We had a server outage, and we're rebuilding the site. Some of the site features won't work. Thank you for your patience.
imc indymedia

Los Angeles Indymedia : Activist News

white themeblack themered themetheme help
About Us Contact Us Calendar Publish RSS
Features
latest news
best of news
syndication
commentary


KILLRADIO

VozMob

ABCF LA

A-Infos Radio

Indymedia On Air

Dope-X-Resistance-LA List

LAAMN List




IMC Network:

Original Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: ambazonia canarias estrecho / madiaq kenya nigeria south africa canada: hamilton london, ontario maritimes montreal ontario ottawa quebec thunder bay vancouver victoria windsor winnipeg east asia: burma jakarta japan korea manila qc europe: abruzzo alacant andorra antwerpen armenia athens austria barcelona belarus belgium belgrade bristol brussels bulgaria calabria croatia cyprus emilia-romagna estrecho / madiaq euskal herria galiza germany grenoble hungary ireland istanbul italy la plana liege liguria lille linksunten lombardia london madrid malta marseille nantes napoli netherlands nice northern england norway oost-vlaanderen paris/Île-de-france patras piemonte poland portugal roma romania russia saint-petersburg scotland sverige switzerland thessaloniki torun toscana toulouse ukraine united kingdom valencia latin america: argentina bolivia chiapas chile chile sur cmi brasil colombia ecuador mexico peru puerto rico qollasuyu rosario santiago tijuana uruguay valparaiso venezuela venezuela oceania: adelaide aotearoa brisbane burma darwin jakarta manila melbourne perth qc sydney south asia: india mumbai united states: arizona arkansas asheville atlanta austin baltimore big muddy binghamton boston buffalo charlottesville chicago cleveland colorado columbus dc hawaii houston hudson mohawk kansas city la madison maine miami michigan milwaukee minneapolis/st. paul new hampshire new jersey new mexico new orleans north carolina north texas nyc oklahoma philadelphia pittsburgh portland richmond rochester rogue valley saint louis san diego san francisco san francisco bay area santa barbara santa cruz, ca sarasota seattle tampa bay tennessee urbana-champaign vermont western mass worcester west asia: armenia beirut israel palestine process: fbi/legal updates mailing lists process & imc docs tech volunteer projects: print radio satellite tv video regions: oceania united states topics: biotech

Surviving Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: canada: quebec east asia: japan europe: athens barcelona belgium bristol brussels cyprus germany grenoble ireland istanbul lille linksunten nantes netherlands norway portugal united kingdom latin america: argentina cmi brasil rosario oceania: aotearoa united states: austin big muddy binghamton boston chicago columbus la michigan nyc portland rochester saint louis san diego san francisco bay area santa cruz, ca tennessee urbana-champaign worcester west asia: palestine process: fbi/legal updates process & imc docs projects: radio satellite tv
printable version - js reader version - view hidden posts - tags and related articles


View article without comments

Professor Francis A. Boyle calling for preventive impeachment of George W. Bush

by ziggy Monday, Jan. 06, 2003 at 2:59 AM

58 minute radio show, mp3 for streaming or download

Professor Francis A....
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:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Jan. 18th demo

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:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Wow! Talk about wishfull thinking!

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:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


yeah, but...

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:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Yes

by Sheepdog Monday, Jan. 06, 2003 at 6:01 AM

Forgive my attitude, its 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.
Ill bring popcorn for everyone even if it bankrupts me.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


And then...

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:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


With...

by Sheepdog Monday, Jan. 06, 2003 at 6:15 AM

...good hemp rope.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


HOW TO BE A REPORTER

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:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


don't be a rude, a simple question will do

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:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


by the way

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:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


more info

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:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Simple

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:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Standard sized web banner

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:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Preemptive impeachment

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 Kllia 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 Kllia Ramares. For fair use only.

Listen to Kllia 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:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Simple

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:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


unfortunately

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:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Simple

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:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


To a point

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:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


FICTION

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:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Where is Hanibal, now that we need him?

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.
Dont ever count on luck. Or Power.
We too can be touched it wouldnt 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:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Oh yes..

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:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Simple

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:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


to some extent

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:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


not down with impeachment

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:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Not so much time, as resources

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:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


name changed to resource management

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:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


time/resource management

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:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


anyone see impeach signs at the protest?

by jenny Monday, Jan. 13, 2003 at 6:00 PM

just curious
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


impeach signs?

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:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Flashpoints

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:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Professor

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:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


The Charge is Treason

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:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


A little bit Pregnant

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:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Treason...

by Sheepdog Sunday, Feb. 16, 2003 at 2:37 AM

Treason......
bdi.gifzo3edd.gif, image/png, 300x303

...and murder.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


© 2000-2018 Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Running sf-active v0.9.4 Disclaimer | Privacy