|
printable version
- js reader version
- view hidden posts
- tags and related articles
View article without comments
by ziggy
Monday, Jan. 06, 2003 at 2:59 AM
58 minute radio show, mp3 for streaming or download
 willy.jpg, image/jpeg, 360x262
Impeachment due to lies pertaining to one's private member? High crimes
indeed! Granted, Clinton was no angel and the Republicans attempted to
take him out on the sex issue because Clinton was nearly as corrupt as the
current Bush gang, and going after anything other than the petty sex issue
would actually cut close to home.
Today, there's a growing number of people contemplating impeachment
proceedings against George W. Bush and gang.
Professor Francis A Boyle worked with the late Congressman Henry Gonzalez
to draft impeachment articles against George H. W. Bush. Now, he's
letting people in Congress know that he's willing to help any of them that
will stand up and enforce the rule of law. He makes the case that U.S.
is violating international law, particularly the Bush doctrine of preemptive
war, which in his words reads like a Nazi strategy document. He also
makes the case that the "Ashcroft police state" is also grounds for
impeachment.
Professor Boyle believes there are large numbers of Congress members that
are seriously disturbed about what Bush is intending to do in Iraq, and what
is going on with the nascent police state.
He's proposing six articles of impeachment. Listen to the radio show
to learn more.
The radio show below comes from http://www.radio4all.net/proginfo.php?id=6140
Picture credit here.
See the bottom right corner for playing or downloading the mp3.
R.I.S.E.
- Special Edition:
Preemptive Impeachment |
Length:
58:00 |
|
Summary: |
Prof. Francis A Boyle calls for the impeachment of Bush, Cheney,
Rumsfeld & Ashcroft. He offers his legal services FREE to any member
of Congress willing to introduce articles of impeachment. |
Featuring: |
Prof. Francis A. Boyle, Kellia Ramares |
Type: |
Regular Show |
Recorded: |
12/24/02 |
Recorded At: |
Urbana IL, & Oakland CA |
Producer: |
Kellia Ramares |
Uploaded
By: |
Kellia Ramares |
Uploaded On: |
01/04/2003
|
Keywords: |
Boyle, impeachment, Nuremberg, Iraq, war crimes, Ramares, Bush, police
state, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Cheney, war |
Restrictions: |
No excerpting/modifying without permission.
For non-profit use only.
See notes.
|
Notes: |
Please let me know if you run this by emailing kellia@rise4news.net
Self-contained. No anchor script needed.
For more information in R.I.S.E. and on impeachment, please visit
http://www.rise4news.net
|
\; |
Preemptive
Impeachment |
Language: English |
|
Seg |
Title |
Length |
File
Info |
Download |
Play |
1 |
|
58:00 |
64 kbps MP3 (26.55 MB) |
FTP
HTTP |
Play |
|
Report this post as:
by ziggy
Monday, Jan. 06, 2003 at 4:30 AM
I assume that Professor Francis A Boyle has contacted former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark about impeachment a strategy to throw a monkey wrench into the rise of a police state and the war on Iraq. Boyle talks about Clark in the interview.
The groups organizing the massive January 18 national protest against the war should talk to Boyle, if they haven't already -- to get this impeachment idea at the forefront of the demonstrations. Boyle is on to something. This could be the single best chance to stop the war. Success will not be judged by actual impeachment, but by how the process helps restore some true democracy in our land (and it's beyond the Supreme Court ;-)
Report this post as:
by Sheepdog
Monday, Jan. 06, 2003 at 5:05 AM
Henry Gonzalez was one of the heroes of the house. His likes will not be seen for a long time. I remember him trying to alert the C-Span audience time after time about the criminal enterprise going on around him. Wasn't he in the JFK motorcade in Dallas? After he warned Jack about the danger he saw in the trip to the world trade mart? Asking the other paid stooges to have his stones is like spitting into a hurricane. Good luck.
Report this post as:
by ziggy
Monday, Jan. 06, 2003 at 5:30 AM
Heck Sheepdog, there's no sense in letting cynicism control our actions. I'm just as cynical as you, I suspect, but there's a real possibility that this whole thing can be one of the more effective focusing points to put pressure on plutocracy gone amuck.
I would define success as marginal improvement, not actual impeachment.
For example, even preventing the use of tactical nuclear weapons is one very material measure of success. If you look at what Daniel Ellsberg is saying these days, here's pounding the table about how the peace movement was the single biggest reason why Nixon didn't use nukes in Indochina.
Use of nukes today is an extreme example, which makes it easy to prove my argument -- any and all pressure from all sides is a good thing.
There's something to be said about how dark it gets before dawn. Power is so out of control in the US that maybe enough good people in power will hear the voice of conscience? There are some segments of the power structure making what the Bush administration could only deem "counterproductive" statements to the press (like some in the CIA saying that the CIA is getting pressure to lie about intelligence reports on Iraq).
Sheepdog, take note from Toto: The Wizard of Oz isn't as powerful as he seems and we can pull back the curtain if we don't let cynicism kill our ability to organize.
Report this post as:
by Sheepdog
Monday, Jan. 06, 2003 at 6:01 AM
Forgive my attitude, it’s these times. I stand corrected. We do need to show some force of resistance and impeachment is a good start. However, I hold little hope of the congress ever showing any moral strength. We need to light a real fire under their buts any way we can. Good luck and I meant it. Sorry about my negative outlook but so far I ain't been wrong yet. Hoping to be; more than you know. I remember the Monty Python ‘Life of Brian’ song, “ Always Look on The Bright Side of Life” While fixed to the cross. Impeach, hell; they should hang for treason. I’ll bring popcorn for everyone even if it bankrupts me.
Report this post as:
by Sheepdog
Monday, Jan. 06, 2003 at 6:13 AM
We can hang all their toady sycophantic lackeys on the same gallows.
Report this post as:
by Sheepdog
Monday, Jan. 06, 2003 at 6:15 AM
...good hemp rope.
Report this post as:
by Geeesh
Wednesday, Jan. 08, 2003 at 5:37 AM
I'm trying to find out about this Boyle person. I don't want to wait about a DAY downloading a 25 MB file that probably won't download on my connection anyway.
An actual reporter would give us some FACTS about Boyle, such as:
where is he a professor?
how can we contact him?
is there a web site associated with this?
If you're going to purport to tell the news, actually tell some.
Report this post as:
by ziggy
Wednesday, Jan. 08, 2003 at 6:47 AM
Normally I do make sure to include contact information and further biographical
material. I simply forgot to do that with the above. But it's quite
easy to find that sort of thing. For example, by simply typing his name
into google you get the a number of listings (click
here to see them), and that includes on the very first screen, near the
bottom, his official bio page (click
here).
Sorry, but you're tone is pretty darn rude. You need to think
about that.
Report this post as:
by ziggy
Wednesday, Jan. 08, 2003 at 6:56 AM
The above is an editorial as far as my comments go, as well as a pointer to news -- a radio interview found elsewhere, and for which I provided full citation. You are not only snide, but you incorrectly classify my article, demonstrating your journalism savvy.
You're correct. I should have provided biographical information or a link to his bio in the original article. For that I apologize.
Report this post as:
by ziggy
Wednesday, Jan. 08, 2003 at 7:41 AM
R.I.S.E. added a web page about Boyle's radio interview after I wrote the
editorial above. There's not much there at the moment, but perhaps it will be
updated later. You can visit that page by clicking
here.
The R.I.S.E. radio show is an internet-only show,
and Kellia Ramares uploads the mp3 files to radio4all
often (use the search engine there), and it's streamed elsewhere. You can look at the R.I.S.E.
website. Ramares works with KPFA, but to the best of my knowledge
R.I.S.E. is entirely her brainchild and 100% independent.
Report this post as:
by Simple Simon
Wednesday, Jan. 08, 2003 at 9:17 PM
http://www.law.uiuc.edu/faculty/DirectoryResult.asp?Name=Boyle,%20Francis Here is the information you were looking for concerning Professor Boyle.
Report this post as:
by Houston
Thursday, Jan. 09, 2003 at 10:16 AM
If you have a website and want a standard banner to use on it, this one comes
from the Houston Independent Media
Center. You can click to this page, the R.I.S.E.
Impeachment page, or what have you. 
Report this post as:
by Kéllia Ramares
Thursday, Jan. 09, 2003 at 11:25 AM
Preemptive
impeachment
Law
professor stands ready to draft articles for any member of the House
By
Kéllia Ramares
Online
Journal Contributing Editor
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/Ramares010403/ramares010403.html
While
the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the
international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to
exercise our right of self defense by acting preemptively against such
terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country .
. .
—The
National Security Strategy of the United States of America
January
4, 2002—"We sentenced Nazi leaders to death for waging a war of
aggression," says International Law Professor Francis A. Boyle of the
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. By contrast, Prof. Boyle wants merely
to impeach George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and John Ashcroft for
their plans to invade Iraq and create a police state in America.
Boyle
is offering his services as counsel, free of charge, to any member of the House
of Representatives willing to sponsor articles of impeachment. He is experienced
in this work, having undertaken it in 1991 for the late Rep. Henry B. Gonzalez
(D-TX), in an effort to stop the first Persian Gulf War. It takes only one
member to introduce articles of impeachment. Of course, it will take many more
than that to vote for impeachment, which will culminate in a trial in the
Senate. Boyle is confident that, once the articles are introduced, others,
including Republicans, will co-sponsor them. But we have to convince our
Representatives that impeachment is necessary for the country and politically
safe for them. This non-violent, constitutional process may be our best way of
stopping World War III and saving our civil rights.
Grounds
for Impeachment
Article
II Sec. 4 of the Constitution states that: "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." Boyle says that waging a war of aggression is a crime under
the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment and Principles.
"It's very clear," he adds, "if you read all the press reports,
they are going to devastate Baghdad, a metropolitan area of 5 million people.
The Nuremberg Charter clearly says the wanton devastation of a city is a
Nuremberg war crime."
The
United States is a party to the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment and Principles,
and thus is constitutionally bound to obey them. "The Constitution, in
Article 6, says that international treaties are the supreme law of the land here
in the United States of America. So all we would be doing here, in this
impeachment campaign," Boyle says, "is impeaching them for violating
international treaties, as incorporated into the United States Constitution, as
well as the Constitution itself."
Bush
Cabal Repudiates Nuremberg Principles
We
don't have to wait for the devastation of Baghdad to impeach the Bush cabal
because they have already repudiated the Nuremberg Charter via the so-called
Bush Doctrine of preventive war and pre-emptive attack. "This doctrine of
pre-emptive warfare or pre-emptive attack was rejected soundly in the Nuremberg
Judgment, " Boyle says. "The Nuremberg Judgment . . . rejected this
Nazi doctrine of international law of alleged self-defense." The Bush
Doctrine, embodied in the National
Security Strategy document,
published on the White House web site, is appalling, Boyle says. "It
reads like a Nazi planning document prior to the Second World War."
The
Fruit Doesn't Fall Far From the Tree
As
Rep. Henry B. Gonzalez explained on the floor of the House in 1991, his articles
charged the elder Bush with:
1)
Violating the Equal Protection Clause by having minorities and poor whites, who
were the majority of the soldiers in the Middle East, "fight a war for oil
to preserve the lifestyles of the wealthy."
2)
Violating "the Constitution, Federal law, and the UN Charter by bribing,
intimidating, and threatening others, including the members of the UN Security
Council, to support belligerent acts against Iraq."
3)
Violating the Nuremberg principles by conspiring to engage in a massive war
against Iraq that would cause tens of thousands of civilian deaths.
4)
Committing "the United States to acts of war without congressional consent
and contrary to the UN Charter and international law." (This refers to the
lack of a formal declaration of war, as required by the Constitution).
5)
Committing crimes against the peace by leading the United States into aggressive
war against Iraq, in violation of Article 24 of the UN Charter, the Nuremberg
Charter, other international instruments and treaties, and the Constitution of
the United States.
Boyle
believes that the articles he drafted for Gonzalez' effort to impeach George H.
W. Bush, the father, could still serve as a basis for impeaching George W. Bush,
the son.
Are
the People Ready for Another Impeachment?
Impeachment
has the advantage of bypassing the U.S. Supreme Court, which illegally installed
Bush in the Oval Office. The same "Justices" would have the final word
on legal challenges to constitutional abominations, such as the USA PATRIOT Act
and the Homeland Security Act, both of which the White House rammed through a
Congress frightened by the September 11th attacks and the as yet
unsolved anthrax attacks on Capitol Hill.
But
no matter how blatant the violations of constitutional, statutory and
international law are, impeachment is still a political process. Republicans
control the Congress and many Democrats, fearful of being labeled "soft on
terrorism" might be unwilling to challenge the Bush cabal. It would take
tremendous public pressure to get a reluctant Congress to impeach. Still, Boyle
thinks he can garner public support by adding an article of impeachment against
John Ashcroft.
"We
know for a fact that there are Republicans and Democrats and Independents and
Greens, even very conservative Republicans, such as Dick Armey and [Bob] Barr,
who are very worried about a police state." Boyle says that an article
against Ashcroft would make clear "that we don't want a police state in the
name of an oil empire."
It's
Up to Us
Unfortunately
for the impeachment campaign, Armey has retired and Barr, who spoke out against
some of the most draconian proposals for what eventually became the USA PATRIOT
Act, was defeated in the Republican primary. Boyle is still waiting for the one
member of Congress willing to introduce articles of impeachment when the 108th
Congress convenes on January 7.
Since
Bush has indicated that he is not likely to go to war before the end of January
or early February, Boyle thinks we have a month to stop the war by impeaching
the chain of command: Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, along with police state
enforcer Ashcroft. Time and the Internet are advantages Rep. Gonzalez did not
have in 1991, when the Persian Gulf War was launched the day after he introduced
his articles.
Boyle
is asking the public to push for impeachment in two ways. First, contact
your own member of Congress
to urge him or her to introduce articles of impeachment, and tell the member
that he or she may contact
Prof. Boyle
for assistance in drafting the articles. Second, demand impeachment by engaging
in non-violent direct action, in exercise of your First Amendment rights to free
speech, peaceable assembly and petition for redress of grievances. Boyle was
pleased that 100,000 people marched around the White House last October 26 to
protest the impending war on Iraq. But he says one million people need to
peaceably take to the streets with signs, banners and voices shouting,
"Impeach Bush!"
"The
bottom line: it's really up to you and to me to enforce the law and the
Constitution against our own government," he says. "We are citizens of
the United States of America. We have to act to preserve the republic that we
have, to preserve our Constitution, to preserve a rule of law. This is our
responsibility as citizens. We simply can't pass the buck and say 'Oh, some
judge is going to do it somewhere.' It's up to us to keep this republic."
Copyright
© 2003 Kéllia Ramares. For fair use only.
Listen
to Kéllia Ramares' full interview of Prof. Francis Boyle at R.I.S.E.
- Radio Internet Story Exchange.
Also, shop
the R.I.S.E. online store
for impeachment paraphernalia.
Report this post as:
by Simple Simon
Thursday, Jan. 09, 2003 at 4:33 PM
“Grounds for Impeachment Article II Sec. 4 of the Constitution states that: "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." Boyle says that waging a war of aggression is a crime under the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment and Principles. "It's very clear," he adds, "if you read all the press reports, they are going to devastate Baghdad, a metropolitan area of 5 million people. The Nuremberg Charter clearly says the wanton devastation of a city is a Nuremberg war crime." The United States is a party to the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment and Principles, and thus is constitutionally bound to obey them. "The Constitution, in Article 6, says that international treaties are the supreme law of the land here in the United States of America. So all we would be doing here, in this impeachment campaign," Boyle says, "is impeaching them for violating international treaties, as incorporated into the United States Constitution, as well as the Constitution itself."”
A little problem, here. Who is waging a “war of aggression”? The United Nations granted Iraq a cessation of hostilities based upon certain stipulations. In UN resolution 688, the United Nations called upon all member nations to do whatever they could to end the massacre of Kurds and Shiite Muslims by the freshly-defeated Iraqi army. The United States and England established the "no fly" zones to protect these populations,and to aid in the humanitarian effort to these populations. Iraq responded by attacking allied aircraft, and continues to attack them to this day. This is an act of war, and a violation of the agreement made with the UN. Essentially, the Gulf War is back on. This being the case, the learned professor can now return to arguing that Hawaii should be freed from the United States.
Report this post as:
by Marc
Thursday, Jan. 09, 2003 at 7:18 PM
The US/UK have muddled even the original "intent" of the no fly zones" - a means to protect Iraqi Kurds (in the north) and Iraq’s Shi’a population (in the south), However, that has not been the case. http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/flyindex.htm http://www.ccmep.org/2002_articles/Iraq/122202_casualties_of_an.htm
Report this post as:
by Simple Simon
Thursday, Jan. 09, 2003 at 7:34 PM
Regardless of the subsequent use of the No Fly zones, Marc, their establisment was in compliance with and approved by the United Nations. The United Nations has never asked that they cease to be enforced. The Iraqi's violation of these zones and repeated attacks on Allied aircraft are acts of war which render null and void the cease fire agreement. No "aggresive war" is being launched.
Report this post as:
by Marc
Thursday, Jan. 09, 2003 at 8:04 PM
I can understand you line of thinking, Simon. But i think this all stems from a failure in US policy all the way back to the first Gulf War (or at least the start of the war which has never really ended). I was in agreement with US and international retalitation against Iraq after they invaded Kuwait. I strongly feel that those were acts of aggression and that it was a failure of the US, UN, and international community to not remove Saddam Hussein at that time for his basic anschluss, or direct invasion of a foreign and internationally recognized sovereign nation. That should be recognized universally since WWII. however, that opens up the window on other countries, including the US, who have invaded (sometimes legitimately, sometims not) sovereign nations since WWII. The no fly zones were irrelevant when the US/UK allowed Turkey to bomb Kurdish villages in Northern Iraq. http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/7891/us_alow_turk_kurd.html http://www.workers.org/ww/kurdsbombed.html http://kurdistan.org/Washington/washburn5.html Given the duplistic nature by which the American government has handled and continues to handle the Kurds, the argument of our "protecting" the Kurds is moot. A more succint observation would be that we are protecting the land for ourselves and/or Turkey.
Report this post as:
by 000
Thursday, Jan. 09, 2003 at 9:10 PM
Quoting Simon: "Regardless of the subsequent use of the No Fly zones, Marc, their establisment was in compliance with and approved by the United Nations" This is absolutely false. The UN NEVER approved of, or voted on, the establishment of No Fly Zones. They were a unilateral creation of the US and supported by Britian. The No Fly Zones are there to allow the US access to territory for a future invasion, as well as to run near daily bombing raids over Iraq in order to provoke a response. It is very similar to the Gulf of Tonkin incident the US provoked and then fabricated prior to the Vietnam war. From Eat The State: "The no-fly zones are not sanctioned by the U.N., but were created unilaterally by the U.S., Great Britain, and France in 1991 under the pretext of protecting the Kurds in the north of Iraq and the Shiites in the south. But in 1996, France pulled out of the coalition, citing its belief that the U.S. ultimately has no humanitarian intentions in enforcing the no-fly zones. Recently, our staunch ally, Turkey--which is allowing us to use its runways and air bases--has also criticized the daily bombing runs. Even the New York Times admits that the no-fly zones are a sham: "In fact, no U.N. resolution created the restricted zones." (NYT 2/25/99) Further, the U.S. Air Force has a clear policy of not allowing its pilots to come under significant danger of attack in the no-fly zones: whenever a plane is targeted by radar, U.S. fighter jets immediately and thoroughly destroy the suspected radar site--and numerous other targets--in a retaliation that's completely out of proportion to the "crime." http://eatthestate.org/03-25/BombsAway.htm 000
Report this post as:
by Sheepdog
Friday, Jan. 10, 2003 at 12:38 AM
‘Our’ Government. Who the hell do they think they represent? Yes, this dangerous, provocative and downright hostile action is typical of the belligerent attitudes expressed before the start of WWII . The apologists will say that ‘democracy now exists’ in these countries. Japan, Germany The Soviet people and all the other direct recipients of death unleashed on non combatants might say the price was too damn high.. We sure were lucky. Don’t ever count on luck. Or Power. We too can be ‘touched’ it wouldn’t take much in this tinderbox of technology and delicate support structures ( look at the medical and transportation logistics involved in maintaining a civil society under a single one of a number of weak links being destroyed) such as food, power and communications upon which we depend, to create real problems. Will the sheep be stampeded into martial law and a future of surveillance and ‘proactive’ response? Shall we allow the military into the gates of Rome? Old problems. Old Solutions.
Report this post as:
by Sheepdog
Friday, Jan. 10, 2003 at 1:07 AM
Forgive me for forgetting China, Philippines, Vietnam... Too much blood, while ‘leaders’ strings were pulled and much profit was made.
Report this post as:
by Simple Simon
Friday, Jan. 10, 2003 at 5:24 PM
000, you are half right. The No Fly zones were created unilaterally by the United States, Britain, and France. Shouldn't that properly be trilaterally? Anyway, they did so in compliance with and with the approval of the UN. The UN asked that it's member nations to do whatever they could to help end the suffering caused by the Iraqi army (which was bad at wars against armies, but real good at killing women and children). If the UN didn't like the establishment of the No Fly zones, why haven't they condemned them or asked that they be removed? Hmm, that's a mystery.
Report this post as:
by Marc
Friday, Jan. 10, 2003 at 6:53 PM
The intent was to protect the humanitarian works for the impoverished and attacked Kurds in the north. Attakcs on US/UK aircraft are not, despite administration claims, a material breach of UN resolution. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,843667,00.html
Report this post as:
by time management
Friday, Jan. 10, 2003 at 6:57 PM
Worrying about impeaching bush is a waste of time. If we are going to get him out of office, do it through elections. Work on building up democratic systems, not heirarchical courts that priveledge lawyers and judges and end up with everyone being really pissed off.
Report this post as:
by Marc
Friday, Jan. 10, 2003 at 7:14 PM
I do agree with the premise of doing it "through elections..." and "...building up democratic systems, not heirarchical courts," but would not the attempt at bringing up impeachment (and the reasons for it) bring into the mainstream most of the issues regular Americans are unfamiliar with? Regardless of the outcome (and I seriously doubt a sitting President in today's politics could be impeaced), would that not be worth the effort?
Report this post as:
by time management
Saturday, Jan. 11, 2003 at 5:21 AM
Time is a very valuable resource, that along with money should not be wasted. Any good ol' American campaign would be able to get out as much filth as possible. What sort of info couldn't be let out in a free-for all media mud fight that could be let out in court?
Report this post as:
by Marc
Saturday, Jan. 11, 2003 at 5:19 PM
A good point. Time is, indeed, a very valuable resource. And it would be great to see some of these issues brought up in main stream media. But they (especially in America) are inherently commercial entities, so it has to sell, and someone has to pay for it. I think the problem, unfortunately, is that it is essentially political suicide for someone to run a campaign platform on this issue, at least at present. Entering it into historical record and legal court briefs, documents, and proceedings would be absorbed into case law and posterity, if not findings and prosecution (highly unlikely, but plausible).
Report this post as:
by jenny
Monday, Jan. 13, 2003 at 6:00 PM
just curious
Report this post as:
by cass71898
Monday, Jan. 13, 2003 at 11:44 PM
I don't remember seeing any "Impeach" signs at the march, but there were plenty of the "Fuck Bush," "He's not my President," variety. I think impeachment sounds very romantic to those of us that despise him, but we would need democrats to stand up for this, and they've proven of late that they can't stand up for much. When Clinton was impeached the great Republican borg block stood up, together, unwavering.
Report this post as:
by ziggy
Sunday, Jan. 19, 2003 at 3:34 AM
Flashpoints had Professor Boyle on today. The archive isn't working just yet, but hopefully it'll play at some point: http://www.flashpoints.net/
Report this post as:
by John Delevoryas
Sunday, Feb. 16, 2003 at 12:29 AM
Regarding the "glowing" report on Bush: NEVER have we had a more inept president than this thief who STOLE the election of 2000 by running to the Supreme Court who handed him the presidency after committing treason by halting the counting of votes in Florida.His brother Jeb and Katherine Harris also committed crimes(still unpunished) by preventing lawful citizens from voting. The CRUX of the whole problem stems from this FACT. Since then,this bungling Idiot,in his arrogant manner,has proceeded to ruin our economy,acting like a gunslinger by initiating a DANGEROUS POLICY of preemptive strike against a nation who is NOT threatening us. NOTHING short of impeachment of G.W. Bush will solev the problem.
Report this post as:
by Diogenes
Sunday, Feb. 16, 2003 at 2:24 AM
The only official Oath of Office for any official of the government contained in the U.S. Constitution is the Presidential Oath of Office.
It reads:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
By the acts of signing the “Patriot Act” which violates the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th Amendments to the Constitution (The Bill of Rights) George W. Bush knowingly and willfully violated his Presidential Oath of Office, and stands condemned by his own words stating that he would let the Courts sort it out. His Administration submitted the bill and then without allowing time for a full reading or debate pressured Congress to pass the bill.
He is in undisputed violation of his sacred Trust. He should be Impeached, Tried in the Senate, and vacated from Office.
He should the be Tried for Treason.
The above line of reasoning would also apply in a second charge relating to the Homeland Security Act.
We can only speculate on his culpability in other crimes but I would point out that he has actively obstructed the investigation into the events of 9-11.
Report this post as:
by Diogenes
Sunday, Feb. 16, 2003 at 2:37 AM
Certainly Clinton was execrable and should have been removed from office, but it has no bearing on the current matter.
Either he stands in violation or he does not. There is no middle ground. There is no “a little bit pregnant” when it comes to Constitutional responsibilities.
And ignorance is no excuse.
Report this post as:
by Sheepdog
Sunday, Feb. 16, 2003 at 2:37 AM
 bdi.gifzo3edd.gif, image/png, 300x303
...and murder.
Report this post as:
|