 19, 24, 25, 27, 28, and 34?
Those seem to me to all be pretty blatant violations of actual standing law.
What articles are YOU reading?
And this whole must violate a "statute" thing?
Thats actually mostly incorrect.
The president can be impeached ONLY for
a. Treason
b. Bribery
c. HIGH CRIMES & MISDEMEANOURS
So the only actual STATUTES he could be impeached for would be those somehow pertaining to #C.
THUS,
What i am more concerned with is HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOURS on which you should read up a little.
British
The impeachment of the King's Chancellor, Michael de la Pole, 1st Earl of Suffolk in 1386 was the first case to use this charge. One charge under this heading alleged that de la Pole broke a promise to Parliament. He had promised to follow the advice of a committee regarding improvement of the kingdom. Another charge said that he failed to pay a ransom for the town of Ghent, and that because of that the town fell to the French.
The 1450 impeachment of William de la Pole, 1st Duke of Suffolk, a descendant of Michael's, was next to allege charges under this title. He was charged with using his influence to obstruct justice, cronyism, and wasting public money. Other charges against him included acts of high treason. [SOUND FAMILIAR?]
Impeachment fell out of use after 1459 but Parliament revived it in the early 1600s to bring the King's ministers to book. In 1621, Parliament impeached the King's Attorney General, Sir Henry Yelverton for high crimes and misdemeanors. The charges included failing to prosecute after starting lawsuits and using authority before it was properly his.
After the Restoration the scope of the charge grew to include negligence, and abuse of power or trust while in office. For example, charges in the impeachment of Edward Russell, 1st Earl of Orford in 1701 included many violations of trust and his position. In this case, he abused his position in the Privy Council to make profits for himself; as Chief of the Navy he embezzled funds; and, as Lord High Admiral of England he got a commission for the pirate William Kidd.
United States of America
High crimes and misdemeanors is a phrase from the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 4: "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."
"High" in the legal parlance of the 18th century means "against the State". A high crime is one which seeks the overthrow of the country, which gives aid or comfort to its enemies, or which injures the country to the profit of an individual or group. In democracies and similar societies it also includes crimes which attempt to alter the outcome of elections.
The first impeachment conviction by the U.S. Senate was in 1804 of District Judge John Pickering for the high crime and misdemeanor of chronic intoxication. Federal judges have been impeached and removed from office for tax evasion, conspiracy to solicit a bribe, and making false statements to a grand jury.
HE COULD EVEN BE IMPEACHED FOR BEING A CHRONIC DRUNK,
just to show you how far you could take this.
(i'm not accusing him of that, i'm showing you what the scope of the law provides here!)
FURTHER, WE COULD IMPEACH DICK CHENEY AND ANY OTHER ONE OF THOSE MOTHER FUCKERS WE CHOSE TO, NOT JUST THE PRESIDENT!!!! READ THE CONSTITUTION!
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
The government of Afghanistan was not provided with any proof that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 like they asked from the U.S. The United States told Afghanistan "give us Bin Laden or you'll get bombed." Not to mention the fact that Osama bin Laden is not even on the FBI wanted list...
you are kidding right? defending the Taliban and Bin Laden?
you are kidding right? defending the Taliban and Bin Laden?
good lord!
Its okay when the government does it though, right?
You know, considering how we made the islamic resistance in Afghanistan, Bin Laden was working intelligence for the CIA, and we essentialy put the Taliban in power?
Kind've like old Saddam.
One day he is Buddy #1 to the US
The next day, we are supposed to fear he is our death and destruction.
If the United States were a single person, they would be the most bi-polar and unfortunate being ... having all their best friends and buddies turn in to their worst enemies at the flick of a switch.
Just weird!
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
You know, considering how we made the islamic resistance in Afghanistan, Bin Laden was working intelligence for the CIA, and we essentialy put the Taliban in power?
i am glad we supported the Afghans against the Russians in the 80's... how about you? and as far as i know, we had nothign todo with the Taliban seizing power, that was well after the 80's war...
Its okay when the government does it though, right?
You know, considering how we made the islamic resistance in Afghanistan, Bin Laden was working intelligence for the CIA, and we essentialy put the Taliban in power?
Kind've like old Saddam.
One day he is Buddy #1 to the US
The next day, we are supposed to fear he is our death and destruction.
If the United States were a single person, they would be the most bi-polar and unfortunate being ... having all their best friends and buddies turn in to their worst enemies at the flick of a switch.
Just weird!
Set em up and knock em down, and move on to the next one.
The best is when they can stand back and watch people start killing each other. Success!
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Comments
I am not trying to defend anyone here, but if he lied and they accepted it (congress I mean) without checking the facts themselves, are they not also responsible?
the article expands what I meant by it, I don't need to repeat anything.
The government of Afghanistan was not provided with any proof that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 like they asked from the U.S. The United States told Afghanistan "give us Bin Laden or you'll get bombed." Not to mention the fact that Osama bin Laden is not even on the FBI wanted list...
terrible analogy.
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted.htm
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/fugitives.htm
where's the mention of 9/11?
Besides, why wouldn't Afghanistan surrender him on the grounds that he's responsible for the deaths of the 200 people actually mentioned?
1. Afghanistan asked for proof.
2. It infringes on Afghanistan's sovereign right to invade them for someone living there.
3. Since when was the U.S. the world police? why should Afghanistan have to turn him over to the U.S.?
2 & 3 . It has nothing to do with being the world police, and calling a nation sovereign doesn't remove that nation from the possibility of war with other nations. Plain and simple, Osama's organization attacked us, that organization was based in and working with the Taliban, we responded.
no doubt congress is partly responsible for this clusterfuck ... but the buck starts at the oval office ...
for the same reason why the US won't release terrorists who have "acted" on behalf of US interests ...
how about you answer this: if the U.S. wanted a terrorist like Bin Laden, and he was in China, would they go to war with China?
Oh, and your "working WITH the Taliban" comment is pretty ridiculous. there's no proof of that either.
Still, there's no doubt that those who want the extradition of "U.S. terrorists" would come and get them if they could.
"What if" questions like this cannot be answered concretely. In my opinion, it could go either way.
The Taliban might not have been directly involved in 9-11, but bin Laden had a long working relationship with the them. There's plenty of proof of that.
absolutely - but that isn't gonna happen ...
but legal under what body? ... legal in an american court of law which afghanis do not subscribe to?
No proof that anything they did was illegal.
Sorry, but the war was not legal. The military intentionally bombed many civilian infrastructure, resulting in plenty of deaths... no, it's not "collateral damage" either.
That may be but I think with the whole system of checks and balances in this case one branch of government can't really do anything without the others approval. And it would seem pretty hypocritical for congress to impeach the president for something that they were totally a part of.
uhhh ... i'm not sure if you get the reason for impeachment - it is for lying to congress ... and although i'm not exactly sure about this - congress did NOT actually declare war on Iraq which is what is supposed to happen according to law in the US however, there was some semantics involved with a resolution passed that allowed bush to take the country to war unilaterally from the UN ...
but in any case - at the end of the day ... it boils down to whether you think lying to congress and the american public is an impeachable offense or not ...
The truth is, though, questions of legality in regards to warfare are grey at best.
I think lying to congress is an impeachable offense, but I don't like the idea of the people who would handle this impeachment are the same people who 1) approved the invasion and its funding in the first place and 2) in the least didn't practice due diligence by double checking his claims to see if he was lying or not. To me ignorance and a "we didn't know" isn't really a good excuse since to me it should be their job to find out. It would be like if a mob boss was arrested and at his trial, the 12 people on the jury are all the guys who work for him.
well ... 1) that is a different topic altogether but i understand and agree with your position. 2) this one is tough in that the expectations is that the executive office would not be engaged in some plot to convince americans and congress of this war. This is not as simple as Saddam had WMD - it was carefully crafted in speeches and false documents and staged incidents.
But wouldn't the impeachment proceedings be held in accordance with American law and procedure?
We can't hold Americans or the President accountable for all laws of all foreign countries.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
we were talking about whether the invasion of afghanistan was legal ... but yes, impeachment proceedings would have to be based on american law ...
You need an actual violation of an actual law. Not an idea, a thought, a misjudgment. A statute! Do you have one of those? I mean I love the whole impeachment idea. Its lovely and all but for one it must be a violation of U.S. law. Not International Law. Further even if you succeed you get President Cheney. Id rather keep the moron instead of taking the lunatic.
How about #s 14, 17, 18, 19, 24, 25, 27, 28, and 34?
Those seem to me to all be pretty blatant violations of actual standing law.
What articles are YOU reading?
And this whole must violate a "statute" thing?
Thats actually mostly incorrect.
The president can be impeached ONLY for
a. Treason
b. Bribery
c. HIGH CRIMES & MISDEMEANOURS
So the only actual STATUTES he could be impeached for would be those somehow pertaining to #C.
THUS,
What i am more concerned with is HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOURS on which you should read up a little.
Here, from our favorite:
HE COULD EVEN BE IMPEACHED FOR BEING A CHRONIC DRUNK,
just to show you how far you could take this.
(i'm not accusing him of that, i'm showing you what the scope of the law provides here!)
FURTHER,
WE COULD IMPEACH DICK CHENEY AND ANY OTHER ONE OF THOSE MOTHER FUCKERS WE CHOSE TO, NOT JUST THE PRESIDENT!!!! READ THE CONSTITUTION!
If I opened it now would you not understand?
you are kidding right? defending the Taliban and Bin Laden?
good lord!
Its okay when the government does it though, right?
You know, considering how we made the islamic resistance in Afghanistan, Bin Laden was working intelligence for the CIA, and we essentialy put the Taliban in power?
Kind've like old Saddam.
One day he is Buddy #1 to the US
The next day, we are supposed to fear he is our death and destruction.
If the United States were a single person, they would be the most bi-polar and unfortunate being ... having all their best friends and buddies turn in to their worst enemies at the flick of a switch.
Just weird!
If I opened it now would you not understand?
i am glad we supported the Afghans against the Russians in the 80's... how about you? and as far as i know, we had nothign todo with the Taliban seizing power, that was well after the 80's war...
Set em up and knock em down, and move on to the next one.
The best is when they can stand back and watch people start killing each other. Success!
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")