"The Answer Is Impeachment" ... "There's No Running Away From That."
Comments
-
Kel Varnsen wrote: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.0 -
polaris wrote:but legal under what body? ... legal in an american court of law which afghanis do not subscribe to?
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.The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.0 -
know1 wrote: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.
we were talking about whether the invasion of afghanistan was legal ... but yes, impeachment proceedings would have to be based on american law ...0 -
DriftingByTheStorm wrote:PICK ONE:
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.0 -
If lying to Congress in a speech is a crime, that would make every President a criminalKel Varnsen wrote: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.0 -
rocketman wrote: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:Wikipedia on High Crimes wrote: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?0 -
_outlaw wrote:
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?
good lord!0 -
my2hands wrote: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?0 -
DriftingByTheStorm wrote:
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...0 -
DriftingByTheStorm wrote: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.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")0 -
Im sorta familiar with that Constitution thing. It's taught in LAW SCHOOL. But you go with Wikipedia. Im comfortable with my interpretation.DriftingByTheStorm wrote: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!0 -
I think you would like this forum better http://www.mlparena.com/Forums.htmlrocketman wrote:There is a little bit of a lunatic fringe on here I am finding.0 -
You visit that much do ya?Nevermind wrote:I think you would like this forum better http://www.mlparena.com/Forums.html0 -
Not really. Couple times a week.0
-
I don't know what's sadder, the fact that people would bother to google to get that link, or the fact that i have seen that link before and can remember who posted it.Nevermind wrote:I think you would like this forum better http://www.mlparena.com/Forums.html
I'll go with the second one.0 -
Meh. It can be as peaceful or as unpeaceful as you like here. Just start up 25 different accounts and post under which personality best suits you at the time. Works for some.rocketman wrote:it looks far more peaceful then this place. maybe ill give it a whirl.
It's pathetic really. Freaks.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help